Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 02/09/2021 - MONTAVA DEVELOPMENT: OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED POTABLEDATE: STAFF: February 9, 2021 Liesel Hans, Interim Deputy Utilities Director Paul Sizemore, Interim Director, Comm. Devt. & Neighborhood Serv. Eric Potyondy, Legal John Duval, Legal WORK SESSION ITEM City Council SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION Montava Development: Overview of Proposed Potable Water Supply Relying on Groundwater. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purposes of this work session are: • To provide high-level information about the proposal from the Montava developer (Developer) to pump and treat renewable groundwater tributary to Boxelder Creek and the Poudre River as the potable water supply for the Montava development (Development), • To identify the three Main Policy Issues the proposal raises (1A, 2A, 3A), • To identify the City’s Key Decisions as the Main Policy Issues apply to the Developer’s specific proposal for the Development (1B, 2B, 3B) and, • To seek feedback on general sequencing and timing of the topics to bring to Council for future consideration. The Main Policy Issues (A) and City’s Key Decisions (B) related to the Developer’s proposal: Water Adequacy: • 1A: A need to develop a new process and policy to address the adequacy of any water supply proposa ls that are different than the standard, existing water providers. • How 1A applies to this Developer’s proposal: o 1B: Determination of whether the Developer’s proposed water supply for the Development is adequate, pursuant to the new process to be developed. Additional Water Providers: • 2A: Potential addition of new water provider(s) in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA). • How 2A applies to this Developer’s proposal: o 2B: Determination of whether to authorize the Montava Metro Districts to be a wat er provider (operate a water treatment and distribution system). Water Augmentation Agreements: • 3A: Perpetual augmentation water agreements with Fort Collins Utilities • How 3A applies to this Developer’s proposal: o 3B: Determination of whether to enter into a perpetual augmentation water agreement with the Developer. GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED 1. Does Council support engaging a consultant to help develop a non -standard water adequacy determination process and policy? February 9, 2021 Page 2 2. Would Council like to consider the Developer’s request to allow the Montava Metro Districts provide potable water services to its residents at an upcoming meeting? 3. Would Council like to consider the Developer’s request for a perpetual augmentation water agr eement with Fort Collins Utilities at an upcoming meeting? 4. If yes to Q2 and/or Q3, does Council have a preference on the timing of when the items are brought to Council? BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION BOTTOM LINE: The Developer has proposed to develop a completely new potable water supply for the Development that pumps and treats a renewable groundwater tributary (connected) to Boxelder Creek and the Poudre River. This is different than any other development in the GMA, which all rely on surface water provide d by established governmental water providers like the City (through Fort Collins Utilities) and water districts (East Larimer County Water District (“ELCO”), Fort Collins-Loveland Water District, and West Fort Collins Water District). This proposal raises general policy issues which are applicable to a variety of possible scenarios, as well as to the Development in particular. The high-level Main Policy Issues and the City’s Key Decisions related to the Developer’s specific proposal are identified below in Table 1. February 9, 2021 Page 3 Table 1: Summary of Key Points for each Policy Issue and Decision Point List A: Main Policy Issues List B: City’s Key Decisions related to the Developer’s proposal 1. Water Adequacy 1A: A need to develop a new process and policy to address the adequacy of any water supply proposals that are different than the standard, existing water providers. Key Points: • Requires external consultant to build process and policy. • Requires external consultant to support any future evaluation of a non-standard water adequacy determination. • State statute allows a local government to consider any additional information they deem relevant to evaluate the proposed water supply. 1B: Determination of whether the Developer’s proposed water supply for the Development is adequate, pursuant to the new process to be developed. Key Points: • Proposed water supply is different than any water source used within the GMA. • Development is within ELCO water district. • Dependent on Water Court and ELCO outcomes. Decision Timing: After the new process and policy is created and Developer has submitted all required documentation. May not be a Council determination. 2. Additional Water Providers 2A: Potential addition of new water provider(s) in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA). Key Points: • Current water providers have existed since the 1960s and 1970s. • Each has different costs-of-service, development requirements, and customer programs. 2B: Determination of whether to authorize the Montava Metro Districts to have the ability to be a water provider (operate a water treatment and distribution system). Key Points: • Would be first metro district(s) to have this power in the GMA. • Montava Metro Districts are new and untested • Dependent on Council authorization. Decision Timing: Can be brought for Council action at any time. 3. Augmentation Water Agreements 3A: Perpetual augmentation water agreements with Fort Collins Utilities. Key Points: • No existing perpetual augmentation water agreements. • Current guiding policy does not address this type of agreement. • Current policy (Water Supply and Demand Management Policy) is set to be updated within next several years. 