2004-02-23 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1912 February 23 2004 tonight. Mr. Lieberman pointed out that the retaining wall was in a state of deterioration. If it fails, who has the responsibility or liability for any damage ensuing. Mr. Ollendorff said the City Attorney advised that whether or not the alley was vacated, it is the responsibility of the adjacent owners. The adjacent owner does not agree with that position, which could mean that if the City does not vacate the alley, the City could end up with a costly law suit. Vacating it tends to move the City away from a potential, costly liability law suit, to paraphrase the City Attorney's position. Mr. Sharpe said he assumed that the wall is a necessity, it should be there, and asked if not retaining it would pose a problem? Mr. Ollendorff then asked the Assistant City Manager, Thomas Moton, to approach the podium to address this question. Mr. Moton said the wall retains an embankment, cut to make a wall, and it prevents the soil from eroding from the north. He said that it needs to be there. The City staff has worked with the property owner, but the issue is not a major issue, so it continues without solution. Two residents alleged strongly that they believed the property had been vacated and they have used it for some time as their own property. Mr. Sharpe then asked if the matter was postponed, could a cost estimate for replacing this wall be presented. Mr. Moton said they could try to obtain an estimate. Mayor Adams pointed out that delaying the decision would not alter the property owner's position. He does not believe there has been a satisfactory argument to delay this decision. Mr. Wagner said he is confused and believes question have been raised that the City cannot answer. He cited the letter from the property owner on the north, which asked if the City vacated the alley, would it repair the wall. Mayor Adams corrected Mr. Wagner and said it was the property owner on the south who asked this question. Mr. Ollendorff advised that both business owners are well aware of the answer to this question, because they have asked it repeatedly, and the City has repeatedly said no. This matter has continued over a period of several years and no agreement with owners has been reached. He said the owners know what the situation is and do not agree with the City's position. Ms. Welsch said she prefers delaying the decision until the next meeting; writing the letter suggested by Ms. Colquitt to all property owners restating all pertinent details and emphasizing that the decision will be made at the next Council meeting. She supports vacating the alley and does not believe that it has a public use, but she wants and additional statement of the City's position so the owners realize that the wall is their responsibility. Mayor Adams then asked if that meant holding another public hearing. Ms. Welsch said she is asking for a letter from the staff. She then moved that a letter to residents, explaining all details and ramifications of the situation, be sent to residents advising it would be considered at next month's meeting. Mr. Sharpe seconded the motion. Ms. Colquitt asked that letters be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested. Page 6