HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 12/14/2004 - LAPORTE AREA SEWER SERVICE EXTENSION POLICY DATE: December 14, 2004 STUDY SESSION ITEM
STAFF: Timothy Wilder FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL
Roger Buffington
SUBJECT FOR DISCUSSION
Laporte Area Sewer Service Extension Policy.
GENERAL DIRECTION SOUGHT AND SPECIFIC QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED
Staff is seeking direction from Council on extending sewer service in the Laporte area outside
the Growth Management Area. The City currently provides sewer service to parts of Laporte.
Over the past year, the City received several requests to extend sewer service to other parts of
Laporte. The City recently approved extending sewer to one of these, the Spring Green project
on Overland Trail.
City Plan discourages the extension of City utilities outside of the Growth Management Area
unless there is a community benefit. At the same time, the City has a statutory process to review
individual applications for utility extensions outside city limits (City Code Article X). This
process includes other conditions for approving extensions. Rather than process extension
requests individually through this process, staff is seeking to clarify its overall policy towards
extending sewer in Laporte.
Four policy options for the City's response to requests for public sewer in Laporte include:
1) City maintains its existing process of reviewing requests on a case-by-case basis.
2) City continues service to existing area but prohibits City utility extensions to other areas
outside the GMA.
3) City provides future service directly to development in a limited, defined area of Laporte.
4) City provides sewer treatment to development only through a new sewer service district.
Staff recommends that the City encourage the property owners to form a single service entity
through the provision of City sewage treatment (alternative 4) with several conditions: (1)
boundaries of service will correspond to a limited area; (2) development projects are consistent
with the Laporte area plan; (3) City Code provisions in the Utility Service Outside City Limits
section are met; and (4) payment of a one-time fee for non-utility impacts. If property owners
are unable to form a new district, then City service would be provided directly to new
development meeting the same conditions listed above (alternative 3).
Staff believes that there are benefits to the City with this action, namely to reduce the risk of
water quality degradation, to minimize the potential for costly capital upgrades to meet new
standards, to involvement in decisions about land-uses in Laporte, and to collect fees for Laporte
residents' use of non-utility services.
December 14, 2004 Page 2
The Planning and Zoning Board voted (5-1) to support the staff recommendation at a hearing
held on November 18. The Water Board (unanimous) also voted to support the staff
recommendation at a meeting held on December 2.
The attached written report provides greater detail about the issues, history, policies, options and
impacts of sewer service in Laporte.
Several questions are relevant to your discussion:
1. Are there other policy options for Laporte sewer service that Council wants staff to
explore?
2. Which policy options does Council want staff to prepare for Council decision at the
upcoming hearing?
3. Is there any more information about the four policy options that staff needs to provide?
4. Is Council supportive of the collection of non-utility fees for new development in the
Laporte area in exchange for utility service provided by the City?
ATTACHMENTS
A. Laporte Water/Sewer Service Policy Report
B. City Code Article X. Utility Service Outside City Limits
C. North Forty News, June 2004, "Laporte projects in limbo due to sewer uncertainty"
D. North Forty News, August 2004, "Laporte developers look at forming new sewer district"
E. North Forty News, October 2004, "Laporte developers promote plan for metro district"
F. North Forty News, December 2004, "Laporte area sewage worries Fort Collins"
G. Planning and Zoning Board Minutes, November 18, 2004
H. Water Board Recommendation Memo
1. Memo from Doug Ryan, Larimer County Environmental Health Planner
• Attachment A
LaPorte Water/Sewer Services Policy Report
November 8,2004
I. The Issues
The City of Fort Collins provides public water and sanitary sewer service to a portion of the
unincorporated community of LaPorte. In accordance with an agreement dated June 12, 1969
between the City and the LaPorte Water and Sanitation District, the City owns and maintains the
water distribution systems in the LaPorte area. In addition, the City has a contractual agreement
for sewer service with the District that dates from 1970. The agreement has not been formally
reviewed for many years and some of the provisions are out of date. The agreement defines a
limit to the number of taps in the District, which may be reached soon.
The City also provides sewer service to a commercial campground that is located on Taft Hill
Road, within the LaPorte area but well outside the current District boundary. This line could
potentially serve existing and future development in the Taft Hill/CR 54G area.
The LaPorte area is identified in the 1997 Latimer County Master Plan as an urban area, and has
had a similar designation in County plans since the 1970's. The most recent area plan for
• LaPorte, adopted by Latimer County in January 2004, shows a higher level of development in
the Taft Hill /CR 54G area than the previous 1994 plan. This land use pattern would require
public sewer service.
City Plan goals state that the extension of utilities, especially wastewater services will be
discouraged outside the Growth Management Area. The LaPorte plan area is not specifically
addressed. This situation has led to uncertainty for LaPorte residents and property owners, the
LaPorte District and City and County staff.
This report seeks clarification and policy direction regarding extension of sewer service in the
LaPorte area. The report provides background information,policy alternatives and analysis of
the pros and cons of the alternatives. The report was prepared by a task force with
representatives from the County Planning and Health Departments, the District and City
Advance Planning, Current Planning and Utilities Departments.
II. Background
Why This Issue Now?
Service to development projects outside the LaPorte Water and Sanitation District and outside
the GMA up until now has never been an issue because almost no development projects
• requiring public sewer service have been completed. An exception was the Heron Lake RV
Park, north of the Poudre River and east of Taft Hill Road, which received City sanitation service
1
in 2002. Although the project was outside the GMA, it was decided that serving the RV Park
was better than having another sewage effluent discharge point into the Poudre River.
Recently, the City received two formal requests for sanitary sewer service in LaPorte just on the
edge of the LaPorte Water and Sanitation District, and outside the City's GMA. The first request
was the Spring Green development proposal, consisting of a 56 acre developed into 27
residential lots. The site is south of the Poudre River and abuts Overland Trail adjacent to,but
outside the GMA Boundary. Both the Water and the Planning and Zoning boards have
recommended extension of City sewer and water to the site. The second request was The Grove,
a 68-acre development proposal consisting of 208 single family housing units, 80 townhouse
units and 25,000 square feet of commercial space. This project abuts County Road 54G east of
Overland Trail. Several other informal inquiries have been made into City service by area
owners and developers.
Rather than process all of the requests on a case-by-case basis through its Out-of-City Service
process, staff decided that it is would be more appropriate to address sewer service to the
LaPorte area at the policy level.
Extension of water service seems to be less significant a policy issue than sewer. Two water
districts provide service in the area(see Figure 1). The West Fort Collins Water District
(WFCWD)provides service to the west, north and east of the developed core of the Laporte
community. The Northern Colorado Water Association serves the existing subdivisions west of
Taft Hill Road and north of C.R. 54G. It is likely that the WFCWD will serve most of the new
development shown in the LaPorte Area Plan.
The policy issue of extending public sewer to LaPorte is unique in that there are no other areas
around the GMA that do not already have a service provider. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that
the City would be asked to provide sanitary sewer service to other areas outside the GMA
because of the presence of existing sanitation district providers (including Boxelder to the north
and east of the City; South Fort Collins to the south).
Brief History of Public Water and Sanitary Sewer Service in LaPorte
The City of Fort Collins began providing water to the LaPorte area in the 1920's. At that time,
water was treated at the City's water plant located in Poudre Canyon. Water transmission mains
connecting the treatment plant to Fort Collins passed through the LaPorte area. In 1957, the
LaPorte Water and Sanitation District was created,under a court order, to address demonstrated
health and water quality issues within the town of LaPorte and the immediately surrounding area.
This District has all of the powers of a public or quasi-municipal corporation, including having a
Board of Directors. As previously noted, the City of Fort Collins became the owner of the
LaPorte water distribution system on June 12, 1969.
Sewer service came to the LaPorte area following an agreement dated February 22, 1970,
between the City and the District. The City agreed to receive all wastewater from five hundred
(500)4-inch residential taps. In addition, the City agreed to operate and maintain the Districts
entire collection and conveyance facilities and to provide adequate treatment of the wastewater.
In January 1972,the City and the District agreed to increase this number of taps by two hundred
(200) yielding a total commitment to serve seven hundred (700) 4-inch residential taps. At
2
• present, there are 678 customer accounts in the LaPorte Water and Sanitation District, leaving
22 available taps.
The City now provides all customer billing and administrative services. Even though the City
has essentially taken over the District's service responsibilities, the District and its Board of
Directors continue to operate with the same legal standing and authority.
LaPorte Area Plan
The most recent LaPorte Area Plan was adopted by the Larimer County Planning Commission in
January 2004. Previous plans for the area were adopted in 1980 and 1992. The LaPorte Plan
Area is shown in Figure 2.
The 2004 LaPorte Area Plan is much more comprehensive than previous versions, and includes
transportation, drainage and design elements in addition to future land use. The community
Vision includes protecting LaPorte's separate community identity, maintaining and enhancing the
existing core village area through careful in-fill development and presenting attractive
community entrances on either end of County Rd. 54G.
The Plan includes specific strategies for the East Entryway Transition Area(County Rd. 54G
from the existing town core to Taft Hill Rd.), designed to address the issue of strip commercial
development. The Plan provides options and incentives to transition existing and potential strip
• commercial uses and zoning in this area. Part of this strategy includes developing a new
neighborhood business center at Taft Hill Rd. and County Rd. 54G, and increasing some
surrounding potential residential densities to 4 units/acre, as an alternative to existing business
and commercial strip zoning. These strategies are dependent on the availability of public sewer
service to this area.
III. Existing Conditions
Planning—LaPorte Future Land Use
The 2004 LaPorte Area Plan includes a Future Land Use Map that is used as the basis for
projecting potential demand for new public sewer service in the area(see Figure 2). Existing
residential units in the area that potentially could be served by public sewer are also included in
the projections of future demand for public sewer.
Existing LaPorte Water and Sanitation District Service Area
Within the existing service area, there is the potential for an additional 329 residential units
according to the LaPorte Area Plan. Additional development in this area would be characterized
as in-fill development and re-subdivision of existing parcels.
Adjacent Area
• The areas immediately adjacent to the south and southwest of the existing service area could
potentially develop with an additional 314 residential units according to the LaPorte Area Plan.
3
The larger undeveloped parcels in this area are underlain by sand and gravel deposits, which may
limit their actual residential development potential. Assessment of the commercial potential of
these resources requires detailed site-specific analysis which is not currently available; therefore
the maximum potential residential number is included in this Report.
In addition to the potential new units, there are 76 existing residential units in this area which
could potentially utilize sewer service from an expanded service area.
East Enpyyav Area
The area east of the existing town center is planned for Low Density Residential use (2-4
units/acre),resulting in a potential for 1127 new residential units. A new neighborhood business
center is also planned for the area at County Rd. 54G and Taft Hill Rd. There is also existing
business and commercial zoning in the area. For purposes of this Report, these potential
commercial areas are estimated based on the residential equivalent,resulting in an additional 196
units, for a total of 1323 units in this area. There are also approximately 90 existing residential
units that could potentially use expanded sewer service in the area.
