Extension policy stumps waterworks

In analyzing a unique situation, Creston Waterworks discussed changing an internal water main extension policy to help accommodate the revitalization of local development.

Although no change was approved, the discussion showed the many difficulties which come from revitalizing local properties. The conversation discussed whether Creston Waterworks has a responsibility to support local development.

If a property line is not connected to one of Creston Waterworks’ water main pipelines, the responsibility of paying for a contractor to extend the water main would remain with the developer as opposed to the utility.

The justification for this is to avoid putting projects which only affect a limited number of residents on the burden of taxpayers. Other maintenance projects would see more focus which affect a wider number of residents.

The utility noted this policy works for any active development extending city limits but doesn’t work as well for revitalization. In a few areas of the city where revitalization is active, the policy has been a difficult roadblock for development.

As one example, 617 N. Pine St. is a property being revitalized by the Union County Development Association. When the property was originally demolished, the water main was disconnected. A main would need to extend from nearby pipelines in order to reconnect the property. After the extension was made, the utility would take care of any repairs.

UCDA’s goal is to convert the parcel into two homes, but in order to revitalize, they would need to reconnect the water main. As the waterworks’ policy stands, UCDA would have the burden of paying an estimated $12,000 to $15,000 for a contractor to reconnect the line.

General Manager Steve Guthrie noted how changing the policy would help the local community but also said the balance of managing development and burdening taxpayers would be hard to strike.

Board member Mark Eblen said the difference between revitalizing a property and new development could warrant a change in policy.

“I got a different feeling in this,” Eblen said.

Melissa Driskell was in favor of the policy change, saying it’s a chance to improve the local community. She was supportive of the revitalization, saying UCDA is a part of the community and operating without a mind for profit.

“This is a unique situation,” Driskell said. “I think we’re trying to clean up the area.”

Although he agreed the policy change in this instance would benefit the community, board member John Tapken was hesitant on changing the policy. He worried about raising rates on utilities due to projects which could come from changing the policy.

“If we make an exception once, where do we stop?” Tapken said. “It can go on and on and on.”

Distribution Manager Justin Davis suggested keeping any extension project in-house, which could lower costs for a developer instead of searching for a contractor.

Guthrie showed other properties which would fall into revitalization in which a change in policy would leave the utility the burden of extension. The board was less in favor of a policy change for those properties, especially considering the higher expenses they would require for an extension.

These alternate examples showed the difficulty in changing policy. Guthrie said any change in policy would need specific language and other restrictions such as a development timeline in order to be cautious.

Driskell looked ahead when saying she was supportive of the policy development. (Driskell abstained from voting on a policy change due to a potential conflict of interest.)

“Looking forward, down the road, to better our community - and I don’t care whether it’s tomorrow or 10 years from now - I feel like, being a builder in this community, we hit roadblocks all the time,” Driskell said. “It would just be nice if someone was willing to help out our group.”

Before the policy change went to a vote, which would ultimately remain as is, Guthrie lamented the difficult situation.

“There’s no good answer here,” he said. “We’re not going to have an answer tonight; it’s not easy.”

In other waterworks news...

Payments for the utility’s water main improvement project were sent for this monthly round of applications. The following were approved:

- $144,355.28 to United Utilities for their work in Uptown Creston

- $81,008.05 to C & J Conservation for work on Cherry Street

- $191,168.50 to Crane Construction for work on Mills Street

Creston Waterworks also approved payment for a lead service line replacement on Cherry Street for $1,672.

The utility says construction will continue into the winter for as long as weather isn’t affecting the work.