HomeMy WebLinkAbout730728.tiff RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, heretofore and on July 18, 1973, by Resolution, the
Board of County Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado, did adopt
a Uniform Fee Schedule, marked Exhibit A, for utility installations
in County road rights of way, and
WHEREAS, it has come to the attention of the Board that said fee
schedule is misleading, and/or ambiguous in certain respects, and
WHEREAS, the Board has re-assessed the County's position
relative to such fee schedule, and has determined that it would be in
the best interest of the County to revise same.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of County
Commissioners, Weld County, Colorado, and it hereby directs that
the aforementioned Uniform Fee Schedule, marked Exhibit A, be
cancelled and held for naught, and that Amended Uniform Fee Schedule,
marked Exhibit A, is hereby adopted and shall be in effect as of
12:00 o'clock noon, September 26, 1973, and shall continue to be in
effect until further order of the Board.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and
seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 3rd day of October,
A. D. , 1973.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
/4
54A �
ATTEST:
ro
e ounty. k and Recorder
and Clerk to the Board
Deputy County Clerk
APPRO D AS TO Fzcat1\7/Ii__
,e/Z1/01) )1. Yi--e--The
County Attorney
730728
thi/4 I/PI b.G
EXHIBIT A
AMENDED UNIFORM FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE
USE OF COUNTY ROAD RIGHTS OF WAY FOR
UTILITY INSTALLATIONS IN WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
For all utilities, regardless of installation, permit fee shall be based
upon trench width as follows:
Trench Width Permit Fee
Up to 6" . 015 per lineal foot
7" thru 12" $0. 03 per lineal foot
13" thru 24" $0. 06 per lineal foot
25" thru 36" $0. 09 per lineal foot
37" and above $0. 12 per lineal foot
Minimum permit fee will be $5. 00.
For all non ferrous pipelines installed in road rights of way a suitable
facility shall be installed with the pipeline to facilitate future pipeline
location.
Service taps (residential) included on line expansion permit shall not
be included in fee.
Service taps on existing facilities shall be considered at the minimum
fee.
Encasement where facility parallels right of way line and encasement
is suspended from or attached to a bridge or drainage structure shall not
be included in total.
Where boring and encasement is required across a county road from
private rights of way to private rights of way all charges shall be based
upon $0. 01 per inside diameter inch of the encasement pipe per lineal foot
installed across county road right of way.
The Board of County Commissioners may at their discretion wave
permit fees where any facility is being moved and reinstalled at the county's
request or any repairs on an emergency basis or any other reason in the
opinion of the Board warrants their action.
The above fee schedule and conditions do not relieve any utility company,
its agents, contractors, or personnel of any conditions outlined, or duties
required as specified in the utility permit required.
DATED: OCTOBER 3, 1973
44
41.1 OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PHONE(303) 353-2212 EXT.221,222& 223
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY,COLORADO 80631
�e 15 August 1973
COLORADO
Board of County Commissioners
Weld County Courthouse
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Gentlemen;
I am writing this letter to you to further explain and reemphasize our
position on the resolution adopted on Utility,_PerMif felts. I am in receipt of
a letter addressed to Mr. R.E. Rimer of Mountain Bell from a Mr. Brian M. Bell
attorney (copy enclosed). A copy has been forwarded to Mr. Telep for his perusal.
In his letter Mr. Bell makes it understood he is opposed to our fee schedule
as explained in Exhibit "A". He is off the opinion that the fee schedule is to be
a source of revenue for the county. Mr. Bell states that they (Mountain Bell) would
not be opposed to an inspection fee. When in truth this is part of what the
Utility Permit fee was designed to cover.
When we originally discussed the permit fee each one of you realized our
obligation to the public utilities in the aid of protecting the public utilities
underground physical plant and the safety of the traveling public both during and
after construction of their facilities.
You not only realized our obligation to them, but you have in your wisdom
adopted the Utility News Letter sent weekly to aid then. I think it is safe to
say that tou have sallied the utility companies many thousands of dollars and man
hours in this manner. Although not documented, I am sure no one from any utility
company will deny this service you provide for then has saved many service
interruptions.
I feel our Utility Permit fee, although the title is different, is another
attempt by the Eoard of County Commissioners to further serve and protect the
physical plant of the utility companies by providing more inspection and better
records for then.
The manner in which the permit fee was designed was an attempt on our part
to equalize and apportion an inspection charge in a fair and equitable manner.
WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
HARRY S.ASHLEY
GLENN K.BILLINGS
_ ROY MOSER
Basically we have designed a small permit fee for a small expansion and a
large permit fee for a large expansion. You cannot be more fair than that.
In Mr. Bell's letter he states the county may "reasonably regulate such use"
of public read rights-ef-way. I feel that the Utility Permit fee and its adoption
by the Board of County Commissioners is in this vein.and can therefore be used
with assurance.
Sincerely,
B n . Ewing
Dire or of Public Wor
2
Denver, Colorado
August 8, 1973
Mr. R. E. Rimer
Room 102, 601 E. 18th Ave.
Denver, Colorado r
Re: Weld County, Colorado, Resolution Regulating Installation _
-- _-~~-of--Underground-Utility-Liness =in=C"ounty-"-Road-Righ-ts--of_.Wa:y_"
'At your request, I have reviewed the above Resolution by they
Weld County Board of County Commissioners as well as Exhibit4
'A attached thereto.
The fifth paragraph of said Resolution states that "the Board
is vested with the authority to issue or withhold permits and"-‘' . ..
to impose conditions upon utility companies relative to instal- •
lation of their utility lines within county road rights of way. "
Although it is true that the county is vested with authority-
to reasonably regulate the use and occupancy of county roads by
public utilities, it is not true that the county has authority "
to deny permission for a public utility to occupy the county ,
road rights of way such as is implied in the aforequoted para-
graph.
Public utilities in this state have a statutory right -to occupy
the Public road rights-of _clay-in_this-state for their utility
- purposes and-=st€c _ cupancy-is ₹sot at the- pleasure of-the-county_ -=
nor is" it- within die'power' of- the county to deny or prevent such
occupancy, although the county may reasonably regulate such use
so that the occupancy by the public utility does not unreason-
ably interfere with other uses of the roadway.
Such reasonable regulation_ by the county could include the
inspection of public utility—facilities -to insure that they are _
not constructed in such a manner that they unreasonably inter-
fere with other uses of the roadway. It is permissible for the
county to charge a fee which is reasonably related to its costs
incurred in making such inspections. It is not permissible,
however, for the county to utilize a fee system the cost of
which is unrelated to the cost of said inspections and is actu-
ally a taxing or licensing provision levied upon public utili-
ties.
It does not appear that the fee schedule set forth in Exhibit ''A"
attached to said Resolution is reasonably related to the costs
Mr. R. E. Riemer
August 8 , 1973
Page Two
incurred by the county in making inspection of facilities, but
rather appears to be a fee extracted from the utility for the
privilege of using the roadway. If it is in fact such a fee,
this Company would resist the payment thereof since it has a
statutory right to occupy the roadway and is not so doing at
the pleasure of the county. A fee schedule which is based, for
exam_ple, upon an hourly cost incurred by the county in making
its inspections if ureasoriabTy related-to'-its---costs--incurred--in-�--------- .---- .
making those inspections would be permissible.
If you need further comments or clarifications regarding the
Resolution or Exhibit "A" please let me know.
t
Very ly yours,
Brian M. Bell
Attorney
Hello