ST8804-CS 881212 (3) COPPELL PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDOM
December 12, 1988
TO: Steve Goram, Director of Publ
FRCM: Howard Pafford, Water Foreman
RE: Water Service Leak at 101 Heartz
On the morning of December 9, 1988, Enos Bramley investigated a
leak at the above mentioned address and found no sign of leakage
on the City's side of the meter. He stated that the flow finder
was showing a sign of leakage on the customer's side. I informed
Enos to turn the water off and leave a door knocker on the door,
due to no one being at the residence at that time.
I received a phone call from Liz Richardson at 1:00 p.m. concerning
that leak. Mrs. Richardson stated that she was watching the house
for her mother (Mrs. Rovillo) while she was out of town. I informed
Mrs. Richardson that she needed to contact a plumber to have the
leak repaired.
Later I received another call from Mrs. Richardson and she stated
that the part of her line that was leaking was under the sidewalk.
I dispatched a crew to that residence to determine what tbe problem
was. By uncovering the water lines around the meter we found that
the meter had been moved at. some point in time and wben the meter
was moved the service line was not moved with it. The discharge
line from the meter was run back toward the street under paving
and the sidewalk. I decided at that point that the City should
make the repair due to the fact that the repair may involve the
removal of the ~sidewalk and possibly the street, and we were also
assuming that the contractor who widened ~eartz Road had been the
one who installed the Service line in such a manner.
Tommy and his crew have made the repair by taking out the excess
line and properly connecting it.
I have now received a call from Mrs. Richardson and she stated that
she felt the City should pay the plumber's bill ($82.08). I informed
her that the leak was on her side of the meter and proper procedure
was for the customer to make the repair. I also explained to her
that the City had made the repair because the portion of line involved
was under paving. She also stated that the City should have never
allowed the line to be installed in such a manner. I told her that
I would call her back today after I had discussed this matter with
my supervisor.
I have returned the call to Mrs. Richardson and had to leave a
message. I will be advising her that I am not authorized to approve
any payment to a vendor who has performed work under the authorization
of a water customer. If her or her m~:ther (Mrs. Rovillo) wishes
to pursue this request it would be necessary for them to file a
claim with the City Secretary's office.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please advise.
HLP/sm