3B: Determination of whether to enter into a perpetual augmentation water agreement with the Developer. Key Points: • Would be first agreement of its kind. • Can be neutral to Fort Collins Utilities ratepayers. • Required to execute in perpetuity, regardless of drought or other conditions. • Actual use of the water is dependent on Water Court outcome. • Few (if any) additional agreements could be completed. Decision Timing: Can be brought for Council action at any time. February 9, 2021 Page 4 OVERVIEW OF MONTAVA DEVELOPMENT Montava is a multi-phase, long-term development proposal located in the northeast portion of Fort Collins. The project is in the area Mountain Vista Sub Area Plan first envisioned in 1999 and updated in 2009. The land where the Development is located have been annexed into Fort Collins, though as discussed below, they are not located in the Fort Collins Utilities water or wastewater s ervice areas. A map from the Developer has been included. (Attachment 1) It is estimated to take about 20-25 years to build-out, will include about 4,000 housing units, a commercial town center, employment and industrial uses, and community amenities acro ss ~1,000 acres. The Development is estimated to house about 11,000 residents. Summary of Montava Development activity to date: • September 2018: Council approved the Montava Metro Districts Service Plan. • January 2020: Council approved the Metro District Public Benefits Agreement. • February 2020: Council approved the Montava Master Plan and Planned Unit Development (“PUD”) Overlay. • March 2020: The Developer submitted a Preliminary Design Review (“PDR”) application for the first phases of the Development. A PDR is a conceptual-level proposal and is not considered a formal development application. In connection with the organization of the Montava Metro Districts that will serve the Development, the Developer is required to provide certain additional public benefits outlined in the Public Benefits Agreement. These include the following, with some additional information for context: • Affordable Housing: The Montava Metro Districts are obligated to deliver 300 affordable and 300 attainable housing units. One of the enforcement mechanisms is that they must build a portion of the affordable/attainable units before the City will issue the second half of building permits. There will be a 20 - year deed restriction on the affordable units. • Climate Action-related Requirements: All single-family units will be constructed to the Department of Energy Zero Energy ready standard, will require a third party verification and cannot receive Certificates of Occupancy without meeting this obligation. • Agri-urban Component: Development of a working 47-acre farm within a 5-year period to become operational. If the farm does not come to fruition in this period, the City has an option to purchase the land. • Non-potable Irrigation System: The irrigation needs of the Development and its residents will be provided by the existing groundwater wells that have historically irrigated the property. What is the current status for water and sewer for the Development? The Montava property is within ELCO and the Boxelder Sanitation District service areas. It is not located in the water or wastewater service areas of Fort Collins Utilities. At the PUD Master Plan stage, which is conceptual in nature, the only requirement in the City’s Land Use Code related to water and sewer i s to prove that utility services are available for the site. Both ELCO (water) and Boxelder Sanitation District (wastewater) have provided “will serve” letters, satisfying the requirement. This satisfies the current proof of adequacy requirement for developments in existing water providers. The ELCO “will serve” letter provides a commitment through February 7, 2021, with an indication to re-evaluate their ability to serve the Development if service was not activated by that date. Note that these commitment letters are conditioned upon certain criteria being met, like meeting ELCO raw water and plant investment fees, among others. For similarly-situated existing or underway developments in ELCO’s service area within Fort Collins and the GMA, developers have met the requirements of ELCO for water service. However, the Developer has stated that ELCO’s policies and cost of fees for water service are a barrier to financing the Development. To have certainty to finance a development of this size, the Developer s tates that it would need to purchase or develop all the water supplies for the Development up front; the Developer asserts that this approach is cost -prohibitive for a February 9, 2021 Page 5 development of this size and scope. ELCO requires that developers desiring water service meet a “water supply requirement” by transferring to ELCO a combination of: (1) Colorado-Big Thompson Project contractual units; (2) shares from certain local ditch companies (not all water rights can be utilized by ELCO or will increase the firm yield of their water supply portfolio); and/or (3) cash (ELCO will accept up to 30% of this water supply requirement as cash-in-lieu payments). A map of the water districts in the GMA has been included. (Attachment 2). The Developer has discussed the new groundwater-based proposal outlined below with the ELCO Board in October 2020. ELCO has opted to investigate the potential impacts to their system over the next 6 -9 months before