Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Regular Meeting - 09/13/04 <br />Minutes - Page 14 <br /> <br />consideration of paying this specific claim. Mayor Klausing <br />noted that the policy may be more applicable for review by the <br />Public Works and Transportation Commission for <br />recommendation to the City Council. <br /> <br />Councilmember Kough reiterated his request for the City to <br />share in payment of this property owner's claim. <br /> <br />Discussion continued regarding past practices, current policy and <br />this specific case. <br /> <br />Councilmember Schroeder sought clarification as to language of <br />the City's policy regarding interpretation of the "Y." <br /> <br />Public Works Director Duane Schwartz responded that the "Y" <br />was considered as part of the service line; pursuant to the fact <br />that if there were no service to a parcel, there would not be a "Y" <br />connection. <br /> <br />Discussion ensued regarding practices of cities based on their <br />philosophy of ownership of the "Y" connection; whether the <br />code was clear on that point; the city's inspection and <br />maintenance schedule; typical construction, installation practice <br />and specifications; age of service line and connection; as well as <br />similarity of the condition of this connection with other failures <br />over the years within the City, based on the aging infrastructure <br />and personal service line conditions. <br /> <br />Public Works Director Schwartz expressed concern that the City <br />Council be uniform in their interpretation of City Code to negate <br />requests for reimbursement from any and all property owners <br />having faced similar situations in needing to replace the <br />connection to their service lines, and having done so on their <br />own, with no City financial assistance. <br /> <br />Mayor Klausing asked City Attorney Anderson for a legal <br />opinion as to the City's liability. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson responded that, in listening to the <br />situation and discussion, it would appear from a legal <br />perspective, that there would be no justification for the City to <br />