My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2012_0312_Packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
2012
>
2012_0312_Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/6/2012 3:27:33 PM
Creation date
3/8/2012 4:03:01 PM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
261
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
<br /> <br /> The city must have a policy and practice of inspecting and cleaning its sewer lines on a <br />reasonable schedule. <br /> backups in the past <br />or are likely to cause backups, the city must have and be implementing a plan to address those <br />problems. <br /> The city must have a system and the ability to respond promptly to backups or other sewer <br />problems at any time of the day or week. <br /> The city must have in place an appropriate program to minimize stormwater inflow and <br />infiltration. <br /> The city must have in place a system to maintain records of routine sewer cleaning and <br />maintenance, and of any reported problems and responses. <br /> <br />When establishing these criteria, the goal of LMCIT was to focus on reasonableness rather than on <br />creating specific standards. Twers be <br />inspected and cleaned every six months, every three years, every five years, etc. What makes <br />sense in one city with some older and sometimes sagging <br />More Information <br />newer plastic lines, and vice versa. From the underwriting <br />C© z·-; z 7;Ý;¦zm ;Þ;© <br />standpoint, the real concern is that the city has considered <br />¦z-z;r ¦©-·z-;r 7 -w;7Ò;r <br />its own situation and developed policies, practices, and <br /> <br />¦;; ;; ·w; {;Þ;© z·u <br />schedules that make sense for its own situation. <br /> <br />How would the no-fault coverage work if a sewer backup was caused by city <br />negligence, and where the city was legally liable for the result <br />no-fault <br />coverage would respond just as it does now. That is, LMCIT would investigate and if necessary <br />legally liable for those damages. <br /> <br />The same would be true for damages that exceed the $10,000 no-fault limit, or for a subrogation <br />claim aga <br />liability would respond just as it does now. <br /> <br />pay for for? <br />First, as noted earlier, one goal is to help reduce health hazards by encouraging prompt clean-ups. <br /> <br /> <br />Second, the law and facts surrounding most sewer backup claims are rarely so clear that the <br />can make some type of argument for city liability. Having this coverage in place should help <br />eliminate the need to spend public funds on litigation costs in many of these cases. <br />Sewer Toolkit <br />Other Resources - 16 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.