08/04/1980 Board of Public Works Minutes

Home Browse Search

REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 4, 1980 A gentlemen in the audience who stated that he was renting from Mrs. Pearl Day at 320 Ostemo Place, questioned whether or not the property owners should be forced to pay for the damage. He felt the repair work should be the responsibility of the city. Mr. McMahon explained that all curbs and sidewalks are installed and maintained by the property owners., and no other mechanism is provided for other than Barrett Law. The tenant of Mrs. Day felt this was fine under normal circumstances; however, the recent storm had been an act of God.and he felt the city was legally and morally responsible for the damage. Mr.. McMahon explained that the city did not provide an insurance program for residents under these types of circumstances. He stated that some of the homeowners' policies would cover the damage; however, in most cases the property owner would bear the cost. He explained that the city does not tax property owners on a yearly basis to address situations such as this. Mrs. Day's tenant still maintained that the city should be responsible since the tree lawn area,was considered city property. Mr. McMahon repeated that the area was the responsibility of the property owner and has always been so. Mr. Kernan admitted that the damage was caused under unusual cir- cumstances; however, he felt the costs associated with the repair were not too substantial or out of line with repair of this type. Mrs. Day's tenant felt the cost was substantial to a senior citizen or a person living on social security alone. Mr. Hill agreed,. stating that this was the reason why the city had instituted the Barrett Law Program for repair of the damage which would give the owners a five -year period to pay off the assessment. Mr. Hill explained that Barrett Law is normally used when all of the property owners are affected. He stated that it took a fair amount of investigation to determine whether or not the Barrett Law process could be used in this instance. He felt that, in this particular case of storm damage, the process would provide a mechanism which would enable all affected property owners to handle. He stated that the property owners would be responsible for the repairs, and the city was providing the opportunity to property owners to have the work done and allow them a five -year period to pay for the work performed. He felt there would be a substantial savings to the property owners involved because of the bulk bid. A representative of Real Services asked about the total amount to be assessed aginst a property owner. Mr. McMahon explained that the property owner received a notice of preliminary assessment. He stated that the amount would not be increased and could possibly be reduced somewhat. When the total amount was determined after the work had been completed, the property owner would be assessed that amount at an interest-rate of 5% if the five -year option was utilized. The representative from Real Services stated that the damage caused to one of her clients had been extensive and the sidewalk had been damaged severely. She wondered about liability of the property owner should someone fall on the sidewalk before the repairs were made. Mr. McMahon stated that all liability would fall upon the property owner. Mr. Philip Devenish, 937 Roosevelt, asked if the Board would assure him that no work to be covered under the Barrett Law process had already started. Mr. McMahon assured him that it had not. Mr. Devenish asked if the city had already removed any stumps at its expense that would normally have been covered under the proposed Barrett Law Program for the repair. Mr. McMahon stated that there has been some tree removal from tree law areas where there was a concern for safety and in order to open streets; this work would be paid for by the city. He stated that the city spent three or four weeks trying to take care of those public safety areas and, unless the stumps came up with the tree, they were not removed. He felt it was possible that, if a tree and stump had torn up a large portion of any city street, it may have been removed only to provide that the street be opened. Mr. Hill also stated that, to his knowledge, there had been no removal of any tree stumps unless the stump had actually been out in the street. Mr. McMahon explained to Mr. Devenish that he and the