HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 03/01/2005 - ITEMS RELATING TO OUT OF CITY UTILITY SERVICE ITEM NUMBER: 24 A-B
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY DATE: March 1, 2005
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Roger Buffington
Timothy Wilder
SUBJECT
Items Relating to Out of City Utility Service.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and Ordinance on First Reading. The Planning and
Zoning Board and the Water Board both voted to recommend to City Council that the City
provide wastewater treatment service to a defined area in the vicinity of Laporte.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Resolution 2005-018 Regarding Utility Service in the Laporte Area.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2005, Amending Chapter 7.5 and Chapter 26 of the
City Code to Establish Requirements and Procedures for Utility Service Outside the Fort
Collins Growth Management Area.
At the December 14, 2004, City Council Study Session, Council discussed the extension of City
wastewater service near Laporte. Council agreed with the staff recommendation for Option 4:
City provides wastewater treatment through a new wastewater district. Resolution 2005-018
establishes policy for this service and directs staff to cooperate with various entities that are
pursuing formation of a special district in the Laporte area. The agreement between the City and
the special district will be presented to Council for final approval. The Resolution also provides
direction regarding the resolution of outstanding issues related to an outdated wastewater service
agreement with Laporte Water and Sanitation District.
Chapter 26 of City Code outlines a process in which water or wastewater service can be provided
outside city limits if certain conditions are met. City Plan Policy GM-5.1 discourages extension
of utilities outside the City's Growth Management Area ("GMA") unless the extension is
consistent with City Plan and has a community benefit. Ordinance No. 026, 2005 will clarify
this ambiguity and require that the areas to be served outside the GMA must be approved by City
Council.
March 1, 2005 -2- Item No. 24 A-B
BACKGROUND
The City of Fort Collins has provided utility service to parts of the Laporte area for many years.
Water service to the area began in the 1920s and wastewater service in the early 1970s. The City
owns the water system in Laporte and operates and maintains the wastewater collection system
under an agreement with the Laporte Water and Sanitation District.
In January 2004, Larimer County adopted the Laporte Area Plan. The Laporte area is an
unincorporated area outside city limits and outside the GMA (see attached context map).
Portions of the Laporte Area Plan include approximately 2000 dwelling units shown to develop
at urban level densities (i.e. 2-4 and 4-6 units per acre). These densities will necessitate service
from a public sewer system.
The City has since received two formal requests for utility service in this area and several
informal inquiries about wastewater service. In the past, requests for utility service have been
processed in accordance with City Code Article X which generally says that if certain conditions
are met, service will be provided. In contrast, City Plan discourages extension of utilities outside
the GMA unless there is a community benefit. Staff is seeking clarification and policy direction
regarding extension of sewer service in the Laporte area.
In the Laporte Water/Sewer Services Policy Report prepared by City staff, options for
wastewater collection and treatment for the area included in the Laporte Area Plan include:
• septic systems (rural-type low densities only)
• community/subdivision sewer systems
• new sanitation district(s)
• Boxelder Sanitation District
• City service
Staff believes it is important for the City to provide wastewater service to reduce the potential of
new wastewater treatment facilities upstream from Fort Collins and to protect water quality in
the Poudre River. The Policy Report identified the following policy options for providing that
service.
Option 1: Maintain existing process for out-of-city service requests by reviewing requests
on a case-by-case basis.
Option 2: Continue service only in the existing service area (Laporte Water and Sanitation
District)but not allow extensions to other areas outside the GMA.
Option 3: Provide future service directly to new development within a limited area as
defined by the Laporte Area Plan.
Option 4: Provide treatment only through a new district in a limited area as defined by the
Laporte Area Plan.
Pros and cons of these options were reviewed at the December 14, 2004, Council study session.
March 1, 2005 -3- Item No. 24 A-B
During the review of the Laporte Area Plan and the study of the City's policy options, City staff
also assessed impacts of Laporte area development on several other City services including
transportation, parks and library. The reason that these services were studied and not others was
that much of the funding for these services is provided through development impact fees and not
sales taxes. In addition, other services will be funded by impact fees that are in place and will be
collected from new developments in the Laporte area. It is important to note that these impacts
on City services are likely to occur whether or not the City provides wastewater service. These
impacts were estimated to be:
• Transportation: Potential 4 to 6% increase on major streets in area ($400-600/unit)
• Library: Currently 30% usage by Laporte residents ($260-606/unit)
• Parks: Potential 2 to 3% increase in usage ($435-669/unit)
Staff's recommendation is that the City provide wastewater treatment through a new district
(Option 4 above) with the following conditions:
• The property to be served by the City's wastewater treatment services must be within
the defined area shown on Exhibit A.