deciding how it will proceed with respect to the Developer’s proposal. Note that the Developer is planning to utilize Boxelder Sanitation District for wastewater services. PROPOSED POTABLE WATER SUPPLY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT What is the developer’s new proposed plan for a potable water supply for the Development? While the Developer’s proposal’s concept of relying on renewable groundwater is not a new means to supply water to a community in Colorado, this aquifer is untested as a source of significant municipal supply and relies on a different water source than any other resident in the GMA. To meet the indoor potable water demands of the Development, the Developer is now proposing to pump and treat renewable groundwater from the Boxelder Creek alluvial aquifer on or near the eastern edge of the Montava property. This would involve drilling new wells. The existing wells on the property are proposed to be used for outdoor irrigation needs only, however, the water adequacy analysis described below will need to consider the water supply for the entire Development, not just the potable needs. To be able to pump these wells, the Developer would need to receive approval of an augmentation plan from the Water Court. An augmentation plan is a detailed plan that sets forth when and how much the wells can be pumped, as well as other requirements to ensure that pumping the wells does not injure other water rights, ditches, and reservoirs. This typically requires that the well owner delivers other water to the river to offset stream depletions from the new well pumping. The Developer filed an application in the Water Court at the end of December 2020 to begin this process. The City is participating in the case to protect the City’s various water rights (including the water rights of Fort Collins Utilities, Parks, and Natural Areas). The Water Court process for approval of an augmentation plan typically takes at least 2 to 3 years, depending on whether the applicant can settle with all opposing parties before trial. This Water Court process is discussed in some greater detail below. MAIN POLICY ISSUES and KEY DECISIONS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPER’S PROPOSAL Each of the three Main Policy Issues are discussed in greater detail, with a discussion of the Key Decisions related to this specific Developer’s proposal. 1. Water Adequacy Policy Issue 1A: A need to develop a new process and policy to address the adequacy of any water supply proposal that are different than the standard, existing water providers. Pursuant to Colorado state statute, a local government has the obligation and the sole d iscretion to determine that a developer has demonstrated that the proposed water supply will be adequate, meaning “a water supply that will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development in terms of quality, quantity, dependability, and availability to provide a supply of water for the type of development proposed, and may include reasonable conservation measures and water demand management measures to account for hydrologic variability.” The February 9, 2021 Page 6 determination is to be made only once during the development permit approval process, and the local government shall determine at which stage the determination is made. Fort Collins is served by several established governmental water providers and the entire GMA sits within one of the various existing water providers’ service territories. Each has a well-established infrastructure and track records of providing potable water for developments with a high level of quality and reliability. Fort Collins residents, businesses, and visitors rely on high-quality, reliable water. In a typical development review process, applicants obtain and provide a “will serve” letter from one of these providers, which serves as proof of adequacy. Each of the water providers has been in existence since at least the 1960s or 1970s and have been successful in planning for and serving new development for several decades. All water providers rely on the same type of surface water rights and treatment processes and have redundancy and reliability built into their systems. A proposal to serve a development with a water supply other than one of the established would need a different approach to meeting the standards of the state’s water adequacy statute. The statute includes a set of required information that an applicant must provide. T his includes (list is not comprehensive): ● An estimate of the water supply requirements for the proposed development through build-out conditions; ● A description of the physical source of water supply that will be used to serve the proposed development; ● An estimate of the amount of water yield projected from the proposed water supply under various hydrologic conditions; ● Water conservation measures, if any, that may be implemented within the development; ● Water demand management measures, if any, that may be implemented within the development to account for hydrologic variability; and ● Such other information as may be required by the local government. The statute also has the following provision: “Any other information deemed relevant by the local government to determine, in its sole discretion, whether the water supply for the proposed development is adequate, including, without limitation, any information required to be submitted by the applicant pursuant to applicable local government land use regulations or state statutes.” This provision allows the local government to be able to adapt the information and analysis required, and the process, to meet the needs of the specific situation being evaluated. It