Loading...
4321 Stirrup St - Sewer Service Repair Claim Agenda Information Memo April 17, 2012 Eagan City Council Meeting OLD BUSINESS: B. SEWER SERVICE REPAIR CLAIM, 4321 STIRRUP ST. ACTION TO BE CONSIDERED: Receive the Public Works Committee's recommendation and provide a response to the appeal for reconsideration of the denial of a claim for a failed sewer service at 4321 Stirrup St. FACTS: • On December 12, 2011 the City received a formal claim from owners Donald and Lisa Bliss for costs incurred on December 2, 2011 to repair a private sanitary sewer service originally installed in November of 1983 at the referenced address. The claim identified costs incurred at approximately $8,400 to remove and replace the private sewer service between its connection to the City's system at the property line and the house foundation (approx. 46). Additional future restoration costs to repair the driveway, landscaping and front lawn were projected to exceed another $7,000. • The claim was forwarded to the City's insurance carrier, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT), and subsequently denied on January 20, 2012. The claimants then approached the Council at their informal Listening Session on February 21 to appeal the insurance company's denial. The Council directed the matter to the Public Works Committee for further review and consideration. • The Public Works Committee was provided with all pertinent background information necessary to review the merits of the appeal and met with the claimants on March 9. The Public Works Committee's deliberation concluded in a recommendation to the City Council that they approve a contribution towards the cost of repair that would typically be covered under the City's Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) program for similar type work. • The claimants were asked to obtain and submit estimates of all remaining restoration work along with any other related costs. Staff was directed to research previous I&I corrective repair work that might be similar to the claimants' repair and identify which costs would typically be covered if the work were to be considered under the I&I Program. ISSUES: • If this private sewer service failure and its repair are deemed to be considered part of the City's current I&I Program, the costs incurred by the property owner for the o required corrective work would qualify for the City's 50 /o reimbursement policy. However, the Policy specifically defines and limits the scope of the work eligible for cost participation to only those costs incurred by a pre-approved licensed plumber or pipe-laying contractor and does not cover any restoration work performed by others. • If this private sewer service failure is deemed to not be considered part of the City's I&I Program and still the responsibility of the City, the LMCIT and City Attorney's office have opined that the City has no legal liability or financial obligations per State Statute. If the sewer failure is deemed to be the responsibility of the property owner, the Council may similarly be precluded from providing public funds towards the repair and maintenance of private property. (Continued next page) Agenda Information Memo April 17, 2012 Eagan City Council Meeting OLD BUSINESS: B. SEWER SERVICE REPAIR CLAIM 4321 STIRRUP ST. (continued) ATTACHMENTS: • I&I Reimbursement Policy page • I&I Mitigation Cost evaluations page • Property owners' Summary of claim estimates, page • Public Works Committee meeting summary notes, page 0 Public Works Committee Packet, enclosed without page number. I&I Reimbursement Policy (Sewer Service Repair - 4321 Stirrup St.) The City's I&I Sump Pump and Service Lateral Inspection Program and related Mitigation Policy has been in effect since Council adoption on January 19, 2010. The purpose of the program is to eliminate any type of clear water connections via services that allow ground or surface water to enter the system. The City's Inspection Program has been primarily focused on Inflow only (i.e. sump pumps, foundation drains, downspouts, etc. which create peak flow issues) rather than Infiltration (i.e. ground water seepage). The Mitigation Policy provides for the City's contribution of 50% towards the cost of repairs. "City Cost Participation. The City will assume responsibility for 50% of costs incurred by the homeowner for required corrective work. If the corrective work is not performed under a City issued contract, the property owner may perform the work personally. " Per this City policy, if the property owner opts to physically perform the work themselves, the City's contribution is limited to the cost of materials only. If the property contracts with an outside vendor, the City requires that at least two estimates be obtained and submitted for approval prior to the work commencing. The City will then reimburse 50% of the lowest cost estimate for only work required to address the Corrective Work Order issued under the I&I Program. ......only work performed by a licensed plumber and/or pipe-layer contractor pre-approved by the City will be eligible for City participation. " This Policy does not provide reimbursement for any related restoration or other costs incurred by the property owner beyond the service line repair. Because the sewer failure at 4321 Stirrup was discovered with resulting repair work performed by the property owners prior to the City's I&I inspection of the property, neither the contractor nor the related scope of repair work were able to be pre-approved by the City. Subsequently, competitive estimates were not provided helping to insure the lowest cost and minimum scope of work as necessary to correct any identified I&I issue(s). The only potential source of Infiltration into the system (i.e. ground water) would have been via the deteriorated "elbow" section where the blockage occurred near the connection to the City's service stub, and this corrective repair would not have required replacement of the entire line (i.e. spot excavation only). Although the service line was noted by the property owners' plumber as having several "bellies" along it, it would not have been considered a source of I&I and a Corrective Work Order would not have been issued under the inspection program. The sewer service line appeared to have been fully functional until the deteriorated elbow section failed resulting in the blockage. Unfortunately, the submitted invoice does not break out the cost of repairing only the faulty elbow section (i.e. spot repair) vs. relaying the entire service line from the house to the right of way (approx. 46'). I&I Reimbursement Cost Evaluation (Sewer Service Repair - 4321 Stirrup St.) The property owners have submitted receipts, invoices and/or cost estimates for all other work related to the sewer failure, its repair and proposed restoration. Based on the City's current policy, only the sewer repair work would be eligible for reimbursement under the City's I&I reimbursement policy. To date, the City has only encountered four (4) I&I corrective sewer repairs that involved an exterior excavation. All of these were spot excavations with nominal yard/landscaping disturbance and none resulted in any driveway disturbance. Per the I&I Policy, all related lawn and landscape restorations at these 4 locations were the responsibility of and performed by the property owner at their expense. The following is a breakdown of the claim submitted by 4321 Stirrup St with a comparison to the other repairs and the City's I&I Reimbursement Policy. Actual City's 50% Sewer Repair Costs Reimbursement • 4321 Stirrup $7,250 TBD • City comparables(4) $ 758 Low $ 379 $4,521 High $2,260 $2,103 Avg $1,203 City's 50% Landscave/Lawn Estimates Reimbursement • 4321 Stirrup $4,246 Low $0 (DNQ Does Not Qualify) $7,550 High $0 (DNQ) $5,747 Avg $0 (DNQ) • City Comparables None None Driveway (12 SY patch req'd, Total D/W area = 72 SY) Estimates • 4321 Stirrup $2,380 Low (84 SY) _ $28.33/sy $4,536 High (103 SY) _ $44.04/sy $3,414 High (84 SY) _ $40.64/sy $3,420 High (67 SY) _ $51.04/sy $2,952 Avg (72 SY) = $41.01/sy • City Comparable (1) (Not I&I related) $1,990 Actual (78 SY) = $25.44/sy Submitted Previous City Misc Expenses (4321 Stirrup) Costs Reimbursements • Hand Sewer