WA9401-CS 940218 (3)TO: Pete Smith
From: Kenneth M. Griffin, P. E., City Engineer
Date: February 18, 1994
Estimated recoupment of cost associated with the extension or a water line on
East Beltline Road
February 18, 1994
Z have received 'ewed the amended letter from Nicholas, Jackson, D' ar and
Smith, L.L. the City's ability to portion of its co ' n of
L tilities. e City to Cha al Gove ve
402.061 S (a) (1) & (2) pg. 474
402.062 pg.
402.063 p
402.065
402.066
402.06
402.0
I have had to make several assumptions in trying to ascertain the amount of money that the City
could recoup.
1. The Star Gas S tion on the hwest comer Ledbetter an Beltline
wo enh e ex there
The cost for the boring beneath Beltline to Mr. Thompson property on the north side
was excluded from the total cost because it is my understanding that Mr. Thompson
will not be assessed for the construction of the line, but will only pay the regular
connection fees.
Only property on the south side would a benefit of the extension of this water line.
Any property on the noah side would be required to extend the 8" water line back
to the proposed Fairway Dr. They could then take their water service from that line.
Therefore, the noah side gains a very negligible benefit from the extension of this
line.
l ITEM QUANTITY I UNIT COST
8" WATER PIPE ~.4.~E) 2'2-~ ~ L.F. ~. ~,, $25
12" WATER PIPE L I"]~ 1150 L.F. ~J'7 $36
!~L~l~/,t~ S 3 EACH ~g ~ $800
v;p , $ EAcH $50o
AIR RELEASE VALVE '2. 1 EACH '}'~1~ $3000
TOTAL
TOTAL COST
4'~,~ b $41,400
4~,0 $2,400
~1,$~ $3,~.Ly2 3650
I~ $5~
~ $3~
I
. CmENT S
' I ~~ as~ssment ~Hcy, by ordin~ the governing b~y of the mu~cip~ may
~u~
not as~ss morn ~ 9/10's of the esdmat~ cost of improvements ag~nst the benefi~
pro~. ~erefom, the m~imum amount of money, b~ on the above assumptions, ~at the
CiW ~uld r~up would be $1 10,7~ ~[~ ...... ~. T~8 number iq ba~ed on my cstimat~ ~t for
~ imbrovome.~ If ~e cost for the i~;~gme ent up or down ~e ~rcenmge that ~e CiW
~uld r~oup would sffil ~ the ~e. ~~~ S~/o 'o; ~ ~ ~,~; bq,~/o
~e l~ge un~own ass~ia~ wi~ the r~oupment of ~e cost is ~at the City c~ only assess
up to ~e enh~ v~ue to ~e pro~ny. Therefore, while ~ere is ~ es~ma~ m~imum ~at
~e CiW ~uld r~up~ it is sdH un~own how much in atrocity the City could r~up. ~at
mount would be ba~ on ~e app~ v~ue of the pro~ny ~fore ~d after ~e insulation
of ~e wamr ~e.
According to State law, the apportionment of the assessment is on a front foot basis. The total
adjacent footage is ~44~': ........ .2erefore, the total lxa ftn~t cost would be approximatdy
$29.63 32.t6. ~[~F
We recently received prices on the extension of the water line associated with Vail Ranch
Baptist Chu h. The cost for t of water line w ,500. This wo ut to
a' ~proxim 29 L.F. ' n a City bids a e constructi are
hi her. r, usin.g th hove and this .an as t
In summar~ the City can recoup 90 % of the cost associated with the extension of the water line
so long as that does not exceed the enhanced value of the property caused by the extension of
the water line. I have included a copy of Subsection D from Chapter 402 of the Local
Government Code. If you should have any questions please feel free to contact me at 7~
convenience.
The numbers I used to calculate the cost are as follows:
ITEM [ QUANTITY ~ UNIT COST
~,~oo
8" WATER PIPE 2250 L.F. $25
12' WATER PIPE 1150 L.F. $36
8" VALVES 3 EACH $800
TRENCH SAFETY 3400 L.F. $1
PLUG PIPE I EACH $500
AIR RELEASE VALVE I EACH $3000
TOTAL
Plus 1595 $16,050
INCIDENTALS
TOTAL COST
$56,250
$41,400
$2,400
$3,400
$500
$3000
$1 .950
$123,000
x%O
Because this is an assessment policy, by ordinance the governing body of the municipality may
not assess more than 9/10's of the estimated cost of improvements against the benefitted
property. Therefore, the maximum amount of money, based on the above assumptions, that the
City could recoup would be $1 . This number is based on my estimated cost for the
I'~ t&o -
The large unknown associated with the recoupment of the cost is that the City can only assess
up to the enhanced value to the property. Therefore, while there is an estimated maximum that
the City could recoup it is still unknown how much in actuality the City could recoup. That
amount would be based on the appraised value of the property before and after the installation
of the water line.
According to State law, the apportionment of the assessment is on a front foot basis. The total
adjacent footage is 63~0so L.F. Therefore, the total per foot cost would be approximately
$29762.
~ %~ .~ o
We recently received prices on the extension of the water line associated with Valley Ranch
Baptist Church. The cost for 500 feet of water line was $14,500. This works out to
approximately $29 L.F. Typically, when a City bids a project the construction prices are
higher. However, using the assumptions above and this estimated cost, an assessment against
the property of approximately $29 does not seem to be out of line with what the developer of
the property would pay to have the water line installed.
In summary the City can recoup 90% of the cost associated with the extension of the water line
so long as that does not exceed the enhanced value of the property caused by the extension of
the water line'. I have included a copy of Subsection D from Chapter 402 of the Local
Government Code. If you should have any questions please feel free to contact me at your
convenience.