Summary Table of Potential Sewer Taps
Area New residential Existing residential Total potential new
units units residential taps
Existing service 329 — 329
area
Adjacent south and
southwest area 314 76 390
East entryway area 1323 90 1413
Total units 1 1966 1 166 1 2132
City Policy
City Plan. It is a goal of City Plan to discourage provision of City utilities outside of the
Growth Management Area. Policy GM-5.1 clarifies this goal by limiting extensions to those
that are consistent with City Plan and have a community benefit:
New roads and other City services will not be extended to serve development that is
inconsistent with City Plan or other regional plans as adopted by the City. Moreover,the
City will not enter into any agreements with other jurisdictions to jointly fund or
construct infrastructure improvements or provide services that might foster growth that is
inconsistent with these plans. These policies will not preclude the City from working with
other jurisdictions to provide services and facilities which that benefit the entire
community such as water and wastewater facilities,regional trails, open space and parks.
The basis for this policy was to discourage sprawl on the edges of the Growth Management
Area. The idea was that the City could direct urban development to well-defined, contiguous
areas by controlling the provision of utilities. Thus, the provision of public facilities and services
is to be used as a tool for directing growth consistent with the land use goals, policies, and plans.
4
• The existing City sanitary sewer service to LaPorte predates City Plan. The City decided to
provide wastewater treatment to the area in 1970 because it was concerned that effluent from a
new treatment lagoon could reduce the water quality of the Poudre River. In addition, this same
concern was the basis for the City's extension of a water line to the Heron Lake RV Park across
the River and outside the GMA.
The City did not adopt the LaPorte Area Plan prepared by Larimer County. However, City Plan
states that the"City will recognize the planning efforts within the growth management and
planning areas of the adjacent communities of LaPorte, Timnath, Wellington and Loveland."
(source: City Structure Plan - Edges).
Clearly, the extension of sanitary sewer services in LaPorte is necessary for new development
and may allow existing residents to convert from septic systems to public sanitation. Whether
this in turn benefits Fort Collins depends on the impacts of any alternative sanitary sewer service
or development pattern. These impacts are assessed later in this Report.
Service Outside City Limits Process. Chapter 26, Article X of the City Code provides the
General Manager of Utility Services with the sole discretion over the extension of sewer services
outside City limits (see Attachment B). Input from the Planning and Zoning and Water Boards
are required if more than one connection is requested. Section 26-651 states, "New utility
service will be furnished to property which is outside of the city limits if the following conditions
are met:..." (underlining added). Conditions include surplus capacity over the immediate
• requirements of service within the city, consistency and compliance with the County Land Use
Code, an agreement to annex, and an agreement binding current and future property owners to
utility service provisions.
There is an inconsistency between these regulations and City Plan. While City Plan discourages
the extension of City utilities unless there is a community benefit, Article X makes no mention of
City Plan policies. Because of this, either City Plan or Article X should be amended resolve the
inconsistency.
Section 208 Water Quality Plan
The North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association has adopted the Areawide Water
Quality Management Plan (Updated 2003), also called the "208" Plan after the section of the
Clean Water Act that established the program. The 208 Plan is a comprehensive document that
identifies wastewater service providers and their service areas throughout the region. The
document is aimed at systematically managing water quality and coordinating wastewater
treatment in Larimer and Weld Counties, including the Cache la Poudre River watershed.
Two major features are included in the latest 208 Plan Update: A thorough listing of land use
management agencies and wastewater management/operation agencies; and, detailed information
and mapping of municipal point source discharges, treatment facilities and service area maps.
According to the 208 Plan sewer service boundary map (see Figure 3), almost the entire area
• along the Fort Collins GMA is within a sanitation district service area except for an area
generally north of Vine Drive, west of North College Avenue and east of LaPorte proper. This
unclaimed area is bordered by City of Fort Collins service to the west (shown as a "finger" of
5
service along Overland Trail) and to the east and Boxelder Sanitation District north of Douglas
Road. Thus,the two closest potential providers to this unclaimed area are the City and Boxelder
Sanitation District.
Wastewater Conveyance Facilities between LaPorte and Fort Collins
Wastewater is transported from the LaPorte area through a 12-inch sewer which extends south
across the Poudre River and southeast along the abandoned railroad right-of-way. At Taft Hill
Road,this sewer connects with the City's Northwest Trunk line. At the present time,the 12-inch
sewer is the only line connecting the LaPorte system and the City system. This sewer was
constructed in 1971 at the same time the LaPorte collection system was installed. Excess
capacity is available in this line to provide service to an additional 500 to 600 dwelling units.
In 2002, a sewer was constructed in Taft Hill Road north from the point where the 12-inch sewer
connects to the Northwest Trunk. This line was installed by the developer of the Heron Lake RV
Park and extends north of the Poudre River. This line is a 15-inch sewer. The size of the sewer
was determined by minimum sewer grades and elevation of the channel of the Poudre River. As
a result,this line has capacity to potentially serve more than 1100 additional dwelling units.
These two main lines would have enough capacity to serve most of the new development on
public sewer in the LaPorte area. Whether or not they could serve all new development
requiring public sewer and homes on existing septic systems depends on how intensely the area
develops. According to County staff, there is the potential for approximately 2,100 units
requiring new taps. This is a maximum potential; there is likely to be less development due to
physical constraints,market factors, etc. The combined capacity of the LaPorte line and the
Heron Lake line is approximately 1700 additional dwelling units, leaving potentially 400 units
that would not be served without line upgrades. In the East Entryway area(near Taft Hill
Road/C.R. 54G),there may be 200—400 units that the City would be unable to serve without
upgrading the size of the 15-inch line from the Heron Lake RV Park. There may be several
hundred units in other areas of LaPorte that may not be served without upgrading the 12-inch
line in the center of LaPorte.
Existing Septic Systems
The LaPorte area contains a number of small lots located in areas not served by public sewer.
These are older lots created prior to the adoption of modern land use regulations. Individual on-
site septic systems are used for sewer in these situations. A typical on-site system uses a septic
tank and absorption field(leach field). Sewage from the house flows by gravity into the septic
tank,where settling and primary biological treatment takes place. It then flows into the
absorption filed, where effluent is allowed to percolate through the underground soil layers. The
majority of treatment occurs in the soil layer due to the growth of aerobic bacteria that digest the
nutrients contained in the sewage.
The average lifespan of a septic tank—absorption field sewer system is about 30 years. Systems
that fail typically do so in one of two ways: the systems backs up into the household plumbing,
or sewage surfaces in the area of the absorption system. When failure occurs,regulations
administered by the County Department of Health and Environment require steps to remedy the
situation. If the property is located less than 400' from a sewer main, connection to public sewer
6
• is typically required. Exceptions can be made for technical reasons that make connection not
feasible.
Failing septic systems located more than 400' from a sewer main must be repaired. A common
method of repair is to add additional area to the absorption field. In other cases it is necessary to
replace the absorption field entirely. As would be expected,repair or replacement systems are
generally more feasible on larger parcels that contain adequate area. Lots that are larger than
two acres can generally accommodate repair systems, and are considered to be sustainable on
septic systems over the long term. Lots smaller than two acres more often present difficulties for
designing and installing repair systems.
In the LaPorte area, sewer main extensions of more than one mile would be necessary to serve
some of the existing smaller lots along County Road 54G. It is generally not economically
feasible to extend sewer mains such distances solely for the purpose of serving older small lot
subdivisions. This is particularly true because septic system failures do not occur all at once in
any area, and the majority of lot owners have no interest in funding a sewer main extension.
Several of the land use categories in the LaPorte Area Plan call for densities and uses that need
public sewer if they are to be developed according to the future land use map. These include:
low density residential (2-4 units/acre),medium density residential, multi-family,neighborhood
business center, and limited commercial. If public sewer were extended to serve these areas, it
would provide an opportunity to connect some existing small-lot residential development to
• public sewer as those older systems fail.
To illustrate this potential, Figure 4 shows existing lots located within the area planned for public
sewer that are less than two acres in size. There are 151 total lots (shown in red), 139 of which
are developed and use a septic system to serve either a residence or small business. While it
would take some time to accomplish conversions as older systems fail, sewer mains extended for
new development could eventually serve many of these small older lots.
Legal Issues
The existing agreement between the City and the Sanitation District provides for the City to
assume the responsibility to provide service to the District's customers, and the date for that shift
and elimination of the District passed several years ago. As a result, unless the City renegotiates
the agreement, the City will become responsible for providing wastewater services to the
District's customers upon completion of the transition contemplated in the agreement. However,
the City will not be obligated to provide service to properties that are outside of the city and
those properties are not entitled to service as a result of the City's agreement with the District.
City staff is investigating the status of the agreement and will work with the District to resolve
the issue.
Impacts on Fort Collins'Services
City staff assessed impacts of LaPorte development on several City services, including
• wastewater, transportation, parks and the library. The reason these services and not others were
chosen was that much of their finding is provided through development impact fees and not
7
sales taxes. It's important to note that these impacts are likely to occur whether or not the City
extends sanitary sewer services to other areas of LaPorte.
The future population of LaPorte is a factor in assessing how much an impact development will
have on City services. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the existing population of LaPorte
CDP is 2,691 and the number of housing units is 1,180. The number of residents could grow to
7,626 if the LaPorte Area Plan's future land uses are implemented fully. In the future, LaPorte
could be 3 —4% of the City's future GMA population(216,000 in 2025).
Wastewater Utility:
Extension of wastewater services in LaPorte does not represent an additional, unfunded financial
cost to the City. Development currently pays for utility lines to serve its own respective project.
In addition, Wastewater Plant Investment Fees are collected from new customers (developers
and property owners) for their proportional share of growth related to capital expansion costs for
wastewater collection,treatment and sludge disposal facilities. Finally, user fees are collected in
the area using the same cost schedule as any other area.
Water Utility:
Extension of water services in LaPorte does not represent an additional, unfunded financial cost
to the City. Development currently pays for utility lines to serve its own respective project. In
addition, Water Plant Investment Fees are collected from new customers (developers and
property owners) for their proportional share of growth related to capital expansion costs.
Finally,user fees are collected in the area using the same cost schedule as any other area.
Stormwater:
The LaPorte area is within a separate drainage basin from any City drainage basin. Therefore,
the impact of storm water runoff on City stormwater facilities is minimal.
Transportation:
The County assessed long-range roadway needs in the LaPorte area based on 20-year traffic
growth projections (sources were the North Front Range MPO and CDOT). The projections
represent a combination of continued regional growth and localized build-out based on the
LaPorte Area Plan. Future roadway improvement needs for streets entering the GMA include
arterial design standards for Overland Trail south of CR 54G and widening of Taft Hill south of
CR 54G to accommodate new access points for larger developments.
Based on the County's projections, it is anticipated that no further re-classification will be
needed to streets entering Fort Collins from the LaPorte area. The streets in question include
Overland Trail,North Taft Hill Road,North Shields Street, and U.S. 287/North College Avenue.
Annual traffic increases on these streets will be in the 4—6%range.
Parks:
8
• LaPorte has two existing public parks: Lions Park and Bingham Park. Neither of these parks,
however,provides the same level of recreation and amenities as a typical city park. Based on the
lack of park amenities in the LaPorte area, there would likely be a minor increase in usage of
City parks and trails by LaPorte area residents, primarily on City Park, Overland Trail,
Huidekoper and Rogers parks. The increase could be in the 2—3%range based on a proportion
of the LaPorte population to City-wide population.
Besides natural areas, there are four types of parks provided by either the City or County or both.
First,both the City and County require small public or private neighborhood parks to be
provided by projects over 10 acres in size or that the project is accessible to an existing park.