also allows the local government the ability to apply their own values and principles to the process. Some potential considerations could include, but are not limited to: • Comparison to standards and service of existing water providers in the GMA; • Water quality of proposed water supply; • Redundancy of the water system and protections in place for drought conditions; • Cost of water to residents and/or ratepayers, both in terms of the cost to develop water supply and eventual water bills; • Financial solvency of the entity; • Impacts to Climate Action Goals (energy requirements of approach); • Environmental stewardship and natural resource protection; • Impact on Fort Collins Utilities system and ratepayers; and • Partnership with and impacts to the expected water provider based on location of a given development . The City will need to determine what type of documentation is necessary for a developer to demonstrate adequacy and will need to establish a process to evaluate that information. Additionally, the City must decide the appropriate point in the development review process to make the adequacy determination and establish a system for tracking adequacy across individual project phases as they relate to overall buildout of the development. February 9, 2021 Page 7 NEXT STEPS While City staff have in-house expertise in development review, evaluating utility infrastructure, and planning around surface water resources – additional consultant expertise, guidance and support will be required to develop a new process and policy for water supply proposals outside the standard existing public wate r providers in the GMA. This process should be based on industry expertise and best practice examples from other communities. Staff will need to re-prioritize other previously planned work and projects to take this on, despite support from a consultant. Consultant assistance is proposed to help: I. Build a process and policy, including understanding the: i. type of data and information needed for an adequacy determination; ii. proper process for reviewing and evaluating the information; and iii. timing of the adequacy determination(s), and how to assess a development’s needs upfront while also ensuring individual project phases meet adequacy requirements. II. Evaluate the information and analyses in the water adequacy determination, should the process reach this stage. Staff proposes that the City negotiate an agreement with the Developer whereby the Developer provides funds to the City for consulting services necessary to create this process, evaluate information provided by the Developer, and ultimately to support the determination of adequacy and ongoing tracking against Development buildout. At this time, it is difficult to estimate a specific timeline for creation and management of the water adequacy determination process. A number of factors will influence the timeline, from negotiating the financial arrangement with the developer to the extent and level of detail of information required to make the determination decision itself. Depending on direction from Council, the next steps could include ongoing internal coor dination, detailed scoping of the issues, negotiation with the Developer, creation of legal and financial instruments to secure funding for consulting services, issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) or other purchasing process to acquire needed expertise, contracting, and project planning. 1. Water Adequacy Key Decision 1B: Determination of whether the Developer’s proposed water supply for the Development is adequate, pursuant to the new process to be developed. As described above, the Developer is proposing to pump and treat groundwater to provide the potable water supply for the Development. No other water provider in the GMA utilizes groundwater in their water supply portfolios. There are several unknowns about the water source, treatment, and dist ribution processes, etc. that need to be addressed to ensure the future residents of the Development have reliable, high -quality water in perpetuity. Once the new process and policy have been created, the Developer will be required to submit documentation . The new process will dictate the appropriate decisionmaker and at which point in the development review process the determination will be made. 2. Additional Water Providers Policy Issue 2A: Potential addition of new water provider(s) in the Fort Collin s Growth Management Area (GMA). The GMA is served by established governmental water providers like the City (through Fort Collins Utilities) and water districts (like ELCO and Fort Collins -Loveland Water District) (Attachment 2) Fort Collins Utilities is guided by Council. The other water districts are separate from the City organization and are guided by their own Boards of Directors. Each water provider sets their own policies, and rules and regulations. As a result, each has different February 9, 2021 Page 8 costs, development requirements, and customer programs. Current and potential Fort Collins residents and business experiences vary depending on where their home or place of business is located. This has resulted in different points of tension over the years, from issues of development costs to water conservation programs to drought policies. An additional unique water provider could exacerbate these existing challenges. 