Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTRUMAN HARP FY-1990 1 do ~U 81991 _ s- 1 U"J ate. / Lle Y l ~ ~_.LG / G . sL G tom! ..,Ql. / ~ l / `n• 464 I t I r OFFICE OF THE CLFY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM ~ TO: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager FROM. Joe D. Morris, Assistant City Attorney \ SUBJECT: Inlet Structure at Truman Harp Residence i X111 DATE: October 30, 1990 We have received you memorandum of October 19, 1990 regarding Mr. Harp's proposal to maka use of the drainage flume to access the ! back of his lot by placing grates over the inlet structure. The grates would be placed and removed by Mr. Harp at his convenience. You ask us to address any liability issues that we foresee in allowing the use. You indicate that the grates will not obstruct the street, but may cause flooding if left in place during heavy rain. You also believe that it is possible someone may accidentally drive up on the inlet structure if the barricade is removed. Assuming these possibilities, there are two potential areas of liability that we would be concerned about. First, if flooding occurs because of Mr. Harp's failure to remove the grates during heavy rains, the city could be held liable for a "damaging" of private property under the Texas Constitution. This is so because the City's duty to maintain its streets and drainage facilities is a nondelegable duty. The fact that the City relies on a private person to perform an act concerning a public function i does not relieve the City of liablity if the person fails to per- form and a third party is injured as a resuit. The second pos'eibility you foresee is that someone could run up onto the inlet if the present barricade is removed to allow for the use of the grates. The City's duty to maintain safe streets is not limited to the travelled portion of the street. It also includes any hazard or dangerous condition in close proximity to the street co that it is foreseeable that someone may be injured by the con- dition in the ordinary use of the street. If it is foreseeable that someone may mistake the flume for a alley or public drive and suffer personal injury, the City could be held liable for those injuries. 1 mown f 1 Rick Svehla October 30, 1990 Page 2 If you have any questions or co=ents about this matter, please call at your convenience. i " i l J p. Norris JDM/lkh 1 inletstroctober 30, 1990 I~ W YeI DENWN, TEXAS MUNICIPAL BUILDING / DENTON, TEXAS 78201 / TELEPHONE (817) 586.8307 Office of the City Manager M E M O R A H D U H TO: Debra Drayovitch, City Attorney FRO:l: Rick Svehla, Deputy City Manager DATE: October 19, 1990 SUBJECT: Inlet Structure at the Truman Harp Residence at 2401 Robinwood f Within the last week, Mr. Harp has again approached us with his proposal to solve an access problem througi. our drainage easement in his back and side yard. As you know, the problem began in 1988 when we were rebuilding Glenwood and the Mistywood drainage system in Mr. Harp's area. Mr. Harp's lot contained a ten foot drainage easement that conveyed water from the area and street in back of Mr. Harp's lot to Robinwood. We i laid pipe under Robinwood which culminated in an inlet in this f easement. The problem for Mr. Harp and the city revolved around u3 needing to build an inlet at the junction of the drainage easement and the street. Some time earlier than 1973, a flume was built in the approximate location of this easement along the southern boundary of Hr. Harp's property. It appears that when that flume was built a turn out was made from it to allow access to the backyard of the Harp residence. Thus, over the years, Mr. Harp used this drainage flume as a second driveway ' to gain access to his backyard. When the project began, we approached Mr. Harp to