Payment for City Utility Easements

In California they would be required to under the State Constitution and Code of Civil Procedures. Even if the landowner wished to donate the easements, there is a process that is required, including determining the fair market value for highest and best use and making an offer to the landowner. I am sure this varies by State.

I didn't know that. Thanks! Does anyone know if Texas has this too?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

I think the CA rules are different when the request is made as part of a subdivision approval process. It sounds like your project is approved and the request is being added at the last minute?

that sounds like fun. first thing i'd do is figure out how and when they got there. because requiring a dedication constitutes, on some level, a taking. however, that may well be mitigated and/or complicated if the sewer lines are servicing- or will service- the servient estate.

your suggestion of a fee waiver is probably the best kind of practical solution available. i'd probably float that out to all interested parties and hope for the best.

Here are some excerpts from the California Government Code, although this process is covered in other areas of the law as well. BajaOR could be correct with regards to dedications required as part of the subdivision process. Not sure what the term "Final Plat" means in Texas? Hopefully a Texas member, and there are many, will respond with specific information to your circumstance:

7267.1. (a) The public entity shall make every reasonable effort to
acquire expeditiously real property by negotiation.
(b) Real property shall be appraised before the initiation of
negotiations, and the owner, or the owner's designated
representative, shall be given an opportunity to accompany the
appraiser during his or her inspection of the property. However, the
public entity may prescribe a procedure to waive the appraisal in
cases involving the acquisition by sale or donation of property with
a low fair market value.

7267.2. (a) (1) Prior to adopting a resolution of necessity
pursuant to Section 1245.230 of the Code of Civil Procedure and
initiating negotiations for the acquisition of real property, the
public entity shall establish an amount that it believes to be just
compensation therefor, and shall make an offer to the owner or owners
of record to acquire the property for the full amount so
established, unless the owner cannot be located with reasonable
diligence. The offer may be conditioned upon the legislative body's
ratification of the offer by execution of a contract of acquisition
or adoption of a resolution of necessity or both. The amount shall
not be less than the public entity's approved appraisal of the fair
market value of the property. A decrease or increase in the fair
market value of real property to be acquired prior to the date of
valuation caused by the public improvement for which the property is
acquired, or by the likelihood that the property would be acquired
for the improvement, other than that due to physical deterioration
within the reasonable control of the owner or occupant, shall be
disregarded in determining the compensation for the property.
(2) At the time of making the offer described in paragraph (1),
the public entity shall provide the property owner with an
informational pamphlet detailing the process of eminent domain and
the property owner's rights under the Eminent Domain Law.
(b) The public entity shall provide the owner of real property to
be acquired with a written statement of, and summary of the basis
for, the amount it established as just compensation. The written
statement and summary shall contain detail sufficient to indicate
clearly the basis for the offer, including, but not limited to, all
of the following information:
(1) The date of valuation, highest and best use, and applicable
zoning of property.
(2) The principal transactions, reproduction or replacement cost
analysis, or capitalization analysis, supporting the determination of
value.
(3) If appropriate, the just compensation for the real property
acquired and for damages to remaining real property shall be
separately stated and shall include the calculations and narrative
explanation supporting the compensation, including any offsetting
benefits.
(c) Where the property involved is owner-occupied residential
property and contains no more than four residential units, the
homeowner shall, upon request, be allowed to review a copy of the
appraisal upon which the offer is based. The public entity may, but
is not required to, satisfy the written statement, summary, and
review requirements of this section by providing the owner a copy of
the appraisal on which the offer is based.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a public entity may make an
offer to the owner or owners of record to acquire real property for
less than an amount that it believes to be just compensation therefor
if (1) the real property is offered for sale by the owner at a
specified price less than the amount the public entity believes to be
just compensation therefor, (2) the public entity offers a price
that is equal to the specified price for which the property is being
offered by the landowner, and (3) no federal funds are involved in
the acquisition, construction, or project development.
(e) As used in subdivision (d), "offered for sale" means any of
the following:
(1) Directly offered by the landowner to the public entity for a
specified price in advance of negotiations by the public entity.
(2) Offered for sale to the general public at an advertised or
published specified price, set no more than six months prior to, and
still available at, the time the public entity initiates contact with
the landowner regarding the public entity's possible acquisition of
the property.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) I haven't been able to get involved with the platting side of our company as much as I would like, however I find it to be a very strange process. One plat I was apart of, the client was creating a subdivision (platting their property) into only one or two lots as needed to add some improvements, but before the city/county (can't remember which) would accept it, they required our client to dedicate an additional 15' of road frontage for future expansion of the existing street they fronted. No payment would be made for this dedication. That is when I realized what is going on. The government is saying you cannot do any upgrades to your property without first paying thousands of dollars to have a plat created, also you will need to give us some of your land in the process of paying thousands of dollars to have your plat created. Screwed up system. I can understand if you are making a multi lot subdivision and need to dedicate the roads between the lots, but the city/county saying "well, you own these 4 acres on the outskirts of town, and before you can build a house there we need you to give us 15 more feet of road", just doesn't seem right.

