The deadline for the city's recertification of the downtown flood wall edges ever closer as city councilors ask for more time to examine alternative ways to pay for the $44,000 engineering survey that is the first step in the process.
Councilor Michael Young objected to city's proposed bond to fund the survey at last Tuesday's city council meeting, saying the city could potentially use money from the water department's water supply fee to pay. Mayor James Fiorentini, DPW Director Mike Stankovich and Deputy DPW Director Robert Ward, however, argued that they received legal advice that the fees can't be used for recertification and that bonding is the only timely solution.
If the city doesn't present a report to the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the federal government that its flood wall meets rectification standards, FEMA will redraw its flood maps under the assumption that there never was a flood wall to begin with, leaving businesses and residents downtown to pay flood insurances premiums nearly eight to 10 times higher than normal.
On Tuesday, the full council rejected bonding the cost of the study and instead voted unanimously to direct the question of how the mandate could be funded to Councilor William Macek's Natural Resources and Public Buildings subcommittee.
They similarly voted to reopen discussion of the survey at the next city council meeting in two weeks.
Young argued that the water department's $1.5 million raised from the fee had been excessively earmarked for expenditures in the past completely unrelated to it original purpose of protecting the city's water supply. Young presented an e-mail by Ward stating that close to $1 million had been budget for meter maintenance throughout the city while the rest was denoted for other purposes.
"I think we're going to make a big mistake going into debt over this," Young said. "It's a shell game going on. Not all of us appreciate our backs against the wall with time constraints."
Fiorentini, however, argued that the city had wasted enough time already and that going against the legal counsel would place the city at a liability. Furthermore, he argued that bonding the expense would give the city time to repay their debts in a better economic state.
"We have to do this folks," Fiorentini said. "I couldn't float the bond if I wanted to."
Stankovich similarly expressed concern that time was a pressing factor more than ever.
He said that the contractor for the survey, AECOM, was currently awaiting the order from the city to proceed with the study and could begin starting tomorrow were the council to pass the bond that evening.
"Ideally this work would get started right away," he said.
Ward additionally cautioned councilors that the $44,000 would also cover just the initial survey cost and that more would undoubtedly follow to bring the flood wall up to code.
Council President Michael Hart said that the city's legal counsel shouldn't be considered binding for how the city could spend its money.
"We've been boxed in," said Hart. "I doubt very seriously we would suffer the repercussions. We're just in total disagreement of where we get the money."
Councilor William Ryan argued that these two extra weeks to examine the flood wall would offer benefits down the line to the city, especially with establishing greater transparency in the water and waste water departments. He also added that government officials could petition for a deadline expansion, despite the mayor's nay saying.
"I think the best thing we can do is not fear a terrible fate," he said. "We always regret this down the road. This is one of the few chances we get to have any opinion on this."