• The development served must be consistent with the Laporte Area Plan as adopted by
Latimer County.
• The development must be consistent with Chapter 26 of City Code — Utility Service
Outside City Limits.
• The wastewater treatment service agreement must provide for collection on non-
utility fees as discussed above.
In the event that efforts to form a special district are not successful, staff has recommended that
the City pursue Option 3: Provide future service directly to new development within a limited
area as defined by the Laporte Area Plan.
This item has been presented to the Planning and Zoning Board and the Water Board. At the
Planning and Zoning Board meeting on November 18, 2004, the Board voted (5-1) to support the
staff recommendation, and the Water Board voted unanimously to support the staff
recommendation at its meeting on December 2, 2004. Information regarding those Board
meetings is attached.
The major emphasis of the study completed on the Laporte area has been wastewater; however,
as noted at the study session, the City currently supplies water to portions of Laporte within the
Laporte Water and Sanitation District. Under prior agreements with the District, the City will
continue water service to this area and infill development that may occur. Most of the proposed
development within the Laporte Area Plan will obtain water from the West Fort Collins Water
District.
March 1, 2005 -4- Item No. 24 A-B
Since the Council study session on December 14th, property owners east of Laporte have
continued to research and move forward with the formation of a special district. Developers of
The Grove subdivision have recently hired an engineer and an attorney to prepare the documents
needed to proceed with the formation of a special district. The property owners currently
involved in the discussions and planning for this district include Charles Meserlian, Chris Kau],
John Stegner, John Donaldson, Bernard Henrie, Earl Kerner and LaFarge. Since it is the City's
desire to provide wastewater treatment and thereby avoid wastewater discharges upstream from
Fort Collins, it is to the City's advantage to cooperate with these parties by providing
information that will be needed for the preparation of these documents. Other than this
cooperation , the City will incur no expense in the process to form the district. The proposed
district boundary is consistent with the higher density areas shown in the Laporte Area Plan
approved by Latimer County.
Resolution 2005-018 establishes policy for this service and provides direction for the City
Manager to work with various entities that are pursuing formation of a special district in the
Laporte area. Any agreements negotiated with special district(s) will be present to Council for
final approval.
In addition, City staff has continued its efforts to resolve outstanding issues related to a 1970
agreement between the City and Laporte Water and Sanitation District for wastewater service in
that area. The Resolution authorizes City Manager to negotiate with the Laporte Water and
Sanitation District on a new agreement or the dissolution of the District.
As noted above, City Code and City Plan are somewhat inconsistent in regard to the extension of
utilities outside the GMA. Ordinance No.026, 2005 amends Chapter 26 of City Code to
differentiate between the requirements for outside-City and outside-GMA utility service requests
and will require that the areas to be served outside the GMA be approved by City Council. In
addition, the ordinance amends Chapter 7.5 of City Code to allow the City Manager to establish
and collect special surcharges as a condition of obtaining utility service outside the GMA.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Laporte Area Sewer Extension Policy Context Map
2. Excerpt from Planning and Zoning Board meeting minutes, November 18, 2004
3. Memorandum to City Council from Tom Sanders, Chair of the Water Board, dated
December 6, 2004
4. Mdkomndurrid) ihlnCib8ftAyffimkogot HaMrrr ffiglicy,
dated December 15, 2004
ATTACHMENT 1
) � c � �■
................ ) E
rL
/ � H �
x . LL /
0 \ #
|
a.
0
$ ___.d @■
|
k ^ ` � e ` i
fit
a. , / !
� ........... 2 /h
c
c = � %
ATTACHMENT 2
• 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.
Mikal 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 forth the district are the interested property owners out them.
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 Iike 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 them. 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 mason 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.
Jhn 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 fine 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
r
• 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 tbi 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 Iike 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[Buffington3,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
r .
