My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0319
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0319
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/29/2012 12:19:31 PM
Creation date
3/29/2012 12:15:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
3/19/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
• The city must have a policy and practice of inspecting <br /> reasonable schedule. and cleaning its sewer lines on a <br /> • If <br /> or are there are <br /> rl any existing <br /> cause backups, in the city's system which have caused past <br /> Y ackups,the city must have and be implementing a a the <br /> problems. plan to address those <br /> • The city must have a system and the ability to respond promptly to backups <br /> problems at any time of the day or week. or other sewer. <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 /> When establishing these criteria,the goal of LMCIT was to focus on reasonableness rather than on <br /> creating specific standards. The intent isn't to set an arbitrary requirement that sewers 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 /> clay lines probably wouldn't make sense in a city with More Information <br /> newer plastic lines,and vice versa. From the underwri ' <br /> �dpo�the real concern is that the city has considered For assistance in developing sewer <br /> its own situation and developed policies,practices,and policies,see theices,end olklt.schedules, <br /> schedules that make sense for its own situation. please see tfie Sewer Toolkit. <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 resulting damages? <br /> If the situation isn't one where the"no-fault"coverage applies,the city's LMCIT liability <br /> coverage would respond just as it does now. That is,LMCIT would investigate and if necessary <br /> defend the claim on the city's behalf,and would pay the resulting damages if in fact the city is <br /> legally liable for those damages. <br /> The same would be true for damages that exceed the$10,000 no-fault limit,or for a subrogation <br /> claim against the city by the homeowner's insurance company. The city's existing LMCIT <br /> liability would respond just as it does now. <br /> What's the legal basis for this coverage?Wouldn't It be a gift of public funds to <br /> pay for damages the city Isn't legally liable for? <br /> First,as noted earlier,one goal is to help reduce health hazards by encounaging prompt clean-ups. <br /> That's clearly a public purpose and in the public interest. <br /> Second,the law and facts surrounding most sewer backup claims are rarely so clear that the <br /> liability issue is entirely black and white. There's virtually always a way that a claimant's attorney <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 />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.