Laserfiche WebLink
miles in 92 municipalities, as well as unincorporated St. Louis County. <br />Mr.Theerman said there is no date of the dead-line on the letter referenced <br />because that person had already made claim and is in their system. Ms. Ricci <br />asked MSD to consider all the people that could not get through or get any <br />response back from MSD, so the form letter with no date was copied and passed <br />on to others. She also asked why the thirty day limitation was not mention when <br />MSD last spoke to the Council on October 6, 2008. Ms. Ricci asked why the <br />Council’s previous request in September for a map of the sewer system has not <br />been made available. MSD said they are working on their response. Mr. <br />Theerman said that what happened is beyond the capabilities of a storm water <br />system. He stated that they did the best they could in an extreme event by <br />adding additional staff to accommodate the overload of calls. Ms. Ricci asked <br />Mr. Theerman to explain the burden of proof when residents had both sewer <br />back-up and overland flooding. Mr. Theerman said their insurance policy only <br />handles backups exclusively. When surrounding homes are flooding the sewer <br />system is also flooding and it is entirely possible to see the overcharge coming <br />up in the sewer, while water is flowing through windows and doors. He stated <br />there is an appeal’s process for those who received denial letters. Ms. Ricci <br />asked MSD to supply Council with their ordinance which states that MSD is only <br />responsible for backup and not for two causes at the same time. She asked if <br />residents are billed for the insurance charges and he stated that it is included in <br />everyone’s monthly bills. Ms. Ricci asked Mr.Theerman to supply Council with <br />the amount that is on everyone’s bill for insurance charges. She asked Mr. <br />Theerman, of the 465 University City claims he had received, how many were <br />accepted at that point. He said he would get back to the Council with that <br />information. <br />Mr. Wagner commented on an article in the newpaper referring to “an act of <br />God.” He felt this expressed a lack of real concern of MSD’s part <br />Mr. Sharpe, Jr. stated that many people left their homes when it flooded, so they <br />were not aware of the thirty day dead line. He asked what MSD was doing in the <br />event of the next probable flood or if the City could do anything. Mr. Theerman <br />said it would be good to start a dialog together in what can be done before the <br />next event. There is not an engineering solution in the areas that were flooded <br />that would provide peace of mind of never being flooded again. The only real <br />solution would be buyouts in the lowest most prone flood areas. <br />Ms. Feier asked what the difference was between a ten year flood and a hundred <br />year flood that she has heard. Mr. Theerman said the terminology depended on <br />the amount of rain received in a period of time which determined what “year” <br />event it was called. He stated that University City had the most severe. <br />Mr. Crow stated there has been talk of a communication plan that did not work <br />and wanted to know if MSD had discussed a better method of informing its <br />customers. Mr. Theerman said that one lesson learned was not to hastily send <br />out claim packets to report flood victims, when they could determine ahead of <br />time if the area backup was due to overland flood first. <br /> <br />