• 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.
•
it
Utilities ATTACHMENT
'
Water Board
City of Fort Collins
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 6, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Tom Sanders, Water Board Chairmat� ?�. '� w
RE: Laporte Sewer Service Policy
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
6aCommunity Planning and Environmental Services ATTACHMENT 4
Advance Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
DATE: December 15, 2004
TO: Mayor and Members of Council
FROM: Roger Buffington, Water Utility DevSjopment Review Managerkt /3
Timothy Wilder, City Planner _
THRU: Darin Atteberry, Interim City Manager�r-
Mike Smith, Utilities General Manag
Greg Byrne, Director C.P.E.S.
Joe Frank, Advance Planning Di ecto
RE: Summary of December 14 Council StudVSession on the LaPorte Area Sewer Service
Extension Policy
ISSUE:
At its December 14 Study Session, Council discussed the extension of City sewer in LaPorte.
Four policy options were presented for the City's response to requests for public sewer in
LaPorte, including:
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 has summarized the discussion as follows:
Questions relevant to the discussion:
1. Are there other policy options for LaPorte sewer service that Council wants staff to
explore?
Council did not ask for any additional options to be explored.
2. Which policy options does Council want staff to prepare for Council decision at the
upcoming hearing?
Council agreed with staff's recommendation for Option 4: City provides sewer treatment to
development through a new sewer service district. Council also appeared to be comfortable
with Option 3 if a new district was unable to form. Mr. Roy questioned how long staff
would wait to determine whether a new district was viable or not.
3. Is there any more information about the four policy options that staff needs to provide?
Council wanted staff to follow-up on a number of items. Ms. Tharp asked that staff resolve
the inconsistency between City Plan and the City Code provision for extending utility
service outside City limits. The City Code allows for extensions for developments meeting
certain conditions, while City Plan discourages extensions unless there is a community
281 North College Avenue • P.O.Box 580 • Fort Collins,CO 80522-0580 • (970)221-6376
FAX(970)224-6111 • TDD(970)224-6002 • E-mail:aplann ng@fcgov.com
benefit. Mr. Roy and Mr. Hamrick expressed concerns over how and who would form a
new district under Option 4. They asked that City staff try to provide more information on
defining an area for service and identifying what landowners were attempting to form the
proposed Metro District. Several Council members expressed a desire to monitor water
quality impacts on the Poudre River from new development. Mr. Hamrick was particularly
concerned about whether low density development with septic systems contributed more or
less water pollution than a higher density development with more runoff. Mr. Roy wanted to
know how the LaPorte Area Plan dovetailed with City Plan. Finally, Mr. Kastein asked that
a larger map be presented to Council showing details of community separators, land uses,
sewer lines, and other elements.
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?
Council supported the use of reasonable City fees on new development in LaPorte in
exchange for City service. In general, Council thought the fees needed to be competitive
but at the same time enough to cover the costs of providing services to LaPorte.
RESOLUTION 2005-018
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
REGARDING UTILITY SERVICE IN THE LAPORTE AREA
WHEREAS, Larimer County has recently adopted the 2004 Laporte Area Plan, which sets
general planning and zoning standards for the unincorporated area of Latimer County northwest of
Fort Collins generally referred to as "Laporte", which is outside of the City limits and outside of the
City's approved Growth Management Area ("GMA"); and
WHEREAS,the adoption of the Laporte Area Plan,which identifies areas for possible future
development that will require the provision of public wastewater services,has generated substantial
interest in and discussion of the source of public wastewater collection and treatment services for
that future development; and
WHEREAS, among the alternatives under discussion is the formation of one or more new
special districts to provide wastewater collection and treatment services, most likely through the
development of small package treatment plants; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fort Collins provides water service and wastewater collection and
treatment services to certain properties in the Laporte area as a result of prior agreements with the
Laporte Water and Sanitation District and pursuant to existing individual out-of-city service
agreements; and
WHEREAS, applicable City Plan policies discourage the extension of City utility services
in a manner that may encourage sprawling development on the edges of the City's GMA, except
when special benefits will accrue to the City for providing such services; and
WHEREAS,because of Laporte's position upstream of Fort Collins on the Poudre River,the
development of the Laporte area and the treatment in Laporte of wastewater from such development
has raised concerns regarding potential water quality impacts upon the Poudre River,the residents
of Fort Collins and the City's wastewater treatment facilities; and
