Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Board - Minutes - 07/09/1976WATER BOARD Regular Meeting July 9, 1976 - 3:30 P.M. Present: Ward Fischer Raymond Anderson Bernard Cain, Jr. Henry Caulfield Norman Evans Ronald Fulkrod Harvey Johnson Robert L. Brunton Absent: Karl E. Carson Everett Richardson James Waltz Staff members present: Dowell, Harding, Krempel, and Liquin Also: City Attorney March Also: John Weitzel, Fort Collins -Loveland Water District George Holter, Fort Collins -Loveland Water District Ira Miller, ELCO Water District Charles Warren, ELCO Water District Minutes of Regular Meeting of May 14, 1976 and Special Meeting of May 28, 1976, approved Vice Chairman Evans inquired if there were any corrections to the minutes of May 14, 1976. Board member Caulfield stated that under the Legislation Subcommittee section, the last sentence should read "not to finance any development in the flood plain". Vice Chairman Evans stated the minutes are approved as amended. He inquired if there were any corrections to the minutes of May 28, 1976. Hearing none, he declared the minutes approved as published. Out -Of -City Private Water Main Replacement Projects A memorandum dated July 9, 1976 regarding surrounding water districts and a proposal to the West Mulberry Water Association Users were distributed to each member of the Water Board. Mr. Charles Liquin made a presentation to the Water Board with a map showing a few of the private water lines outside the City limits. He reviewed the written proposal to the West Mulberry Water Association users and stated this is the same proposal the City Council made for the Audersonville/ Alta Vista sewer system. He stated that when concurrence is received from the West Mulberry Water Association users, the administration will bring the proposal back to the Water Board and then will recommend that this same proposal be made to other private water main users. City Attorney March felt that the proposal should be revised to include an interest charge. He stated that if the West Mulberry line was inside the City limits, it would be under a special improvement district, in which case, interest would be charged. But part of the West Mulberry line is outside the City and cannot be under an improvement district. He felt that because the in -City residents are charged interest, the out -of -City residents should be charged interest as well. Mr. Liquin stated this proposal can be revised to reflect interest as it has not been approved by City Council. City Manager Brunton stated that he felt the interest was important, but also felt that maybe some sweetening should be given to get this project off the ground. The Water Board discussed the interest question at great length from the viewpoint of being important as a matter of principle because this water line is outside the City limits, but the amount of interest that would be collected is not a large sum of money, and may not be that important if the added interest charge will hinder the project. Mr. Krempel stated that the people on the West Mulberry water line will be advised that interest may be charged. Board member Caulfield inquired as to why annexation is not a.provision of the West Mulberry water line agreement. City Attorney March advised him that the City ordinance requires a new water service to annex when the City requests them to do so, but as this is an existing water line, put in before the days of that requirement, annexing cannot be a condition of this agreement. Board member Caulfield inquired if the City is going to share in the cost of improving their water system, why this requirement should not apply. Mr. Krempel stated that eventually the City would need to put in a system improvement on West Mulberry, which the City would pay for. A workable method needs to be found where these people share in the cost of a new line instead. Mr. Krempel further stated that there are two specific cases that need to be discussed at this time; the Genzlinger line and the West Mulberry line. A policy is being worked out that can be applied universally over all the private water lines. After the policy is established, then the City will not approach other private water main users unless a system improvement needs to be made. Board member Caulfield requested the staff to have a map made that shows the City water lines that are outside the City limits. No action was taken on this item. Gunn Barrel Lawsuit of City of Boulder Chairman Fischer stated that when the Water Board was discussing the possibility of establishing service areas, the effect of the decision of the Gunn Barrel lawsuit was brought up. He requested City Attorney March to discuss the implications of this lawsuit. City Attorney March stated that about 6 or 7 years ago, the City of Boulder, the City of Longmont, Boulder County, and other towns in the County tried to get a unified approach to the general growth problem. They wanted to be able MP23 to control where growth occurred, how it occurred, and what it consisted of. Their plan involved the use of the various citie's utilities for the purpose of dictating to areas not within their governmental control the type of growth that could occur. The City of Boulder, the County, and the other cities entered into informal agreements which assigned spheres of influence to the various towns within the County government, and the cities and towns were given the authority to control the area around them through this general plan. He stated that they seemed to have a good agreement, but they failed to tie down in written form or agreements the type of control that they were enacting and the reasons for it. He stated that as it evolved, the basic means of control was the provision of the County plan to the effect that the developers could not get the densities they were interested in unless they had mudicipal water and sewer service. The City of Boulder entered into agreements with the water and sewer districts in its area for service and control of these districts by the City. The Gunn Barrel case or the Robinson case involved a tract of land that was not in the City of Boulder or in a district, but in a general area which was considered within Boulder's sphere of influence. The City of Boulder refused to serve this area with water. The developer requested the district to extend its boundaries to include his land. The