1987-09-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes September 22, 1987 city did find and did replace engineer had known the situation been given and Loscheider would those with galvanized pipe being the flexible copper pipes; if the existed, proper notice would have have been in the same position as replaced. In response to Benke1s comment, LeFevere again stated the city does not become a guarantor that everything is in accordance with the code merely by a city inspection; and continued that the city does not incur any additional responsibility or liability as the result of an inspection. Loscheider stated the attorney general's office was emphatic that liability does exist; city inspections are done for the safety of the consumer, which is why there is an inspector; and the obliga- tion to know the law rests with the inspector and it is his duty to see that the code is enforced, not the consumer or the home owner. In response to Benke's request, LeFevere felt the attorney general's representative may have been talking about a general rule; there is a difference between the purpose of the regulatory provision and the responsibility for failure to comply with code. Brandt commented she did not want the city to suggest it was guar- anteeing any inspections, which is why people hire their own pri- vate contractors; in this instance, we are talking about $225 and cannot see being penny-wise-and-pound-foolish in putting staff and attorneys through additional expenditure of time; and suggested the city accept Loscheider's proposal. As there were no further questions or comments, Blomquist moved, seconded by Williams, to CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. 5 Ayes - 0 Nayes, Motion Carried Motion by Brandt, seconded by Williams, to ADOPT THE ASSESSMENT ROLE IN AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO TWENTY PERCENT (20%) OF THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR LOSCHEIDER AND FRENCH. 4 Ayes - 1 Naye (Blomquist) - Motion Carried Williams asked that LeFevere speak with the attorney general's of- fice to clear up differences of opinion and report back at the next council meeting. LeFevere felt the question is what happens if the city somehow fails or neglects to catch everything. Williams stated the down-side is that people rely on the city in- spector to make sure the work is done correctly; if the city has no liability, believes we should communicate to the people that they have some responsibilities of their own. Benke noted the contractor also has responsibilities. Page 4