WHEREAS, several developers planning developments in the Laporte area are actively
working to plan and form a special district that would provide wastewater services,along with other
public improvements and services; and
WHEREAS, said developers have expressed an interest in acquiring wastewater treatment
services from the City, thus eliminating the water quality impact concerns noted above; and
WHEREAS, the City's agreement to provide wastewater services to Laporte Water and
Sanitation District calls for the transfer to the City of said District's wastewater facilities and
customer responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to prior agreements between the City and Laporte Water and
Sanitation District, the District previously transferred to the City certain water rights and its
obligations to provide water service generally within the District's service area; and
WHEREAS, the provision of utility services to areas outside of the city is a matter of City
discretion; and
WHEREAS,new development in areas outside of the city,such as the development projected
in the Laporte area, has been determined to result in increased usage of City streets, community
parks and libraries; and
WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, City staff presented background information and
various alternatives related to these concerns to the City Council at its December 14, 2004, Study
Session; and
WHEREAS, based on that discussion, staff has prepared this Resolution, authorizing and
directing staff to proceed with negotiations in an effort to cooperate in the formation of a special
district that would provide wastewater collection and customer service, to which the City would
propose to provide wastewater treatment services by agreement with said district; and
WHEREAS, in addition, staff has also presented for Council consideration on first reading
together with this Resolution, Ordinance No. 026, 2005, which amends Chapter 26, Article X,
regarding Utility Service Outside City limits, so as to distinguish between such service within the
City's GMA and without, and requiring Council approval for the extension of new utility service
outside of the GMA, either individually or based upon a general service plan; and
WHEREAS,Ordinance No. 026, 2005 also amends Chapter 7.5 to allow the City Manager
to collect from new out-of-GMA utility customers additional administrative charges based upon the
estimated demand on City services to result from the development to be served by City utility
services; and
WHEREAS,the City provides water service to portions of the Laporte Water and Sanitation
District service area,but it is anticipated that water service to other areas of Laporte will be provided
generally by West Fort Collins Water District; and
WHEREAS, in light of the City's existing arrangements for water service in the Laporte
Water and Sanitation District service area, City staff has also requested that the City Council
acknowledge that the City will continue to provide water service in that area to existing customers
and to in-fill development; and
WHEREAS, the Council also desires to authorize the City Manager to cooperate in the
formation of a special district within the portion of the Laporte area designated as "Approved
Wastewater Service Area" and depicted on Exhibit"A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
this reference (the "Approved Service Area') so as to consolidate as much as possible the
wastewater system for the area and the provision of wastewater treatment services by the City's
Wastewater Utility,and,to the extent the formation of a special district in all or a portion of that area
is determined to be infeasible,to authorize the General Manager of Utilities to negotiate and arrange
for wastewater utility service on an individual basis in the Approved Service Area, provided that
such arrangements accommodate the formation of a special district for wastewater service that
would obtain its treatment services from the City.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to work
with property owners, developers,existing service providers,Latimer County, and other interested
parties to cooperate in the formation of a special district in the Approved Service Area so as to
consolidate as much as possible the wastewater system for the area and the provision of wastewater
treatment services by the City's Wastewater Utility.
Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to negotiate an
agreement for the provision of wastewater treatment services in the Approved Service Area by the
City's Wastewater Utility to such a special district,to be presented to the Council for final approval.
Section 3. The City Council hereby authorizes the General Manager of Utilities,in his
or her discretion, to negotiate and arrange for wastewater service on an individual or development
basis to property in the Approved Service Area, if the General Manager determines that it is
infeasible to provide service to said property through a special district, and if any use to be served
meets the applicable conditions for provision of utility service and requirements for issuance of a
utility service connection permit and if any such arrangements accommodate the future formation
of a special district for service to that property. This authorization is intended to comprise Council
approval of a service plan for wastewater service in the Approved Service Area.
