COUNCIL PONDERS SEWER CHALLENGE.

Byline: Sonia Giordani Daily News Staff Writer

City officials met in closed session Tuesday to discuss whether to appeal the record $2.293 million fine imposed after state regulators found them liable for an 86-million-gallon sewage spill.

City Attorney Mark Sellers said officials still believe they have a strong defense - that the main sewer pipe ruptured not because of negligence but because of a series of intense storms that brought a ``tsunami-like wall of water'' crashing into it.

``There are a number of issues the council is looking into before it can decide whether to appeal,'' Seller said. ``The council is not ready to make that decision yet.''

The city has 30 days to appeal Monday's unanimous decision by the Los Angeles division of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Judy Lazar, the only City Council member to testify during Monday's nine-hour hearing, said she was disappointed with the ruling, and that it was made very quickly without much discussion by the board.

``This is an enormous fine to be levied on the city. It's going to be passed on to the residents and it's just not right,'' Lazar said.

The $2.293 million fine would cost each of the roughly 112,000 residents $20.47. The money could come out of the general fund, but also could be generated by raising sewer fees.

And while the city has a strong defense, Lazar said she also is concerned about spending more money on legal fees for an appeal. The city already has appropriated $500,000 for its legal team, headed by former U.S. Attorney Robert Bonner, plus $100,000 to retain private attorneys for Councilwomen Linda Parks and Elois Zeanah.

``I personally would not support an appeal - first, because of the legal cost. They are mounting very quickly,'' Zeanah said. ``And second, the board's decision (Monday) gave no indication that a higher-up agency would think any differently.''

At the heart of the board's decision was the city's rancorous, two-year debate over how to fund a $75 million expansion of the Hill Canyon Wastewater Treatment Plant. Members of the state board said city officials knew for years that the sewer pipe was at risk, yet did not make the appropriate repairs.

But city attorneys said the pipeline was never deemed to be in need of emergency repair. They also said the line could not have been replaced before the El Nino storms even if the City Council unanimously approved funding for the expansion in 1995.

Sellers said officials also were concerned that the state's ruling could affect a separate federal investigation of criminal liability for the pipeline's break.

But Martin Levine, a law professor at the University of Southern California, said the state and federal investigations rely on different standards of proof.

``It's a different procedure entirely. The (state agency's public hearing) was into a civil matter to determine the monetary damage and they are enforcing state law. The federal grand jury meets in secret, it hears testimony from federal agents and ultimately will decide whether to bring a federal indictment against the city,'' he said.

In the meantime, city crews are working 12-hour days, six days a week, to replace the city's main sewer line. It is scheduled to be completed by Nov. 2.