Snake $125 $0 (DNQ) • Wet/Dry Vac $ 25 $0 (DNQ) • Plumber call out #1 $325 $0 (DNQ) • Plumber call out #2 $463 $0 (DNQ) Total amount of claimed expenses for 4321 Stirrup St = $17,241.64 i DON AND LISA BLISS 4321 STIRRUP ST SEWER LATERAL EXPENSES WITH BIDS AVERAGED Landscape Bids: $7550.00 5443.92 +4246.00 TOTAL $17239.92 DIVIDED BY 3 for an average price Average cost: $5746.64 Driveway Bids $4536.00 2380.00 2900.00 3414.00 TOTAL $13230 DIVIDED BY 4 for an average price Average cost: $3307.50 Expenses Totaled Landscape Averaged Bid $5746.64 Driveway Averaged Bid 3307.50 Expenses Known Cost 150.00 Rabbit Rooter Known Cost 325.00 Hopke Plumber Known Cost 462.50 Hopke Plumber- Replacement of Sewer Lateral Known Cost 7250.00 Water Shut-off moved TOTAL EXPENSES PART AVERAGED/PART $17,241.64 KNOWN PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING FRIDAY, MARCH 9 EAGAN CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOMS 2A AND 2B MEETING NOTES The Public Works Committee of the City Council consisting of Councilmembers Paul Bakken (via Skype teleconference) and Cyndee Fields convened the meeting at 2:00 p.m. Also in attendance were City Administrator Tom Hedges, Public Works Director Tom Colbert, Communications Director Tom Garrison, Utilities Superintendent Jon Eaton, City Clerk/Administrative Services Coordinator Christina Scipioni, property owners Donald and Lisa Bliss (4321 Stirrup Street), Gary and Karen Foster, and Debra O'Connor. Councilmembers Bakken and Fields called the meeting to order and adopted the agenda as presented. II. SEWER SERVICE REPAIR CLAIM APPEAL - 4321 STIRRUP STREET Director Colbert provided background information about the claim previously brought to the Council's attention by the property owner at the Council's Listening Session on March 6. Mr. Foster presented information about the work undertaken to repair the sewer service, which included excavating the entire length of the property owners' line with significant restoration work still remaining. The Public Works Committee discussed potential ways to address the appeal and determined it would be reasonable to offer a partial reimbursement under the Inflow and Infiltration (I & I) Program. Mr. Colbert could recall possibly only one other I&I correction that involved excavation of the sewer service. It was noted that most I & I repairs are completed without full excavations using internal slip lining or spot excavations. More research was needed to determine if any full excavations have been done as part of an I & I repair and what repair costs were paid for as part of the I & I Program. The property owners were requested to submit all available receipts and to obtain formal estimates regarding their claim. This information would then all be forwarded to the full Council with the Committee's recommendation. Public Works Committee Recommendation: After reviewing the claim, the Committee recommended the City reimburse the homeowners for 50 percent of the repair costs, consistent with the Inflow and Infiltration Program. The Committee directed staff to determine what costs the Inflow and Infiltration Program would cover and how much the City has reimbursed other property owners for excavation costs related to Inflow and Infiltration repairs, if any such repairs have occurred. The Committee suggested that this recommendation go to the full Council at the April 17 meeting to accommodate the property owner's availability. The Committee adjourned the meeting at 2:45 p.m. AGENDA PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE MEETING FRIDAY, MARCH 9, 2012 2:00 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOMS IA&B 1. ADOPT AGENDA II. SEWER SERVICE REPAIR CLAIM APPEAL - 4321 Stirrup St. III. OTHER BUSINESS IV. ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE March 9, 2012 11. SEWER SERVICE REPAIR CLAIM APPEAL - 4321 Stirrup St. BACKGROUND On December 12, 2011 the City received a, formal claim (copy enclosed on page j ) from owners Donald and Lisa Bliss for costs incurred on December 2, 2011 to repair a private sanitary sewer service at the referenced address. Enclosed on pages 7 through 9 is additional supporting information to the claim submitted on December 14. Mr. & Mrs. Bliss purchased the property in the summer of 2011. The claim identified costs incurred at approximately $8,400 with additional future restoration costs yet to be determined (projected by property owner at about another $7,000). The repair work revealed that the sewer service had incurred a blockage and structural failure at the elbow joint near the connection to the City's sewer stub near the street right of way. At the direction of the property owner, approximately 46 feet of sewer was subsequently removed and replaced by Hopke Sewer & Drain Inc at an invoiced cost of $7,250. The property owner's claim is based on statements by others of inferior installation procedures and materials, and their belief that the work was either never inspected or assumed defects were overlooked at the time of the City's inspection 28 years ago. HISTORY The sewer service permit was originally pulled by McGuire Mechanical Services Inc. under Sewer Permit #6285, dated 11-16-83 and, according to Tim McGuire, subcontracted to Larson Sewer and Water for installation (no longer in business). The permit is signed off by the City's Utility inspector "Larry" (retired in 2004), but no date is referenced for the inspection (see permit on page /p The property owner stated that the two sewer maintenance companies called out on this problem identified an impenetrable obstruction at a distance near the service connection to the City's stub at the property line. A statement by Hopke Sewer & Drain Inc is enclosed on pages and /,3 describing an undulating condition of the sewer line and deterioration of the elbow connection at the city's stub that resulted in the ultimate blockage (photos enclosed without page number). Video tapes of the sewer televising by the sewer maintenance companies were not recorded and/or retained. The sewer appeared to function adequately until the blockage occurred from the collapsed pipe at the elbow. f CLAIM DISPOSITION AND APPEAL The claim was forwarded to the City's insurance carrier, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) and subsequently denied on January 20, 2012. The basis of the denial was the State's 10 year Statute of Limitations and reliance on previous court rulings affirming a city's lack of liability for actions related to city inspections on private property. A copy of the denial is enclosed on page _4. Mr. Foster then appealed to the City Council for their consideration of this claim. A copy of that appeal dated February 13 (enclosed on pages 1- through / 9 ) was forwarded to the City Council and heard at the February 21 Council Listening Session. The Council then directed the matter to the Public Works Committee for review and recommendations. RESEARCH RESULTS OF OTHER STIRRUP ST. PROPERTIES Permits Permits were reviewed for the 20 other properties addressed off Stirrup Street. 