The URL can be used to link to this page

275903 N�HITE - CITV CLERK �� PINK - FINANCE G I TY O F SA I NT PA LT L Council CANARY - OEPARTMENT � �- �^ BLUE - MAYOR F�le NO.� . _�. _ Co il Resol tion Presented By Referred To Committee: Date Out of Committee By Date WHEREAS, Mr. Donald E. Cadwell, the owner of the praperty at 420 Ohio Street had requested that the City contribute to the cost of replacing the retaining wall at his property, and the Public Works Department had recommended that the request be denied; and WHEREAS, The Council, by its resolution, C.F. 272108, adopted November 24, 1978, agreed to the appointment of three arbitrators to hear the matter and submit their recommendations as to the City' s liability; and WHEREAS, The Panel has submitted its findings to the City Council, which findings and recommendations are attached hereto, and based on said findings do not reco�unend that the City contribute to Mr. Cadwell's wall reconstruction; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the City Council, having considered the matter, does hereby concur in the panel's recommendations, and based thereon, does hereby determine that the City should not contribute financially toward the retaining wall reconstruction and that the claim of Mr. Cadwell be and is hereby denied in all respects. COUNCILMEN Requested by Department of: Yeas Nays Hunt �evine In Favor M,ftc�ox t.;,�. M�P�Aaho� � __ Against BY • a' Showaiter Ted iison NDV 4 1980 Form Approved b it A torne Ado d by Council• Date ertified Pass by Cou il Secretary BY t\ppr y 1Navor: Date OV� 6 ��U Approve y or Sub 'ss' Coun '1 By ��'� 1 By � � �st+€� ;��V 1 � 1980 � oM ax: za/is7s , 4 . . - Rev. : 5/8/76 + . _ - . � EXPLAi�1ATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS, � � . RE�tOLU'FIC1N�'�; =ANII '�Rn$NAiVGES w�� . 2'75��3 i : � � Date: Oetober 17, 1980 �tECE � VE � Tp: MAYOR GEORGE LATIMER GGT Z 3 1�$O _ . _ �� FR: R. E. Grieder, Department of Public Works - �� Retaining Wall adjace�t to� City property at 420 OHIO STREET � and request of Mr. D. E. Cadwell for finan,cial assistance from the City for replscement of the collapsed wall. . ACTION REQUESTED: Process Resolution. . , � L PURPOSE AND RATIONALE FOR THIS ACTION: � . - The retaining wall was declared to be. in dangerous aitd hazardous condition, and owaer was oxdered to repair or remove. Uwner claimed that wail was daffiaged during reconstruction of Ohi.o. Street and requested that the City share in cost. Per Resolution C.F. 271082, �he possible.partieipation by the City was: to be . discusPed with the yowner. Prior to any meaningful. discussion, the wall collapsed, � . and re ort from Cit s coasultant indicated that the Citq had no respantsibility. The own.er pursued his clairn, and the Council provided for a hearing by arbitrators , to determine City's Iiability. Findings and recom�endatioas of the arbitratora � recommend no contribution by City. . ' . i , , ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution. . Conclusions of the Arbitrators. REG/mp . � ° • ��11 . � �� CONCLUSIONS OF THE ARBITRATORS IN THE MA'fTER OF A RETAINING WALL COLLAPSE DONALD CADWELL RESIDENCE OHIO STREET, ST. PAUL, MINNESOTA Mr. Donald Cadwell, represented by himself City of St. Paul represented by Mr. Roy Grieder, P.E., Bridge Engineer and Mr. Scott Gilbertson, Acting Maintenance Engineer Before Arbitration Panel: Mr. Robert Pendergast, P.E. :�i selected by Mr. Cadwell Mr. Norvin Ekrem, P.E. selected by the City Mr. Robert McFarlin, P.E. selected by the other two REFERENCES: The following documents may be referred to, for background and information about the development of these conclusions: 1. Transcript of Hearing, April 18, 1979, together with the exhibits of evidence referenced therein. 2. Findings of the Arbitrators, undated. � 3. Memorandum, Re: A Conclusion to the Arbitration, May 28, 1980. SPECIFIC CONCLUSIONS: . -1- . �� `�� A. REGARDING ACTIONS IN 1975. 1. The City's personnel (hereinafter , "City") who performed the inspections in 1975, assumed that the wall was a gravity or semi-gravity type. In fact, the wall was a tied-back or anchored type, but this was not learned until after the collapse. 2. The situation in 1975 should have been very alarming to a professional inspector had he known the type of wall that was actually involved. The degree of tilt and the soil situation behind the wall, constituted an immiment collapse even in 1975. 3. Even if the wall had actually been a gravity or semi-gravity type as assumed, the 1975 situation should have been recognized by the City as being more serious than indicated by their memo of 7/14/75. 