Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aztec commission trims $125,000 infrastructure request to $25,000 for RV-park storm repairs after debate
Summary
After extended debate, the commission approved a $25,000 special budget transfer for storm-drain work tied to a proposed RV park, rejecting a staff estimate of $125,000 and directing city crews to undertake the work if feasible.
The Aztec City Commission on Sept. 23 approved a revised appropriation of $25,000 for stormwater and drainage work connected to a proposed RV park, down from an initial staff estimate of $125,000.
The council spent a large portion of the meeting on the item (account 580-4840-8500), with staff and an outside engineer describing several design options — including two catch basins and alignments that interact with an existing sewer line — and explaining why a contractor estimate had reached as high as $125,000. Staff said the added cost reflected two catch basins, potential sewer conflicts, and design uncertainty. An engineer said the city needs appropriate design to meet EPA and drainage requirements.
Developer Chuck Smith, identified in the record as the owner-developer, told the commission he had already invested in infrastructure work on the site and urged the city to act quickly and economically. "We have an investor here. We've got a developer. We're trying to be business friendly," Chuck Smith said, asking the city to avoid protracted delays for his project.
Several commissioners questioned the reason for the high estimate and argued the city's crew could likely do the trenching and pipe work for far less. Public works staff said city crews could do the work but cautioned they would need materials and could be pulled off for emergency repairs, making timing uncertain. After back-and-forth over scope, design, liability (stormwater currently discharging onto private property), and what should be included in a development agreement, a motion passed to reduce the appropriation to $25,000 and direct staff to proceed as feasible.
The commission directed staff to provide a more detailed, itemized cost breakdown and to proceed with in-house work if the city can meet design and permit requirements. The developer said he was "waiting on you" and that the work delay had stalled his project timeline. The approved $25,000 is intended to buy materials and get city crews started while staff completes final design and any required legal agreements.
Next steps: staff will provide an itemized scope and cost breakdown and pursue construction work within the $25,000 appropriation or return to the commission if more funding or contracting is required.