Section 4. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Managerto cooperate
with the Laporte Water and Sanitation District to negotiate a new agreement,for presentation to the
City Council for approval, by which the District would assume additional responsibilities and
acquire its wastewater treatment service from the City,or to arrange for consolidation of that District
with another special district to provide wastewater service in the Laporte area, or to complete the
dissolution of the District and transfer of District facilities and responsibilities to the City.
Section 5. The City Council hereby acknowledges that the General Manager of Utilities,
may, in his or her discretion, negotiate and arrange for water service on an individual or
development basis to that property in the Approved Service Area that is generally within the Laporte
Water and Sanitation District service area. This acknowledgement is intended to document Council
approval of a service plan for water service in the portions of the Approved Service Area that are
within the Laporte Water and Sanitation District service area as of the date of this Resolution.
Section 6. The City Council hereby authorizes and directs the City Manager to develop
a schedule of charges for projected usage of City streets, community parks and libraries by new
development in the Approved Service Area, and to include such charges in any arrangement for the
provision of utility services by the City.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held this 1st day of March,A.D.
2005.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
Approved Wastewater Service Area for LaPorte
4-4
,
Latimer countye ( _,�
LaPorte Area Plan Boundary
e
7"
LaPorte Water& -
L- ,1 �; ?� Sanitation District
7,
- ; r,
u T-
y
42F -
x.
I $� ri
��( ♦ :. l r
'
BM
Y.
_ T
i
Legend
n
rGrowth Management Ana w+a
Larlaw r County's LaPorte AND Plan Boundary " tr2a.b W
Approved Wastevnter Service Ana city ar ocwY
.. :LaPorte Water&Sanitation District ei"69i"""Bii1oi
dvg D.pWrust
tianrr 2.2en
ORDINANCE NO . 026, 2005
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AMENDING CHAPTER 7 . 5 AND CHAPTER 26 OF THE
CODE OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS TO ESTABLISH
REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR UTILITY SERVICE
OUTSIDE THE FORT COLLINS GROWTH MANAGEMENT AREA
WHEREAS , Article X of Chapter 26 of the City Code sets out conditions and procedures
for the extension of City utility services to persons outside of the city limits of Fort Collins, which
procedures generally include review by the Planning and Zoning Board and Water Board, and a final
decision by the General Manager of Utilities ; and
WHEREAS , applicable City Plan policies discourage the extension of City utility services
in a manner that may encourage sprawling development on the edges of the City's Growth
Management Area (" GMA"), except when special benefits will accrue to the City for providing such
services ; and
WHEREAS , City staff and the Council have recently reviewed the issue of whether the City
should choose to provide wastewater service to properties outside of the Fort Collins Growth
Management Area ("GMA"), specifically in the unincorporated area of Larimer County generally
referred to as "Laporte " , together with the more general issue of how decisions regarding utility
service outside of the GMA should be made ; and
WHEREAS , City staff presented background information and various alternatives related
to these concerns to the City Council at its December 14, 2004, Study Session; and
WHEREAS , based on that discussion, staff has prepared this Ordinance, which amends
Chapter 26, Article X, regarding Utility Service Outside City Limits, so as to distinguish between
such service within the City's GMA and without, and requiring Council approval for the extension
of new utility service outside of the GMA, either individually or based upon a general service plan;
and
WHEREAS , City staff has further reviewed the existing out-of-city service requirements,
and is suggesting certain revisions to update and clarify those requirements as they apply to both
service within the GMA and outside of the GMA; and
WHEREAS , City staff has evaluated the impacts upon the services provided by the City of
development outside of the GMA, and has determined that those impacts can be reasonably
predicted and estimated based upon data currently available ; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that based upon such estimated impacts, a special
service fee should be established and collected as a surcharge together with utilities-related fees and
charges, at the time of permit issuance for out-of-GMA utility service ; and
WHEREAS , this Ordinance amends Chapter 7 . 5 to allow the City Manager to collect from
new out-of-GMA utility customers a special service fee based upon said estimated demand on City
services associated with the development to which utility service will be provided; and
WHEREAS , in addition, staff also presented for Council consideration on February 15 , 2005 ,
Resolution 2005 -018 , authorizing and directing staff to proceed with negotiations in an effort to
facilitate the formation of a special district to provide wastewater collection and customer service,
to which the City would agree to provide wastewater treatment services ; and
WHEREAS , Resolution 2005 -018 , further authorized the City Manager to negotiate and
arrange for wastewater utility service in that portion of the Laporte area described and designated
in that Resolution as the "Approved Service Area, " to the extent formation of a special district for
such service is not feasible and further provided that such arrangements accommodate the formation
of a special district for service that would obtain its treatment services from the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows :
Section 1 . That Section 26-49 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby amended
as follows :
Sec . 26-49 . Service outside city limits.