The size of the park is to be at least one acre in size. Second, only the City requires a
neighborhood parkland fee for the construction of new parks. There is no similar requirement by
the County. Third, the City and County collect a community parkland fee in the GMA for the
construction of community parks by the City. The County does not collect fees or construct
parks that have the same range of amenities as the City's community parks. However, it does
collect a regional parkland fee-in-lieu from residential projects in unincorporated areas. These
regional parks consist entirely of unprogrammed recreational activities rather than the more
intensely managed community parks.
Library:
The City collects a development impact fee for new library facilities and materials. There is no
• similar fee paid by development outside City limits. The County provides no funding to cover
the cost of unincorporated residents using the library.
According to Library staff, there are 773 card holders in the LaPorte area that have used the
City's library at least once in the past year; these users represent 30% of the residents of LaPorte.
In addition, there are other LaPorte residents using other library services—such as reference
materials, internet services, etc. -that are not card holders. Assuming that the current percentage
of existing and future LaPorte residents will be active card holders, then at least 2,280 residents
(out of 7,600)will be library users in the future. Based upon the same cost assumptions for the
library portion of the City's Capital Expansion Impact Fee ($180 per capita cost for buildings
and materials)the cost of serving LaPorte could be approximately$400,000 in today's dollars at
Plan build-out(20 or more years).
Recovery of City Costs for Facilities and Services Used by LaPorte Residents and Businesses
City Plan policy GM-5.1 g states, "The City should charge additional fees to non-city residents
who utilize City services."
The City had previously charged higher fees for sewer service customers in LaPorte than City
customers. Many other Colorado communities charge higher rates for utility customers outside
city limits. However, Utilities lowered fees to the same rates as City customers several years ago
due to legal concerns. Based on Policy GM-5.1 g, the City should investigate options for
increasing rates for water and sewer service outside City limits.
• There are several ways in which the costs for streets, parks and the library services and facilities
could be recaptured through the provision of City sewer taps in LaPorte, as follows:
9
Development Impact Fees
The City could require developers to pay a project's proportional share of the costs of City
facilities. Developers could be required to sign an agreement which provides wastewater service
provisioned upon the payment of impact fees and approval of the project by the County. This
would provide funding to offset the costs of constructing necessary improvements to streets and
the costs of library materials, etc. This type of fee does not work as well for park capital,
however. Collecting an impact fee for parks would imply that the City would acquire and build
parks in LaPorte. Another problem with this fee is that it is a one-time collection of funds and
would not cover costs to maintain City streets,parks and the library. In addition, developers
would be assessed three separate street impact fees: (1)the County Regional Transportation
Capital Expansion Fee; (2)the County Transportation Capital Expansion Fee; and (3) a City
Street Oversizing Fee.
City Maintenance Fee
This type of fee could provide additional funding for the maintenance of streets,parks, and
operation of the library. A user fee could be charged on each existing utility customer in LaPorte
and collected through utility billing. The issue with this approach is that LaPorte customers
would be billed an additional fee while no such fee applies to City customers. The logistics and
costs of collecting the fee would be significant. Moreover,there is little recourse for non-
payment of fees because, according to State Statute, the City cannot stop providing water and
wastewater for customers who refuse to pay the fees.
One-Time Payment in Exchange for Utility Service (Service Agreement)
The best solution for offsetting costs for City services would be for the City to require an
agreement from the developer(either a new agreement or an amended Utilities extension
agreement) for a one-time payment to the City for street, parks and library impacts in exchange
for utility service for new development, in addition to existing utility fees. The payment would
be collected at the time of issuance of the tap on a lot by lot basis. The City Manager would
establish a schedule of fees and calculate how much to charge at the time utility service is
requested. Establishing the amount of fees will require additional staff analysis and will be based
upon prorated share of the cost of impacts on city services and facilities.
IV. New Wastewater Service Options & Issues
Five possible wastewater collection and treatment options are listed below.
Septic Systems
Septic systems are an option in LaPorte only where densities are lower than 1 dwelling unit per
2.29 acres. Without a public or community sewer system, much of the area planned for 2—4
dwelling units per acre area around County Road 54G and commercial at 54G and Taft Hill Road
would have to be developed at much lower densities.
10
• From a water quality standpoint, septic systems are the least desirable wastewater treatment
option. All septic systems move wastes, including nitrates and phosphates, into the alluvial
aquifer, which eventually flows into the Poudre River. There is widespread acknowledgement
by City and County staff that limiting the creation of new septic systems and replacing existing
septic systems with public sewer are important steps in improving water quality and reducing the
risk of water pollution.
Community Sewer Systems
Community sewer systems are another wastewater service option for new development.
Typically these systems are intended to collect and treat wastewater and sewage for a limited
area, such as to a single subdivision with a limited sewer flow. Treatment systems include
aerated lagoon systems, mechanical (package)treatment plants, shared or clustered septic
tank/soil absorption systems and individual absorption systems where all or part of the systems
are located on common open space. According to County staff, most new treatment facilities
are mechanical due to high State effluent standards. It is unclear whether a new treatment
facility in the LaPorte area would need to be a mechanical system or if it could be a lagoon
system.
Generally, the smaller the treatment system, the fewer the regulations governing the system and
qualifications for operating the system. Community sewer systems may be the most likely
where connection to a public system is not available or is cost prohibitive. However, these
• systems may not be financially feasible for smaller developments (e.g.,under 50 units) or large
developments (e.g., over 150 units or so). In addition, they may not be a desirable option for
many new developments due to the fact that treatment occurs on-site with its associated impacts
(i.e., odors, buffers, etc.). Management could be handled privately(e.g., a neighborhood
association) or through an existing sewer district or municipality.
Depending on the management arrangement and treatment system, this option may be a less
desirable than sewer provision by a larger, public district. Smaller treatment systems typically
have fewer safeguards on the operation and maintenance of the system than larger systems.
Community sewer systems managed by neighborhood associations are of particular concern.
Section 4.1.2 of the Larimer County Master Plan discusses wastewater facilities and the
problems with sewer systems operated by homeowners associations. The Plan states,
Experience has shown that, in general, special districts, cities and towns provide the
highest level of service. Sewer systems operated by homeowners associations experience
the most difficulty. Discussions with public sewer providers indicated that extension of
sewer lines within municipal or district service areas is almost always a more economical
solution than developing small treatment plants, and provides the best long-term service
to homeowners...A proliferation ofprivate package sewage treatment plants operated
by homeowners associations can lead to inadequate financial planning,poor treatment
levels, and potentially, a future bailout at the expense of County taxpayers." (emphasis
added).
The most significant concern of staff is the potential for a proliferation of smaller community
• sewer systems to serve individual developments. The result could be multiple effluent sources
releasing treated wastes into the Poudre River. A description of the impacts of new effluent
sources is described below.
11
Collection and Treatment Facilities by One or More Sanitation Districts
In addition, new wastewater lines and/or treatment facilities could be created through new or
existing districts. Two possibilities exist with this option: (1) a district could contract with an
existing provider, such as the City or Boxelder Sanitation District to provide operations,
maintenance,billing, collection and/or treatment(as is done by the LaPorte Water and Sanitation
District with the City); or(2)the district could provide and manage all of its own facilities, paid
through bonds secured with property tax assessments within the district.
There are several LaPorte area property owners and developers who are currently pursuing a
Metropolitan district encompassing a large area east of LaPorte. The district could include
various services and facilities,including wastewater facilities. The developers would likely
provide a sanitation collection system. A new treatment system could be created(a site near the
Heron Lakes RV Park has been discussed) or the district could attempt to contract with an
existing service provider for treatment of wastes. Operation and management of the system
could either be done privately or through an existing service provider.
Colorado Revised Statutes require a public process (including an election amongst property
owners within the district service area) to be completed in order for a new district to be formed.
Costs for creation of a new district could be substantial, although property tax assessments
distributed throughout an area could make costs more reasonable for an individual developer.
As with community sewer systems,the impacts of a new district depend on how well the
sanitation system is managed and how its treatment is handled. h7 the continuum of wastewater
treatment options,this option is believed by staff to be potentially better than the creation of new
septic systems and community sewer systems if well managed and if treatment is handled by an
existing treatment provider. However, as with community service systems,the worst scenario is
the formation of multiple new districts and the construction of any new treatment facilities. A
description of the impacts of new effluent sources is described below.
Service Provision by Boxelder Sanitation District
There is the potential that Boxelder Sanitation District could extend its service lines into LaPorte.
This would require at least 3 miles of new lines as well as new pumping equipment in order to
bring wastes up to existing lines east of S.H. 1. Wastewater treatment by Boxelder would be
better than the other options listed above and there would be fewer risks of untreated discharges.
From a cost standpoint this option may be less likely than a new district because of the
significant costs involved in extending the collection system into LaPorte.
City Service Extension
City service would provide the highest treatment standard and the lowest risks of accidental
discharges into the Poudre River. However, this option would not necessarily be the lowest cost
option for a developer, depending on costs for constructing new lines, Wastewater Plant
Investment Fees, and any other payments collected by the City. As discussed above under the
12
• new district option, the City could be contracted to treat the wastes within a new sanitation
district.
V. Environmental Impacts of New Treatment Facilities in LaPorte
Any new treatment facility will have an environmental impact. Although the facility would have
to meet applicable state and federal standards, a new discharge point upstream of the city would
be created, resulting in treated effluent releases into the Poudre River, thus lowering its water
quality.
If the facility is a lagoon system, it could have lower effluent standards than a conventional
wastewater treatment facility(WWTF). This could affect the City's treatment limits in the
City's next EPA discharge permit. Although the City's segment of the Poudre isn't subject to
waste load allocations, the state does tend to factor in all point sources when running their
ammonia model. Discharge from another treatment facility could change the river's pH,
hardness, and temperature as well as nitrogen profile. These factors all have the potential to
affect our ammonia and metals limits which could relate to increased capital and operating costs
to upgrade WWTFs.
In addition, the City probably would not have jurisdiction to mitigate the potential impacts of
noise, odors, and gaseous chlorine hazards because the new treatment facility will be outside
City limits.
• Developers in LaPorte have suggested that a new WWTF could be constructed near the Heron
Lakes RV Park. This park or any other treatment location would likely be near the Poudre River
and possibly within its floodplain. There is a risk that flooding could cause the overflow or
bypass of the sewage treatment system, releasing untreated sewage into the Poudre River.
At this point it is unclear how a new WWTF would be operated and maintained. However,
smaller treatment facilities typically have more problems than larger facilities due to insufficient
funds to operate and maintain the plant properly and waste strengths that exceed plant design and
capacity limitations. In addition, the smaller facility may not have the same capability as a larger
system to pre-treat wastes from industrial users or illegal drug labs.
VI. City Alternatives
There are three primary alternatives for responding to requests for sanitary sewer service:
City maintains its current policies and procedures for extending water/sewer service
(status quo)
Under this scenario, the City would continue to serve LaPorte and only extend service on a case-
by-case basis where it benefits Fort Collins.
•
13
Issues/Pros/Cons:
■ City decides which projects it will provide service to through its existing Out-of-City
service process.
• Little predictability for City staff or developers on future extensions.
• Decisions could be inconsistent with City Plan.
■ Unclear role for the LaPorte Water and Sanitation District.