district was willing to do so, but the City of Boulder put a veto on it under the powers of their contract, and the lawsuit resulted. The District Court determined that the City of Boulder had acted as a public utility of a type that has a monopoly on a territory, and as such, was required to furnish utility service within the area that is not staked out under its sphere of influence. The Supreme Court upheld this result. Given the facts and findings of the trial court, the City of Boulder was in the same position as a regulated utility and had to offer service to anyone who asked for it, without concern over the other governmental concerns, but just on the basis of their own ability as a water utility to serve the area. Mr. March stated that he personally felt the case was wrong. The Supreme Court has in the past reversed its opinions, and he felt this is a case where there is a strong possibility that will happen. He stated the question is what implications does this have for the City of Fort Collins assuming this is the law and what can be done about it. He felt that if the City of Fort Collins wanted to do something like this with the combined efforts of the County and other cities, it could be done in another framework. One of the basic tools that could be used is House Bill 1034, 1974, which has a provision allowing the governmental bodies to jointly regulate developmental questions. Under the general language of that bill, there are ways to contract to accomplish these things as a joint matter. He stated the utilities may play a part in it, because they are necessary in establishing urban type densities and they are a legitimate tool to use. He stated particular areas of concern are existing agreements and contracts the City has for water and sewer service, for example the agreements with the LaPorte Water and Sanitation District, the Mountain View Sanitation District, and the West Fort Collins Water District. Those are the three situations the —3— City has fairly substantial control over the area because of the contracts with the other entities the City serves, and they do bear close relationship to the contractual situation that existed in the Boulder case. Outside of those, the City has lesser controls over the other districts and is really a competing utility rather than a monopoly. Chairman Fischer stated that one reason it was thought some time ago that it might be desirable to establish some kind of an agreement with the water districts was for the purpose of having an area in which the City could exercise monopolistic control over the water and sewer, and therefore could insist that any development that occurs would be in accordance with City desires or else it would not be served. He inquired that if the Gunn Barrel case is the law, is there a likelihood that the establishment of a district boundary for that particular purpose be futile in that the City would be forced to furnish water to that area irrespective of the City's desires as to what should go in there. City Attorney March advised him that there is a likelihood that it would be futile, however an argument could be made that the City was in an area for the purpose of enforcing control for growth, and then there might be a different result. Mr. John Weitzel, of the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District, stated that there are some good things to be said for service areas. The City and the District are both planning additional services to serve potentially the same people and there are many areas in which cooperation would be useful to both sides, for example the areas at high elevations. City Attorney March stated that if the County and the City could agree on how these areas should be developed, then deciding on service lines would be easier. Reports from Subcommittees There were no reports from the Subcommittees. Staff Report Mr. Roger Krempel stated that Board members Ward Fischer, Norm Evans, and Everett Richardson were reappointed to the Water Board with terms expiring in July 1980. He stated there were no serious problems with construction on all the treatment plants. Both the water treatment plants are in operation now, but Water Treatment Plant No. 2 is still under construction. The contractor was to have the plant completed by the first of July, but he failed to meet that requirement. The plant will not be completed until the middle of August and the penalty will be imposed. However, the plant is now producing 24 million gallons a day, which will be the total capacity of the plant when completed. Mr. Liquin reviewed the status of the raw water available to the City and the raw water rental for the 1976 season. Mr. Krempel stated that the Colorado Fish and Wildlife is giving the City a statement to clear the loan application for the Joe Wright Reservoir'enlargement project. He stated that the City has paid $2400 for an archaeological study at the Joe Wright Reservoir site and will pay an additional $3000, after which this study will be completed and the City will be given clearance. Mr. Brunton stated that an independent engineering study will be made on the actual construction cost of Joe Wright Reservoir. -4- • City Manager Brunton stated a letter has been written to CSU notifying them that on or after July 1, 1977, their water rates will be increased by 30% to 50%. Another letter has been written to CSU notifying them than on or after July 1, 1977, they may be charged a pollutional surcharge and studies will be made on this. Mr. Krempel stated that it is not anticipated that CSU will exceed normal sewage strength and be charged the pollutional surcharge. This is part of the revised sewer ordinance that was agreed to when the City accepted the federal grant. Mr. Krempel stated that the Industrial Cost Recovery ordinance will be given to EPA to see if the ordinance is acceptable to them. Letters will be sent to all the industries advising them there their wastes will be sampled to implement the Industrial Cost Recovery system. The effective date of the ordinance is January 1, 1977. Other Business Board member Evans stated that the County/City joint effort on utilities in the Mesa County area from the viewpoint of sewage and their County/City advisory committee approach to it looks like it is working effectively. Adjournment _ There being no further business, the meeting adjourned. Secretary -5-