Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Liability Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ross council confirms nuisance-abatement costs for 61 Shady Lane after contested hearing
Summary
After a contested hearing with the property owner and outside engineers, the council confirmed town expenditures to abate a sinkhole at 61 Shady Lane and authorized a special assessment. The council said causation was a separate civil matter and the only issue before it was reasonableness of the town’s abatement costs.
The Ross Town Council confirmed town expenses associated with abating a sinkhole at 61 Shady Lane and directed staff to record a special assessment after a multi-hour hearing that included testimony from geotechnical and civil engineers.
Public Works Director Rich Simonich summarized the abatement timeline and the town’s expense spreadsheet. He said the town had pursued notice and repair with the property owner since January 2023, issued a notice to repair, obtained a court abatement order in October 2024, and then contracted emergency work to fill and stabilize the hole ahead of a heavy-use holiday.
Property-owner representatives and an outside civil/geotechnical engineer, introduced as Mr. Raines, disputed the town’s characterization of responsibility. Raines told the council his field inspection and review of utility maps showed groundwater and a hollow connection into old sewer pipes likely caused the subsurface erosion. “In my opinion, the whole problem was caused by the sanitary district, and the sanitary district is responsible for it,” Raines said.
Representatives for the owner also criticized the town’s abatement technique, including the town’s decision to pump concrete into a void whose destination was not fully known, and said some repair steps described in Miller Pacific’s reports (tree-root protections and other measures) were not followed during the emergency abatement.
Town staff and the town attorney said those causation questions and potential claims against the sanitary district were separate civil matters; the council’s legal role in the hearing was limited to confirming whether the town’s abatement costs were reasonable and should be assessed against the property. The town attorney noted the court that authorized the abatement had encouraged the owners to file claims against the sanitary district if they believed it to be responsible; that separate litigation remained pending.
Council members expressed differing views at the conclusion of the hearing, but a majority found the line-item costs in the town’s expense spreadsheet reasonable. The council voted to adopt the draft resolution confirming the abatement costs and directing staff to record a special assessment pursuant to Ross Municipal Code section 12.20.160 and California Government Code section 38773.5. Because Councilmember Robbins had recused herself from this item, the recorded vote on April 3 was three ayes, one no, and one recusal; the motion carried.
What the vote does and does not decide: The council’s action confirms the town’s cost recovery for the emergency work and does not adjudicate causation or bar the property owners from pursuing claims against other parties. Staff said the abatement cost total was updated since an earlier hearing to remove attorney fees and to add a late invoice from a consultant, Miller Pacific.
Next steps: Staff will record the special assessment against the property as directed by the resolution; any separate civil claims regarding causation or third-party responsibility remain in court or would need to be filed by the property owners.