15 of those were also inspected by Larry. The others were by other City Utility inspectors. All other permits were signed and dated. McGuire Mechanical also pulled sewer permits for 3 of the other properties, all of which were also inspected by Larry. A combination of 14 other plumbers installed the services on the 20 other properties between 11-17-79 and 7-07-87. The City does not have any records of any service work requiring a permit for repair or replacement. Inflow & Infiltration (I&I) Sewer Line Camera Inspection A notice was mailed on November 25, 2011 informing all property owners in this sewer district of the City's I&I Mitigation and Sump Pump Inspection Program and an informational community meeting scheduled for December 14. Follow up notices requesting property owners to schedule a sump pump inspection was sent to these same properties on January 4. All other properties along Stirrup St were also informed that their sewer would be televised at the same time. This was a staff initiative to see if the Bliss sewer problem was systemic. Starting on January 12, 15 of the 20 properties have since been televised to date. The remaining 5 are individually scheduled for sometime within the next 6 weeks based on property owner availability. Results received to date show no indications of any structurally damaged or compromised pipe. The reports identify minor sags in 3 of the sewer service lines. Of those, none were installed by McGuire Mechanical. No I&I related issues have been identified that would require the issuance of a Corrective Work Order. INFLOW & INFILTRATION (I&I) REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM Inflow & Infiltration (I&I) Reimbursement Program The structural failure of the sewer pipe elbow at 4321 Stirrup at its connection to the City's service stub is not considered an I&I related issue as it would not have been a conduit for direct clear water inflow into the sewer system similar to a foundation drain, roof rain leader or sump pump connection. If any existing cracks, sags, deflections, etc would have been pre-discovered, it would have been considered a private maintenance issue and would not have warranted an I&I Corrective Work Order. As such, any repairs or follow up work would not have qualified for the City's I&I reimbursement program (50%). r However, advisory notices are typically provided to property owners in these situations informing them on the benefits of ongoing vigilant maintenance and/or subsequent structural improvements to minimize future sewer service problems. Any work deemed eligible for the I&I Reimbursement program requires two estimates pre-approved by the City with reimbursements based on the lesser amount. The City provides a list of both trench excavators and sewer lining contractors for consideration. MATERIAL INSPECTION City staff consisting of the Public Works Director, Chief Building Official and Plumbing Inspector visited the property on March 1 to inspect the salvaged pipe stored on site in the garage. It was identified as a 4" Carlon PVC plastic pipe with the manufacturer's material classification testing numbers stamped on the sewer pipe (ASTM #3033 & #3034) (ASTM = American Society of Testing Materials). Research has determined that this pipe meets both today's standards as well as the standards contained in the State Plumbing Code in 1983. The joints were found to be tight and sound with no indication of movement under hand pressure and appeared to be structurally sound. The pipe was noted to have been saw cut between joints to facilitate removal and/or storage rather than having been pulled apart at the joints. There was evidence that several of the joint couplings broke apart rather than simply being pulled apart. There also was evidence of plastic joint sealing primer compound on one section of white PVC pipe. There did not appear to be any evidence or indication that would identify the cause of the deterioration and collapse of the elbow connector. This is where the obstruction was noted and the apparent structural failure occurred. INSURANCE & WARRANTY COVERAGE City staff is not aware of or familiar with various types of private insurance coverage that may be available under a homeowner's policy or as a separate endorsement. The claimant's contractor (Hopke) who installed the new sewer service, under continuously observed and very controlled conditions, has provided a 5 year parts and labor limited warranty. When contacted by the City about his willingness to extend that warranty to 30 years on this or similar work, he declined implying that that length of warranty is not practical and didn't know anyone who would warrant any product or service for that period of time. The City has never offered any type of warranty protection or insurance program for private property improvements. If the City were to assume warranty responsibilities as part of its inspection program, it would need to implement an ongoing maintenance management program to identify potential issues and provide mitigative corrective maintenance in a timely manner, similar to the City's Pavement Management Program. In regards to sewer services, it would most likely require televising all sewer services every 2-4 years at a current cost of $160-$200/each. This would greatly expand the resources required of City staff and a related increase in utility fees to finance it, along with any subsequent repair work that might be required. If such a City program were to be implemented, it might also be considered a business conflict by government competing with private enterprises who offer this same type of maintenance service. An 3 ongoing inspection program, and any resulting preventative maintenance work, is something that property owners can presently perform on their own schedule and at their own discretion. CORRECTIVE REPAIR OPTIONS An option to total sewer line replacement via full trench excavation involves spot excavation to repair the isolated segment where the blockage is located. "Trenchless" technology is another alternative method of installing a new liner within the existing pipe from within the home sealing off existing cracks, gaps, etc and restoring the structural integrity of the pipe, if deemed necessary. This method minimizes the disturbance of surface amenities and related restoration expenses. If a blockage can't be breached, a spot excavation can be performed. If deemed necessary, a sewer liner can also then be installed from the point of the spot excavation. The cost for this type of repair runs approximately $85 - $100/ft for a liner plus an estimated extra $50041,000 for the spot excavation. LEGAL LIMITATIONS ON CITIES The City Attorney has provided a memo addressing the City's limitations on providing public funds for private property improvements (enclosed on pages c~ a through -.)4 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The photos provided and onsite inspection of the pipe materials was made possible through the cooperation of the property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Bliss, and their designated representative, Mr. Gary Foster. Mr Foster has also specifically requested that his letter of February 25 be forwarded to the City Council. It is included on pages J y & I PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION December 10'', 2011 Christina Scipioni City Clerk 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Ms. Scipioni, Please consider this correspondence a claim filed by us as homeowners at 4321 Stirrup St. in the City of Eagan. We are seeking reimbursement for costs related to the excavation and replacement of the sewer lateral which occurred on December 2 , 2011. I am filing this request for reimbursement because of a discovery of inferior installation procedures and materials for our sewer line that was uncovered in the excavation process. We feel the water and sewer work was either never inspected as required at the initial construction phase of the home in 1983-84, or was improperly overlooked by the inspector. My father-in-law Gary Foster will be representing Lisa and myself in this matter at this stage of the process. He has had conversations with the Public Works Director Mr. Thomas Colbert, and Assistant City Attorney Thomas Donnelly from Mr. Dougherty's office. Both have indicated a willingness to sit down and review this matter with Mr. Foster. We will provide statements, video, and still photos related to this claim. The pipe removed from the trench and will be made available for inspection. Should you decide to meet with him, he can be reached at 715-271-0342. Some costs are known at this point and some are not. Roughly $8,400.00 has been expended thus far. Included in this figure is: payment to two plumbers to determine the extent of the problem, a router snake purchased by us in an attempt to clear the pipe, and excavation from foundation to city stub to replace entire lateral. Also, a city inspector required removal of the water shut off from driveway where it should not have been in the first place. We can and will provide receipts for these things. Costs which are yet to be determined are as follows: -Replacement of entire front lawn (grading, black dirt, and seeding) -Repairing blacktop driveway measuring 6' X 13' -Replacing 8 shrubs & two small trees -40ft of edging -Replacement of river rock near foundation As my father-in-law has indicated to Mr. Colbert, Mr. Donnelly, and