■ Potential for one or more new districts or community sewer systems to form and new
wastewater treatment facilities to be constructed .
• Potential for new points of wastewater discharge, depending on the treatment provider
(new district, septic or other system), lowering water quality of the Poudre River.
■ Potential for Boxelder Sanitation District to provide service to LaPorte not under City
control.
■ Fewer septic systems might be replaced with public sewer,having a greater potential for
failing septic systems resulting in health issues and diminished water quality.
Next steps if this alternative is chosen:
• Staff:
o Resolve contractual limitations on providing service to new customers in the
existing District.
o Prepare an amendment to either City Code Section 26-651 Utility Service Outside
City Limits regulations or City Plan to ensure consistency between the policies and
regulations.
o Initiate an amendment of the 208 Water Quality Plan to align existing service area
boundaries with the 208 Plan boundaries.
• City Council:
o Review and adopt the amendment to Section 26-651 Utility Service Outside City
Limits or to City Plan.
City continues service to existing service area but prohibits City utility extensions outside
the GAM.
Under this scenario,the City would continue to work through the LaPorte Water and Sanitation
District to provide service to the core area of LaPorte. However, the Out-of-City service process
would be amended to prohibit any new utility extensions anywhere outside the GMA, including
the area of LaPorte not already served by City wastewater facilities.
Issues/Pros/Cons:
• Greater predictability over City service for City staff and developers.
• Greater likelihood that one or more new districts or community sewer systems would
form(or extensions through the LaPorte district could occur) and new wastewater
treatment facilities to be provided not under City control.
• Greater likelihood that new points of wastewater discharge, depending on the treatment
provider(new district, septic or other system), and water quality issues in the Poudre
River.
• Greater likelihood that Boxelder Sanitation District would provide service to LaPorte not
under City control.
14
• Fewer septic systems might be replaced with public sewer, having a greater potential for
failing septic systems resulting in health issues and diminished water quality.
Next steps if this alternative is chosen:
■ Staff:
o Resolve contractual limitations on providing service to new customers in the
existing District.
o Draft amendments to the City Code Section 26-651 Utility Service Outside City
Limits to limit utility extensions to areas within the Growth Management Area and
to include a new condition provisioning the extension of city utilities service upon
consistency with City Plan.
o Initiate an amendment of the 208 Water Quality Plan to align existing service area
boundaries with the 208 Plan boundaries.
• City Council:
o Review and approve City Code Section 26-651 Utility Service Outside City Limits
amendments.
City provides future service to a defined area of LaPorte
Under this scenario, the City provides full sewer service to a defined area of LaPorte (see Figure
5).
• Issues/Pros/Cons:
• More City participation in decisions over where and how areas develop in LaPorte
through conditions on service and a defined service boundary.
• Can tie service to collection of fees to offset impacts on City services.
■ Greater predictability for City staff and developers.
■ City viewed as facilitating development in an area outside GMA.
■ Lessen possibility of the creation of a new treatment facility upstream of Fort Collins.
• Potential to collect Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOTS), which will increase general
fund revenues.
Next steps if this alternative is chosen:
■ Staff:
o Draft a resolution containing boundaries of the extended district(see Figure 5) and
directing the City Manager to promulgate rules for the extension of utilities.
o Initiate an amendment of the 208 Water Quality Plan to show future areas of City
service.
o Prepare an amendment to either City Code Section 26-651 Utility Service Outside
City Limits regulations or City Plan to ensure consistency between the policies and
regulations.
• City Council:
o Review and adopt the amendment to Section 26-651 Utility Service Outside City
• Limits or to City Plan.
15
City is contracted to provide sewer treatment only for a new sanitation district
Under this scenario,the City provides only the treatment of wastes from a defined area of
LaPorte(see Figure 5). A new entity(e.g.,metropolitan district)would be responsible for
creating a collection system,billing and operations and management of the system. In exchange
for providing treatment, the City would require that the boundaries be established in such a way
as to eliminate the possibility of multiple districts being formed.
Issues/Pros/Cons:
■ More City participation in decisions over where and how areas develop in LaPorte
through conditions on service and a defined service boundary.
■ Can tie service to collection of fees to offset impacts on City services.
• Greater predictability for City staff and developers.
• City's role does not include full provision of sanitation services.
• City viewed as facilitating development in an area outside GMA.
■ Can reduce or eliminate the potential proliferation of new districts.
• Potential to collect Payment-in-Lieu-of-Taxes (PILOTS), which will increase general
fund revenues.
■ This alternative is similar to the practice in the Denver metropolitan area.
Next steRs if this alternative is chosen:
• Staff:
o Work towards an agreement with any new entity to provide sewer treatment. The
agreement would contain a number of conditions including the collection of fees
for utility and other City services.
o Prepare an amendment to either City Code Section 26-651 Utility Service Outside
City Limits regulations or City Plan to ensure consistency between the policies and
regulations.
• City Council:
o Review and adopt the amendment to Section 26-651 Utility Service Outside City
Limits or to City Plan.
o Adopt a resolution pertaining to any new district agreement.
VII. Summary and Recommendation
Since the adoption of the LaPorte Area Plan, development pressures along C.R. 54G and Taft
Hill Road in LaPorte have increased significantly. This is due in part to new opportunities
created by the LaPorte Area Plan. Additional development is likely to occur whether or not the
City provides sewer service.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City encourage the property owners to form a single
service entity through the provision of City sewage treatment (alternative 4), with the following
conditions:
16
• (1) Within the service entity, the boundaries wherein sewer service would be provided shall
correspond to the area as illustrated in Figure 5 (identified as "Potential')*;
(2) Development projects within the area illustrated in Figure 5 shall be consistent with the
LaPorte Area Plan and its current(January, 2004) land use designations;
(3) The same conditions and agreements listed in Sec. 26-651(b) and See. 26-652 (a)— (d) of the
City Code (see Attachment B) if applicable;
(4) A service agreement between the City and developers for the City to collect a one-time fee to
pay for the impacts of the development on City services, including utilities,parks, library,
and transportation, in return for the extension of City utilities. The City Manager should be
directed to determine the appropriate fees.
* The exception is two areas located south of the river and west of LaPorte, wherein the City
should provide full sewer service (alternative 3). These areas cannot be reasonably served by a
new district.
Staff finds there are community benefits with this action, namely:
■ The City service to this extended but contained area would help the City to ensure that
water quality is protected. It would reduce the potential for new treatment facilities
upstream from Fort Collins.
• ■ Failing septic systems in the vicinity of new sewer lines may eventually be connected,
thereby reducing the potential for water pollution.
• The City would have some participation in the review of new land uses whose wastes are
to be treated with City facilities.
• The City would have the ability to offset some of the costs of services used by LaPorte
area residents and businesses.
■ The recommendation would reduce the potential proliferation of sanitation districts and
wastewater treatment facilities.
• The recommendation is consistent with the intent of the Section 208 Plan and the desires
of City, County and State staff to reduce the potential for proliferation of new sanitation
providers near Fort Collins.
If the property owners are unsuccessful in forming a single service entity meeting the above
conditions, staff recommends Alternative 3 with the same conditions listed above.
•
17
Figure 1: Water Service Providers
i
No Co.Water
I'
c
>�
West Ft.CoiWq
w '
a � x
I
4P
3 3 �
West Ft.Collins
✓ I e
r,
FL Collins, -I
i
11 _
/ av
i
Legend 1
BLaPorte Plan Area
Growth Management Area
®City Limits-Area
H
— -- West Fort Collins
—Northern Co Water w a
Fort Collins s
I8
Figure 2: LaPorte Area Plan Future Land Use Map
tt
_ � laawm ec.
{
17w
w
: 1 AY1.R9 as GSy
0.6 unBYeare
Ilt
I
• 3, `N I zr.aima.� �
lyiBwae --_. F
� x
24 unilNeae
t urWlOBc. • _ -
ii 34wIWBue
l q
J
24 u nhe.a.
� 1 uniN129 r-
/. 1 uniV229 w � Z R�/ ✓""�
Q Legend
QLaPorte Plan Area Residential 1 Unit/1 0-35 Acres
- :LaPorte Sewer Service Area ��, _� Residential 1 UnN2+Acres
Growth Management Area Low Density Residential 24 Units/Acre
Sewer lines Medium Density Residential 4-6 Units/Acre I hI
I _
Major Streets -Multi-Family
n
- Community Business Center A
n Neighborhood Business Center wy�E
- Limited Commercial 1Ms
-SchooWParwopen Space
19
s �
a
as iyi
1
Pill p FOVA
/,
' 1 1 I ' � ' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
����� �_
l
��
��
. . . ..
� ���
.:. . . ..
1
a ��..w.
r
1, �� �1��=: lid-:, � � � .
i:��::� .
.....
I_ ry '��.
! _, -
���I ' rtil �'�`�
�'� ��
....,,
�n
fi
�,�� 1 ��
< < ...���
. . G�I 11111
i - '�I
I - i
® -ti
Figure 5: Potential LaPorte Sewer Service Area
PIP
-
C
's
.... by
EXISTING
l POTENTIAL
• �l
i =
.... ,
I I
i.
I
Legend o
1
SLaPorte Plan Area a. ,,fT -.
Growth Management Area `
Existing parcels �..,.
Existing lots that may need public sewer n
---- Sewer lines
Major Streets w E
LaPorte Sewer Service Area s
Potential Extended Sewer Service Area
3:.,..
• in Laporte
•
22
• Attachment B
City Code Article X - Utility Service Outside City Limits
Sec. 26-651. Conditions for furnishing service.
(a)Any person outside of the city limits desiring to make a connection to one (1) or both
of the city's water and wastewater utilities shall apply to the city for permission, and
connection permits may be issued after review and recommendation of the Planning and
Zoning Board and the Water Board and the approval of the General Manager of Utility
Services. The General Manager may, in his or her discretion, elect to approve, without
the review and recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board and Water Board, the
application of persons desiring to make a single connection to one (1) or both of the city's
water and wastewater utilities, provided that such connections do not exceed a tap size of
one (1)inch(if a water tap) and/or four (4) inches (if a wastewater tap). If the General
Manager determines that the application should not be approved without the review and
recommendation of the aforementioned boards, the General Manager shall forthwith seek
such review and recommendation prior to making his or her decision.
(b)New utility service will be furnished to property which is outside of the city limits if
the following conditions are met:
• (1) The utility concerned has surplus capacity over the immediate requirements for service
within the city and the applicant has satisfied any raw water requirement assessed
against property to be served with city water;
(2) The property's zoning district permits the existing or proposed use, and any required
conditional use permit has been approved and issued;
(3) The property has complied with the subdivision laws and regulations of the county. A
waiver of any provision of such subdivision regulations by the county shall not
constitute a waiver by the city unless the City Council consents to the waiver;
(4) A current title memorandum has been provided showing that title to the property is
vested in the applicant's name;
(5) With respect to property which, at the time of application for utility service, is not
eligible for annexation into the city, the owner of the property has entered into a
written agreement to be recorded and to constitute a covenant running with the
land that the owner or any successors in interest will join in a petition for
annexation to the city when requested by the city and cooperate in related
proceedings;
• (6) With respect to property which, at the time of application for utility service, is eligible
for annexation into the city, the owner of the property has executed a petition for
23
annexation which does not contain a right of withdrawal, together with all related
documents, and paid any filing fee related thereto;
(7)The owner of the property agrees in writing for such owner and any successors in
interest that they will abide by and be subject to all of the provisions of the
respective utility articles.
