Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 06/29/1965• MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE WATER BOARD HELD JUNE, 29, 1965, AT 4:00 O'CLOCK P.M. IN THE OFFICES OF FISCHER, FISCHER AND BEATTY. Present: President Ward Fischer, Mayor Harvey Johnson, Acting City Manager Stanley CasO, Director of Public Works Adam Fischer, Water Superintendent Eddie Hilgenberg, Secretary John Bartel and Vice'Prissi:dsnt Frank Ghent. Also present was Architect William Robb. At the June 24, 1965 meeting of the City Council, Attorney Gene Fischer advised the Council that he and Mr. Psi +e had for sale 2 213 shares of Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal Co. capital stock, 21 shares of Mountain and Plains stock and some New Mercer Ditch Co. stock. This offer was referred to the Water Board for their recommendation. Motion was made by Vice President Frank Ghent, seconded by Secretary John Bartsl, that the recommendation be • for the City Attorney to purchase the Pleasant Valley stock at the prevailing price of $2,400.00 per share and the Mountain and Plains at $100.00 per share. The New Mercer stock is not warted qt this time. The following letter received by the City Engineer was read at length: FRONTIER FIRE PROTECTION, Inc. June 15, 1965 The City Engineer Fort Collins, Colorado Door Sir: This is our purchase order to you to install an 8" Water Line from the 10" Water Line on the north side of Mountain Avenue to the property line for the Fire Sprinkler System for the Fort Collins • Coloradoan. Please install a tee in this line at the property line with a 21" outlet for the plumber. • Please advise when you can make this connection. Very truly yours, FRONTIER FIRE PROTECTION, INC. /s/ Herbert S. Tower William Robb, Architect, stated this size tap was recom- mended by the National Fire Protection Assn. The City Engineer stated he felt this was in excess of the size needed for the new building. After discussion, motion was made by Board member Frank Ghent, seconded by Mayor Harvey Johnson, that the Board's recommendation be to grant the request for the 8" tap for fire protection and 2V tap be metered, if the City Engineer feels these sizes are justifiable. Mr. Gary Haxton, Secretary of Parkwood, Inc., appeared • at the request of the Director of Public works. The following communication was read at length: Stanley R. Case Interim City Manager June 28, 1965 Re: Reimbursement to Subdividers for long and oversize utility installations. As you directed the department has considered the refer- enced matter, and respectfully offers the following comments and observations. Ordinance Applicability The following quoted sections of the City Water Ordinance deal with the question. Section 41, Water Mains -- payment of costs. • When water mains are extended, the property owners bene- fited thereby as determined by the City, shall pay all costs of said extension for mains 6 inches in diameter together with nece- ssary valves, hydrants, and other appurtenances. For mains over 6 inches in diameter when required by the City the water utility shall pay the following percentages of the totai cost of the w extension of such mains. 8 inch mains 20% 10 inch mains 30% 12 inch mains 40% 14 inch mains 55% 16 inch mains 65% The percentage of costs to be paid by the City of mains in excess of 16 inches, shall be determined by the City Council upon recommendation of the Water Board. Section 42. Extension of mains in, to a All water mains required to serve a platted subdivision, including cross connecting mains, shall be installed at the cost of the subdivider. the subdivider shall install mains to the farthest point or points of his subdivision. Section 43. Extension of mains -- reimbursement. When a subdivider finds it necessaty to bring water service from the existing water system through vacant property to his platted subdivision, or construct lines on the perimeter of said subdivision the subdivider shall pay the Bost of the original construction. The size of themains shall be determined by the City and where the required mains are larger than 6 inches, the water utility shall pay the percentages of cost as set forth in Section 41. At the time of annexation, or as the property abutting such water main is developed, and connections are made to the said water main, the City may collect a charge assessed in relation to benefit to the affected property, based upon the original construction cost and if so collected shall reimburse the original subdivider to the extent of the collection so made, In no event,shall the actual amount so paid to the subdivider by the City exceed the orinal costs to the subdivider of the excess extension. Section 44. Extension of mains -- expiration of reimbursement right. The subdivider's right to reimbursement under a water main extension contract shall not exceed a period of ten years from the date of the execution of said contract and all payments shall cease at that time