Mr. Order we are seeking a reasonable resolution to. this matter and we are confident this can occur. We would appreciate some form of confirmation that this claim has been received and filed. Beyond the phone number above, Mr. Foster can receive documents or correspondence at the following: garvkarenfoster cr ginail com Gary L. Foster 2027 Rice Ct. Eau Claire, WI. 54701 Thank You for receiving and forwarding this information to the appropriate staff. Donald Bliss Lisa Bliss i December 101h, 2011 To whom it may concern: This document should be considered authorization for Gary L. Foster to represent Donald and Lisa Bliss in any and all matters related to a claims filed regarding sewer lateral replacement at 4321 Stirrup St. Eagan, Mn. Donald Bliss i Lisa Bliss Date Time _ r aim Cry 1 December 14"i, 2011 The following are some of the points we would like to make as claimants: • When you have people who do this for a living saying things like, "I've never seen this stuff before." And, "look at this." Or," this guy must have held his level upside down when he put this stuff in", it's the kind of thing that gets your attention. Then a city employee, "Leon" is standing over the excavation hole, saying more than once, "I would never sign off on something like that." (If he denies that now, he's not being truthful.) I'm not a plumber, but I could clearly see that pipe flexed up and down radically. The plumber told me this is why the previous plumber's cameras were going in and out of water. This condition is called "back pitch", and it's the result of over digging during installation and then not tamping properly. People were also telling me that there is no way a lateral installation from 1984 should go bad this soon. Typically tree roots are a major factor in damage and blockage; they found zero roots around this pipe. One of the workers while excavating, picked up the pipe approx. 15 feet from the foundation and it literally came apart in his hands. The plumbers and excavators commented on the poor joints in the pipe several times. They tell me the flexing of this pipe is the result of poor installation and failure to tamp the ground below and around the pipe. Like they did (see video) when this new pipe was installed. If it was installed properly, and the right product was used, then explain to me why other 1984 vintage lines are not going bad as well. And if they are, I want to know which ones and who installed and inspected them. • Leon, after the fact, stated he thought the white PVC in the center of the trench was a repair. I found it interesting how his demeanor changed on Monday morning when it became apparent to him that I was focusing on who signed off on the original work. There are some problems with this theory however. The guys in the trench stated while they were down there that they believed the white PVC could have been the result of someone cutting corners and using "whatever he had left" to meet the stub at the right length. If a repair occurred, shouldn't there be a permit on file? All the neighbors have been spoken to. None of them indicate an excavation of that magnitude took place while they have been in the neighborhood. You can't have it both ways without some proof. We do know a permit was purchased in 1984. There is a first name signature with no inspection date on a form that is designed to capture an inspection date That's all we know for sure. There has never been a permit purchased since then for that type of work at that address. You can't say the city'inspected this, because you can't begin to tell me when "Larry" signed this form which asks for a date of inspection. The fact that this pipe failed during its relatively young lifetime, coupled with the fact that experienced people believe it was installed improperly, in addition to a lack of a definitive date of inspection or proof certain that it was even looked at all, adds up to the city being responsible for a huge monetary loss to the occupants who have lived here less than six months. While this recent dig is taking place, the city "inspector" requires that the water shutoff be moved from the driveway to the street. (adding more cost to the new owners). Further proof that someone 7 2 never looked at the original project, or turned their head to what would have made sense even to a lay person in 1984. • The big question is going to be, did your employee follow policy. 1 believe we will be able to show that they did not. Why pay a city employee a salary for signing his first name to a permit without indicating when he was on site. All we know at this point is when the permit was purchased. Why have a "date of inspection" area on the form if there is no requirement to fill that out. As a former municipal employee and Police Officer, the city required us to file reports. Probably the most important aspect to these forms were the date and time you responded. How could a city defend your service or actions if they couldn't even know for sure when you were there (or I would argue if you were there)? I feel compelled to also ask: ■ Did Larry fail to fill in the dates on every permit he dealt with? ■ Did he sign some and not others? If so, why? ■ Is there any pattern to those he did or did not sign? o These are reasonable questions given what is in front of us. ■ Was Larry ever corrected or disciplined for not following policy? ■ Is there anything in his personnel file that would show a possible pattern of cutting corners? o Again, I feel these are reasonable questions given the permits lack of dates. • I think that we can agree that if someone were inclined to cut corners as a contractor, a very good place to do it would be under 12-15 feet of dirt, where it becomes the home owner's responsibility when the work fails. If it is visible or semi visible work inside the home, it would be pretty hard to hide most things long term. This makes the inspection of the sewer lateral even that much more important in my view. • There is something very distasteful about a newlywed couple who having owned this home for less than six months, are left holding the bag to the tune of thousands of dollars on something a city employee either did or did not do after collecting a fee for the city. The whole reason for inspections is to protect people like Don and Lisa from people who would take advantage of someone and cut corners. This problem was so easily hidden; it took Don and Lisa a thousand dollars just to determine they needed to spend at least seven thousand more. Our view on who is at fault is as follows: The city was supposed to be the entity who received a fee to inspect the work for the protection of future owners of that home. If the city wants to take issue with the original work now, that is between the city and the contractors. I don't feel that these kids should expend time, money and effort at this point pursuing the contractor's liability. If the city had done their job as guardians of compliance on the original work we wouldn't even be discussing this. • I'll leave you with one last thought. There is a good reason the city stub was found to be in good shape after it was cleared of dirt. It is because the city followed good and reasonable plumbing practices when installing those stubs to their citizen's properties. The reason we are here today is because those same 3 standards were not met when the lateral itself was installed. That work was either never seen or ignored. As you know from the very beginning of this situation, I have been determined not to let this young couple be victimized by someone else's laziness, incompetence, or indifference. There are some "oh, well" moments in everyone's life. This is not one of them. They were prepared to suck it up and move on until it was obvious even to them, that the pipe in that hole was at the very least installed improperly. We have indicated a willingness to discuss a resolution to this that is reasonable. The aggravation and inconvenience of this situation is a factor here as well. Whatever the resolution, there will still be a need to let the ground settle before landscaping. When it does happen, it will take months for the plants and lawn to take hold. Continual watering will be necessary. The driveway can't be replaced until that ground settles and weather permits. The yard and driveway will be a soupy mess in the spring. My point is that this is not a quick fix. This is a long term fix with the front yard never being the same again. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns. Gary L. Foster 2027 Rice Ct. Eau Claire, Wl. 54701 715-271-0342 9 6 L 3 Y' . ~^'~`t..~F~'~~~~' a~ "'ate _ ~,s ~ h ti ~y~,ep- Y n•y ` PiiotsKt~ob f"iq`a~ ~ ' PERMIT Nb . F et- S5 X21 DATA ~r~ r a ~~r MN j r •~Rd' Address l r :$ite Address ' 4 - "1 gsn~e -lea eomPlf► wilb the C~► oti ~EagoM 4~rlr!ectior~ Gt~Qr~ir°~ ~ Ord neeees. Ac Dep' 00f ; Permit fee Surcharipe' gy _t~ _ Misc ChaGraes: Paid r---- ry 4 2~277 I;Zt-l TO E P $c=[~39 PERMIT NQ -'a } gaga Mt1i~i k DATE % Oh`Tti < > NO Of l1(ltts F ( ( -u z°'•. -c.t- e won SiM 'i~4ddress d Yc*e •1 y Metec NIQ' r~3a!~~._ 6np4 yg~ $ize. A~CIcUt1tNp~Sit~` s p'` G k RectdeF No, f Per~cn►t fee` _ ~ i fi y Sr .t'L -I l agme., p~npgl wlel~ the'City of_Ea~an Surcharge w~ R Totoi: y °r . BY ; Date Paid ~ - TE'~IH~. L!. ~ 1l11 mpls & West Sub a It s SEVER & DRAIN INC. ' SALE Nofth sub It in: MAL lot M South Sub, i 5242 Crwg River Rd. Prior Lake.- MN 56372 t+irsa r s w ZIP spa xePOO" .7`+ti93'~i.74/7 Rlrtni 5 %F 11 . $7259. eli AOOI~ii t r~ now TMetl T COMSTAM2' ,K t Tom ~ r rs L ✓ t r1 '4 tic 4fi~ tit J' ~ ! ~ > ~i~ . r 1 t w 1 q4. lo 54. tleJ D D D J . cap C7 ' iya 0 Q Wii {roots tai+ y} 0 Oe wr A r plow ft*' " + . k! rr.aiWl .ri r.l .a +c/vOWN*t' +MtM~ ~p.~tirirat iM~rii~ w+oa, 000 ! bw+4 rein, i►. rr rK ~ ,M 6 a ~.~w ~aa~~a~r.~r~or~ #i~reMbe~+t+~ww►~trwFawe`elef~r~ruo~rt`ti 2b• m n PWO NY O 1Ur C] b!!~lOwr CI Cob DODOUW TOTAL 1l WRITTEN STATEMENT FORM DATE,J2: -j I T1Iv1E ; 30 . wt I live at r , my phone number is g j my date of birth is I am wri ting this statement voluntarily. No threats or promises have been made to me to induce the writing of this statement. The following is the truth based on my observations and discussions with others who were involved in the matter herein described. We, L) J ' r✓ AEA 0 it 4A !AA SNe r n r c 4' balm S • d a7Vbrftt ~L PvtA ~yt ► IiN • e s OFF 1 t w y i~ AeA ripe 7 lot 4(. pr -46 ,01 S IL W3 Is"'ej D r 5& A- ` (&4A&-AZaA- in OF C s s Witnes d page] of J_ Z WRITTEN STATEMENT FORM DATE TIME I live at , my phone number is date of birth is my I am writing this statement voluntarily. No threats or promises have been made to me to induce the writing of this statement. The following is the truth based on my observations and discussions with others who were involved in the matter herein described. ` ~ h no~ 6 ~ /'d6 e.•.. 11011 Tw, d Witnessed Page.2 of /.3 r 0® LEAGUE of CONNECTING & INNOVATING MINNESOTA SINCE 1913 CITIES Gary Foster January 20, 2012 2027 Rice Court Eau Claire, WI 54701 RE: LMCIT FILE NO.: P00011274 TRUST MEMBER: City of Eagan CLAIMANT: Donald & Lisa Bliss D/OCCURRENCE: 12/2/2011 Dear Mr. Foster: The League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust provides coverage to our trust member, the city of Eagan. At this time I have reviewed your claim and unfortunately we do not feel the city of Eagan should be held liable for the damages 4321 Stirrup St. in Eagan, MN. Minnesota Court of Appeals has stated building inspections and issuance of building permits are not meant to be guarantees to property owners that a home is in full compliance with the Minnesota State Building Code. The courts have been clear that inadvertence or simply missing an infraction does not result in the city being liable. In addition to this, the courts have also stated the issuance of a certificate of occupancy to a homeowner is not a "good housekeeping seal of approval" and is a protected discretionary function for which the city is not liable. For a city to held liable there needs to be a special duty created and this only exists when a building inspector steps out of the public role and begins acting more like a private contractor. In this matter, there is no evidence that a special duty was created, therefore no negligence on the city's part. Furthermore, this work was completed more than 28 years ago. Minnesota Statute of Limitations states; "no action by any person in contract, tort, or otherwise to recover damages for any injury to property, real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out the defective and unsafe condition of any improvement to real property, shall be brought against any person performing or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, materials, or observation of construction or construction of the improvement to real property more than ten years after the substantial completion of the construction". We regret we cannot provide you with a more favorable resolution to your claim. If you have questions, my direct dial is 651-215-4078. Sincerely, Derek Krause Claims Adjuster c: Tom Colbert, City of Eagan Christina Scipioni, City of Eagan Donald & Lisa Bliss Northern Capital Insurance Group Matt Hanley, LMCIT LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES INSURANCE TRUST 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE: (651) 281-1200 FAx: (651) 281-1297 CLAIMS DEPARTMENT ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 925-1122 WEB: WWW.LMC.ORG l/-/ February 13, 2012 Mayor Maguire and City Council Members City of Eagan, MN Eagan City Hall 3830 Pilot Knob Rd. Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Mayor Maguire and City Council Members: My name is Gary Foster from Eau Claire, WI. At the request of my daughter and son-in- law, Don & Lisa Bliss, who live at 4321 Stirrup St., I have been representing them on issues related to their sewer lateral failure which was repaired in early December 2011 I will hopefully be speaking with you at the February 21" listening session. I'm told time will be very limited. I understand that, and wanted to share some things in this format that I may not get to express to you that day. The claim submitted to the city regarding this situation has been denied. In the denial, there is nothing that would indicate a past city employee wasn't the cause of the large monetary loss to Don & Lisa. The denial simply gives the legal footing the city is on related to Minnesota Statute of limitations and a form of immunity. Honestly, I get the legal aspect of the denial. What I don't get is why the city of Eagan would want citizens to pay out of pocket for an employee's action or inaction regardless of when it occurred. Additionally, the fact that the problem was buried under 20 feet of dirt for all those years makes its discovery unlikely until the failure was catastrophic. Well, that day finally came shortly after Don, an IS analyst with a new job, and & Lisa, a HS Spanish teacher began making their first house payments. Do all of you remember how scary it was to buy that first house? You wondered the whole time, can we really do this and still meet our other obligations? Picture either yourself or your adult children purchasing a home in a city specifically where you want to live, and hopefully raise a family. You both work hard every day, and go to school at night. You play by the rules by paying your bills, paying your taxes, being good neighbors and generally coloring within the lines. You have been married less than a year when you purchase this home. The house isn't perfect. But that's okay; you know what needs work and updating, etc. You decide to spend a modest amount of money to make the house the way you want it. You don't have enough money to do everything. It's okay, because you will save and do the rest as you can afford it. Then after less than six months of occupancy the sewer lateral fails. You are told the line has to be excavated from foundation to curb at a minimum cost of $8,400.00. You are also told that if the problem is near the city main, the street will be excavated as well to the tune of an additional $8,000.00. Fortunately, the street stub was okay. However, the excavation of the lateral totally destroyed the entire front lawn, a 6' x 13' section of your driveway, several trees, all the shrubs, all the edging & landscaping rock. Instantly, the bill goes up to about $15,000.00. You go more than a week not being able to use the home. You 1 shower at relatives, use gas