(c) If a utility service permit is denied, the applicant may, in writing filed with the City
Clerk within thirty(30) days of the date of denial, appeal the denial to the City Council
which shall schedule a hearing to determine whether the applicant meets the standards
prescribed by this Article.
(Code 1972, § 112-126; Ord.No. 168, 1986, 11-486; Ord.No. 154, 1989, §§ 1-3, 1-16-90; Ord.
No. 8, 1996, § 20, 2-20-96; Ord. No. 117, 1996, § 16, 9-17-96; Ord. No. 28, 1998, § 14, 3-17-98;
Ord.No. 211, 1998, § 22, 12-1-98)
Sec. 26-652. Permit is revocable; agreement of user.
(a) So long as the property served is outside the city, any permit for utility services issued
under this Article is revocable and the utility concerned will supply service only to the
extent that it has surplus capacity over the requirements for service within the city and
only so long as the permittee is in compliance with and abides by the conditions of the
permit. The use of city water under this Article does not constitute a relinquishment of
any water or water rights by the city. The city reserves and retains full dominion and
control over its water and water rights and their use. Upon revocation of a water service
permit for water use outside the city and the permanent disconnection of water service,
the city shall remit such raw water as has been previously surrendered to the city by the
outside-city user.
(b) If a permit to connect to any of the city's utilities is approved under this Article, the
applicant shall:
(1) Comply with all of the construction, installation and connection requirements prescribed
by the applicable articles governing the utility to which connection is made the
same as any inside-city applicant;
(2) Comply with any and all of the requirements, limitations and prohibitions conditioning
service, as prescribed by the applicable articles governing the utility to which
connection is made the same as any inside-city user;
(3)Use the utility service only for the qualifying use and to make no enlargement or
alteration of the service without obtaining the written permission of the respective
utility;
(4)Bear the costs of construction, installation and connection of utility lines except for such
oversizing participation or reimbursement as may be authorized by the City
Council on recommendation of the Water Board;
24
• (5) Pay for each utility service used in accordance with the rates for outside-city users
established by the City Council from time to time;
(6)Not convey the real property served from a city utility unless such conveyance is subject
to the applicable provisions of this Chapter;
(7)Not assign the utility service permit or agreement to any other property unless such
assignment is first approved in writing by the city;
(8) File a petition to join the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, Municipal '
Subdistrict, if the property is not already included therein, and pay the required
fees.
(c) If a permittee under this Article does not connect to the permitted utility within six (6)
months of issuance of the connection permits, the permit will expire.
(d) The city may suspend utility service to the property served if the user fails to comply
with any of the conditions of the outside-city permit until the violation is rectified.
Nothing in this Article shall be construed as waiving any other remedy available to the
city pursuant to the Code or other law.
(Code 1972, § 112-126; Ord. No. 168, 1986, 11-4-86; Ord. No. 117, 1996, § 17, 9-17-96; Ord.
• 28, 1998, § 15, 3-17-98)
•
25
Attachment C
North Forty News — June 2004
LaPorte projects in limbo due to sewer uncertainty
By Cherry Sokoloski
North Forty News
To the surprise of many,future development in LaPorte may be in Fort Collins'hands.At issue is the city's sewer
system,which already serves some LaPorte neighborhoods. Several proposed developments need city sewer in order
to go forward,and some city planners are saying,"Whoa!"
Angry LaPorte leaders say they were counting on city sewer to serve new developments in the area,but city officials
say no promises were made.In fact,there is a city policy discouraging the extension of any city utility outside the
growth management area unless there's a direct benefit to the city,according to Greg Byrne,director of community
planning and environmental services for Fort Collins.On the other hand,he added,the city must also consider
"competing obligations" like public health concerns about septic systems.
An ad hoc committee made up of both city and county planning staff is sorting out the issue.The committee is just
getting organized and will work to clarify the situation and come to a better understanding of city and county
positions.Ultimately,Fort Collins'city council may have to decide whether to serve the LaPorte area with sewage
treatment services.
Meanwhile,the city has put a hold on approving public sewer service for any developments outside the GMA until
the matter can be resolved.An exception is a proposal by Mark Linder,who owns property at the west end of the
Overland Ponds gravel mining project,just outside the GMA.Mike Smith,director of utilities for Fort Collins,said
that project will be allowed to move forward because,with failing septic systems nearby,issues of public health are
involved.Linder's request for sewer service could be considered by the city's planning and zoning board in June.
However,other projects that would rely on city sewer are now in limbo. One involves property located east of
Kintzley Plaza.Another is on property owned by the Stegner family,at the corner of North Taft Hill Road and
County Road 54G.The Stegner project is in the early stages of planning.
CauYht by surprise
The recent hesitation by city staff to supply sewer service to the LaPorte area caught many by surprise.Tim O'Hara,
chair of the LaPorte Area Planning and Advisory Committee,said the entire LaPorte Area Plan was based on having
sewer service from the city.
"It just breaks my heart,"he said. "We feel we really achieved something here."If the city decides against serving
the LaPorte area,he said,"It's two and a half years of work out the window." O'Hara added that he is mystified by
Fort Collins'attitude,since"they let uncontrolled urban sprawl go everywhere else."
John Stegner claims the city is trying to control land use with a utility. "What we have here is near-urban densities,
with potential pollution of the river through Fort Collins,"he said.
Jill Bennett,senior planner for Latimer County and the county's liaison to LAPAC,was also surprised at the city's
cautious stance. "We've worked with them on a number of projects," she said,"and this has never come up before as
a policy issue."
26
• Bennett noted that a member of the city planning staff served on the committee that developed the LaPorte Area
Plan.Copies of the plan were sent to both the utilities department and the advance planning department for
comment,but no responses were received.
Smith said no one in his utility office remembers being asked if the city could supply sewer to LaPorte-area projects.
He added,however,that he doesn't oppose extending sewer to LaPorte projects because"it's much better for the
environment to treat the sewage"than to rely on septic systems.
Byrne is one who thinks the city needs to take a hard look at service outside the GMA.He said the city needs to look
at LaPorte as a special case,however,since some LaPorte neighborhoods are already served by city sewer and
because of the groundwater problems in the area.
"We need to see where the mutual benefits are,"he said,such as improved handling of wastewater.However,he
said,costs to the city must also be considered. "We need to evaluate the options,"he said.
Both Smith and Byrne noted that other options available to LaPorte could include tying into the Boxelder Sanitation
District to the north.
With any of the proposed LaPorte projects,the lack of city sewer would mean much lower densities,since a lot must
be at least two acres in size to have a septic system. In some cases,development might not be allowed at all because
the high groundwater in the area compromises septic systems.A project near Vem's Place in LaPorte,Trail's End,
was recently rejected by the county planning commission because developers could not get city sewer,and septic
systems were deemed unsafe in the area.
O'Hara said LAPAC favors some growth in the LaPorte area to sustain schools and businesses.City sewer would
serve that development best,he said,because some properties are unsuitable for septic systems.Many septic systems
• in the Farview neighborhood west of the American Legion have failed,O'Hara said,leading to"raw sewage flowing
down the Little Cache la Poudre ditch."O'Hara said he plans to talk to city council members about the public sewer
issue before they decide on a policy for LaPorte.
Old promises
To further complicate matters,Fort Collins promised more than 30 years ago to provide sewer services to the
LaPorte area.At that time,the newly formed LaPorte Water and Sanitation District planned to build sanitation
facilities,but Fort Collins offered to supply service to the district instead.In the original 1970 agreement,the city
agreed to supply 500 sewer taps,but that number was amended later to about 700.While there is some confusion
about the various amendments to this agreement,Byrne said he believes the city is close to meeting its obligation
under the old agreement.
•
27
Attachment D
North Forty News - August 2004
LaPorte developers look at forming new sewer district
By Cherry Sokoloski
North Forty News
Two frustrated developers are hoping to create a new sewer district for the LaPorte area,after losing patience with
Fort Collins.
Charlie Meserlian and Chris Kaul have been working for more than two years to develop land east of Kintzley
Plaza,but the lack of sewer service to the area has been a continual sticking point.Now,they hope to create a new
district that would serve not only their property but many others as well.
"We've gotten nowhere with the city of Fort Collins," said Meserlian. "We've beat our heads against the wall with
these people."
He and Kaul,owners of LaPorte Properties LLC,hope to organize a sewer district that would encompass 6.2 square
miles in an area east of LaPorte that is currently not served by any sewer district.Its boundaries would be Kintzley
Plaza on the west,Terry Lake on the east,the Poudre River on the south and U.S.Highway 287 on the north.
"I think it will really be a huge benefit for the whole area," said Jeff Couch of Team Engineering,who is working
with the developers.He and the partners cited numerous failing septic systems in the LaPorte area due to high
groundwater and small lots. "There's a need for about 3,000 taps out there,"Couch said,including both existing and
proposed developments.
In February,Meserlian and Kaul asked Fort Collins to supply sewer service to their proposed development,called
The Grove at LaPorte,but they have not received a reply. A city/county committee has been studying the question of
whether Fort Collins should run sewer lines outside its urban growth area,and action on the issue is not expected
until at least October.
"We can't wait around for them to make a decision," Couch said."We need to take the bull by the horn and create
our own district."
A sewer district is a taxing entity,and property owners must vote to establish such a district and authorize the sale of
bonds.The developers hope to hold an election sometime this fall.
As the first step in creating a new district,Meserlian and Kaul met July 22 with the Northern Front Range Water
Quality Planning Association,a consortium that coordinates wastewater treatment with the goal of protecting water
quality.
Dave Dubois,manager of the association,said his group thinks a new sewer district in the LaPorte area is a good
idea as a long-term solution to LaPorte's needs.He noted that,once a district is formed,the entity could either build
its own sewage disposal plant or contract with another supplier,such as Fort Collins or the Boxelder Sanitation
District.A district would afford a comprehensive approach,he said,instead of the current piecemeal solutions to
sewage treatment in the LaPorte area.
The Grove development proposed by Meserlian and Kaul includes 260 homes on 69 acres,including 160 single-
family homes and 100 condominiums.It is tailored to the requirements of the LaPorte Area Plan,Couch said.
28
• Attachment E
North Forty News - October 2004
LaPorte developers promote plan for metro district
By Cherry Sokoloski
North Forty News
Two local men have been trying to develop a piece of property in LaPorte for two years,but they have one big
obstacle: lack of sewer service.
Now,they ve grown tired of waiting for Fort Collins to supply that service,and they're making plans to form their
own"metro"district. The district,if approved by property owners,could provide sanitation and other services to
residents in the service area.
Chris Kaul and Charlie Meserhan,who own 68 acres on the east edge of LaPorte,want to create a neighborhood
with 260 residences,plus commercial and open space.According to Kaul,the partners waited to finalize their
project until the LaPorte Area Plan was complete,so they could comply with its requirements.They and many
others assumed that Fort Collins would supply city sewer to their development.
Now,that's anything but certain.About six months ago,faced with several pending developments in the LaPorte
area,city planners suddenly said"Whoa!" to extending city sewer outside the growth management area.They
created a city/county committee to study the issue.In September,the group released its report,recommending that
• Fort Collins extend sewer to certain areas near LaPorte.This area would include The Grove at LaPorte,the
development proposed by Kaul and Meserlian.