2. Additional Water Providers Key Decision 2B: Determination of whether to authorize the Montava Metro Districts to have the ability to be a water provider (operate a water treatment and distribution system). The specific Development is in ELCO and is not in the water service area of Fort Collins Utilities. City Code Section 26-4 stated: “If a property located within the City is in an area not supplied with both water and wastewater service from the City but is capable of receiving both water and wastewater service from the one (1) or more duly established quasi-municipal utility service districts, then the City shall not extend or provide either service to the property.” The Developer is working with ELCO to determine if they can come to terms about how the Developer’s groundwater proposal could work with ELCO. The following are several conceptual sc enarios of how the groundwater would be treated and delivered to the Development’s residents, all of which call for some sort of arrangement with ELCO and depend on the water adequacy determination However, until ELCO and the Developer figure that out and have a more definite and specific proposal addressing these issues, identification of the scenarios below remain preliminary in nature. 1. Private Water Company. The Developer could attempt to establish a private water company to treat and deliver water to the Development’s residents. There is at least one other privately -owned treated water supplier in the area (Northern Colorado Water Association, a nonprofit corporation.). Such a private entity may not be required to have open records and public meeting s or may not have to comply with various requirements of public / governmental water providers. This would create another unique water provider in the GMA. 2. Montava Metro District. The Developer could transfer its interest in the treatment and delivery o f water to the Montava Metro Districts. The Developer has indicated that this is its preferred option. Under the Montava Metro Districts’ service plan previously approved by Council, this would require Council’s prior approval either (1) under an intergovernmental agreement (“IGA”) with the Montava Metro Districts or (2) approval of an amendment to the service plan. There may be significant financial costs to the Developer (through a private company or the metro districts) constructing the proposed groundwater system without ELCO’s assistance. This would be the first metro district in Fort Collins with this ability and would create another unique water provider in the GMA. 3. ELCO. The Developer could transfer its interest in the treatment and delivery of water to ELCO, such that this groundwater system is integrated into ELCO’s larger water supply system to some degree. There may be some benefits (such as redundancy) in the potential integration of the proposed groundwater system with ELCO’s larger system, although there are likely challenges as well. This option would still likely require a new enhanced water adequacy review process. NEXT STEPS The Developer has requested staff review a proposed IGA (scenario 2 above). Council could choose to take action on this request before consideration of the water adequacy of the proposal. If this is the preferred sequence, the IGA would include conditions like: a) dependency upon the ultimate findings of water adequacy related to this specific proposal, and b) ELCO’s approval. 3. Augmentation Water Agreements Policy Issue 3A: Perpetual augmentation water agreements with Fort Collins Utilities. February 9, 2021 Page 9 An entity can only pump groundwater on a permanent basis pursuant to a Water Court -approved augmentation plan. The Water Court process will determine how a proposal to pump groundwater will affect (deplete) connected surface waters. Water that is depleted from the surface water because of the groundwater pumping must be replaced so as not to injure other senior water user s downstream. Separate “augmentation” water may need to be added (delivered) to the river when necessary to keep the system whole. In order to pump the groundwater, the applicant for an augmentation plan must have the full amount of “worst case” augmentati on water in place. As a result, the applicant must secure permanent augmentation water agreements. Fort Collins Utilities has historically only leased water (including augmentation water) on an annual, year -to-year basis. (The exception is a 50-year lease for 1 acre-foot per year for the black-footed ferret conservation center on the City-owned Meadow Springs Ranch, where a water supply requirement was met.) This ensures that, in any given year, Fort Collins Utilities can use its entire water portfolio t o meet the needs of Fort Collins Utilities’ ratepayers, which will become more important as the Utilities water service area grows. Fort Collins Utilities is guided by the Water Supply and Demand Management Policy (WSDMP). Since the WSDMP is focused on securing adequate water supplies for Fort Collins Utilities water service area customers now and into the future, it does not contemplate the benefits or consequences of permanent lease agreements or selling water supply assets. The WSDMP is set to be upda ted in the next several years and could formally assess and include a policy of whether to consider permanent lease agreements or selling water supply assets. A framework could be developed for how to evaluate these types of requests during the holistic up date effort rather than create policy and precedent by way of a single decision for a specific development. 