look for alternatives to this access since there was a need for us to build an inlet. We had already looked at building an underground pipe along this easement and catching the water at the backside of tor. Harp's lot. This alternative was rejected since the cost would have been approximately $35,000. Instead, we had talked to Mr. Harp's neighbor's that adjoined him at the rear of his property about accessing Mr. Harp's property through the easement that existed on the lot adjacent to the 1 i Debra Drayovitch October 19, 1990 Page 2 back of Mr. Harp's property, end we had also suggested an option to access the property on the north side of Mr. Harp's house. Mr. Harp rejected both of those scenarios and said the only way that he wanted access to his backyard was through the existing flume. We then looked at an alternative which would have built a new drive access north of the existing drainage easement which would have connected to the existing drainage easement/flume and allowed Mr. Harp to access his property in that direction. Mr. Harp also rejected that scenario, By this time, Mr. Harp was threatening legal action so we took the item to Council in i Executive Session to ask for guidance. At that time. Council felt that Mr. Harp was being unreasonable since he had rejected all of the alternatives and maintained that his only choice was the existing flume. This access would have cost approximately =35,000 as mentioned earlier. It should be pointed out that the alternatives ranged in cost from $800 to $2,000 - $3,000. The Council reviewed the situation. Since the existing easement met the street, it was determined that there would be j no problem in building the inlet. and since Mr. Harp was not agreeable to any of the alternatives. Council decided to just move ahead with the inlet and still offer funding up to a $1,000 for an alternative if Mr. Harp wanted to pursue that. We conveyed that to Mr. Harp. He did not want to pursue any of the options and said he would be seeking an attorney. Since that time, Mr. Harp has periodically come back to ask if there was another way or if wa could do other kinds of activities. in fact, we again went back to the Council to ask about alternative plans where we would have built a grate inlet along the existing drainage easement at a cost of $12,000 - $14,000 that would allow Mr. Harp to have access. The Council said that they would he agreeable to having those grates built if Mr. Harp wanted to provide the difference in cost between our alternates and his. Again, he declined. After that, he contacted us about his contention that the drainage easement was actually on the southern ten feet of his lot and indeed the flume had been moved northward from the property line approximately four feet, In fact, the easement is along the southern boundary of the property and indeed the flume does extend past the easement onto Mr. Harp's property for two to four feet. It is my understanding that Mr. Harp was advised by the Legal Department that if he wanted to remove several feet of the flume that was certainly agreeable to us. We think the flume was built on a handshake deal between someone in the city and a previous owner somatime prior to 1973. The reason we say that is because there is a line 1 r V 1 Debra Drayovitch October 19, 1990 Page 3 of trees along the south boundary line of Mr. Harp's property, and it looku like the flume was moved to accommodate leaving the trees upon the agreement of the landowner and the city. We have no documentation of this only that the flume was built in one piece and does not look like there have been any changes made to it. In the last several months. Mr. Harp has again contacted us about a new design that he wanted to propose for the flume and the inlet. He advised us that he would