Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Works Sewer Refund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues sewer-service refund appeal, asks CAO/CLA for report after homeowners testify of long-running overcharges
Summary
Council members debated a refund request by Northridge Heights Homeowners Association and continued the item to request a report from the City Administrative Officer and City Clerk/CLA; the council voted 9-3 to continue to Friday and later set a continuation to Dec. 11 with requested reports.
The Los Angeles City Council continued consideration of an appeal from a homeowners association seeking retroactive sewer-service refunds, and asked the City Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA) to prepare a report on the matter.
Christopher Westoff, identified on the record as assistant city attorney and general counsel to the Department of Public Works, told the council staff's recommendation was to grant a refund limited to one year from the first date the claimant contacted the city. Westoff described the city's legal constraint as a statutory limitation in the city charter and municipal code, saying staff had already extended relief beyond a narrower administrative adjustment by using the city charter's one-year statute of limitations.
Dan McCombs, representing Northridge Heights Homeowners Association, told the council the association had been paying excess sewer charges for "years" and asked the council to allow broader retroactive refunds. McCombs said the association first learned of the potential overcharge after a landscaping contractor raised concerns following a broken water meter and internal plumbing inspection; the claimant contacted the city promptly after discovery.
Council member debate focused on whether the city should make refunds retroactive to the "date of discovery" or limit refunds to the one-year lookback recommended by staff. Some members called the overcharges an equity issue and argued the homeowners should be made whole; others said legal limits in the charter and municipal code constrained staff and the council's ability to award broader retroactive relief without additional analysis.
Action and next steps The council voted to continue the item to the next Friday and requested a CAO and CLA report; the roll-call recorded a 9-3 vote on the continuation motion. Members later agreed, with concurrence, to carry the matter forward to the next available council date after the recess (the transcript records the continuation to December 11). The CAO/CLA report was requested to "put everything on the table" and clarify the legal and procedural options.
Clarifying details recorded in the meeting - Staff recommendation: grant a refund limited to one year from the date of first contact between claimant and city (Christopher Westoff). - Legal basis cited: city charter's one-year statute of limitations (referred to in discussion as "charter section 3.15" by participants). - Municipal code: staff said code provides administrative adjustment for 30 days; staff took the additional step to use charter one-year lookback. - Plaintiff's claim: association staff said the overcharges extended "3, 4 years at least" based on their review.
Ending Council members asked for a written CLA/CAO report to be ready by the Friday continuation and then set a further continuation to Dec. 11 to allow time for the requested analysis. No final refund determination was made at the meeting.