This is purely a staff recommendation,however,and the idea must be approved by the Fort Collins City Council.
The city's water board and the planning and zoning board will make recommendations to the council,and a final
decision isn't expected until next year.
Even if the city agrees to supply sewer service to the LaPorte area,Kaul has problems with some of the suggestions
in the report.It recommends a one-time fee for LaPorte-area developers to cover city services such as transportation,
parks and the library,a move that would add to the cost of new homes.Also,Kaul said,the proposed area that the
city would serve is too small.
Process outlined
While they're waiting for a city decision,Kaul and Meserlian are going ahead with plans to create a new district,and
they're talking to other landowners in the area about coming on board.
The proposed metro district,which would serve about 16 square miles,would help the two partners in the short ran
and the community of LaPorte in the long run,Kaul said. The service area would include land north of County Road
54G,between Overland Trail and Taft Hill Road,extending north of the cement plant. According to Kaul,the
organizers want to accommodate other potential development in the LaPorte area,especially if U.S.Highway 287 is
moved east.
Kaul sees the issue as one of local control. "Either we let the city of Fort Collins govern LaPorte through assessment
of utilities and growth restrictions,or the town of LaPorte can start accepting revenues to manage their own
• services," he said. "I'm looking to put the revenue in the hands of LaPorte instead of Fort Collins."
Kaul also said he thinks a new metro district could be a step towards incorporation of LaPorte,a move he favors.
29
There are several steps involved in establishing a metro district.First,the organizers must establish boundaries for
the district. Second,the county must approve a service plan,and third,an election must be held.A majority of
residents and property owners in the proposed district must approve the plan.If that happens,the next steps are
technical planning,bonding and building facilities.
With a new district,Kaul explained,there would be a choice of contracting for services from another provider,such
as Fort Collins or the Boxelder Sanitation District;or building a treatment plant near LaPorte.Kaul said he would
prefer building a new plant,possibly a"package plant"that is fabricated elsewhere.With a package plant,he thinks
the plant and main sewer lines could be in place in less than two years.
What's next?
On Nov. 18,the Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Baord is scheduled to hold a hearing on the issue of providing
city sewer to LaPorte.The city water board will hold a hearing on the matter Dec.2,and the city council will
conduct a study session on the topic Dec. 14.
30
• Attachment F
North Forty News - December 2004
LaPorte area sewage worries Fort Collins
By Cherry Sokoloski
North Forty News
The bargaining chips are flying fast in the continuing saga of LaPorte sewer service. Apparently,Fort Collins
doesn't want LaPorte sewage to entirely slip,slide or ooze beyond its control.
City officials do not want sewer effluent dumping into the Cache la Poudre River above Fort Collins,and they're
willing to treat LaPorte sewage to avoid that possibility. The city's utility staff has recommended working with a
planned metro district in LaPorte,as long as the city can treat the sewer effluent at its Fort Collins plant. If that were
to happen,the LaPorte metro district would build the collection lines and pay the city to do the treatment.
The proposed scenario would avoid the building of a package sewage treatment plant in LaPorte. Such a plant would
dump treated sewage into the river above Fort Collins,a situation that has some city folks worried about water
quality in the river.
An upstream plant"will degrade the quality of the river as it goes through town," said Jim Hibbard of the utilities
• department. "The river is the jewel of the downtown community,"he added,noting that it's difficult to restore water
quality once it has deteriorated.
The city also wants to discourage the formation of multiple sewer districts in the LaPorte area,which would add
even more treatment facilities upstream of the city.
P&Z board says ves
In November,the city's planning and zoning board gave the nod to a plan for the city to provide sewage treatment
for LaPorte by working with a local metro district.Next to look at the proposal is the city's water board,which will
meet Dec.2.Both boards are advisory,passing along recommendations to the city council,which must make the
ultimate policy decision.
The issue came to a head about six months ago,when several developers in the LaPorte area asked Fort Collins to
provide sewer service to their projects.In the past,the city has acted on such requests on a case-by-case basis,and
many in LaPorte assumed,when drawing up the LaPorte Area Plan,that city sewer service would be available.
However,city policy discourages providing services outside the city's growth management area unless there's a
benefit to the city.
Last June,work began on developing a clear policy regarding the city's treatment of LaPorte-area sewage.
In the meantime,two developers who want to divide a parcel on the east edge of LaPorte grew tired of waiting for
an answer and began to look at forming a metro district for the LaPorte area. Such a district could supply public
sewer as well as other services.The district could either build its own plant or contract with another entity to treat
sewage.
• At the P&Z meeting,Doug Ryan of the county health department noted that some kind of central sewer system
would be necessary if the LaPorte Area Plan is to come to fruition. The health department would prefer to have a
consolidated sewage treatment system downstream of Fort Collins,Ryan said.
31
Both the city utility staff and Ryan said one advantage of Fort Collins treating LaPorte sewage,as opposed to the
metro district having its own plant,involves management.It's more difficult for a small treatment plant to have
adequate staffing,they said,so there is more potential for problems or upsets at the plant.
Dollars studied
Even if the city finally agrees to treat sewage from the LaPorte area,that doesn't mean it will happen.Chris Kaul,
one of the partners looking into a metro district,said it depends on how the dollars stack up.He met with city
utilities managers early in November to discuss options for working together,and he's still waiting to hear more
specifics on dollar amounts.A metro district would have to pay a certain amount to the city for sewage treatment,
and,if the staff recommendation is adopted,it would also have to pay an up-front fee per tap.The up-front fee
would cover city services,such as the libraries,used by LaPorte-area residents.
Kaul and his partner,Charlie Messerlian,would not be bound by any city recommendation and could go ahead with
building a package treatment plant if they receive the necessary approvals.One of the first steps is to hold an
election in the proposed new district,and a majority of property owners would have to approve the project.
Dollar-wise,Kaul said,it will cost the partners about$250,000 to get a district up and running,and Fort Collins tap
fees to their development alone could be close to that amount. "I would rather put the quarter-million into
infrastructure in LaPorte,"he stated,than to let Fort Collins have the revenues. "We're going to go the route that
benefits LaPorte."
City planner Tin Wilder said that if Kaul and Messerhan don't make progress in forming a metro district,and other
developers start pressuring Fort Collins to provide sewer service,the city could go to a back-up position of
providing sewer service in a prescribed area around LaPorte.However,the city has no particular timetable for
moving to the back-up plan.
"There are still a lot of steps,"he noted,before Fort Collins even has a definite policy in place.In the meantime,
LaPorte-area developers are watching and waiting,on hold until a sewer solution can be worked out.
32
• Planning& Zoning Work Session
November 18,2004
LaPorte Sewer Project
Discussion Agenda—Item#7
Cameron Gloss,Director, Current Planning: Item#7, the Planning and Zoning Board
also is making a recommendation to City Council, on the LaPorte Area Water and Sewer
Service Extension Policy. And we had a recent application for sewer service out in this
area, as well as several discussions with you through work sessions on this particular
item.
Timothy Wilder, City Planner,Advance Planning: Thank you members of the
Planning and Zoning Board. I'm going to do a slide show, go to go through it pretty
quickly. You've seen most of this already, so I'll try to keep it brief.
You've seen a lot of the background already; you've seen this at work sessions.
Essentially the City provides service currently already, outside the Growth Management
Area, to the LaPorte Area, a portion of the LaPorte Area. And what we're discussing
tonight is whether or not we should extend our services to an area outside of the current
LaPorte Sanitation District boundaries.
Some of the issues out there are existing septic systems. There is the LaPorte Area Plan,
which increases the intensity in certain areas to 2 to 4 units per acre, and there's a
• potential for about 2,000 new units both east of the current core area of LaPorte and
within the core area itself. These are new units.
Existing conditions, I mentioned, are septic systems, there are about 200 units on septic
systems that should get served by new sewer services and the area in the blue is an area
that is requiring to be on sewer services in order to get that kind of density.
This is a map showing the LaPorte Area Plan; the area in a peach color on the map is 2 to
4 dwelling units per acre. The area in yellow is equivalent to their SA-1 density and that
does not necessarily require public sewer. So the areas we're concerned with is the area 2
to 4 units per acre or above.
I mentioned the City currently provides service to the LaPorte area; we have 2 lines in the
area, we have a 12-inch line going to the existing LaPorte area,providing though an
agreement to the LaPorte Sanitation District. We have a 15-inch line that goes to the
Heron Lakes Campground just north of the Poudre River, along Taft Hill Road. And the
capacity is there, we think, for most of that new development that could occur in the area.
One of the issues with this is the City policy; we talk about discouraging the extension of
utilities unless there is a community benefit, that is, a benefit to the City. Also this is a
little bit in contradiction with our outside City service process that talks about how we
could extend utilities outside the City limits, and this also applies to the Growth
• Management Area.
1
The other thing that applies here is the Section 208 Water Quality Plan. This is basically
a coordinating document that identifies where different service will be provided. I've
shown you a map here; there is one area around the Growth Management Area that is not
identified for a service provider, and that's the area we're talking about. And so this is
partly why this has become an issue,because no one there has been identified as
providing sewer service.
As far as various options that are outlined in the report, there are several options. One, if
there were lower densities, there could be septic systems out in the area,but with the
higher densities, which are likely,there are a few options; some better than others. One is
a community sewer system. This is basically a sewer system that is built for one or two
neighborhoods. Treatment typically happens on site. There is also what's called a new
sanitation district, like that is being discussed there today. And this could be a larger
facility that could serve either a number of neighborhoods or the whole area. And then
there's the Box Elder Sanitation District;this is probably less likely for this area because
of the cost and expense for extending lines to their current service area, which is off State
Hwy 1, Douglas Road. And then, finally, City service.
We want to identify some of the environmental impacts. If a new treatment facility is
created in the LaPorte area, one is obviously it creates an upstream source of effluent; it
has to meet state standards for that effluent. But it is still a concern because there is some
degradation of water quality into the Poudre River with any new treatment option up
there.
We're also concerned about the potential for the proliferation of new districts in that area,
and the potential that with that proliferation could occur additional of new treatment
facilities upstream of the city. And what comes with that is possibly a change in
standards, increase requirements from the State; it could increase the City costs for its
treatment facilities. The other thing is we don't have any jurisdiction to mitigate some of
the issues that could occur. There could be odor issues, there could be noise, there could
be other things that we really don't have any control over.
One of the big issues is the management issue. Typically smaller districts will have a
harder time staffing and maintaining their facilities. And the problems that causes is with
poor maintenance you could have a greater risk of upsets or problems for the system, and
a greater chance that releases will occur with those smaller systems, as compared to a
larger public system, like Box Elder or like the City facilities.
We've identified some impacts in order to really get a scope of how much new
development will impact the City. And these are just some numbers you've seen before
discussing those impacts. We have outlined 4 possible City action options, and the one
we're recommending at this point is that the City to work with the proposed entity for the
area in order to provide treatment only for that area. We hope that it limits really the
creation of new districts in that area. And this would have to comply with a number of
conditions. One, we've defined the area to correspond with the LaPorte Area Plan,
2
• serving that 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre, that development is consistent with that, and
conditions being the same as the outside city limits process that we have in place today.
And then finally,there is some agreement to pay non-utilities fee for service into the area.