station bathrooms, eat in restaurants and still keep your work routine. Lisa became so upset by this news, she became physically ill. She threw up in the backyard, because she couldn't use any inside facilities. We knew immediately that sewer lateral failures are not covered by insurance. They are generally not covered because; typically failures are caused by one of two things: Extreme age, or tree root damage. This lateral was 28 years old with zero roots in the trench. If this was an age issue we would not be discussing this. If you buy a 90 year old house and the lateral fails, you knew going in everything was old and subject to failure. But a house built in 1984 should not experience lateral failure. Roots in this line would have made it a non-city issue also. By the way, I'm told many 90 year laterals are still functioning just fine. I'm sure you're wondering how or why this claim came about. It unfolds like this: I was at the dig to replace the lateral on December 2"d. As the excavator's and plumbers uncovered the pipe they were using expletives in describing what they were finding. Comments like "holy S--- look at this" and "I've never even seen this S--- before" and "some of these joints aren't even glued" and "the guy must have had his level upside down when he put his stuff in" and "I can't believe this passed an inspection." Certainly all of these comments got my attention. As the dig is underway a current city inspector "Leon" shows up and he starts looking at the situation. After looking at the pipe he says to me at least three times, "I would never sign off on something like this." He also said he had never seen this type of pipe used before, which was consistent with what the on site plumber was telling me. All, plumbers, excavators and Leon, commented on the number of unnecessary and unconventional splices in the lateral. The plumber on site stated, "It looked like whoever had installed the line was using leftover materials from other job sites to construct this lateral." This entire time I'm thinking to myself that someone certainly did sign off on what we were seeing. I'm guessing that none of you council members are plumbers. I am not one either. You did not need to be a plumber to look into that hole and see that the entire line was a disaster; raw sewage was going directly into the ground and had been for quite some time, long before Don and Lisa had ever contemplated purchasing this home. NaturallYa reasonable person who was getting hit with a $15,000.00 loss would ask the next logical questions: Who signed off on this? Why did they sign off? I have had to share things with your staff that they should have been able to share with me. I learned that the home was built between December 1983 and March Is` 1984. In November 1983 the permits were purchased. That winter was one of the coldest winters ever recorded. The temperature remained below zero for several consecutive months. Christmas Eve was a whopping 40 degrees below zero. The first owner of the house expressed concern to the builder about excavation during that time. He was told not to worry. I have talked to two people who excavate for a living. They indicate under these conditions there could easily be 6-7feet of frost. When they do dig in these conditions, it's essential that the top layer of frozen ground, removed during the dig, is piled separately from the soft ground from below the frost line. They explained that throwing 2 16 frozen ground underneath the pipe is likely what caused the dramatic up and down flex of the pipe in that hole. They further explained that under those conditions, sand should have been hauled in to put under the pipe to keep it from settling after the thaw. What's really troubling about all of this is that I don't do this for a living, but I somehow learned what should have happened. Someone ~I cone who inspects for a liviii1 g should have known what needed to be done. Again, that person either saw what was going on and ignored it, or didn't see it at all. I'm inclined to believe he couldn't challenge what was put in that hole or how it was put in that hole if he never looked in that hole. Why would the initial plumbing contractor risk using substandard and unconventional methods and materials in that trench if they knew it was going to be inspected? I submit to you, that they knew it was not going to be inspected. It also points directly to no date being placed on the inspection permit for just this particular property. The plot thickens when on Monday I begin by calling Leon, the city inspector who was on site for the dig on the previous Friday. I inquire about permits for the original construction. Suddenly, "Leon" is a reluctant conversationalist and says he has other things he needs to do. He side-stepped acknowledging that he had made the statement, "I would never sign off on anything like this." (I was told recently by the adjuster that he has since acknowledged that he did indeed make that statement to me.) I submitted a data request to the city and received a copy of sewer and water permits issued to all (26) properties for the entire length of Stirrup St. The only permit not dated on Stirrup St. was Don & Lisa's. Look at that permit which is attached. "Larry's" signature is written diagonally across the "date" area. It's the only permit out of (26) where this occurred. If there was intent to put a date on that form "ever", why would you write across this area? All other signatures are horizontal on the appropriate line with the date on the appropriate line. Is it just a coincidence that the one pipe in the neighborhood which goes bad in an unreasonable amount of time, with shoddy workmanship and materials, happens to be the only one without an inspection date? I think not. The city can't defend "Larry" either way because one of two things had to have hap ep ned; 1. He either inspected and let things slide that professionals and members of your own staff indicated they would not sign off on(not likely) or, 2. He never inspected anything, and simply signed his first name. It is conclusive that no date went on that form. What date would he put down if he wasn't there for the dig? He certainly would be better off not putting a date down than making one up. It would be tough to explain why a date on the form did not match the actual dig date if asked about it later. As I indicated to Mr. Hedges in discussing this, there is just something fundamentally wrong with these kids picking up the tab for something caused by the negligence of a city employee, past or present. 3 /7 I would ask each council member the following questions: • When a city charges a fee (in this case over $900.00 in 1983) do most if not all citizens expect that an inspection will occur? • If an inspection does occur, should the city sign off on substandard materials or work? • What good is an inspection process designed by a municipality if it is not followed? • If the inspections process is not followed by staff, should citizens absorb their failure to follow the process? The city can certainly hide behind the statute of limitations, which basically allows you to ignore the moral implications of what this is doing to a young couple, who are citizen taxpayers, who chose the city of Eagan as a place to raise a family. The denial letter made reference to a certificate of occupancy not being a "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval." Maybe not, but I'll bet you my next six paychecks that any citizen you ask will tell you that they pay a fee and expect something for that fee. What they expect is someone employed by the city being the guardian of compliance on all sorts of specifications and codes. If it doesn't matter, why have inspections. at all? This isn't a young couple trying to make a big insurance score. This is a deal where citizens are asking the city to stand behind them as taxpayers, who through no fault of their own got stuck with a $15,000.00 bill which was buried under 20 feet of dirt for 28 years. Had that employee done their job when this home was constructed, we wouldn't even be discussing this. I am astounded that the city would want a citizen saddled with an expense caused by one of their own, regardless of the circumstance