THE CORFGRATION OF THE GH OF PENT COQUITLAM
; oe

The Public Works Committee wishes to have a thorough
discussion on this issue with Council In Committee.

ITEM IZ

Re: Policy for Refund of Water Impost

As Council is aware, developers are required to pay
$300.00 for each residential unit created which is intended to
be spent for future upgrading of the watermain system. Past
practise has also been that where it is necessary for a developer
to extend a watermain to reach his property from some distance
away, he has been required to do this at his own cost.

It has been pointed out that this is a form of double
impost in that the developer upgrades a portion of the City
System as well as paying for future upgrading. It has been
suggested that where a developer is required to extend a water-
main beyond his property, the cost of this extension be refunded
to him from his impost up to the maximum limit of his total
impost. The Public Works Committee wishes to know whether
Ccuncil will consider such a refund policy.

A specific example of the effect of such a policy
would be Walter Mitt's apartment proposal on Atkins. His tdal
impost for future watermain construction would be $7,200.00.

He is also required to extend an @-inch watermain for 120 feet
beyond his property in order to connect to an existing watermain.
The cost of this extension would be $3,000.00 and if Council
decided ‘to approve a refund policy, $3,000.00 of his impost
money would be refunded after completion of the work.

Respectfully submitted,

~~.
tt -
PLE. Peters, P. Eng.,
City Engineer
for Public Works Committee.