Cashmere council questions sewer-line responsibility after contractor damage claim

CASHMERE — A disputed sewer repair bill has prompted Cashmere City Council members to question who should maintain sewer connections beneath public streets and how involved the city should remain when a contractor working on its behalf damages a resident’s property.

The Oct. 26 discussion ended without a change in policy or a resolution of the claim. But council members raised concerns about the city’s responsibilities to the homeowner, the handling of repairs and the division of costs between residents and the city.

Director of Operations Steve Croci said a contractor installing a waterline on South Douglas damaged both a homeowner’s side sewer and the connection between the house and the city’s sewer main. The contractor repaired the line during construction, but the homeowner later experienced a backup and uncovered a problem with the repair, he said.

According to Croci, the city referred the homeowner’s claim to its insurer, which passed it to the contractor and the contractor’s insurer. He said the contractor’s insurer accepted responsibility for damage but disputed the amount of the repair bill.

Croci described a bill of approximately $15,000 and an offer of roughly $7,000, while emphasizing that he did not know the exact figures. He said the disagreement involved the extent of the work attributable to the contractor’s damage.

The discussion included questions about whether replacing a longer section of sewer line was necessary because of settling around the repaired portion. Croci said his understanding was that the homeowner believed the damage required more extensive replacement, while the contractor questioned responsibility for the entire bill.

Croci said the city’s insurer had directed the city to leave the settlement discussion to the homeowner and the contractor’s insurer.

Council member Jeff Johnson questioned whether that approach adequately addressed the city’s relationship with its residents.

“The customer’s relationship is with the city. It’s not with our contractor,” Johnson said. “So I get it’s not fun to be the arbiter in the middle, but I think we need to be.”

Johnson distinguished between paying the claim and helping manage its resolution. He said the city should remain involved in communication with the homeowner because it had hired the contractor.

“We should be dealing with that customer and managing that relationship, which is not to say the city should necessarily pay, but we need to be in that loop,” he said.

Croci said he was following the insurer’s guidance and did not want to complicate an ongoing claim. He said he had not yet consulted City Attorney Julie Norton because he hoped the insurance process would resolve the matter, but indicated he could speak with her.

The claim also renewed a broader question raised by council member Jayne Stephenson: whether homeowners should remain responsible for the entire side sewer connection, including the portion beneath a public street.

Stephenson urged the city to reconsider that division of responsibility, suggesting that homeowners maintain the portion to the street and the city take responsibility beyond that point.

Croci said the city’s current approach makes property owners responsible for their connections to the main. He also described other side sewer problems the city had encountered, including damage associated with fiber installation and a failed repair.

The discussion acknowledged that municipalities can take different approaches to the portion beneath a street. Council members also raised questions about the costs of assuming responsibility and whether other utility customers should pay for blockages caused by an individual household.

A request to compare practices in similar cities did not result in a formal direction to staff. Mayor Jim Fletcher asked council members to consider the issue and let him know their thoughts.

Council members also questioned construction inspection and whether inadequate compaction around a repair could have been detected. Croci said inspections focus on critical work and that continuous observation of every part of a project would require additional expense.

No ordinance amendment or payment was approved. The council left open both the broader question of sewer-line responsibility and the city’s role in helping a homeowner resolve damage attributed to its contractor.

Andrew Simpson: 509-433-7626 or andrew@ward.media