regardless of the amount that has at that time been received by the subdivider, unless, upon the recommenda- tion of the Water Board, the City Council shall approve a contract exceeding ten (10) years. The department's brief interpretation of the important parts of the sections would be as follows: 1. In Section 41, the City, without question, has assumed a definite responsibility for the cost of constructing water mains in sizes larger then 6". In the case of a 12 inch main as is being constructed by the Parkwood Developer, the City is definitely committed to pay 40% of the total cost of the construc- tion. Presumably it would cost 40% more to construct a 12 inch main. Although no precise procedure or time factor has been in- cluded in the section, it is inferred that such oversize costs will be paid to the developer in cash and will be paid at the time that the main is constructed. 2. The ordinance is not equally clear and concise in describing the developers responsibility with respect to the construction of a 6 inch water main. Read alone, Section 41 would seem to place the total responsibility for construction of a 6 inch water main on the developer. Section 43, however, indicates that in certain situ- ations a developer should be reimbursed a portion of the cost of installing even a 6 inch water main. Essentially, such reimburse- ment would be made when, in developing a tract of ground, a developer finds it necessary to bring the main across a tract of undeveloped ground which will later be served by it. The under- lined sentence of Section 43 above ... "At the time of annexation, or as the property abutting such water main is developed, and con- nections are made to the said water main, the City may collect a charge assessed in relation to benefit to the affected property, based on the original construction cost, and if so collected shall reimburse the original subdivider to the extent of the collection so made." ... is the most important part of the section. This section provides for an assessment, over and above any other asses- sment provided for in the ordinance. Such assessment to be charged against such an undeveloped tract of ground as a part of the plat- ting procedure. 3. Section 44 places a time limit of 10 years on such reimburse- ment, except that provision is made for Council to grant an exten- sion Past City Policies Generally the Cityls policy in the past has followed along the line set forth in the present ordinance. Three similar situa- tions acted upon by the Council in the past are offered below for background. A.) In December, 1957, the Council entered into an agree- ment with Darrell T. Blake, Robert S. 01veritt and Highlands Develop- ment Corporation, regarding the construction of a combination 12 inch and 10 ihch sanitary sewer South on Stover from Pitkin to Stuart and East on Stuart to Cherokee, to serve the Indian Hills development. The agreement also provided for the construction of the present lift station on Prospect. Under the agreement the developers advanced to the City $10,000.00 for the construction. The City agreed thatnaimbursement • would be made by relieving lots as they were developed in Indian Hills Subdivision (First ilingO. subsequent Indian Hills Subdivisions and "such other lots within the City limits as are designated..." • by the developers, of the 1¢ per square foot sewer connection charge that was being made at the time. A record was to be kept of these and the procedure followed until the entire $10,000.00 had been repaid. B.) In October, 1964, the Council entered into an agreement with SEB, Inc. and Woodward Governor Company to share in the cost of constructing a 10 inch sanitary sewer main on Lemay from a point immediately North of Spring Creek, South to a point approxi- mately 800 feet North of Drake Road. Under the terms of the agree- ment the City agreed to pay $0.54 per foot for the 10" V.C.P. sewer line that was installed (the total cost of the line was $3.94 -- the $0.54 therefore represented a percentage of about 13.7%). On the some line was a section of 10 inch steel line which crossed Spring Creek. The City agreed to pay for this section of line the difference between an 8 inch steel line and a 10 inch steel line. The contractors respective bids were $1,690.00 and $1,852.00 or about 9.6% additional for the 2 inch increase in size. Without setting forth any specific amounts the agreement provided the City would collect an additional assessment from other properties bene- fited by the @ewer, when they developed and would use this special assessment to reimburse the developers for the entire cost of in- stalling the line. C.) In July, 1964, the Council entered into an agreement • with William E. Franz to share in the Bost of constructing a 6 inch water main and an 8 inch sewer main from a point on Taft Hill Road West across approximately 250 feet of property outside the City to the West Lake Street Annexation. The agreement was very