 Damage
is estimated at $1,700, with $700 to $800 of that amount
out-of-pocket for materials.
Streets Superintendent Tracy Jackson said it is possible that
further damage could occur with the type of repairs needed.
Jackhammer use has been known to break windows, loosen facade and
more when used around the old buildings.
April Doolin came before the council to discuss the matter. She
said that her husband, Patrick, the building owner, would rather
have been there, but that he was out of town on business.
She relayed that the insurance company's investigation identified
the cause for the parapet falling as due to a lightning strike that
turned the mortar to powder; then a heavy rain one week later pushed
the facade of the building over the edge. The insurance company
identified it as an "act of God" and had paid them in full for the
damage to their building.
Some of the damage to the city property actually occurred later
at the hands of a private contractor during the cleanup phase.
She said it was her understanding that the insurance agent
requested a bill from the city identifying them as responsible for
the damage to the city property, and then the request was put in to
the insurance company, but that the request to the insurance company
was denied.
Their insurance agent told them he would meet with the city
officials to discuss the matter.
City attorney Bill Bates said that he and Jackson were at that
meeting with the insurance agent. "It was a short meeting," Bates
said. The agent came in and said, "Our insurance is not liable;
we're not paying for anything, no matter what."
Alderman Buzz Busby said to Doolin, "As the owner of that
building, I don't think the city is liable for it (the damage to the
city property). It came off of your building. It's no different than
if you were in a car accident and no car insurance. You still have
to pay for it if it's your fault. You're at fault for that going
down and not taking care of that building."
[to top of second column] |
Doolin disagreed. She said that their insurance company did not find
them liable, and it was not because they did not maintain their
buildings. In fact her husband had been up there on the roof just
weeks before with the roofing guy because of some leakage. He had
just seen that area, and the problem was not there then, she said.
Doolin was supported by Aldermen Verl Prather and Marty Neitzel.
"They've done amazing things to the buildings downtown," Prather
said. "I appreciate what they've done; it's a nice office. We're
always talking about helping businesses out around the community,
try to keep them going and about attracting business. Let's just get
the sidewalk fixed."
Neitzel compared the incident by saying, "If Wanda's tree fell on
my house, her insurance would not pay because it was an act of God.
I'm with Verl; let's fix the sidewalk." There is questionable damage
caused by the contractor, she added.
Bates added that the insurance agent did say, "Mr. and Mrs.
Doolin were not negligent in any way; therefore, they were not
responsible for the damages." Therefore, his company was not going
to pay.
Discussion led to sending the contractor a letter of liability
for the damage that they caused. That portion of the damage is
estimated at over $300.
Jackson would like to press the contractor for their portion. He
observed that it is a weekly problem with contractors not taking
responsibility for damage to city sidewalks and streets, such as
when making sewer repairs. It would make it difficult for his
department to let this one go; the next might say, "You let somebody
else get away with it."
[Jan
Youngquist] |
