Mayor Pro Tem Carter and the Riedel City Council referred a long-running drainage complaint on 590 View Avenue to the city attorney on a 3-0 vote after neighbors described repeated property damage and urged immediate repairs. The referral directs staff and legal counsel to investigate liability, maintenance responsibilities and potential remedies.

The council considered a staff report explaining that the original house at 590 View was built between 1940 and 1956, before incorporation, and that additional homes were added later through a 1983 lot line adjustment. City staff said records of conditions tied to that lot-line action are not immediately available and that common subdivisions often require owners to construct sidewalks and related infrastructure.

Residents urged faster action. “The ongoing drainage problem on View Avenue has reached a point where it’s causing serious damage, not to our just to our property, but to our neighbor’s homes as well,” said Laura Berry, who described eroded yards, damaged fencing and a compromised garage foundation at 591 Pacific Avenue. She asked the council to “work with us to find and implement a real solution,” saying temporary sandbags are an inadequate, hazardous fix.

Samuel Barry, who lives at 590 View Avenue, supplied written testimony from a former long-term owner, Dario Primifore, that states flooding has been an issue “from 1961 to 2017” and continued to the present. Barry said neighbors have spent thousands on temporary protections and asked the city to act to preserve property values and safety.

City Manager (staff) told the council the city’s preliminary legal view is that the city does not currently have an obligation to correct the particular defect. The manager recommended, and the council agreed, that the city attorney evaluate potential liability, maintenance assignments, and any feasible corrective steps. Council members and public works staff noted that what appears to be a simple asphalt berm could nonetheless trigger design, slope and right-of-way questions that may require engineering review.

After discussion the council moved and passed a motion to refer the matter to the city attorney for further briefing and to return to council with options; the motion carried 3-0.

The city manager and public works staff indicated that, if the city attorney recommends further action, the next steps could include a preliminary engineering review to estimate costs and identify funding sources. Council members also asked staff to consider how the pending sanitary sewer evaluation study might relate to any proposed drainage work.

The city attorney’s review will be agendized for a future council meeting; no construction or corrective work was authorized at Tuesday’s meeting.