or time frame. An offer of sharing the cost was never even proffered. Does the city of Eagan really want Don and Lisa to tell friends, relatives, co-workers, neighbors and strangers the details of being forced to pay for the mistake of an Eagan city employee? People who hear what happened will certainly put themselves in their situation and imagine themselves being ground swatted for thousands of dollars through no fault of their own. The question, "What happened to your front yard?" will be asked for quite some time. There is no money to put it back to the way it was. This will lead to an explanation of what happened and how it was handled. You can tell by now and probably before you received this document that I'm no wall flower. What you don't know is that I'm a realist who knows very well life is not fair. When the denial was received I did not like it but accepted it. I knew at that point the kids would not likely recover a dime, in spite of everything described above. I frankly don't expect you as a council to change direction on this either. I'm not coming to the session to take another kick at the can in hopes you will do what is right. From the beginning, I have sensed a culture of circling the wagons, rather than what is in the best interest of the citizen. If I'm wrong about this, tell me why I'm wrong. Playing defense when citizens have a legitimate issue doesn't give a warm and fuzzy feeling to those who are taxpayers. When I sat down with the adjuster, City Clerk and Public Works Director on Don and 4 I Lisa's behalf, prior to the denial there was no asking of questions which would cause one to believe they were interested in learning what happened and why. It was more of a "tell us what you know" session with a closure of, "you should know we are looking at the statute of limitations." I knew right then that these kids were going to pay for "Larry's" $15,000.00 maneuver. We always hear people say they want to teach their children to accept responsibility for things when it is warranted. That always sounds good until human beings are faced with actual situations. This is one of those situations. If you can look me in the eye and tell me that you would not be furious and frustrated in how this has played out if this were you or your children, then I'll be all ears on February 21 s`. I won't have too much more to say at the listening session. But I will be curious to see how Council members, who are themselves citizens of Eagan, who are elected to look out for other citizens, respond to our concerns. If you were able to put yourself or your kids in Don & Lisa's shoes, do you really believe the outcome here was just? Gary Foster 2027 Rice Ct. Eau Claire, WI 54701 715-832-7685 garykarenfoster(a email. com cc: Deborah O'Connor, Saint Paul Pioneer Press Watchdog Reporter 5 f February 25, 2012 Thomas Colbert Director of Public Works 3830 Pilot Knob Road Eagan, MN 55122 Re: Sewer Service Failure, 4321 Stirrup St. Dear Mr. Colbert, I am in receipt of your February 23'd letter. You will receive a separate email which should allow you to view the photos and videos which were previously provided. to you on January 51h I am sure you were not happy with my presentation to the City Council. Your department's competency and creditability were called into question. I told the truth and will continue to do so. If your letter was designed to make me appear uncooperative, shame on you, again. For you to write a letter, in a way that suggests that you have been trying to get to the bottom of our concerns, but that I have stood in your way, is laughable. You did request to see photos, videos and pipe in your December 12`h email. A meeting was eventually scheduled for January 5`h, 2012. As you recall I brought a DVD and a flash drive which contained both photos and videos of the dig. I told you that the IT fellow at my workplace transferred the photos and videos of the dig to the DVD which I gave to you. My wife, Karen, had the IT person at her work put the same information on a flash drive which was also given to you. She was able to bring up both the photos and videos on our home computer before I brought them to you. Mid-meeting, January 51h, you and Ms Scipioni tried without success to bring up the videos, but you were able to bring up some of the photos. I told you at the meeting that I was not computer savvy beyond the basics and could not help you. Regarding the pipe; every last inch of it has been at the Stirrup Street address since the day of the dig. Did you want me to drive from Eau Claire and transport the entire sewage caked pipe. to your desk? Perhaps it would make more sense. to go look at it on Stirrup Street. You and the adjuster could have done this fifty times by now. It is still there waiting to be looked at. As I indicated in the Council document, it was very apparent to me at that January 5`h meeting that the claim was going to be denied. Mr. Krause talked Statute of Limitations and you stated, "We can show it was inspected, there is a signature." Sure enough the denial came. At this point what incentive would one have to assist the City of Eagan in their pursuit of understanding why the lateral failed? I wasn't even told that there was an appeal process to the City Council. I had to learn that on my own too! 1 Regarding McGuire Mechanical; look at the December 14, 2011 document which I sent to you. On the second page, third bullet, 10`x' line down, I explain why we felt the City of Eagan was supposed to be the buffer between the contractor and the homeowner. The City signed off on McGuire Mechanical's work without dating the pen-nit. What do you suppose McGuire Mechanical's position would be if contacted? How about, "We paid for a permit---the city signed off---go away!" I am not an investigator for your city. If you want them contacted I suggest you spend some time and effort and do it with paid employees. If you were me, wouldn't you find it a little bit odd, that when I called you on February 16`h to basically find out why you had not shared the I & I information with me, that you would solicit my assistance in determining why Don and Lisa's lateral failed. Wouldn't this be more appropriate prior to a denial? Then I asked why, post denial, all of the Stirrup Street laterals were being videoed. You indicated that in 2010 video of the lines was suspended, but because of Don and Lisa's situation you wanted to make sure there were no patterns with bad laterals and contractors etc. in the Stirrup Street area. Again, here is a guy who on one hand dismisses my suggestions pre-denial, and is now following up on them with vigor post-denial. I feel like I have spent a great deal of time having to point out what you or your staff should have done in this matter. I would have preferred that you would have recognized early on, that this was something that could have been handled in a more forthright and citizen friendly manner. Each time I have felt a little progress has been made, I'm rewarded with non-sharing, accusations of noncooperation and being threatening. I left the council listening session optimistic that perhaps some people finally understood our position and frustration. I had a pleasant phone conversation with Mr. Hedges on Friday afternoon, February 24th. I found your letter in the mailbox a couple hours later. I am very puzzled about what to think. At any rate, you are welcome to contact Don and view the pipe on Stirrup Street. We will however, retain possession of all pipe materials until this matter is resolved. Don can be reached at: 952-693-6247. Gary Foster 2027 Rice Ct. Eau Claire, WI 54701 715-832-7685 garykarenfoster@wnail.com Cc: Thomas L. Hedges, City Administrator Christina M. Scipioni, City Clerk Mayor Mike Maguire Eagan City Council Members Deb O'Connor, St. Paul Pioneer Press Watchdog 2 l Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & Bauer P.A. 7300 West 147cn street DOUGHERTYMOLENDA Suite 600 ' Attorneys Advisors Apple Valley, MN 55124 I (952) 432-3136 Phone (952) 432-3780 Fax www.dmshb.com MEMORANDUM To: Eagan City Council From: City Attorney's Office Date: 03/05/2012 Re: Repair Private Sewer Service Line - 4321 Stirrup St SUMMARY: While the circumstance is unfortunate, the City has no legal