3. Augmentation Water Agreements Key Decision 3B: Determination of whether to enter into a perpetual augmentation water agreement with the Developer As noted in the preceding 3A Policy Issue section, the Developer can only pump groundwater on a permanent basis pursuant to a Water Court-approved augmentation plan. The aquifer below the Development’s property is tributary (connected) to both the P oudre River and Boxelder Creek. Pumping water to serve the Development’s residents will cause depletions to both surface waters. As part of the proposed groundwater approach, the Developer has requested a perpetual augmentation water agreement with Fort Collins Utilities. Under the proposed agreement, in exchange for cash payments, Fort Collins Utilities would annually deliver up to 25 acre -feet of augmentation water from the City’s Rigden Reservoir in southeast Fort Collins to the Poudre River in perpetuity. The Developer (and successor entities, like the Montava Metro Districts) would use the augmentation water in its augmentation plan to replace the steam depletions from groundwater wells that would provide a potable water supply for the Development. The cash payments and water deliveries contemplated in the agreement would be contingent on the Developer acquiring various City and Water Court approvals. Since Fort Collins Utilities has no existing perpetual augmentation water agreements, the Develope r’s request would thus be a break from historical practice. In negotiations with the Developer, the proposed agreement was considered neutral to the Utilities rate payer through cash payments. The Developer offered the option to acquire and then provid e water rights for the exchange of augmentation water from Rigden Reservoir requiring the Developer to acquire irrigation company agreement. The Developer’s request was originally set to be presented to Council on December 15, 2020. The Developer’s Water Court timeline was driving the timeline; however, the Developer has already filed the case without this permanent agreement in place. Additional information, including the full set of information about the potential impacts and considerations of the proposed augmentation water agreement, can be found in the December 15, 2020 Agenda Item Summary, Item 15 (First Reading of Ordinance No. 164, 2020, Authorizing the City Manager to Execute and Agreement with the Developer of the Montava for the Annual Use of up to 25 Acre-Feet of Water of Fort Collins Utilities in a Plan for February 9, 2021 Page 10 Augmentation for a Potable Water Supply for the Montava Property). Visit fcgov.com/agendas to access the materials. Note that this item was pulled from the agenda and no action was taken on it. NEXT STEPS The Developer filed in Water Court in late December 2020, listing Fort Collins Utilities’ water as a p otential source of augmentation water. The Developer has indicated a desire to move the proposed water augmentation water agreement forward as soon as possible. At some point, the Developer will need a determination from the City whether the City is willing to enter into the permanent augmentation water agreement requested. Council could choose to take action on this request before consideration of the water adequacy of the proposal. If this was the preferred sequence, the agreement would include conditions like: a) dependency upon the ultimate findings of water adequacy related to this specific proposal; and b) other City Land Use Code approvals and processes. CONCLUSION Staff’s specific next steps and the timing will depend on the direction provided by Council on the issues presented in this work session. ATTACHMENTS 1. Map of Development (PDF) 2. Map of Water Districts (PDF) 3. Powerpoint Presentation (PDF) k G G #* #* #* k Text Depletion Point on CLP River Box Elder Creek Cache la Poudre River Montava Depletion Pointon Box Elder Creek I-25 Hwy 14 US Route287 Depletion Point on CLP River RigdenReservoir SeaworthAugmentationPond Approx.Well Field IrrigationPonds BOXELDERWWTP FC WWTPNO. 2 FC WWTPNO. 1Lake CanalNew Mercer DitchLarimer County Ca n al N o 2 No 8 OutletFort Collins Irrigation Ditch Bo x e l d e r D i t c h Larimer and Weld Canal Jackson D i t c h Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS,FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, EsriJapan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMapcontributors, and the GIS User Community FIGURE 1 November 2020 MONTAVAPROJECT ELEMENTS² 0 1 2 Miles Legend Montava k Montava Well Field Montava Irrigation Ponds k Seaworth Augmentation Pond Rigden Reservoir #*Fort Collins WWTP No. 1 #*Fort Collins WWTP No. 2 #*Boxelder WWTP G Well Depletion Points Canals Rivers/Creeks Cache La Poudre Res. Inlet Fossil Ck. Res.Inlet Ditch ATTACHMENT 1 !!! !!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !!! !!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!HORSETOOTH MULBERRY SHIELDSLAPORTEUS HIGHWAY287 STRAUSS CABINLAUREL MOUNTAIN DRAKE PROSPECT WILLOX TAFT HILLVINE COUNTRY C LU B SUNIGA VINE RICHARDS LAKE TURNBERRYTRILBY COUNTY ROAD 38 M ULBERRY DOUGLAS ELIZABETH LEMAYMULBERRY COUNTYROAD38 E MOUNTAIN VISTA LIN COLN HARMONY GREGO RYKECHTER CO U N T Y ROAD54G STATE HIGHWAY 392HARMONY VINE MASONMAINSUNIGA ZIEGLERLINCOLN COUNTY ROAD 3CARPENTERJOHNFKENNEDY COUNTY ROAD 30 HARMONY COUNTY ROAD 5COUNTY LINEINTERSTATE25COUNTY ROAD 5TAFT HILLCOUNTY ROAD 19GIDDINGSCOLLEGETIMBERLINELEMAYLEMAYLEMAYZIEGLERRIVERSIDE OVERLANDTERRYLAKEZ I EGLERSHIELDSCOUNTYROAD5INTERSTATE 25TAFTHILL/ Fort Collins Area Water Districts 0 1 2 3 4 50.5 Miles Water Districts East Larimer County Water District Fort Collins Loveland Water District Fort Collins Utilities (Water) Sunset Water District West Fort Collins Water District GMA !!!!!!City Limits Major Streets Figure Updated: 10/23/2018 All boundaries are approximate ATTACHMENT 2 1Montava Development: Overview of Proposed Potable Water Supply Relying on GroundwaterLiesel Hans, Interim Utilities Deputy Director & Paul Sizemore, Interim Director of CDNSFebruary 9, 2021ATTACHMENT 3 2ENV 4.4 Provide a reliable, high-quality water supplyStrategic Alignment Outline• Introduction to Main Policy