Discussions

It looks like this will be brought up by Errol Black at this evening's final council meeting of 2009... It would be interesting to hear peoples' thoughts on the general topic as well as what ways the City might be able to help.  
 
-----------------  
 
The motion reads as follows (I've removed homeowner names and specific addresses):  
 
That Adminintration develop procedures for residents/citizens who are caught in anomalous situations that result in damages to their homes through no fault for their own to receive assistance from the City of Brandon in their efforts to get their claims processed and obtain redress due them in a timely and expeditious manner.  
 
Justification  
 
In recent months we have had two situations arise in the East End which have revealed gaps in the service/assistance we give to homeowners who are caught in anomalous situations that result in them having to deal with diverse and sometimes major costs – direct costs arising from a particular incident or series of incidents such as expenditures for clean up and repairs of affect areas of their residence: increases in insurance premiums or, in the event insurance is denied, devaluation of their property: indirect costs arising from the impact these situation have on people’s health and well being.  
 
(1) 13th Street East  
 
Homeowner moved into her residence on 13th Street East in 1990. She was not aware that previous residents at that address had experienced problems with sewer back ups. She did not experience any backups until 2006.  
 
In September 2006 her sewer backed up. Homeowner paid to have her basement cleaned up. She filed a complaint and a claim with the City but was advised that the City had done its “due diligence” and, therefore, had no liability in the matter. In the discussions she had with people in the area and people “in the know” she concluded that this was a one off event – as she puts it, “just one of those unfortunate things.” Ted Snure, City Engineer at that time, advised her to get a back-up valve. She did not take the advice.  
 
In May 2008, her sewer backed up again. Once again she cleaned the basement up and the City denied any liability. This time homeowner paid $1,500 to get a back-up value installed. The valve was installed in May 2008 and serviced at the end of January 2009. In the spring of 2009 homeowner was advised by her insurance company that her residence would no longer be insured for sewer backup. She checked with other companies to see if they would provide such insurance. However, she was denied coverage because she was a high-risk even with a back-up valve in place.  
 
In October 2009, her sewer backed up for a third time despite the presence of a back-up valve. She filed a complaint and claim with the City. This time the City acknowledged the legitimacy of her complaint and has initiated action to remedy the problem.  
 
When we discussed this situation at a City Council meeting, the issue of due diligence came up. Mr. Ted Snure, now Director of Development, indicated that the concept of due diligence had two dimensions, namely, a legal dimension and a practical dimension. In most situations the standards of due diligence relate to the maintenance and repair of infrastructure in accordance with prescribed standards. However, conditions change and when the frequency of sewer backups or similar events increases it becomes apparent that something more needs to be done beyond what has been done in the past. This is what is happening now. I would suggest that perhaps there is also a moral dimension that comes into play in situations such as the one experienced by the homeowner. The issue that needs to be addressed is: should homeowners be obliged to cover the costs they incur when they experience frequent sewer back-ups for which they are not responsible?  
 
(2) Russell Street  
 
Homeowner's problem arose as a consequence of the development of a new park in the area bounded by 1st and Russell Streets, Rosser Avenue East and the C.P.R. tracks (the old Imperial Oil and Dave Weiss properties). The City hired a consultant to design the park and provide specifications. Subsequently, a contract was issued for the construction of the park. One of the unintended impacts of the construction was a change in the terrain adjacent to homeowner’s property that created drainage problems, namely the diversion of water that had previously gone down Russell Street and onto Pacific Avenue into her yard and on into her basement.  
 
In the homeowner's situation the City acted quickly to remedy the problem by restructuring the a portion of the block to divert water coming down the east side of Russell to the West side and on down the street to Pacific Avenue.  
 
However, the flooding experienced by the homeowner destroyed appliances, furniture and carpet in her basement. She filed a claim with the City, but the City concluded that the fault lay with the deign engineer and the construction company that has built the park and referred her claim for redress and compensation to them. The City has been trying to expedite the processing of her claim but so far without success. The problem that faces the homeowner is that because she’s a homeowner of modest means she does not have the wherewithal to replace her appliances, furniture and rugs, and get the basement properly cleaned up. Nor does she have the means to go after the design engineer and the construction company. She is, therefore, left in the lurch. The question that concerns her is: what happens to her if the City’s efforts do not result in her getting proper redress and compensation?  
 
Summary  
 
I would suggest that these two examples (and I hope I have done them justice) demonstrate that we do have a gap in the services/assistance we provide citizens who are caught in anomalous situations. Quite apart from the out-of-pocket costs they incur and the worry and stress they experience when they try to get redress, they feel let down by the whole process and the City’s role in it. I don’t know what the solution to this problem might be. However, I think the issue merits a careful analysis by the Administration and recommendations as to how we might improve our services in these situations.  
 
-------------------