obligation to reimburse Donald and Lisa Bliss for the costs they incurred to repair their private sewer service line. Furthermore, the City is prohibited from providing public money for a private purpose, and reimbursement under these circumstances may constitute expenditure for a private purpose. BACKGROUND: The City of Eagan's Public Works Department requested an opinion memorandum addressing the legal limitations placed on the City to provide public money for private property improvements. The request arose in light of the City's receipt of a formal claim from Donald and Lisa Bliss for costs incurred to repair a private sanitary sewer service line at 4321 Stirrup Street. The formal claim alleged that the private sanitary sewer service line was either (1) inspected by the City and should not have been approved, or (2) never inspected by the City. The formal claim estimated incurred repair costs of approximately $8,400.00 and future repair costs of approximately $7,000.00 (for damages to driveway, lawn and landscaping due to excavation for total replacement). The claim was denied by the City's insurance carrier, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust. The City has investigated the situation, which has heeded the following pertinent information: • A sewer service permit, dated November 16, 1983, was pulled for the property by McGuire Mechanical Services Inc. and subcontracted to Larson Sewer and Water for installation; • The sewer service permit was signed off (undated) by "Larry", a City utility inspector; • A less intrusive method of repair exists that does not entail trench excavation and total replacement; and, • City staff review of the salvaged sewer pipe material indicated that the pipe met the standards contained in the State Plumbing Code at the time of installation. ~ Z March 6, 2012 Page 2 of 3 LEGAL ANALYSIS: Cities are prohibited fiom expending public money for a private purpose.' Thus, a city cannot use public money to "perform the legal duty of private parties."'` Property owners are responsible for maintaining and repairing the private sewer line that serves their property.3 Since replacement of the private sewer service line is the property owners' responsibility, reimbursement of their costs may be considered expending public money for a private purpose, unless the city has a legal obligation to pay. In this case, the City has no obligation to pay for the repairs because the City is not legally liable for the damage. There is no liability on the City's part for, at minimum, two reasons: (1) the claim is denied by the applicable statute of limitations/repose, and (2) there is no special duty owed to the property owners (known as the public-duty doctrine). Statute of Limitations/Repose As noted by the City's insurance carrier, the property owners' claim is barred by the statute of limitations/repose. The applicable statute of limitations/repose is set forth in Minnesota Statutes Section 541.051, which states, in relevant part, as follows: Except where fraud is involved, no action by any person in contract, tort, or otherwise to recover damages for any injury to property, real or personal, . arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, shall be brought against any person perfonning or furnishing the design, planning, supervision, materials, or observation of construction or construction of the improvement to real property or against the owner of the real property more than two years after discovery of the injury, nor in any event shall such a cause of action accrue more than ten years after substantial completion of the construction. Date of substantial completion shall be determined by the date when construction is sufficiently completed so that the owner or the owner's representative can occupy or use the improvement for the intended purpose.4 This provision applies because the formal claim is based on the allegedly defective condition of the private sewer service line. The legislature has declared a strict deadline of 12 years from the date of substantial completion of the construction to bring a cause of action like the one set forth in the formal claim.' The certificate of occupancy issuance date may be evidence of the substantial completion date.6 As the construction of this property, including the installation of the private sewer service line, occurred between 1983-84, more than 12 years have passed, and any cause of action is barred. Public-Duty Doctrine Dougherty, Molenda, Solfest, Hills & SauerP.A. www.dmshb.com DOUGHERTY MOLENDA 3 Q ® ' ' e Attorneys Advisors ~ City Council Meeting Minutes April 17, 2012 5 page 17. The developer shall extend sanitary sewer and water main to the south edge of the development, at an adequate depth to serve the property to the south (4135 South Robert Trail) in accordance with City engineering standards. 18. This developer shall meet all conditions of plat approval and permit approval as required by MnDOT, including constructing a right-turn lane for south bound Highway 3. 14. The applicant shall submit a revised Tree Mitigation Plan that indicates the installation of sixty-four (64) Category A trees (or an equivalent number of Category A, B, or C trees) as fulfillment of Tree Preservation requirements. 20. The Developer shall install tree mitigation trees within the temporary easement and in proximity to the conservation easement area as approved by the City. All tree plantings in these areas shall be field verified by City Forestry staff before installation. 21. The developer shall be responsible for replacement of dead or dying material for the first year. 22. The applicant shall protect the preserved woodlands and individual tree's critical root zones through the placement of required Tree Protective measures (i.e. orange colored silt fence or 4 foot polyethylene laminate safety netting), to be installed at the Drip Line or at the perimeter of the Critical Root Zone, whichever is greater, of significant trees/woodlands to be preserved on-site. 23. The applicant shall contact the City Forestry Division and set up a pre-construction site inspection at least five days prior to the issuance of the Grading Permit to ensure compliance with the approved Tree Preservation Plan and placement of the Tree Protection Fencing. 24. Park Dedication shall be met through the creation of a Conservation Easement over the undeveloped portion in the northwest quadrant of the site. The developer and City shall agree on the easement area, the developer shall prepare the legal description of the area and the City Attorney shall prepare the easement document. 25. Trail dedication shall be met via a cash dedication. 26. The City shall grant a temporary access/grading easement to the developer over a mutually agreed upon portion of Captain Dodd Park. The developer and the City shall agree upon parameters for the use of the easement and restoration. Councilmember Tilley moved, Councilmember Hansen seconded a motion to approve a Final Plat creating one six acre lot located west of Highway 3 and north of Diffley Road. Aye: 5 Nay: 0 SEWER SERVICE CLAIM, 4321 STIRRUP ST. City Administrator Hedges introduced the item, reviewing the recommendation of the Public Works Committee. Public Works Director Colbert gave a staff report. Councilmember Bakken commented on the discussion of the Public Works Committee. The City Council discussed the claim. Gary Foster, representing the homeowners, addressed the City Council. Donald Bliss, 4321 Stirrup Street, addressed the City Council. The City Council further discussed the claim and staff responded to the homeowner's question. The City Attorney read the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust's findings against the claim. Councilmember Bakken moved, Councilmember Fields seconded a motion to accept the report of the Public Works Committee and to direct that an offer be made to the claimants of $4,117.00, as part of the City's I&I program, the offer to be prepared and finalized by the City Attorney's office to include a release of all claims against the City. Aye: 5 Nay:0 NEW BUSINESS There were no items for discussion. LEGISLATIVEANTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UPDATE There were no items for discussion.