nebulous. It stated that the lines were of excess size and that the City would pay the oversize ... but did not specify the sizes or the percentage of City Responsibility. It provided that the sub- d1vider would be reimbursed for constructing the lines across the 250 foot strip outside the City ... but did not specify the amount, manner or time period in which this would be done. Conclusions It has been the policy of the City in the past that developers will be relieved of the cost of constructing oversize mains. It is clearly intended that this policy should be continued in the writing of the present ordinance. The section of the ordinance dealing with this aspect of utility installation seems to quite clear, fair and simply a matter of implementation. It has also been the general policy of the City in the past to relieve a developer of the cost of extending a main along- side or across a tract of undeveloped ground that will, as develop- ment takes place, be :served by it. By a variety of methods, agreements have sought to pass this eventual cost on to the undev- eloped land. This procedure is entirely proper. An arrangement of this nature, in the wording of our present ordinance, places a charge" in relation to the benefit to the affected property". The one quarrel the department would have is that neither past agree- ments or the present ordinance are explicit in describing the • manner in which this is to be done. It is our feeling that a firm policy should be established and that future agreements should be revised to concisely spell out that policy. Several points are important, and are listed separately as follows: 1.) An exact and detail final tabulation of the cost of every such installation should be made a part of the agreement. In pre- paring the agreement the City Attorney should have available a certified cost breakdown of the completed project. 2.) Each individual situation should be studied by the City Manager, City Planner and City Engineer and a realistic appraisal made of the benefit which will be derived in the future by the un- developed properties being crossed. In the case of raw ground, this assignment of comparative benefits can ordinarily be related simply to the length of line within the boundaries of the affected proper- ties. But there would obviously be exceptions. In instances the length of line may be exactly the same through two undeveloped properties and yet the amount of ground subject to development far greater in one than in the other. 3.) Having made a detail appraisal of the percentage of the cost which should be passed on the tract or tracts of ground being • crossed the calculations should be included as a part of the agreement with the original developer. 4.) Reimbursement of utility costs should be made a part of the cost of platting the undeveloped ground. The City should accept no responsibility for making any part of the reimbursement from existing or expected City funds. While it is proper that the undeveloped properties pay their share as subdivision takes place it should be the original subdivider (who is demanding the ser- vices), that gambles such subdivision will occur. When subdiv- ision does take place the reimbursement should be collected on q lump sum basis during the platting stage and kept entirely sep- arate from water tap fees and the like. Such an assessment re- presents an original construction cost for which the developer is responsible and has no direct relationship with the plant invest- ment fee of our ordinance. 5.) The time limit (for making such reimbursement) as estab- lished in the ordinance should be made an intregal part of every agreement. Recommendations The City Attorney be asked to draft a standard agreement form incorporating the above thoughts, which could be used in all sit- uations of this nature. • Note: The applicable sections of the sewer ordinance are, for all • intents and purposes, identical to the water ordinance. A stand- ard agreement fom should be broad enough to include both types of utility installations. /sl C. Adam Fischer Public Works Director. After considerable discussion, motion was made by Mayor Harvey Johnson, seconded by Vice President Frank Ghent, that the letter of the Director of Public Works be accepted and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney and the City Engineer to prepare a standard workable agreement that would be adaptable to all oversize utility installations, after drafting a form, the matter be referred to the Water Board for study before accepting. As mentioned in the Public Works Director's letter, the City is obligated to pay the 40% of the total cost of construction on to 12" mains, however, the Board's recommendation is to withhold pay- ment until a standard form is prepared. The total cost of this 12" extension by Parkwood, Inc., is $15,186.502 City's share 40% or $6,074.60. There being nothing further to be brought up at this time, the Board adjourned. ®creta