be sending the plan. He did this by notifying the City Manager. i,loyd conveyed that message to me. I waited approximately two months for the plan and did not receive it. About a month ago. Mr. Harp came in and asked if we had received the plan. I told him that we had not. He advised that he had sent it in the mail and that he had cn engineering firm here in town do the plan. I said that I had not received it, and I would be happy to talk to the J engineer that drew the plans and get new copy. He advised me 1 that Mr. Russell Bates of the Architectural Collective had drawn a pair of "grates" to allow vehicular traffic to ramp up ; over and back dow:: across the inlet. I contacted Mr. Bates at the Architectural Cbllective: he advised me that he had not had any contact with Mr. Harp and did not know of any plans or conversations to build or design the grates. I contacted Mr. Harp. He said he would be in with drawings and consequently, about ten days ago, brought me a drawing which appeared to be draftctd by him. Essentially, the "grates" , ld very similar to a cattle guard crossing. They would fit ra., top of the inlet and in the flume itself or on top of the inlet and the gutter line of the curb and allow vehicles to cross over the top of the inlet. The problem with these structures is the same as the grates. The do not allow very much water to flow through there. In fact. our engineering Department has done calculations based on the openings in the. drawings that Mr. Harp provided, and the "grates" will allow approximately only 30% - 35% of the water that is now going into the inlet to get into the inlet. Therefore, the structure will not take near is much water as it was initially designed for and there would be further flooding in the street. The second problem we have with the "grates" is the fact that they would then allow vehicular traffic on top of the inles:. The tops of the inlets are only four inches thick. This particular inlet happens to be ten foot long, and this type of inlet design is not used in any load bearing type of application where vehicular traffic would be traveling across the top of the inlet, i.e. we doubt seriously the inlet would be able to handle repeated vehicular traffic over the top of it without collapsing. I I Debra D[ayovitch O-Lobe[ 19, 1990 ' page 4 to contat M[. Harp for the last well days our c I have attempted advise hies of the results Of the calculations sinlet. I was concern about the vehf4:30np.m. today. Mr. Harp was able to 8o that at approximately During upset about our concerns and advandd wehwould Da ssorty, up with us." we were "breaking the law." ieldicated that the "o:otes° would the conve[sa . Mt. wHarp ould only De temporary. He would put they in and take thcm out Only howe when accessing his backyard. umbersome. Also.d we •s illvhaveer. would be quite heavy and c problem of traffic on top of the inlet. My first reaction to 'check this was to check the design question hwas n ift the sthe 1 inlet cot carat traffiu- MY first 9 ord "grates" colollapse, who would be the liabile, guard railn in Mfr nt oft the accommodate this entrance. if the q inlet (street andihetsithe einlet, who is liable nteFinallyflifethe turn around g left in the inlet and it rained and rates were inadvertently flooding resulted. who would be liable. anticipate is As I understand it, the Council did not want to p any options other than the initial sooffers lution.t it might work. However, since this is a temporary and how the Council please advise roceedtbeforeb wet contact Mr. Harp with the final pr wishes us to ? answer,. Rick 4ehl Deputy city Manager RS:bw 5122M i 1 1 i MOW CA ,,2- (F 6-3 II ± -~A 56 3 0,37 = (2)12 t 2(3~ + ~(i~) t 20.33) CIA l0. S r i0e SOUTHWEST INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTORS, INC. ""^MO w 121 Exposition Street cAwuu*ce Ir oAn DENTON, TEXAS 76205 (817) 666.1899 e»rt.lo sr Del FAX (817) 8981096 . O a t v.. gJ f prJe,7,•. i rt . . 