|
Borough approves middle school plan
Not without a spirited debate over fees
By Michael C. Upton
Lititz Record Express
Published: May 01, 2008 10:34 AM EST
Lititz -
The proposed Warwick middle school plan skirted a hurdle Tuesday during the
Lititz Borough Council meeting that might have held up construction for at
least another month.
Ultimately, council approved the Warwick Middle
School final land development plan, but only after spending more than an
hour hearing from engineers, project managers and school administration. At
stake was the school district's ability to begin a process with DEP that
would allow them to award contracts for construction.
"We opened
bids for (construction of) the project this afternoon, and so far they are
looking good," Paul Artelle said. "A little good news to share with
you."
Artelle represented ELA Group, designers of the middle school
and the Warwick campus plan. He presented the plan to council, providing a
refresher of the proposed construction phases and final look of the Warwick
campus. Council had several questions for Artelle concerning aesthetics,
project changes, and everyday operations of the middle school.
The
district requested approval of a final land development plan with two
waivers. The planning commission and borough engineer previously
recommended both waivers. First, the district requested the elimination of
requirements to provide a profile of the proposed water
line.
"There's really no need for profiling," Artelle said. "We're
doing minimal waterline work."
The district also requested a
variance to the borough's street trees ordinance. According to Artelle, the
borough requires a spacing of 60 feet between trees. The campus plan will
space trees 75 to 110 feet apart. Council had no problem agreeing to these
waivers.
Before this presentation, Artelle gave reference to items
that eventually led to some intense debate.
"We recognize there are
some financial issues to work through," Artelle said.
Warwick
business manager David Zerbe broached those financial
issues.
"(Before this evening) we've talked about a number of issues
in regards to some of the financial pieces," Zerbe said. "I've got some
comments I'd like to make on those, and I'm not sure if this is the time or
not."
Council indeed wanted to hear what Zerbe had to say.
"I
do have some objections to some of the fees that are being assessed and
whether or not they are appropriate," Zerbe said.
Specifically,
Zerbe was talking about the borough's tap-in fee for sewer and water
connections and lines of credit for the entire project.
"We are not
in agreement on the tap-in and water fees," council member Karen Weibel
said.
Borough Engineer Darrell Becker of ARRO Group
agreed.
Tap-in fees are assessed on developers by the municipality
to recoup money invested in the extension, upgrade or modification of sewer
and water lines. Tap-in fees based on estimates made by engineers for the
school district varied greatly from estimates made by the borough
engineer.
"We're just asking that (fees be accessed) fairly based
upon accepted engineering practices," Craig Smith of ELA Group
said.
He defended the school district's position and argued that the
borough engineers use of a peaking factor was not common
practice.
"In developing the tap-in fees, we used the same
methodology that we used for Bonfield Elementary," Becker said. "We also
used a 2.0 peaking factor that the (school) district did not
use."
Becker also claimed that his firm's calculation used the
maximum student population of the middle school, 1,052, while district used
the number 800. Both engineering forces debated numbers pertaining to water
consumption and actual and maximum students.
"Wait a minute," Weibel
said. "Are we talking apples and oranges here?"
After a brief
explanation by the engineers, she proclaimed they were.
Smith and
others from ELA stated that a peaking factor is sometimes used for
municipal fees concerning wastewater treatment facilities and plant
expansions. Essentially Smith debated the validity of a peaking factor and
Becker defended it.
Zerbe suggested assessing the value of the
tap-in fee on actual usage recorded over the two to three years following
completion of the project. According to Zerbe, this was done when the
school district built John Bonfield Elementary. The school district was
owed a $60,000 refund for tap-in fee monies paid over actual usage in that
project, he explained.
Zerbe's main point was that he felt that the
school district and the borough share a mutual interest in the project. He
pointed out that the district is not a for-profit developer. He stated that
both parties are tax levying entities and argued that if exorbitant costs
are incurred by the school district, then that cost is ultimately passed on
to the taxpayer. Zerbe requested the borough approve the plan with the
stipulation that tap-in fees will be determined at a later time in order to
move construction forward.
"There's got to be a middle ground we can
take and say, 'we're all in this together,'" Zerbe said.
"The
numbers aside, I'm having a very hard time wrapping my head around the
school district claiming they're not a developer," Weibel said. "Clearly
you are, it might not be for profit, but … you're asking our
taxpayers to take a hit for three different municipalities."
"I
don't agree with that," Zerbe said.
As for Zerbe's second major
"financial piece," a letter-of-credit for the project, he requested that
some form of compromise be attained between the school district and the
borough. He estimated the financing of a letter-of-credit would cost the
district between $10,000 and $15,000. He suggested setting up an escrow
account in the amount of $1,093,557 instead of a line-of-credit. The school
district could ultimately earn interest on this money rather than pay to
finance a guarantee of compensation for potential project non-completion.
Zerbe asked council to consider the fact that the district "isn't going
anywhere."
"We have a sticking point," Weibel said. "I was hoping to
approve this plan before the end of the night."
Ultimately, council
approved the final land development plan unanimously with the stipulation
that discussion will continue regarding tap-in fees. The board also agreed
to allow the school district to place $1,093,557 in an escrow account
rather than establishing a letter-of-credit for the project. The motion
stated that tap-in fees must be agreed upon before council's next meeting
on May 27.
|
