Waterworks

Ditching the ditch costs taxpayers $50,000

by Brian Hanscom

The cost of a flood-water easement project on Rand Road -- in the works since October 1997 flooding damaged homes and road structures in the area -- has just been jacked up by as much as $50,000 to taxpayers. The responsibility for the increased cost, according to city councilor Tom Kane, lies with Union Water and Power Company, which, two councilors contend, reneged on a verbal agreement regarding placement of a water drainage ditch on its Rand Road property.

The city had planned to install the ditch on a portion of Union land. Originally, the city planned to take the land needed for the ditch by imminent domain, but "they [Union] wanted way too much money and gave us sever difficulty in the negotiations," according to Bill Bray at Portland Public Works.

But a compromise arose. At the same time the easement project was being discussed, Union needed to rezone its Rand Road property from a residential rating to a business rating. With the rezoning, the city council had potentially found a way around the high cost of acquiring the land through imminent domain. "We had, at the time," says councilor Jim Cloutier, "an engineer who had recommended not granting the rezoning unless Union agreed to give us the easement that we needed." At this suggestion, Cloutier says, "Union basically said, `Don't go overboard with the strong-arm tactics and we will help you with the easement.' "

After the verbal agreement, Union was granted the rezoning, but since then Union has disputed the placement of the ditch, citing that it would take up too much developable land.

Kane is angry enough that he now wants the city to take the land by imminent domain despite its economic infeasibility. "It's about revenge really," Kane fumed at a June 19 city council meeting. "They said they were going to be cooperative and they have been anything but."

The only problem with trying to take the land through imminent domain at this point is the easement has to be completed by the end of the year to secure $300,000 in matching funds from FEMA, and going through the imminent-domain process could push the project into 2001.

Union spokesperson Terry Turner says his company has been cooperative, but "there is only a small part of that land that is developable. Part of the land is wetlands."

Union has agreed to let the city place an underground drainage pipe, as opposed to the open ditch, on its land which will prevent flooding and allow Union to develop the property. "It will cost approximately an additional $30,000 to $50,000, somewhere in that range, and that's conservative," says Bray, estimating the pipe's expense.

Kane's displeasure is clear: "Two years ago he [Turner] promised he would be cooperative, and we now have to spend extra taxpayer money to improve their land and flood situation. Who is the chump in this situation?"

Despite this, Turner sees this as a win-win situation for Union and the city. "We are allowing them to put the pipe on our land at no cost," he says. "That pipe is a lot less expensive than what imminent domain would have cost. We may be saving the city money."