1 .a r r i CiTY w DENTON / 215 E. McKinney / Denson, Texas 76201 M E M O R A N D U M T0: Catherine Tuck, Administrative Assistant fRCf•1: Bill Angelo, Director of C i,-m sty Services DATE: Septarber 4, 1990 SUBJECT: TRLMAN HARP COMPLAINT A I have attached fur your review Information related to solid waste billing and a subsequent complaint from Mr. Truran Harp of 2401 Robin- wood. Mr. Harp has discussed his concerns with Charlie Watkins and m7self and is still unhappy with the bill he received for solid waste service. In his last conversation with me, he stated he would be taking this natter up with the City Manager. In his complaint Mr. Harp made several allegations regarding the City's Commercial Solid Waste Division, the most significant of which involved his claim that he was quoted a much lower price for service than he was charged. I have investigated each of his allegations and have found no validity to his claims. I Should you have any questions or camrents on this matter, please let ex; know. BiII Angelo BA/sc IAl/090490051 Attachments I CITY of OIFNTON / 215 E. McKinney Dent°n, texas 16201 MEMORANDUM i ltY Services 8111 Angelo, Director of ComT' T0: ' 1 Solid Wash Dlvts I FROM: Charles Watkins, Superintendent, DATE: August 31, 1990 ~I SUBJECT: COMPLAINT FROM MR. TRl1MAN HARP i s calCustomer Service this week relative to a biding can Customer - 1 received plaint from Mr. Truman Haro fora 30 cubic yard container states that he was quoted $50 per t-"S'~Y b erf tlw cc to r~~' r'dS Mr. Harp rs~ wi~'came y v~h vhlchl he rented from the Litt by the p- dell ~Od.- 410 spoke with Mr. Harp. + the person :n._.;. fee, a ::r n+isor, del ier Vince GaIIegos + Comnerclal Supe There Is a 554 container said he Quoted the rates carrecar9 Vince of $152.70 each time the 552.50-eental fee per 30 days and is emptied. n the container eras emptied ` le present whe the name of Mr. Kam Mr. Harp said there were oter ~tpeoP station. I obtained Bonam said he did l 4.1one. Mr. w1w could verify the $50 per vine y~ was present and spoke to him over and Vince Ivit that athed use of Bowen between Mr. harp he was considering t. ctnveton not hear the cost t sampt the container because n' approximately 5150.00 per emp y how much it cost to empty da15 I felt it was was one himself. Ve said vl ce OihehCam TSmer l rates every Inasmuch as Vince with especially after talking to Mr. Ba+en• unlikely he misquoted, standing of chat the 1 Informed Mr. Harp that 1 was sorry there was a misunder declined to authorized charges vpere but that I felt the charges were fair and changing the bill. Charles S. WaLklns CSWIsc 1W2/083190010 I 1 I • INVOICEREQUISMON Copy BILL TO' TRIJ~AN WP 1630-6402 ~w r,ooo~~Mr Mr~ 2401 RO KY00b $551.16 Amomml TEXAS 76201 CUT CITY SERVICES/SOLID WASTE osm DENTON JUNE 7 1990 an / \ r ii " '^~II►T10M MIT. Mr. Ar01MfY RENTAL FOP. (1) 30 YARD GPEN TOP: $ 7.00 f 4 DAYS a $1.75 ?ER DAY 50.00 DELIVERY CHARGE CHARGES FOR EMPTYING OPEN TOP CONTAINER AS NEEDED: 151.70 6-1-90 152.70 6-1-90 .152.70 6-4-y0 SUB-TOTAL $515.10 7% TAX 36.06 1 $551.16 TOTAL i TMC ABOVE HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND REWMMENDAT10N FOR BIUJNO IS MADE BY THE INIDERSH3NED. lgMA11MK - II Acoou~n+a APMOVU I UT1' AMI~DVAL DIIlCMM OP P MCE APPMVAI _ YAM/OM 151/060190090/7 1 1 CC AIMERCIAL COMMEACIAL afr II JI c PERSON RECEMNOCALL -5~"~gk_ PEI SONREVEMNOCALL •-C4 SERVICE AEOUESTEO BY: , SdF nESTEO BY: 1 NAME C~ PHONE LS_~ n y(j X. PHONE SYrh 'ca C l ADDRESS D /tti~J DATE AODR iSS DATE-V BILLFNO ADDRESS BILLIN 3 ADDRESS TYPE SERVICERECO)CSTED: CCHECKONE) TV FES,R)LEAEOUESTED: tCHEC of 0,4E) NEW SEFMCC -.