Catoosa Commission considers resident’s stormwater damage
One of the more common problems local citizens bring before the Catoosa County Board of Commissioners has to do with stormwater runoff and resulting flooding and damage.
At the board’s Dec. 20 meeting, commissioners were presented with an extreme case and the question: Who is responsible?
James Davis, director of Planning and Inspections, presented to the board a case involving a resident on Baggett Road whose access to his property has been compromised due to stormwater runoff that has made a bridge over a culvert in front of his house so dangerous he can’t have gas delivered to heat his home.
But the county has no legal access to or responsibility for the culvert or the bridge, which both belong to the resident.
The resident, said Davis, is offering the county a “stormwater maintenance easement dedication” that would give the county legal access.
There would be, Davis said, two pieces of land included in the easement: one 40 feet long and 14 feet wide and one 40 feet long and 30 feet wide.
The estimate submitted by the resident for the work involved in remedying his problem came to $10,302. 20, but Davis emphasized that there was a good chance the actual amount would be higher given the current state of the economy.
Davis recommended that the proposal be approved.
But commissioners had questions and concerns:
Is it actually the runoff that’s causing the problems? Charlie Stephens, District 4, wanted to know. Davis believed it was. He said the runoff was quite serious. He said some subdivisions in the area were built before current codes were in place and could be contributing to the problem.
Chuck Harris, District 2, said he had gone to the location and spent several hours talking with the owner and was an outspoken proponent for him, but he said “we are responsible for our own actions and we need to take into consideration who’s going to keep that bridge up.” He said the owner claimed the county had helped in the past but, Harris said, that was under other leadership with no record of proof.
Vanita Hullander, District 3, asked if the $10,000 worth of work would be a long-term fix. Davis said he thought so but that there was no way of telling when repairs might be necessary. Hullander also commented that if the county didn’t help the resident he would be isolated like an island.
Jeff Long, District 1, believed the estimate was much lower than actual costs would be, and he was concerned that voting to help one resident with such an issue would open the door to many more people expecting such help and could create a burden on taxpayers. He said a decision to help must be made for the right reasons. He moved to table the issue for further discussion and research.
Chairman Larry Black also felt the submitted estimate was considerably lower than reality and he wanted to know where the money for repairs would come from. Davis said the estimate did not include the cost of demolition or removal and possibly did not include other costs. He also said he did not know where the money would come from.
Black called for a roll call vote on tabling the decision. The vote was 3-2, Stephens, Hullander and Long in favor, Black and Harris opposed.
One resident at the meeting, George Battersby, suggested that “builders, developers and people that ravage this county” should be charged a “building impact fee of $1,000” to be used for situations such as the one presented.
Harris pointed out that while it’s “easy to throw darts at developers we all live in a house that was built by a builder.” He called for decisions to be made based on what is legal and fair for all taxpayers.