1994-10-11 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes October 11, 1994 Page 5 F.lJblic Hearine:. continued The backup was caused by a bad root problem which was eventually treated with a chemical to improve the sewer's efficiency. Staff informed the contractor that future problems should be communicated immediately to staff. Gary Chapman, 772--7th Ave. NW, asked if his assessment included sewer repair costs and asked for clarification of his $2,000 assessment. Proper explained that any repairs on an existing sewer would be paid by the City's portion. Proper said that Chapman's assessment includes stormsewer, street and curbing, but also a water service which was installed for about $700. During construction, any water service which shows deterioration or lead or iron material is replaced. Benke noted that older systems were built with inferior materials, so when a improvement project is performed the old systems are replaced. Staff will meet with Chapman. Art Pahl, 492 Rolls Road, said a sewer gas odor is noticed intermittently in his home after construction was completed. Proper asked if Pahl maintains his drains properly. Pahl said Roto Rooter determined this is not a floor drain problem and questioned if a pipe was crushed during construction. Pahl confirmed that the City's portion of the improvement cost is derived from real estate taxes. Proper said this project was assessed in the same manner as all City improvement projects. If a change was made to the drainage lines, it would not cause a large fluctuation in the assessment amounts. The map lines are not intended to follow exactly the drainage line because occasional changes are made to lot grades. One resident said the lots behind him are graded much higher and drain down the slope into neighboring properties. He feels everyone should be charged the same amount. Proper feels that most likely those lots will be assessed under another project. The City tries to be very generous in their portion of the storms ewer assessment, but basically there needs to be some rules in defining the drainage area. One resident said the map incorrectly shows a catch basin which was not installed. Proper agreed that the map does show a drain which was not installed, and verified that residents were not charged for this catch basin. Norman Peterson, 1101--3rd St. NW, feels these lots will not benefit from the storms ewer because drainage runs into the County Ditch or Hansen Park. Proper said the one person who expressed to staff that the storms ewer was not needed; was told to circulate a petition and present it to Council. Peterson was that person, but was told a petition was not needed. Peterson said staff stated the assessments would be equally shared. Proper confirmed that street assessments are based on a per lot basis, but storm sewer assessment is based on drainage. Gunderman confirmed that the Langenstein situation occurred in November 1992. Gunderman asked Pahl if the sewer odor is still present. Pahl said that about twice a month it reappears after a heavy rain. Gunderman questioned if a subcontractor could be liable in not notifying the City of a potential problem. Acting City Attorney Jim Thomson stated that City liability is of what there is knowledge and when notified, in this case, notice was received after a problem occurred. Langenstein said her insurance company settled the claim with the City's insurance company. Gunderman noted concern of a subcontractor's responsibility to inform the City of potential problems. Public Hearinl: Special Assessment Hearing Proj. IP92-8 Report 94-235 Resolution 94-114 Resolution 94-115