Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sewer Service Charges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council continues sewer service refund appeal, requests CAO/CLA report
Summary
After testimony from a homeowners association and legal staff, the council continued consideration of a sewer service charge refund appeal and requested reports from the City Administrative Officer and the Chief Legislative Analyst, setting a later date for further action.
The Los Angeles City Council continued action on Item 12, an appeal by the Northridge Heights Homeowners Association seeking refunds for alleged sewer service overcharges, and requested a report from the City Administrative Officer (CAO) and the Chief Legislative Analyst (CLA).
Christopher Westoff, assistant city attorney and general counsel to the Department of Public Works, told the council staff’s recommendation was to grant a refund but to limit retroactivity to one year from the claimant’s first contact with the city, citing the city charter’s one-year statute of limitations on claims. Westoff said staff had already extended the usual municipal-code adjustment (30 days) and used the one-year limit in the charter when calculating refunds.
Dan McCombs, representing the Northridge Heights Homeowners Association, told the council the association discovered the overcharges after a broken water meter and said overpayments went back “3, 4 years at least that we could find.” He urged fuller restitution.
Councilmembers debated fairness, the limits of city authority and whether additional cases may exist. Several members criticized past inspection and notification practices and called for a written report. Councilmember Reyes moved for a CAO/CLA report; the council voted to continue the item and request those reports, approving the continuation 9-3. The council later scheduled further consideration for Dec. 11 to allow the requested reports to be prepared.
The actions on the dais did not adopt a final refund formula; instead the council directed staff to provide written reports and continued the item so the council could consider broader recommendations and any additional cases revealed by the review.
