Cashmere homeowner seeks nearly $15,000 for sewer repairs as council presses city to help

CASHMERE – Diane Wannschaff told the Cashmere City Council on Nov. 9 that she had spent nearly $15,000 repairing a sewer connection damaged during a city water-line project and was still trying to recover her money four months later.

Her account renewed a disagreement between council members who want the city to take a more direct role and Director of Operations Steve Croci, who said he was following instructions from the city’s attorney and insurer to leave the claim with the homeowner and the contractor’s insurance.

“I didn’t hire these people,” Wannschaff said. “It was damage done by work that was hired by the city.”

Councilmember Jayne Stephenson called for the city to pay Wannschaff.

“I believe that the city needs to do the right thing here and cover the bill,” Stephenson said.

Wannschaff, who owns a house at 91 S. Douglas, said the problem began with a sewer backup. A plumber inspected the line with a camera and found a break about two feet into the paved roadway.

She recalled earlier work on the street, including repaving and an incident in which a fire hydrant flooded the street overnight. When she approached city staff about the sewer problem, she said, she was told the connection was the homeowner’s responsibility unless she could show the damage resulted from the construction.

Wannschaff hired a contractor to excavate the line. She said that work revealed damage she attributed to the contractor hired by the city to install the water line, along with rubber couplings used to repair it. Further camera inspection toward the sewer main revealed two more repaired areas that were out of alignment, she said.

“They weren’t completely broken, but they were offset,” Wannschaff said.

She contended that the couplings were inappropriate beneath a roadway and said city employees saw the exposed damage. Despite that, she said, she paid for the repairs herself.

Wannschaff said she filed a claim with the city and provided information to Croci, but the city’s insurer directed the matter to the contractor. She has since tried to provide the contractor’s insurer with inspection videos and a description of the repair work.

The insurer could not open the video files, she said, leaving her trying to figure out how to submit them in another format.

“I’m just, at this point, I’m very frustrated that I’m still having to deal with this on my own,” Wannschaff said.

Croci did not dispute her description of the events.

“What Diane described is completely accurate. I agree with what she said,” he said.

He said the city’s insurer had tendered the claim to the construction company and its insurance, and the city had been advised to step back.

“I spoke to our lawyer and they said, no, it should be with the homeowner and the contractor’s insurance,” Croci said.

That is commonly the case when it is a contractor the homeowner hired. Wannshaff’s confusion arose from the fact that anyone might think she should have to deal with the insurance company of a contractor she had nothing to do with — one that was hired by the city.

Croci said the city’s contractor had admitted fault and offered a settlement, though it was less than $15,000. Additional video had been requested.

When the council first discussed the claim Oct. 26, Croci described a repair bill of approximately $15,000 and a settlement offer of roughly $7,000, while cautioning that he did not know the exact figures. He said the disagreement involved how much of the repair work was attributable to the contractor’s damage.

That discussion included questions about whether settling around the repaired portion required replacement of a longer section of pipe.

Councilmember Jeff Johnson, participating remotely Nov. 9, reiterated his objection to leaving the homeowner to handle the matter.

“I don’t want to repeat myself, but I feel similar to how I felt last meeting,” Johnson said. “That is that we ought to be dealing directly with the customer and not the contractor.”

Johnson compared the situation to an automobile insurance claim in which an insurer pays its customer and then pursues reimbursement from the other party’s insurer.

Croci said Nov. 9 that he was following the advice he had received.

“The guidance I’ve received from the lawyer and our insurance, it sucks. I would like to just write you a check and be done,” he said.

He said the pipe failed while the project’s performance bond was still in effect, which was why the claim had been directed to the contractor. He also raised concern that a direct city payment could constitute a gift of public funds.

“When we turned it over to our insurance, we lost control,” Croci said. “But that’s what we pay insurance for.”

Wannschaff questioned why she remained responsible for pursuing payment when the damage arose from work commissioned by the city.

“Again, I didn’t hire this contractor. I don’t know why I am having to deal with this on my own,” she said.

The claim has also raised a broader policy question. At the Oct. 26 meeting, Stephenson urged the city to reconsider making homeowners responsible for the entire sewer connection, suggesting that the city assume responsibility for the portion beyond the homeowner’s property beneath the street.

On Nov. 9, Croci said he would work on getting the inspection video to the insurer. The council approved no payment or policy change.

Wannschaff said the expense raised a question extending beyond her own claim.

“And what would a homeowner do who didn’t have $15,000 to deal with that?” she asked. “Just not have sewer?”

Andrew Simpson: 509-433-7626 or andrew@ward.media