Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005 09 26 Public Input Date: September 26, 2005 The following Document was handed out on September 26, 2005 during "Public Input". CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 1126 EAST STATE ROAD 434 WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708-2799 Telephone (407) 327-1800 Ronald W. McLemore City Manager September 22, 2005 Mr. and Mrs. J. Marcum 606 Fisher Road Winter Springs, Florida 32708 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Marcum: As per my September 14, 2005 email to you I have completed my review of your complaint regarding the extension of water service to your home on Fisher Road. Based upon my review of your complaint there appears to be five concerns as follows: 1. The cost proration method. 2. The cost differential between your project and the water extension project involving 612 Fisher Road. 3. The amount of time it has taken to complete the project. 4. Reluctance on the part of the City to extend water service to properties located within the Ranchlands. 5. The requirements for a back flow prevention device. Before responding to these issues I want to clarify one point. It is my understanding that you may be of the belief that paying taxes entitles a resident to water service. This is not an accurate assumption. The Winter Springs Utility is a separate legal and financial entity from the General Fund, and General City Departments. The utility is 100% financed from utility revenues. As such, the utility is not financed from the General Fund or property taxes. Relatedly, the payment of property taxes does not entitle Winter Springs residents to utility services. However, once you become a paying customer of the water and sewer utility you are then entitled to the services offered by the utility. The utility does not pay for the extension of local service lines. These costs are paid by developers when they develop property, or by homeowners who do not have service but who desire to initiate service. The utility does pay for the installation of major transmission lines connecting various neighborhoods to the utility system. JMarcum Water Extension Issue Page I of 5 , . In your case, the developer of the Ranchlands chose not to hook up to the utility many years ago when the Ranchlands were developed. Therefore, when water and sewer services are extended to the Ranchlands, the new customer must pay for that extension. Proration of Cost There are numerous methods for financing the extension of water and sewer facilities to customers who live in areas of the City who do not have service. These methods can include, but are not limited to, equal proration of cost, front foot property line proration of cost, hydraulic flow proration of cost, and many others. Chosen Proration of Cost Method In your case, you chose to enter into an equal share proration of cost method. This is a very simple, uncomplicated and fair method of proration, and one which lends itself to getting residents to share costs voluntarily. I have not discovered any facts to determine that the cost was not equally. shared as you chose. If you would like to have the cost prorated under some other proration methodology, I would suggest that you get with your neighbors and see if you can come up with another method that you can all agree upon and we will seriously consider it as long as everyone is in agreement and our materials cost is fully covered. Amount to be Prorated The other important decision to be agreed upon is the amount of cost to be prorated. In your case the City agreed to pay the cost of design, permitting, and labor. You agreed to pay the cost of materials. This is a highly unusual situation resulting in the rate payers of the system subsidizing your cost. You should consider yourself fortunate to have had this cost saving opportunity . There is nothing unlawful about this approach. Indeed, it was common practice in years gone by. However, in more recent times this practice has been discontinued by most utility departments due to the fact that it causes some rate payers of the system to subsidize the cost of other rate payers. Common practice today is to require new customers to pay the full cost of the extension of service including design, permitting, labor, materials and overhead. You paid $3,200. Under the full cost method you would have paid approximately $10,000. JMarcum Water Extension Issue Page 2 of 5 Differential In Cost From 612 Fisher Road As with your group, the customer at 612 Fisher Road paid for materials cost only. The reason for the difference in cost is that his materials cost was much less than your materials cost. This was due to the fact that he did not require installation of a fire hydrant, and 8-inch water line required to meet fire flow requirements to a hydrant. You did require a hydrant and 8-inch line. Based upon my review, your concern that the customer at 612 Fisher Road may have been given some degree of favoritism over and beyond that extended to you is simply not supported by the facts. Time of Construction You state that Utility Superintendent Don Chaney represented to you that the line extension could be constructed in six to eight weeks. Based upon my review of the facts, Mr. Chaney's representation to you was reasonable. Construction of your line took in fact, 8-weeks. What apparently was not clarified was that time also has to be allotted for design, permitting, construction, and final acceptance of the improvements by the State of Florida. The normal time frame is 8-months as follows: Design Permitting Bidding Construction Final Approval 2-months I-month 2-months 2-months I-month 8-months Your project took approximately 5-months as follows: Design Permitting Bidding Construction Final Acceptance I-month I-month -0- 2-months I-month 5-months I need to point out to you that the State has up to thirty days for final acceptance. We have no control over the time it takes them. Sometimes it takes the full thirty days. Sometimes less. In your case it took 24 days. JMarcum Water Extension Issue Page 3 of 5 . . - . In review of the facts, I have not found anything unusual about the time it took to complete the job other than the fact that the normal time to complete the job was shortened by three months as a result of the bidding phase being eliminated, and design being accomplished in one month rather than the customary two months. It is quite possible that Mr. Cheney did not clarify all the steps involved in the job. If, indeed, that was the situation here, please allow me to apologize to you for that oversight. Reluctance to Extend Service to the Ranchlands This concern was of great interest to me. Since the City utility is benefited by growth, I could not imagine why the Utility Director Mr. Lockcuff or Superintendent Mr. Cheney would have any reluctance to extend water service to the Ranchlands. I found the answer to this concern to be quite simple. Mr. Lockcuff and Mr. Cheney fully endorse extension of the utility into the Ranchlands. What they were reluctant to do, was to tie their forces up doing the work rather than bidding the work out to a contractor. In your case the project was so small it made absolutely no economic sense to bid the job out and probably would not have attracted any bid response from contractors. Therefore, in an attempt to try to help you, they agreed, all be it reluctantly due to their normal work loads, to do it themselves. Back Flow Device In your complaint you allege that Mr. Cheney never advised you that you had to purchase a back flow prevention device. Mr. Cheney advised that he did. I cannot verify who is correct in this situation. If he failed to advise you of this allow me to apologize to you. However, what I do find interesting about this complaint is that Mr. Cheney is the head of the back flow prevention program, and in all matters which I am aware, extremely thorough in his administration of this program. In this case, Mr. Cheney emphatically states that he advised you of your requirement to install a back flow prevention device if you chose to utilize your well for irrigation. In this context, I can see where this could have been misinterpreted to mean, you did not have to purchase a back flow prevention device. Although, the misunderstanding is unfortunate, the law requires it, and you will be required to have it. Conclusion After review of the facts of this matter it appears to me that in light of the almost certain inability to get bids from contractors for your project due to the very small nature of the project, the City utility staff went out of their way to try to help you by utilizing City forces to do the job. JMarcum Water Extension Issue Page 4 of 5 .. J . - .... In doing this, the City should have clearly laid out the project in a written agreement clearly defining the scope of the job, the cost components, and the time line thereby eliminating any misunderstandings. Recommendation The good thing about this type of issue is that it gives us the opportunity to improve. In this situation I will be requiring all future extensions to be done by written agreements clearly pointing out the scope of the job, cost components, and project time lines. Once again let me apologize for any inconvenience this matter has caused you. If you need any additional information please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, ~~V?1J~ Ronald W. McLemore City Manager 0P J cc: Mayor and Commission Kip Lockcuff, Utility Director Mr. and Mrs. A. Buteau Mr. and Mrs. R. Tuttle Mr. and Mrs. S. Weber Mr. and Mrs. J. Scheel Mr. and Mrs. N. Phillips JMarcum Water Extension Issue Page 5 of 5