Issues & Key Decisions• Overview of Montava• Proposed Groundwater Approach• Issues & Decisions• Water Adequacy• Additional Water Providers• Water Augmentation Agreements3 Main Policy Issues & Key Decisions4Table 1List A: Main Policy IssuesList B: City’s Key Decisions related to the Developer’s proposal1. Water Adequacy1A: A need to develop a new process and policy to address the adequacy of any water supply proposals that are different than the standard, existing water providers 1B: Determination of whether the Developer’s proposed water supply for the Development is adequate, pursuant to the new process to be developed2. Additional Water Providers2A: Potential addition of new water provider(s) in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA)2B: Determination of whether to authorize the Montava Metro Districts to be a water provider (operate a water treatment and distribution system)3. Augmentation Water Agreements3A: Perpetual augmentation water agreements with Fort Collins Utilities 3B: Determination of whether to enter into a perpetual augmentation water agreement with the Developer Questions for Council• Does Council support engaging a consultant to help develop a non-standard water adequacy determination process and policy (1A)? • Would Council like to consider the Developer’s request to allow the MontavaMetro Districts to provide potable water services to its residents at an upcoming meeting (2B)?• Would Council like to consider the Developer’s request for a perpetual augmentation water agreement with Fort Collins Utilities at an upcoming meeting (3B)?• If yes to Q2 and/or Q3, does Council have a preference on the timing of when the items are brought to Council?5 What is Montava?6• Multi-phase, master-planned community• About 4,000 homes built on ~1,000 acres in northeast Fort Collins over ~25 years• Expected to house ~11,000 people• “…connected community with new neighborhoods, parks, schools, town center, urban agriculture, businesses, and transportation connections…”• Metro district w/ Public Benefits Agreement Montava development progress71st phase submitted to Planning for a Preliminary Design Review (PDR)City Council approved Master Plan and PUD OverlayCity Council approved Metro District Public Benefits AgreementCity Council approved Metro District Service PlanSeptember 2018 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020Water and sewer “will serve” lettersEx: 600 affordable/ attainable housing units 8Rough outline of Montava lands 9 10Developer’s current proposal:The Developer is proposing to pump and treat groundwater from the Boxelder Creek alluvial aquifer on eastern edge of the Montava property to meet the indoor potable water demands of the Development. Requires water court process. 111. Water Adequacy1. Water Adequacy2. Additional Water Provider(s)2. Additional Water Provider(s)3. Augmentation Water Agreements3. Augmentation Water Agreements Water AdequacyColorado State Statute requires:"...a water supply that will be sufficient for build-out of the proposed development in terms of quality, quantity, dependability, and availabilityto provide a supply of water for the type of development proposed..."Challenges with a non-standard water supply approach:• Current City process is built for existing utilities• Need assurance early and need to evaluate each phase of development• Potentially different water sources12 Water Adequacy: Main Policy Issue 1AList A: Main Policy Issues1. Water Adequacy1A: A need to develop a new process and policy to address the adequacy of any water supply proposals that are different than the standard, existing water providers Key Points:Requires external consultant expertise to build process and policyRequires external consultant expertise to support any future evaluation of a non-standard water adequacy determination State statute allows a local government to consider any additional information they deem relevant to evaluate the proposed water supply13 14Standards and service of existing providersWater qualityFinancial solvency; Cost of water to residentsImpacts to Climate Action goals (e.g. Energy use)Environmental stewardship & natural resource protectionPartnerships with and impacts to expected water providerOther?Potential considerations in a water adequacy determination: Water Adequacy: Key Decision 1B List B: City’s Key Decisions related to the Developer’s proposal1. Water Adequacy1B: Determination of whether the Developer’s proposed water supply for the Development is adequate, pursuant to the new process to be developedKey Points:Proposed water supply is different than any water source used within the GMADevelopment is within ELCO water districtDependent on Water Court and ELCO outcomesDecision Timing: After the new process and policy is created and Developer has submitted all required documentation. May not be a City Council determination.15 161. Water Adequacy1. Water Adequacy2. Additional Water Provider(s)2. Additional Water Provider(s)3. Augmentation Water Agreements3. Augmentation Water Agreements 17 Additional Water Providers: Main Policy Issue 2AList A: Main Policy Issues2. Additional Water Providers2A: Potential addition of new water provider(s) in the Fort Collins Growth Management Area (GMA)Key Points:Current water providers have existed since the 1960s and 1970s Each has different costs-of-service, development requirements, and customer programs18 ScenariosInitially identified scenarios:191.Private Water CompanyMay not subject to same requirements of public entities (e.g. open records, public meetings)2. Montava Metro DistrictRequires Council approvial via IGA or Amend Metro District service planPreferred option of DeveloperWould be the first