And the blue area is the area that references the 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre that we
propose to serve with treatment only. And here is just a list of benefits we identified for
the City; I already talked about most of these. I'll let you view it on your own. And that's
basically it. Thank you.
NMal Torgerson: Thank you, Timothy. Is there anyone in the audience who would like
to speak to the item before the Board? Please, sir, come down, state your name and
address for the record and sign our log there if you would.
Doug Ryan: Good evening, I'm Doug Ryan, I work for the Larimer County Department
of Health and the Environment, and we're on 1525 Blue Spruce Drive in Fort Collins. I
think Timothy did a great job of presenting the staff report and I was one of the staff
members that had input into the report that your staff put together. I thought it would be
helpful, though, if I could very briefly state the position of the County Health Department
in relationship to this issue.
Certainly, the LaPorte Area Plan anticipates a pattern of development that if that pattern
is going to really come true, and we're going to achieve that vision, it's going to need
• some kind of central sewer for the build-out to occur. The preferred option, in our view,
is definitely consolidation with an existing treatment provider. I think there's really two
main reasons; those are water quality and the management issue.
The water quality issue really has to do, I think, with consolidation of a discharge point
downstream from the city, in our view would be preferable than to put a new treatment
plant above the city. And even though that treatment plant would have to maintain state
water quality standards that have adopted for the Poudre River, that stretch through the
city would be cleaner and more pristine that it would be with a treatment plant.
And the second issue has to do with management, and I really want to second what your
staff has indicated. The City has the infrastructure to have 24-hour oversight, to have
emergency, weekend, and holiday response to issues that might occur. Not that we
wouldn't expect that a district would develop and have those same kind of responses. But
realistically just because of economies of scale, the City has a better opportunity to do
that.
Certainly there are other options that are possible. If for some reason it was determined
that the City couldn't provide sewer, some of those other options that Timothy had up on
the side, we'd have to look at. But we really do want to try to support the issue of
consolidation if it's at all feasible. Thank you.
•
3
Mikal Torgerson: Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to
speak to the item before the Board? Seeing none, I'll close public input and bring it back
to the Board for questions.
Sally Craig: Timothy,if I understand correctly, LaPorte is not incorporated, so it isn't an
entity right now?
Timothy Wilder: That's correct.
Sally Craig: OK, so when we talk about the City speaking to somebody to create an
entity out there, who exactly are we talking about?Who will becoming to the table?
Timothy Wilder: It's equivalent to how we made an agreement with LaPorte Water and
Sanitation District. That is an entity, that was the identified,back in 1970, the entity to
provide water and sewer services for the LaPorte area. So, in terms of a new entity being
created, we don't know exactly what that might be. It's been discussed that there would
be a metropolitan district that's formed by the developers out in the area. And if that is
the case,that would be the group that we'd work with in terms of providing treatment
services.
Sally Craig: OK, so I guess if I'm hearing you correctly, whatever the recommendation
is, we'll go through Council and they'll make that recommendation, and then we have
this piece of paper. Do you just kind of flap it around and say, "Is anybody interested in
becoming an entity?" That's what I'm not understanding what the next step would be.
Timothy Wilder: Our recommendation is that we work with the group that's working
out there today,that's trying to form this metropolitan district. And if it fails for some
reason,the report discusses this, then we're back to option#3, or recommendation#3,
which is the City would be the provider of collection and treatment services if the
demand was out there for that.
Jim Hibbard,Water Engineering/Field Services Manager: Sally, I think maybe what
you're getting at is the property owners will form the district. All it will take is one or
two interested property owners. They draw up a potential district boundary,they petition
the court, and then there's an election. And after that, the district is formed. So it's not
like we're going to go out there and form the district, the property owners have control
over forming their own district.
We would hope that we would work with them on that, and so that we understand the
kind of district they're forming, and then give them a foreshadowing of what we think
we'd like to see in our agreement, so that their district can be kind of tailored around that.
Irregardless of that, once they form their district, assuming that their district election
provides it to be approved, then we'd sit down and negotiate with the board of directors
of that entity and any agreement,just like any inter-governmental agreement, would have
to be approved by their board of directors and our board of directors, basically the City
Council.
4
• But the people that will form the district are the interested property owners out there.
Sally Craig: OK, that was very helpful. Thank you, Jim. Having said that, if we'll say
alternative#4 is the one that is picked and goes through Council, and we go to the land
owners and they go, "Well, we're thinking about it," and 5 years down the road they still
haven't put together this district, I'm assuming that the City will just continue to add taps
and do the service and do the billing and go on as if there was no change? Which is what
#3 is if I understand correctly.
Timothy Wilder: Yeah, that's correct. I think we would have a pretty good idea if a new
district was going to form or not. If it looked like it wasn't going to happen, then we
would go ahead and provide services directly to that area.
Sally Craig: And do the billing and do the maintenance, etcetera?
Timothy Wilder: Right, exactly.
Sally Craig: OK, now having said all that, could you explain to me the advantage of the
landowners to put together a district versus just heading down the road and letting you do
as you're doing right now.
Timothy Wilder: Yeah I think we felt that recommendation was maybe stronger right
• now just because there is this district that is being discussed. But there may be some other
ancillary issues that Utilities can address on that. But I think the difference between the
two is relatively minor in terms of a policy standpoint. We felt that the treatment is sort of
reacting to what's going on out there. Providing service is seen as a little bit more
proactive in terms of the sewer being provided for that area. Jim, do you want to speak to
that?
Jim Hibbard: I'll give you a few thoughts. Generally speaking, we feel that it's probably
better to let the district manage their own business. It's a step towards potentially
incorporation for the Town of LaPorte, it gives them some identity and, really, the City,
Utilities, would just as soon not be running out there to take care of those sorts of things.
It's kind of half a dozen, one of six of the other, but we have a slight preference for
having this district, because that makes life simpler for us, we just provide treatment, they
do all their own billing, and everything else. It's a step towards incorporation. But if for
some reason they don't get that district formed, the reasons that we talked about here, the
environmental impacts and benefits to the City, are still there. And perhaps not
outweighed by the fact that they failed to form a district. And in either case, I think when
we go to City Council, we'll have to make it clear that Option 4 is our recommendation,
but our backup position would be Option 3, and see if Council would go along with that.
Does that help?
Sally Craig: It does, but I still am confused. It doesn't seem like we have a carrot or
• stick. I can understand why for the City, for them to form their own district would be
5
very beneficial to us. We would service it,they would bill it,maintain it, etcetera. What I
still haven't understood is what is the benefit to them to become a district? Why would
they even bother? Once you've said you're going to give them the service,they'll just go
down their merry road. And that's what I'm not understanding.
Jim Hibbard: The primary benefit to them, Sally, is the financing capability of the
district. This isn't like the sewer sitting on their front doorstep. They're going to have to
make extensions of line and provide service and that gives them the opportunity to either
sell bonds and tax themselves through a taxing assessment to pay for it, or through some
mechanism for building the infrastructure to serve it, which is going to be as you come
down in the system, multiple property owner beneficiaries. It's not like this property
owner can build this line, and that will serve him. It provides them a mechanism for
building shared infrastructure, and financing that shared infrastructure in a way that's
commonly done in the State of Colorado.
So I think that's their motivation and our discussions with them have really confirmed
that they want to form a district, it's a way they can finance the improvements and
allocate the costs of those shared infrastructure improvements in a joint way. If they don't
do that, then it's going to be kind of this nightmare system of well, there's a line that has
to be built,the City doesn't want to build it,we're not going to put our capital out there,
so somebody's going to have to build it, and collect back from other people, and it's
workable,but it's certainly not preferable from their point of view. Probably the number
one issue on their minds is financing.
Sally Craig: OK, that answered the question. If I understand correctly, we're willing to
service, but we're not willing to put in the infrastructure. And the only way, logically, to
put in that infrastructure is for them to become a district so that they can bond and pay for
it.
Jim Hibbard: Yes
Sally Craig: Thank you.
Brigitte Schmidt: But doesn't Option 3 say that we'll provide full service, which would
mean putting in the infrastructure?
Jim Hibbard: Well, it means we'll provide service without a district out there,but it
doesn't specify how the infrastructure will be installed. It's not really any different than
the typical developer coming in inside the City; he has to build his own infrastructure.
The difference is they're a little farther away, and they're going to have to cross
intervening lands, and in the current policy,the way we do that inside the City, is a
developer or group of developers still has to build that infrastructure. And then we
usually end up writing a re-pay agreement so we say, OK, when this other developer
comes along that maybe wasn't a part of your consortium, or whatever, and wants to
connect to the line, that we're going to collect from him and give money back to the
original builder of the line. That way, it's not the City's capital out there, it remains a
6
• developer-driven process. We used to do that in the City more than we do now because
we don't have that much undeveloped land.
Brigitte Schmidt: So for our capital expenditure costs, there no difference between
Alternative 3 and Alternative 4. But then Alternative 4 has the recouping through the
fees, right? Is that part of Alternative 3 also?
Timothy Wilder: It is.
Brigitte Schmidt: OK. So, I understood with#4,they create the district and everybody
votes on the district. I presume that vote is then what allows then to charge these fees.
Jim Hibbard: The vote then is certified by the court, if I understand right, and that forms
the district. And then the district board, as the governing body for the district,then has all
the authority, and the election forms the district and elects the board. They have the
authority the same way the City Council has the authority, to set fees, make policy, and
do all sorts of things like that.
Brigitte Schmidt: So under Alternative 3, if you didn't have that board, who would have
the authority to charge the fees?
Jim Hibbard: The City would actually be billing the customers for sewer, so they would
receive the City bill, it says you owe us $15 this month. But when they would come to
• hook on, say I want to build a new house, we say, OK, you owe us a$1,500 tap fee and
we would say as a condition of that, you owe us $1,500 for library, roads, and other fees.
It would just be collected directly somehow on the City's utility permit and transferred to
the other departments, whereas, if there was a district, it would probably be handled a
little more centrally.
Brigitte Schmidt: OK, but so either alternative, the financial income to us would
probably be the same. We wouldn't be at a real loss if things fell apart and we had to go
to Alternative 3.
Jim Hibbard: Yes.
Brigitte Schmidt: OK.
Mikal Torgerson: Are there other questions? Jerry.
Jerry Gavaldon: Timothy, is all this we're going through just to improve water quality
on the Poudre River?
Timothy Wilder: I don't think it comes down just to that.
Jerry Gavaldon: Then what does it come down to?
•
7
Timothy Wilder: I think one of the main things is it allows us to be a participant at the
table with what's happening in the LaPorte Area. You know, we talk about collection of
fees that we don't have the ability to do there today. That's another benefit that I think we
see. So, I think there are some other benefits,just besides the environmental benefits,
although I believe that's probably the greatest reason we're recommending the option that
we're recommending.
Jerry Gavaldon: OK. So, along that line, if we said"no"to this, business would go on
as usual,they're going to have to do something down the road. Poudre water quality ain't
going to go down the tubes because the state is going to ensure that we still got decent
water there, right?
Jim Hibbard: In theory, Jerry,that's correct. I think regardless of the type of plant
they're going to build up there,there's no such thing as zero discharge, so even if they
build a plant just as fine as ours, there is 10 milligrams per liter of biochemical oxygen
demand, 10 milligrams per liter of suspended solids that's going to be going into the river
at that point and that will degrade the quality of the river as is goes through Fort Collins.
