OCR Text |
Show Agreement Believed Near In City-Company Dispute Over Upkeep Of Culverts A solution to the question of maintenance of irrigation culverts crossing city streets was believed to be near- this week, as a result of discussions Monday night at a session of the citv council. Terms of a compromise favored by the American Fork Irrigation company com-pany were outlined by Robert Robinson, Rob-inson, attorney for the company, and suggestions on an agreement were advanced by City Attorney O. DeVere De-Vere Wootton. Discussions appeared appear-ed to be on a ground where an agreement might be reached, but some obstacles still remained. Attorney Robinson said that the irrigation company board had reached reach-ed the following conclusions on the matter: 1. The city should assume any damage (arising from culverts crossing cross-ing city streets) not due to the company's com-pany's neglect. 2. The city should appropriate $100 a year to help maintain culverts. cul-verts. 3. The city should assume the responsibility to repair and replace culverts. 4. The city should replace the system of culverts as necessary. 5. The city should pass an ordinance ordi-nance which would enable the company com-pany to enforce their regulations with regard to malicious damage to the system. 6. The company should assume responsibility of keeping culverts and the irrigation system clean. If damages occur because of the city's neglect to keep culverts in repair, that is the city's responsibility; if the damage occurs because of the irrigation company's neglect to keep culverts clean, that is the company's responsibility. Stating that a solution appears to be approaching, City Attorney Wootton Woot-ton emphasized that any agreement should be specific in regard to the extent of responsibility and liability of the city, if the city should agree to accept any responsibility. He insisted, in-sisted, further, that an investigation of the present condition of culverts and the repair necessary to put them in good condition, should be made before any agreement is reached. Attorney Wootton declared that the suggestion' of the company as to assuming responsibilities is vague, and questioned whether the city should assume responsibility of damages dam-ages that it has not had in the past. He reiterated the stand previously taken by the city council, that the city can not assume responsibility for damages on private culverts. This, he pointed out, would entail constant supervision on the part of the city, and collection of damages from property owners by the city would be negligible. He suggested that the committee from the city council and the irrigation irri-gation company make a quick survey of culverts needing repair, so as to calculate the probable expense which would fall on the city on accepting such a proposal. In order to eliminate any future disagreement, he continued, every detail must be worked out with regard re-gard to how far the city or irrigation irriga-tion company are responsible for the repair or cleaning of culverts, and how much one might demand from the other with regard to liability. He suggested that ' the size of streams be determined as a limit, that the company be given the right to change culverts to meet demands of the irrigation system. Repeating the previous proposal that the city and the company share expense of repairing culverts on a "fifty-fifty" basis, Mr. Wootton recommended a complete survey of culverts which are giving trouble. He also suggested that the city and irrigation company attorneys get together to-gether and try to work out a solution solu-tion agreeable to both sides, and to meet Monday, April 3, to discuss the matter further. n |