CC MIN 1971 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

4 Discussion of Council policy concerning subsidence from ground water with- drawal , dike maintenance and dredging in sloughs - Redwood Shores . City Manager advised that this matter was held over at request of Council . Background material had been forwarded to Council . He stated that Mr . Reiter of DMJM was present to answer questions . Councilman Henderson stated that one of the questions she had concerned additional actual expenses involved , and not just the estimates , in order to meet the requirement of FHA and the Corps of Engineers relative to dike maintenance . Councilman Keckley noted that the reason this item was on the agenda was to determine if Council had previously made decisions as to policy or was making new policy decisions . He stated that background material shows that Council set policy in 196E on M & 0 and dike maintenance . On ground water withdrawal and subsidence , no policy was made , and dredging of the sloughs is under the jurisdiction of BCDC . Councilman Henderson requested information on the matter of dikes as to whether this was M & 0 or capital expenditures . Mayor Bury commented that it was also his feeling that the three major concerns were those expressed by Councilman Keckley and that these were responded to in the report of City Manager . He stated that he and Council - man Keckley had participated in some of the meetings and felt they were only enumerating what the legislative responsibilities were that were already in effect and beyond City ' s control in the matter of the removal of subsurface water , and on the other maintenance questions they felt they were not stating new policy . Mayor Bury asked Mr . Reiter to respond to the question of cost of dike maintenance . Mr . Reiter of DMJM responded that the cost is very insignificant in terms of percentage of the whole development cost . There were contingency amounts included in each year of the operation of the District in the order of 10% . Several million dollars of construction each year was contemplated and 10% would be several hundred thousand dollars . The amount that has been spent so far has been a very small percentage of the contingency amount . As to the basic intent , he stated that the bond resolutions were an outgrowth of Ordinance 1128 which provided for maintenance of reclamation activities as a capital expenditure . This was particularly described as part of bond resolutions for Measure A . When feasibility report was developed , expenditures of capital items were shown for maintenance of dikes . This includes building up of some of the levees as required by FHA , and would not be an M & 0 tax against the District .