03/02/05 Beard to Patrick/Utility ReimbursementCroswell Greemwod
Cr--
March 2, 2005
Mr. James Patrick
City of Kalispell
312 First Avenue East
Kalispell, Montana 59901
Re: Mountain View Plaza / Utility Reimbursement
Via: Certified / Return Receipt US Mail
Dear Mr. Patrick:
This letter is in reference to previous discussions with the city involving the
reimbursement of utility expenses at Mountain View Plaza. Your predecessor, Chris
Kukulski, and your Public Works director, Jim Hansz, were involved in the discussions.
I have attached a Report to the city dated October 2e, 2003 referencing the
recommendation to reimburse Mountain View Plaza in the amount of $11,650. I am sure
Mr. Hansz can fill you in on the details.
With this letter, I am requesting payment of the $11,650 be made to Mountain View
Plaza, LP. This will be accepted by Mountain View Plaza as the city's full and final
settlement. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. It's been a real pleasure.
Sincerely,
Stan Beard
For Mountain View Plaza, LP
Cc: Scott Deskins
Rich DeJana
2121 SAGE STE. 290 HOUSTON TX 77056 713.266.9200 • 713.266.9278 fx www.crossgreen.com
vl,�*W• -
, A,dl vU�!
/sue
City of Kalispell Public Works Department
Post Office Box 1997, Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406)758-7720, Fax (406)758-7831
l
REPORT TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: James C: Hansz, P.E., Director of Public Works / City Engineer
SUBJECT: Work Session for Mountain View Plaza Utility Reimbursement Request
MEETING DATE: 20 October 2003
BACKGROUND: The developer of Mountain has once again requested reimbursement of utility
installation costs related to this development. Nearly one year ago we reviewed utility
installation related information provided by the developer and engineer for MVP and reached the
conclusion that the cost of increasing the size of a portion of the gravity sewer main (2,330 LF)
from 8 inch diameter to 12 inch diameter is the only cost that should be reimbursed. This matter
was discussed in detail nearly a year ago with the City Council, with the developer participating,
and the result was a commitment by the Developer to submit additional new data that would
support their request for greater reimbursement. After many months of delay the MVP engineer
finally provided information.
We have thoroughly reviewed this "new" data and concluded that it is a re -submittal of
the previous data with no new information to support their claim for reimbursement. Frank
Castles' analysis is attached. His conclusion is the same as the one we reached last year; the only
eligible area of reimbursement is the City -directed over -sized of part of the gravity sewer. The
new data does not include break-out numbers for this work. However, the earlier information for
the project included cost estimates for 8 inch sewer and 12 inch sewer. Using the numbers
prepared by the developer's engineer and the installed length of the oversized portion, Frank has
calculated that our obligation to MVP is no more than $11,650.00. There is no justification for
additional engineering expenses. All other utility costs are clearly the responsibility of the
developer and were necessary to meet the needs of his project based on requirements set by his
project tenants, Home Depot. These requirements are more strict than the City requirements.
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that this amount, $11,650.00 be forwarded to MVP as
full and final settlement of all developer's claims for utility reimbursement.
FISCAL EFFECTS: Expenditure of system development funds (growth related expenses) from
the Sewer Fund in the amount of $11,650.00 for the cost to oversize 2,330 linear feet of sewer.
ALTERNATIVES: As suggested by the City Council.
Respectively submitted,
Ja4ne C. Ha-nsz, P.E.
Director of Public Works
October 20, 2003 Utility Reimbursement Request From MVP Developer.doc
C-Qx� A -X"'
Chris A. Kukulski
City Manager
City ofKalispell Public Works Department
Post Office Box 1997, Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406)758-7720, Fax (406)758-783 t
MEMORANDUM
10 October 2003
To: Jim Hansz, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
From: Frank Castles, P.E., Assistant City Engineer
Subject Mountain View Plaza Water Line and Sanitary Sewer Main
I have reexamined the documentation for the referenced water line and can find no
technical reason for reimbursement to the developer for the installed 12" diameter water
mains. It is clear in the Design'Report of March 27, 2001, that,the fire flow requirement of
2,250 gallons per minute at a residual pressure of 50 psi was established by Home Depot
and not the City of Kalispell. The fire flow and residual pressure required by Home Depot
is only provided by one 1211 diameter water main from FVCC to the southwest corner of the
development. The 2,250 gallon per minute fire flow at 50 psi cannot be met by a 10"
diameter water main. The sizing of the water main was based on the more restrictive
requirement from Home Depot. The minimum fire flow residual pressure required by the
City of Kalispell was superseded by the Home Depot requirement.
The looping of the fire line along the West side of U.S. Highway 93 from the northwest
comer of Grandview Drive and U.S. 93 to the southwest corner of the development was
required under the PUD Agreement. This is a requirement of the PUD Agreement and is. \
not a reimbursable cost to the developer. The fire loop had to be the same diameter as the 62
main line.
It appears from the construction plans that the 12" sanitary sewer line laid at a minimum
grade of 0.22% from FVCC to Station 34+99 was dictated by the terrain between these
points. Excessive pipe insulation fill would have been required for an 8" sanitary sewer line (�)
1�;d �+ thn m;n;rnnrn rr nela of n A00/
Further research within the files indicated the City requested the developer to upsize the 8"
sanitary sewer line to 12" from Station 34+99 to Station 58+29 (the end of line) as shown
on Sheets C3.26 through C.3.28 of the record drawings for the referenced project. Had the
sewer line not been upsized upstream of Station 34+99, the installation of the 8" line at a
minimum grade of 0.40% would have required about the same excavation volume as the
installed 12" line.
It has been my observation` ..d experience that the excavating ma: _very utilized for
sanitary sewer installation has used a 36" wide bucket for trench excavation for gravity
sanitary sewer lines 12" diameter and less. The excavation cost for installing the 12" line is
the same as the excavation cost for installing an 8". line. The upsizing cost to upsize the 8"
line to a 12" line should be limited to the actual difference in the material cost for the pipe.
There could be a premium placed on the labor costs of installing the 12" pipe as the 12 pipe
is heavier and would take more effort to install. An examination of the file indicated that
the designer estimated the cost difference between 8" sanitary sewer pipe and 12" sanitary
sewer pipe at $5.00 per foot: Therefore, reimbursement of the cost difference from an 8"
sanitary sewer to '12" sanitary sewer between Station 34+99 and Station 58+29 would be
recommended. This would be 2,330 feet of sewer line at a $5.00 per foot cost yielding a
total cost of $11,650.00.
There should be no reimbursement for engineering or construction observation for upsizing
the 8" line to 12" as the design effort and construction effort is the same for these gravity
sanitary sewer lines.
The recommended reimbursement for this project is $11,650.00