Minutes-7 /27/1990

Scheetz: Yes. We need to be in the federal flood plain plan. Slaymaker: Let's say if 25 were damaged to the point that they need to be replaced or substantially repaired, what about all the rest? Scheetz: The others should be above, too. Greenleaf: The others would be grandfathered in. Scheetz: They're grandfathered in, but they should be raised, too. Bartels: There's no sense in taking a risk. Brown: Can the level be changed? Scheetz: No, they won't change it. Slaymaker: If we adopt the ordinance, and then the flood level is changed, they'd be grandfathered in. Scxheetz: I'd like to know the bench mark. Greenleaf: They can't say that overnight. Scheetz: A good share of my buildings are all right. There are probably not over twelve (12) trailers that got water above the floor. Bartels: The basic fact it that it's a low area. Morgan: What did you mean this could be ours? Greenleaf: If the council adopts the ordinance, and it is not economically feasible for Scheetz to meet the new standards, it might have the effect of inverse condemnation. This does not sound like it would be a problem. Scheetz has said he could meet the requirements. The city's cost is basically the administration of the ordinance. The city is required to enforce it. Morgan: We don't require a permit for a trailer. Maybe we should. Greenleaf: Maybe you should. The city has not required a permit in the past because it was not a zoning question. Mobile homes could be included in the ordinance. The flood ordinance would apply to any structure in the flood hazard area. Morgan: They need to have the ordinance to get federal money. Stoner: You said last week that the tube caused the trailer court to flood. Scheetz: The tube didn't cause the flood. It went over the railroad tracks. Stoner: How many trailers are above the 100 year mark now?