New Search
Maintenance of existing lines also fall within these guidelines. A private property owner wishing to repair <br /> their private utility line is not allowed to do this at the expense of a CITY asset (the tree). <br /> This is similar in concept to the difficulty encountered if there was two separate utility lines close together <br /> and one in need of repair. The people repairing the one would take extra precautions to avoid damage of <br /> the nearby line, or if that couldn't be avoided, they would be responsible for the cost of repairs or <br /> relocation of the nearby line. <br /> In the case of maintenance by City crews we are much in the same boat. There is an expectation that we <br /> hold ourselves to the same or even higher standards than that we impose on the property owners. In <br /> concept, I personally don't object to this. I believe we should always be doing an analysis of the <br /> comparative value of the assets we impact when performing maintenance activities. Then after doing the <br /> analysis, choosing the maintenance /construction design /practice which has the least cost impact to BOTH <br /> of the assets (trees and sewers) impacted. I realize from some of the comments I've heard that some feel <br /> this community has gone overboard on the issue of trees. That may be so, however, the public sets the <br /> standards and priorities from which we as public employees are required to approach our work.. <br /> We do have the ability to waive these requirements. However, due to the repeated number of political <br /> consequences we have faced from such actions, it is unlikely that we will be eager to do so very often. <br /> thanks <br /> Johnny <br /> Page 2 <br />