-__CANCELLAPON NEW SERVICE CANCELlA710N i I -Eff'sPECLAL MKUP COMPLAINT ---!PECIAL PICKUP COMPLAINT OTHER -FNCRlOECR :TREK FIfCNOECA ACCOUNT NUMBER DAYSSERY,CED I - AC"O'JNT l,KR f1 DAYSSEMICfO TYPE CONTAtkER COYTAINfR NO. _ f 1'(PE CONTA).,Wi UST, CONTAINER NO. MONTHLY CHARGE DELY:RYClFG. f"THLYCHA,IGE____+ DEUVSRYClFG, O, ~T ~ I NO.TWESWKSERv. I 2.3 1 S !3 'S"ECIALCHO. ~ 2~_-~ 11O.TWESMSEPV 1 Z 3 55 I -WECI ALC YS- CUST.WIGNATUAE rEtocAil IWST.5K7NATURE Rac"rE - DATE SERVICE RENDEREDANDjDRCCRR90TEL CAA!ESER'/ICfIiENDEffOANO/JRCOfgiECTED__" COMMF,NTS:AND/OR OTHER Ti'; N: CO EIITS ANp/Or, OTHER IMF OAK rITKN1: y SUPERINTENDEP+TAPPROV - it SU'ERNTENDENT APPAOV DA E DATF _ FOREMAN'S SIONATUrtE Llrcu 'I FG EMAKS SMNATUFIE r~ GATE I-_ CIA FIE -jg! I ' ' COMMERCIAL Ji 1 ' t I ~ I V I ~ PERSON RoiCEMHG CALL .~L. SERVICER30UESTE08Y: _~D J/// l PHONE 7(~ V NAME SERVICE ADDRESS DATE {P I I II i &LItNOACDRESS TYPE SERV CE REOUESTED. ICHECKONEI / YEW SERVICE CA.VCELLAT*N i _SPECIAL PICKUP` COMPLAINT E OTHER tN--R1DECA ! I{ ;ZCOVNT NyMAER DAYS SERVICED TYPE OONTAJNER • COHTAWER W. ' MONTHLY CHAAGE pEL.NERY C?IQ yj. f NO.TIMESWKSERV. 2 3 S S Q. •SKCULLCHQ 2~ ~~TLRAE RELOCATE I DATE SEPMERENDERED ANDfORCORRECTED ~ ~ i COMMEN'S.- AND/OR OTHER INFORMATPOW I E I i SUPS Al NISN DENT APPROVAL I_ DATE I - t ~r - !234L NO. C%0- 00~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DENTON ESTABLISHT.NG RATES FOR , RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SANITATIM COLLECTION SERVICES AS AUTHORIZED BY CHAPTER 12 OF 7AE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF pKy'TON; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. I THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY CF DENTON HEREBY ORDAINS: SECTION I. that the charges for reaidential garbage collection sarv cee as authorized by Section 12-19(b) of Article II of Chapter 12 of the Code of Ordinances is hereby established in the amount of Nine Dollars and 39/100 (=9.39) fcr each individual family unit for a thirty day period. i SECTION II. 1h3t the charges for commercial and institutional garbage co ection services, established to accorda-ace with Section 12-20 of Article III of Chapter 12 of the Code of Ordinances, are hereby amended as follows: A. DUHPS7fR5 Cubte Yards Kate Collected Per Week Per 30 Days 1-3 e.42 4-6 6.53 7-10 6.28 11-25 6.15 26-50 6.10 51-100 5.93 101-125 5.68 126-150 5.59 151-175 5.33 176 or more 15.16 B. OPEN TOP CONTAINERS AND COMPACTORS Type of Rent Container Per 30 Days Service Charge 20 cubic yard open top 39.53 5.09 per cubic yard 30 cubic yard open top 52.50 5.09 per cubic yard 40 cubic yard open top 57.75 5.09 per cubic yard 12 cubic yard compactor " 87.15 5.09 per cubic yard 15 cubic yard compactor 89.25 5.09 per cubic yard 20 cubic yard compactor 115.50 5.09 per cubic yard 25 cubic yard compactor 115.50 5.09 per cubic yard 30 cubic yard compactor 157.50 5.09 per cubic yard 42 cubic yard compactor 1176.40 15,09 per cubic yard l► newecustomersefor open00topecontainersrandlc mpactors. to all SECTION III That this ordinance shall become effective . imme ate y upon its passage and approval. , I PASSED AND APPROVED this the day of 1990. I I I , I I E ATTEST: - i APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: DEBRA ADAMI. DRAYOVITCHs CITY ATTORNEY 8Y: 1 f PAGE 2 C044FRCIAL "ROLL-OFF" RATES 1990 EFFECTIVE JANUARY 2, 1990 A $50.00 delivery fce is to be charged to all new customers. OPEN TOP RENT COST CONTAINERS PER 30 DAYS PER PULL 20 cu. yd. $ 39.53 $101.80 30 cu. yd. 52.50'. 152.70 + 40 cu. yd. 57.75 203.60 RENT COST COMPACTORS PER 30 DAYS PER PULL 12 cu. yd. $ 87.15 $ 61.08 15 cu. yd. 89.25 76.35 20 cu. yd. 115.50 101.80 25 cu. yd. 115.50 127.25 1 30 cu. yd. 157.50 152.70 42 cu. yd. 176.40 213.78 (Cost per pull = $5.09 x c/y size) i 1ST2S99316 (Rev. 1/2/90)