Agenda Packets - 2014/01/13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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