Leetsdale council to review sewage backup
A Leetsdale property owner whose basement was flooded with raw sewage has been asked to submit bills related to cleanup and damage of the Jan. 30 incident.
Borough solicitor Megan Ott told Susan Falcone in a public meeting recently the borough's insurance provider denied covering expenses because the incident is not a liability claim under the Pennsylvania Municipal Tort Claims Act.
But Ott asked Falcone to provide copies of expenses related to the incident for council's inspection. Council members discussed the matter in an executive session during the March 14 meeting.
The basement of Susan Falcone and her husband Michael's Winding Road home filled with raw sewage after, she said, a nearby pipe was found to be blocked.
Among the items Falcone said were damaged include several pieces of furniture, a television, clothing and a pool table. In addition, a restoration company has been on site to clean the property, Falcone said.
She estimated her expenses to be around $10,000.
While asking council members to “do the right thing” and pay her bills, Falcone said previous borough councils — in 2005 and 2008 — paid expenses relating to property damage caused by blocked sewers.
Ott said council members would continue looking into the issue.
Bobby Cherry is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-324-1408 or email@example.com.
Add Bobby Cherry to your Google+ circles.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.