to have this power3. Partnership with ELCOMay still require enhanced adequacy reviewPoses operational challengesAny path forward requires input from ELCO Additional Water Providers: Key Decision 2BList B: City’s Key Decisions related to the Developer’s proposal2. Additional Water Providers2B: Determination of whether to authorize the Montava Metro Districts to have the ability to be a water provider (operate a water treatment and distribution system)Key Points:Would be first metro district(s) to have this power in the GMAMontava Metro Districts are new and untestedDependent on City Council authorizationDecision Timing: Can be brought for Council action at any time. 20 When to consider the request?Options for timing:21A. Consider the request ahead of the water adequacy determination• Would include specific conditions, given some info isn’t known yetB. Delay consideration of this request until more is known from ELCO 221. Water Adequacy1. Water Adequacy2. Additional Water Provider(s)2. Additional Water Provider(s)3. Augmentation Water Agreements3. Augmentation Water Agreements 23Groundwater and surface water are a connected system.Pumping groundwater will deplete water in the river.Downstream users rely on that water being in the river and depletions need to be replaced. 24New groundwater wells, junior water rightsSenior water rights, mostly surface water diversionsColorado Water Law“First in time, first in right”Add water back to the river1) Treated effluent2) Augmentation water Augmentation Water Agreements: Main Policy Issue 3AList A: Main Policy Issues3. Augmentation Water Agreements3A:Perpetual augmentation water agreements with Fort Collins Utilities Key Points:No existing perpetual augmentation water agreementsCurrent guiding policy does not address this type of agreementCurrent policy (Water Supply and Demand Management Policy) is set to be updated within next several years25 26 Augmentation Water Agreements: Key Decision 3BList B: City’s Key Decisions related to the Developer’s proposal3. Augmentation Water Agreements3B:Determination of whether to enter into a perpetual augmentation water agreement with the Developer Key Points:Would be first agreement of its kindCan be neutral to Fort Collins Utilities ratepayersRequired to execute in perpetuity, regardless of drought or other conditionsActual use of the water is dependent on Water Court outcomeFew (if any) additional agreements could be completedDecision Timing: Can be brought for Council action at any time27 When to consider the request?Options for timing:28A. Consider the request ahead of the water adequacy determination as originally proposed• Developer will eventually need certainty as part of the Water Court process• Would include specific conditions, some info isn’t known yetB. Delay consideration of this request until more is known about the other issues 29Summary 301. Water Adequacy1. Water Adequacy2. Additional Water Provider(s)2. Additional Water Provider(s)3. Augmentation Water Agreements3. Augmentation Water AgreementsRequires consultant support to build process & policyRequires consultant support to build process & policyELCO must agree to outcomeELCO must agree to outcomeCouncil action needed for water court processCouncil action needed for water court process 31ELCO’s evaluation (6-9 months)ELCO’s evaluation (6-9 months)2B: Consider req. to authorize Metro DistrictWater Court process (2-3 years)Water Court process (2-3 years)3B: Consider req. for augmentation water 1B: Determine Water Adequacy of proposal1B: Determine Water Adequacy of proposal1A: Build non-standard Water Adequacy process 1A: Build non-standard Water Adequacy process Timing Options Questions for Council• Does Council support engaging a consultant to help develop a non-standard water adequacy determination process and policy (1A)? • Would Council like to consider the Developer’s request to allow the MontavaMetro Districts to provide potable water services to its residents at an upcoming meeting (2B)?• Would Council like to consider the Developer’s request for a perpetual augmentation water agreement with Fort Collins Utilities at an upcoming meeting (3B)?• If yes to Q2 and/or Q3, does Council have a preference on the timing of when the items are brought to Council?32 29 Summary 30 1. Water Adequacy 1. Water Adequacy 2. Additional Wa ter Provider(s) 2. Additional Wa ter Provider(s) 3. Augmentation Wa ter Agreements 3. Augmentation Wa ter Agreements Requires consultant support to build process & policy Requires consultant support to build process & policy ELCO must agree to outcome ELCO must agree to outcome Council action needed for water court process Council action needed for water court process 31 ELCO’s evaluation (6-9 months)ELCO’s evaluation (6-9 months) 2B: Consider req. to authorize Metro District Wa ter Court process (2-3 years)Wa ter Court process (2-3 years) 3B: Consider req. for augmentation water 1B: Determine Water Adequacy of proposal 1B: Determine Water Adequacy of proposal1A: Build non-standard Water Adequacy process 1A: Build non-standard Water Adequacy process Ti ming Options Questions for Council •Does Council support engaging a consultant to help develop a non-standard water adequacy determination process and policy (1A)? •Would Council like to consider the Developer ’s request to allow the Montava Metro Districts to provide potable water services to its residents at an upcoming meeting (2B)? •Would Council like to consider the Developer ’s request for a perpetual augmentation water agreement with Fort Collins Utilities at an upcoming meeting (3B)? •If yes to Q2 and/or Q3, does Council have a preference on the timing of when the items are brought to Council? 32