Keep in mind that if they do not plat the land, when the city decides to upgrade the road, they would most certainly pay for the additional 15 feet.

I wonder if there is a limit for what the city/county could require? I guess I need to look for some case law about the subject, might come up on the test.

Brandon,

It has to do with the existence of a traffic circulation element of the local General Plan - at least in California. If the ultimate width of a designated road has been determined to be greater than currently exists, any development can be conditioned to grant the additional right of way - in consideration of the granting of the permit. There is plenty of case law in this state on this aspect of the development process.

You're right, it seems like overkill for a small subdivision, but if an ordinance is in place, then due process (and the proper public hearing) has been fulfilled.

All my client wanted to do was get a permit to pour 4,000 Sq feet of concrete to add to his parking lot.
The City decided that it need to be platted and won't issue a permit until the plat is filed. This seems to me to be a bit overkill. What benefit is it to plat the property from the City perspective? Is it just about the money?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

Property within the city shall be platted and regulated and controlled. Never by metes and bounds. That would be a violation.

If the city refuses to pay for an easement, then what? Will you exhume and remove the offending sewer line? Do they have a prescriptive easement? How did the lines get constructed without an easement? Did the city send crews out in the dark of night or did the owner (at the time of construction) give verbal permission?

And... what are you doing in Denton? Did y'all open a branch office or relocate the home office over there? Watch out for the college hipsters.

I'd find a concrete truck that delivers after dark.

I would say it goes further than that.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Property cannot be taken from you (or your client) without remuneration. Believe me, Denton is fully aware of that law. I have seen many instances where a City has taken property without paying for it. Most of the time, the land owner doesn't want to spend the time and cost to fight the entity seizing the property.

arctan(x), post: 393860, member: 6795 wrote: Should they pay for the 2 easements?

Presuming that you are talking about old, pre-existing sewer lines then the city already has an easement - a prescriptive easement. The city is merely asking for those easements to be documented, to clear your title. The real benefit of the easement documents is to the property owner.

There could be a prescriptive easement for existing facilities, but the City would have to go through the process of having that validated. I was recently involved in a situation where there was an existing sewer lift station on a private parcel. The utility wanted to do some upgrades and sent a crew out to delineate their existing easement in the ground. Oops, almost half of it was not in the existing easement. Not only did the utility have to pay the landowner for the additional easement rights they needed, at fair market value, but they also agreed to pay damages for the 20 plus years of trespass for having the existing facility out of their easement. The utility made no assertion of having a prescriptive easement. This was not decided in court. No lawyer was ever hired by the landowner. A simple citation of a few cases/codes/laws by the landowner and the utility wrote them a nice check to square things up.

Andy Nold, post: 393957, member: 7 wrote: Property within the city shall be platted and regulated and controlled. Never by metes and bounds. That would be a violation.

If the city refuses to pay for an easement, then what? Will you exhume and remove the offending sewer line? Do they have a prescriptive easement? How did the lines get constructed without an easement? Did the city send crews out in the dark of night or did the owner (at the time of construction) give verbal permission?

And... what are you doing in Denton? Did y'all open a branch office or relocate the home office over there? Watch out for the college hipsters.

As far as prescriptive easements go, I'm sure it's been continuously used but that may be a legal issue.
I've been living in the Denton area for about 10 years now. I was traveling back and forth to Jacksboro every day (125 mile round trip.) That got old. So we started a branch office up here. We have 4 employees that live here so it made enough sense to find a space. Haven't regretted it one bit. The college hipsters aren't so bad but there is an insurance office in our building that is having trouble finding quality help. Folks want to work their first day and then leave on a 2 week paid vacation. Lol!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk

The sewer was also constructed back in the early 2000s

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N920A using Tapatalk