City cuts $1,128 from private water leak bill

Scott and Vicki Herriott may not have claimed total victory in their appeal of the bill for their massive water leak Monday night at Fairfield City Hall, but were the beneficiaries of a never-before-seen concession on the part of the city.

Councilwoman Susan Silvers made the motion to reduce the Herriotts? water bill by more than $1,000 from $3,628.43 to $2,500, with a two-year repayment plan with no interest. The council approved the motion in a 4-2 vote. Councilwoman Connie Boyer abstained due to a conflict of interest.

Silvers clarified she made a motion to reduce the amount because of the financial burden of the bill.

?As a homeowner, I know it?s really, really fun when you?re fixing up and decorating, but when it comes to maintenance, it?s not so much fun,? said Silvers. ?It seemed like a nice additional gesture, it was a good thing to do.?

Silvers said the Herriotts? bill is the largest in the water department?s memory, and felt the city should show compassion. She did not, however, agree with the premise of the argument the Herriotts presented Wednesday at a Water and Sewer Utilities Committee and again on Monday in an appeal to the full city council.

The couple argued the city should be held liable for the leak because they felt the water department mishandled their request for help in reading their water meter.

Silvers and the utility committee voted unanimously against reducing the couple?s bill Wednesday. The city had already waived the sewer portion of the utility, which would have brought the bill to $8,492.92, and the committee believed that to be enough of a concession.

?We made a decision based on what we could do at the committee level,? said Silvers. ?I was actually glad they came and shared their story to the full council.?

The Herriotts said they noticed a drastic drop in water pressure in their home on Saturday, July 14. They called the water department during business hours on Monday, and asked department personnel if they would send someone to read their water meter.

?They said they don?t send staff to help in that way,? said Scott Herriott.

After searching his yard without finding the meter, he called and asked a different employee if someone could come help him find it, and once again was told the department didn?t offer that service.

Water department superintendent Carl Chandler said it?s not a written policy to take requests to visit homes, but is generally a service the department offers.

?We made a mistake when we said we don?t read meters,? he said.

The department advised the couple to call a plumber to resolve the issue. Vicki Herriott said she did call a plumber, but because their home wasn?t symptomatic of a leak ? no water in the basement or on the lawn ? the contractor didn?t find it necessary to visit their home.

The Herriotts proceeded to go on a two-week vacation, and didn?t discover the leak until Aug. 1. Their private line beneath the water meter had corroded and roughly 400,000 cubic feet of water had exited into Crow Creek.

?We believe we were responsible for the first three days of the leak,? said Scott Herriott. ?We ask the city to assume responsibility for the other 15 days.?

City attorney John Morrissey weighed in before the council voted, emphasizing the homeowner?s culpability for private line issues.

?The two people at the water department probably did misspeak, but that?s an administrative mistake at best,? said Morrissey. ?It is still 100 percent the property owner?s responsibility when it?s on their property.?

Morrissey said he didn?t believe the Herriotts? case would hold up in court. He said in order to prove negligence in Iowa, a plaintiff must prove the other party to be responsible for at least 51 percent of the breach or the plaintiff recovers nothing.

With the number of other avenues the couple could have taken, such as calling another plumber or not leaving town until it was fixed, Morrissey said he didn?t believe the city shouldered 51 percent of the responsibility.

?Reducing the bill to $2,500 and offering the two-year repayment at no interest, I think they?re giving them a couple of plums there,? said Morrissey.

At Monday night?s meeting, Mayor Ed Malloy asked the council, ?Is there any culpability on the city for bad advice??

Silvers couldn?t speak for other council members who voted in favor of reducing the Herriotts? bill, but said for her, it was about compassion.

?The city didn?t concede it was its responsibility,? said Morrissey. ?The decision showed empathy for the burden of the large bill.?