Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council November 25, 2013 <br />Regular Meeting Page 6 <br /> <br />lines were always the responsibility of the property owner and were never covered by the City. 1 <br /> 2 <br />Council Member Gunn inquired if the City was aware that the lateral rise at this property was 3 <br />shared. Public Works Director DeBar commented the City did not know that the rise was shared 4 <br />until work began in February of 2013. He anticipated that the City could share in a portion of the 5 <br />concrete roadway patch expense due to the fact the water line repair was necessary. He 6 <br />explained that the sewer repair required the City to dig down 20 feet, which made the repair quite 7 <br />larger than originally anticipated. He estimated the concrete patch would cost $25,000 and 8 <br />would require the roadway to be shut down. 9 <br /> 10 <br />Mr. Garg stated at the meeting held two days after the water line break he was told specifically 11 <br />that he would not have to cover the expense of the concrete road repair. 12 <br /> 13 <br />Public Works Director DeBar reported that City staff was not aware of the extent of the repairs 14 <br />that were needed. He indicated that City staff worked all through the night in order to clear the 15 <br />sand and correct the problem. He stated he did not recall stating Mr. Garg would not be 16 <br />responsible for the road repair. 17 <br /> 18 <br />Mayor Flaherty encouraged the parties to reach a compromise. He questioned how the proposed 19 <br />Resolution would be impacted if it were approved by Council and the parties reached a 20 <br />compromise in the near future. City Attorney Riggs advised that the Resolution could be 21 <br />amended in the next 30 days before being filed with the County and placed on the 2014 property 22 <br />taxes. 23 <br /> 24 <br />Mr. Staunton stated if the assessment were appealed by the property owner the assessment would 25 <br />not be placed on the 2014 taxes. 26 <br /> 27 <br />Council Member Mueller was unaware how far apart the parties were from reaching a 28 <br />compromise. She asked if it was reasonable to assume the parties could reach a compromise 29 <br />within the next 90 days in order to avoid a court case. City Attorney Riggs stated the parties 30 <br />were approximately $25,000 apart at this time. He reported that by approving the Resolution, the 31 <br />assessment amount would be forwarded to the County and would be certified in 30 days. This 32 <br />action would create a timeframe for further discussions between the City and the property owner. 33 <br />If a compromise was not reached, an appeal would then be made by the property owner. He 34 <br />reported the Council could defer action in hopes of resolving the issue with Mr. Garg, as there 35 <br />would be litigation expenses for both parties if the matter were to go to court. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Mayor Flaherty preferred that the Council take action and that the two parties continue 38 <br />discussions and work to reach a compromise in the next 30 days. 39 <br /> 40 <br />Mr. Garg stated he was more than willing to negotiate the matter further with the City. He 41 <br />reported he would be leaving the country on December 15th for a family vacation. 42 <br /> 43 <br />Council Member Mueller thanked staff for the thorough reports provided this evening. She 44 <br />expressed concern with forcing the property owner to litigate the matter and wanted to see a spirit 45