Will it be enough to notice? Will people wake up one day and say, "Man,that river
stinks."I'm not sure about that. But there will be an effect, and what we are concerned
about in the Utilities Department,is that at some point in time as the State Health
Department and the EPA --the EPA operates through the State Health Department—
continues to clamp down on ammonia restrictions and other things that we have in our
discharge permit,pretty soon they start looking at the whole river and going, "You know,
that's enough, we gotta stop adding any more pollutants to the river, no matter how
small."
And at the point that they do that,then they start allocating that capacity to the various
customers along the river, the various point discharges, and if they do that, that could
affect our discharge permit. They could come back to the City of Fort Collins and say,
"You know, your permit says 10 milligrams per liter of B.O.D. and 10 milligrams per
liter of suspended solids, we want that to go down to 5, and by the way, you have a total
of phosphorous loading that we don't want you do exceed." If that were to happen, we
could end up spending millions, ten millions of dollars, upgrading our facilities. That's
kind of a worse-case scenario, but we want to try to make sure that that doesn't happen.
So, that's a benefit; it's a cost-avoidance for our customers. It's a benefit to the river in
terms of water quality, and then as Timothy alluded, these homes and business out there,
if they are built, they will impact our library, they will impact our roads, and by offering
this, we get a mechanism to recover some of those costs of those impacts that we
wouldn't have if we just said, "Let's not do it." It's not solely water quality, that's the
way I look at it from the larger perspective: benefits for the City.
Jerry Gavaldon: Is it worth all this to do that? Is it really worth it?
8
• Jim Hibbard: I believe it is. I mean, a$10 million upgrade to the City's water treatment
plant? Our wastewater treatment plant? When we have very few new customers to pay
for it, is gonna come down solely on the heads of our existing rate payers. And given the
attention that the river is given in town, the upgrades we're trying to do,the natural areas
acquisitions along the river, it's really being a main focus, a jewel of the downtown asset
to the community. So,in that respect, I think the Utilities, working with Natural
Resources, and Planning, and everybody else together is working at trying to pull out all
the stops, to protect that resource, because it's real hard to bring it back once it gets any
further degraded.
Jerry Gavaldon: Well, I can debate on bringing it back. You can bring it back over time,
it's been done before. So that's a real weak comment, in my view. But, I wanna get to the
river. Is it really worth it for all of us to do all this because someone else upstream can
make a mess of it and we have no control? Someone in the mountains, somewhere else?
Because I don't want us to be the white knight, saving the virtue of a river, where we
don't have total control on it. And...there are all these other areas that contribute to it?
I'm just trying to look at it from a logical perspective that, yeah, we got capacity, your
model was great, thank you. But we have a finite capacity like anything else. And you're
right, if you get these discharges changed, your capacity's impacted. But I just really
want to get down to the bottom line: is it really worth it to do all this because we don't
totally have control of everything? Tim, you want to comment on that?
Timothy Wilder: Yeah, I mean, I agree with Jim; I don't know if I can add too much to
• that. I think just looking outside Utilities, I think we think it is significant looking at the
non-Utility impacts to the City, and we haven't had the ability to collect those fees before
that we think will really help offset some of those impacts. So, I think that's a pretty
significant benefit that we see as well. So, I'll just add that to what he said, the
environmental benefits, too, very significant. We didn't mention the risk of upsets; in my
mind that's a pretty large issue. We had a chance to tour the Wellington plant; very well
staffed, very well maintained. However, it's a small facility, it's a small operation. When
you get into smaller operations, you have fewer people. We talked to some of the facility
people there and they have fewer people on staff than we would have at some of our
facilities. And they do have some issues, you know, that can come up. And I would think
that that is another compelling reason. Yeah, we're trying to avoid certain things from
happening,but we can see that as a benefit as well, avoiding situations that could happen,
that could even worsen the water quality, maybe for a shorter period of time, but I think
that is a demonstrated, a very real benefit.
Jerry Gavaldon: Have either Jim or Tim, have either of you talked to the State, and
talked to them about changes in some of their regulations, that maybe we could avoid it,
working through the State process instead of us trying to do everything?
Jim Hibbard: Our experience has been that the State would like to see a regional facility
here. They feel like it's better for the river, but in the past our experience has also been
that if the City doesn't provide service that they haven't played the bad guy. Twenty
• years ago, we were working very hard to consolidate with the Box Elder Sanitation
9
District, and I think we had a reasonable shot at it. It could've been that with just a little
bit more input from the State that we could've had it done, but there's only so much that
the State will do. We have talked with the [Section] 208 agency, Dave Dubois, and
basically what's he's told us is he supports the regional effort, but if the regional effort
fails that they feel like they need to designate a service provider for this area.
So, we have touched base with the State. I guess I—I respect your point of view—Do I
think it's a good question?I think, in my opinion, it's worth it. In life,there are a lot of
things we control, and a lot of things we don't control. We don't control the land use out
there,but we do control our response to it. And, in this case, I think our response to it is
doing the right thing for the citizens of Fort Collins even though we didn't control the
land use. So, I think that's kind of the bottom line for the way I look at it,but I can—it
was a very good question—I can understand your perspective.
Jerry Gavaldon: Thank you very much. Thank you.
Mikal Torgerson: Other questions? Are we getting close to a motion? Move away, so to
speak.
Jerry Gavaldon: OK. Mr. Chairman and Board Members, I move for approval of a
recommendation for City Council for the LaPorte Water/Sewer Service Policy as outlined
in the staff report, and the facts and findings on the staff recommendations on page 2 and
3.
Mikal Torgerson: Jerry, a couple of us missed that. Was that 4 or...?
Jerry Gavaldon: Yeah,recommendation 4.
Mikal Torgerson: OK, is there a second?
Brigitte Schmidt: I'll second.
Mikal Torgerson: It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion?
Jerry Gavaldon: First, I want to compliment Jim Hibbard coming to the Board on
Friday for Work Session,because he provided the most comprehensive, most articulate
and most professional and straight answer to this whole thing. Thank you. I hope Mike
Smith, your manager, is watching TV tonight, otherwise I'll give him a phone call and
compliment because prior to your attendance here, Jim,we were lost, totally lost. But you
have brought so much concise-ness here, because this is a very important matter as Sally
and other Board members have pointed this out, but before then, we couldn't get the
information we needed. You have provided me so nice. You have provided the capacity
model, awesome work; I read it cover to cover. Roger [Buffington], next time someone
asks for it,please help us. Because I do read it cover to cover.
[Board Member][speaker?]: Jerry, you need to get a life,buddy.
10
• Jerry Gavaldon: No, I love data, that's why...are analytical. But it's a piece of
important work, very important, and it should have been here for some of us to read
because it clearly gives you the answer right there. Timothy, I appreciate it, I'm going to
support this. I do have some questions about trying to be the one-all to save all, we
cannot be the shining knight in armor for everything. I caution that we don't take on any
more because you do have a finite capacity, and Jim, you said it, if the government comes
in and says, x-this and x-that, and you will cut the capacity. And that scares me. And I
appreciate you being honest and forward on that there, because the model is awesome.
Well done, and thank you very much. Jim, you made a difference, a total difference for
me. Thank you, Timothy, and Roger, too.
Brigitte Schmidt: I just have one question and comment. During the time of this
agreement, as things move on those fees would be subject to review,just as all our
present fees are, right? So that they could be renegotiated and raised or whatever,
depending on how the impacts turn out. And I'd also like to second it was a great job, the
reports were all thorough. I appreciate it, all the information.
David Lingle: Just a comment. I agree with Jerry to a certain extent. I tend to look at
these things more from a regional basis and whether or not we should be overly
concerned about a 3-mile stretch of the river when downstream in Fort Collins it's not
going to make any difference one way or the other. I kind of, I'm not sure we should look
at that quite so isolationist. However, I do agree with a couple of points Timothy made.
• One, that we have a seat at the table in the area around LaPorte and what goes on there,
and secondly, that we do have an opportunity to assess some fees where appropriate for
City services that are currently being used or will be used by residents that would live in
these areas served by this, so I would support the motion.
Mikal Torgerson: Other thoughts? Can we have the vote, please?
Craig: Yes
Schmidt: Yes
Gavaldon: Yes
Lingle:Yes
Meyer: Yes
Torgerson: No
Mikal Torgerson: The recommendation is for approval of the LaPorte Area
Water/Sewer Services Policy. We thank you.
•
11
• Utilities Attachment H
Water Board
wom!:w6m;
mfta
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 6, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Tom Sanders, Water Board Chairman," ------
RE: Laporte Sewer Service Policy
i
At the meeting on December 2, 2004, the Water Board considered the matter of the water and
sanitary sewer service policy for the Laporte area. After much discussion, the Board voted
unanimously to recommend approval of Alternative 4 contained in the Laporte Water/Sewer
Services Policy Report with the following exception. The Board felt that the concept of
collecting non-utility fees as a condition of providing utility service was not within their purview
and chose to remain silent on that item. While remaining silent on that item, the Board did
express concern that collection of these non-utility fees may cause developers to look for less
. costly options which might result in other treatment plants being constructed northwest of the
City.
The Board considers it important that the City provide wastewater service in the Laporte area.
This will avoid having other wastewater treatment facilities constructed upstream of Fort Collins
which would have a negative effect on the water quality in the Poudre River. Deterioration of
water quality in the river will impact the City's NPDES discharge permit limits. Stricter
discharge limits would result in costly treatment plant improvements and higher operating costs.
700 Wood St. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (970) 221-6700 • FAX (970) 221-6619 • TDD (970) 224-6003
Ai1-�wvA+ Z
MMER DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
COUNTY
1525 Blue Spruce Drive
• Fort Collins,Colorado,80524.2004
General Health(970)498-6700
Environmental Health(970)498-6775
Fax(970)498-6772
To: Fort Collins City Council
From: Doug Ryan, Environmental Health Planner � �/ � r-►
Date: December 3, 2004 J
Subject: LaPorte Water&Sewer Policy Issues
Our office participated in the development of the water and sewer services policy report that City
Council will review on December 14. 1 attended the recent Planning and Zoning Board and Water
Board meetings to note our support for providing City sewer service in LaPorte. I am not able to
attend the study session, but wanted to offer a few comments.
As the LaPorte Area Plan indicates, the density of development anticipated for the interior portion
of the planning area requires central sewer service. There are a variety of options for providing
this service. It is the view of the Department of Health and Environment that treatment by the City
would offer the best public health and water quality benefits. The reasons for this view are as
• follows:
a. Service from Fort Collins facilities eliminates the need for a new treatment plant discharging
into the Poudre River upstream from the City. This protects an important segment of the river
that has a high potential for public contact.
b. While a new treatment entity would be required to provide maintenance and emergency
services, the efficiencies of scale achieved through the City system add a measure of safety
and oversight that is not available for small treatment plants.
c. An important regional water quality planning principle is to consolidate discharge points
wherever appropriate. A policy decision by the City to provide expanded sewage treatment for
the LaPorte area would support this principle, and guide future decisions about requests to
site new treatment plants.
d. Extension of central sewer to this area would provide an opportunity to connect some existing
small-lot development to public sewer as older septic systems fail.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. I can be reached at (970)498-6777 if you have
questions about any of these issues.
•