4. The City's advice, as to remedial measures, was as follows: Add fill to the area behind the wall where settlement had occurred, and, cut weepholes in the wall. The City ought not give such advice, for two reasons: 1. It brings potential liability on to the City. 2. It is not sufficiently specific for the property owner to perform effective repair. 5. The record is not clear as to whether or not Mr. Cadwell received these recommendations. In any event, he did not rely upon the City's advice. While he did cause a small amount of fill to be placed, he did not take any action in regard to weepholes. Had Mr. Cadwell relied totally on the City's advice, and still experienced the collapse; your panel believes the City's responsibility could have been substantial. But the advice was not accepted, used, or relied upon. -2- ,, . . _ ��`� 6. CONCLUSION A: � While the City's 1975 actions were unwise and risky as to liability, the City has no liability in this case since its advice, if received, was not taken. B. REGARDING CONSTRUCTION IN 1967 1. The City caused, or permitted, excavation to occur very close to the f ront of the wall (photographs provide the evidence). It is clear that the City assumed the wall to be of the gravity or semi-gravity type. 2. If this excavation had damaged the wal! or contributed to its failure, the results would have been either sliding of the base of the wall or tilting of the wall about the base. 3. Tilting about the base did not occur (the tilting involved in the collapse was in a segment well above the base). Also, sliding at the base apparently did not occur. Photographs of the collapse prove the first point, and your panel's extensive examination of the participants prove the second �oint. At least, Mr. Cadwell did not claim that any sliding at the base had occurred. 4. CONCLUSION B: There is no showing of damages caused by the City's 1967 reconstruction of Ohio Street. C. REGARDING VIBRATORY EFFECTS 1. Mr. Cadwell alleged that excessive vibration was a factor in the collapse of his wall and further, that the vibration came fram substantial volumes of heavy truck traffic on the newly-reconstructed Ohio Street. 2. The City presented a professional report which states the opinion that vibration was not a significant factor. This report deals with the effect of vibrations on the wall materials, and not with the effect of vibration on lateral soil presssures. -3- . � . , . �� , �• � � •� " ' • �a�=�'�-�� 3. Mr. Cadwell did not present any expert testimony to refute this report or to further his allegation. With respect to this question, the panel members have individual views, which are presented as follows: a. Mr. Pendegast believes that vibration increases lateral (horizontal) soil pressures in general, and probably did so in this case. He cites references to support this view. b. Mr. Ekrem accepts the conclusion in the Twin City Testing Report noted in (2) above. c. Mr. McFarlin believes that the burden of evidence and proof is on the parties; that the panel is not able to conclude for Mr. Cadwell on this point in the absence of expert evidence from Mr. Cadwell. 4. Mr. Cadwell did on occasion complain about the truck traffic on Ohio Street, which is not a truck route. 5. CONCLUSION C: Although the City should take action against truck traffic on Ohio Street (as on any non-truck route), there is no showing of truck-caused vibration as a factor in the collapse. D. WITH RESPECT 'TO OFFERS OF ASSISTANCE 1. The City Council Resolution, and the comments of several officials, implied that the City would assist financially by a sharing of costs. The City later decided not to share any such costs. 2. Mr. Cadwell claims that this delayed his remedial activities and, in so doing, caused him to incur costs beyond what his cost would otherwise have been. _4_ � • : m : � � - �7�5��...,� 3. CONCLUSION D: Any delay and disruption of schedule, caused by the City's indecision, obviously had an impact on Mr. Cadwell's eventual total cost. This being basically a legal matter, and your panel being an engineering body charged with the technical review of the case; the setting of such amounts, if any, is deemed to be beyond our area of expertise and beyond our charge. Respectfully Submitted ��2��-�� /t/Zj�° Robert Pendergast, P:E. Date M N. Reg. No. �ys''° . � ��/��SO N rvin Ekrem, P.E.(�e}i�� Date MN. Reg. No. la�o Ul�'.�' `� �►`c��.�,.. ��3�+1&c� Robert McF lin, P.E. Date MN. Reg. No. �O4��Z 1 _g_