Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council November 25, 2013 <br />Regular Meeting Page 5 <br /> <br />Mr. Staunton responded by stating the 14 foot lateral rise pipe took the brunt of the damage and 1 <br />was serving two properties. He did not understand why Mr. Garg was being held responsible for 2 <br />the entire expense, when the line served multiple properties. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Mayor Flaherty questioned if it was common for adjacent properties to share lateral rises. Public 5 <br />Works Director DeBar stated this was not comment, but did happen on occasion throughout the 6 <br />City. He reported the main sewer pipe at this location was 25 feet down and the duplex must 7 <br />have connected into the lateral rise that services the Woodlawn Terrace property. He stated the 8 <br />City had no record of an agreement between the two properties. 9 <br /> 10 <br />Mr. Staunton commented City Code was very clear on tapping into lateral rises stating that a 11 <br />permit must be approved from the City and the work was to be supervised. This was to assure 12 <br />there was segregation. However, in this case the lines were co-mingled, which would make it 13 <br />difficult to assign responsibility. 14 <br /> 15 <br />Council Member Gunn asked who would be responsible for the concrete patch on County Road I. 16 <br />Public Works Director DeBar stated after the first fix in November of 2011, the property owner 17 <br />(Mr. Garg) was responsible for replacing the roadway. Mr. Garg commented he was not made 18 <br />aware of this fact by the City. 19 <br /> 20 <br />Council Member Gunn questioned when the current City Code was put in place regarding the 21 <br />sharing of lateral sewer lines. City Attorney Riggs reported this would be difficult to determine 22 <br />as dates for previous Ordinances have been lost. He noted this portion of code has been in place 23 <br />for quite some time. 24 <br /> 25 <br />Mayor Flaherty indicated the item before the Council for consideration was whether or not to 26 <br />assess the expense of the sewer line repairs. He noted that both parties met last Friday to discuss 27 <br />the matter and could not reach a compromise. He reported that Mr. Garg would have the right to 28 <br />file an objection with the courts. 29 <br /> 30 <br />Mr. Staunton mentioned that the amount being assessed was a large sum of money and it was Mr. 31 <br />Garg’s position that he should not be responsible for 100% of the expense due to the 32 <br />circumstances surrounding the repair. 33 <br /> 34 <br />Council Member Mueller inquired if the assessment were approved if a precedence would be set 35 <br />for this case. City Attorney Riggs advised that this was a unique situation and it was his opinion 36 <br />that precedence would not be set in this case. 37 <br /> 38 <br />Council Member Gunn asked the property owner who should be responsible for the assessment. 39 <br />Mr. Garg recommended the assessment expense be split between the duplex owner and the City 40 <br />because of the shared stack. He did not feel it was fair to assess him in excess of $50,000 when 41 <br />the adjacent properties water line caused the problem in the first place. 42 <br /> 43 <br />Finance Director Beer clarified that City’s Code allowed for water lines to be fixed at the City’s 44 <br />expense for single family residential homes up to four-plexes. However, it was noted that sewer 45