1987-09-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I Council Meeting Minutes September 8, 1987 Public Hearings, continued Williams asked the ramifications if the rigid copper had not been detected; Proper indicated Loscheider would have had to dig up the street, at a great expense, if the copper had failed. Loscheider believes the city is trying to find some rationale for the assessment where none exists. LeFevere indicated because the replacement of rigid copper was not discussed at the public hearing it could be said there was some- thing in the nature of a defective notice. If the city has lost the right to specially assess this project, that means, despite the fact that Loscheider had an installation that was not up to code even when it was put in, then he should escape the cost of replacing and it would be cast, in turn, on other people in the project area or on the taxpayers as a whole. LeFevere explained the alternative is to attempt to cure that de~ fect in proceedings by going back and holding a new improvement hearing with respect to the installation of the service pipe with Loscheider present. However, if the council determines that the action of the city engineer was reasonable in all respects, given all the circumstances, the new improvement hearing would not seem to be a meaningful exercise. Benke stated the city could spend a lot of money on a new hearing and thought perhaps it would be best for the city to pay and move on. Williams agrees with Gunderman's idea about a negotiated settle- ment and suggested city manager or staff sit with Loscheider to work out something; and believes both parties have won because Loscheider now has better service and, if it fails, he will not have to pay to have the street dug up. Benke asked Loscheider if he would be willing to participate in negotiations; Loscheider stated he may be better off as a result of the repair, but he didn't have a problem before, and stated he would be willing to sit down and talk about some kind of a cost settlement for the cost of the pipe only. Sinda stated, because it may come down to a policy decision for council, when anyone has a problem that is different from what is specified in the paper, this may set a precedent and we may be open to negotiations. Benke stated that was a valid comment and assumption but, on the other hand, when we notice these public hearings we need to be ab- solutely clear of intent and of unknown contingencies. Williams stated a negotiated settlement does not set a legal pre- cedent because each case is unique and is settled on specifics; LeFevere confirmed. Page 5