Persons outside the city limits may apply for connection to the water utility
for use of surplus city water but accrue tiv vested rights to city water service-by
virtue of a connection to the water utility. Water utility service will be furnishe
outside the city hinits only if the procedures and conditions specified in Article X 0
this ehapter are satisfied. Users outside the city limits are subject to all requirements
and provisions of this Article, the smne as users inside the city hinits, and no existing
user outside the city limits shall alter, change, enlarge or extend in any manner
whatsoever the use for which city water was taken as of the eff-ective date of the
ordinance from which this Article was derived or the date of issuance of an existin
water service perinit, whithever is later, without obtaining a permit Under this Article
for the altered use and otherwise complying with the provisions of this in
accordance with the procedures and requirements in Article X of this Chapter and
subject to the limitations set forth therein.
Section 2 . That Section 26-218 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended as follows :
Sec. 26-218 . Service outside city limits.
Persons outside the city limits may apply for connection to the wastewater
utility for use of excess capacity of the treatment system, but accrue no vested right
to city wastewatcr service by virtue of a comiection to the wastewater trtifity.
Wastewater service will be fmmished to premises ontside the city limits only if the
procedures and conditions specified in Article X ar isfied. Users outside the city
litnits are subject to all requirements and provisions of this Article the satne as users
inside the city fitnits mid no existing user outside the city fitnits shall alter, chmige,
enlarge or extend in any matmer the use for which the connection was made to th
wastewater utility as of the date of cotmection or the date of issuance of the
revocable pertnit whichever is later without obtaining a discharge permit under this
Article fbr the altered use and oth A Flying with the provisions of this
Etter in accordance with the procedures and requirements in Article X of this
Chapter and subject to the limitations set forth therein.
Section 3 . That the title of Section 26-651 , and Section 26-651 (a) of the Code of the City
of Fort Collins are hereby amended as follows :
Sec . 26-651 . Conditions for furnishing service within Growth Management
Area.
(a) Any person outside of the city limits and within the Growth Management
Area 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 shall submit in
connection with any application such information as the General Manager may
determine to be appropriate to allow him or her to review such application, and as
necessary to plan and arrange for the requested service connection. A connection
permits may be issued subject to compliance with § 26-253 after review and
recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board and the Water Board and the
approval of the General Manager of Utility Services, based upon the considerations
and requirements set forth in § 26-651 (b) . 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 cotmections do not exceed a tap size of one ( f ) inch (if a water
tap) an&or fbnr (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. No grant of approval
hereunder shall give rise to any vested right to utility service and said service shall
be contingent upon the issuance of a permit hereunder prior to the expiration of any
approval by the General Manager hereunder.
Section 4 . That Section 26- 651 (b) of the Code of the City of Fort Collins is hereby
amended as follows :
(b) New utility service vviWmay be furnished to property which is outside of
the city limits and within the Growth Management Area if the General Manager
determines that the provision of such service is consistent with the relevant utility
master plan documents, and is in the best interests of the city, the city's utilities, and
the relevant utility, and 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 use to be served by the utility is a legal use
under the applicable zoning and subdivision requirements, whether
expressly permitted or a legal nonconforming usezoning district permits
the existing or proposed ttse , and any required conditional n
has been approved and issncd; and
(3 ) The property use to be served is consistent with any intergovernmental
agreement between the city and Larimer County regarding the
regulation of land use and zoning in the Growth Management Area in
effect at the time of approval of utility service .has complied with the
slabdivision laws and regulations of thc county. A waiver of an
� f stich subdivision regulations by the cottrity shall no
weer(4) A current title memorandum has been provided showing thal title to the
F �F ` rested in the applicant' s tiame ;
(5 ) With respect to property which, at thc fitne of application for tifflity
3% I V is not eligible for annexation into the city, the owner of the
U5LILUL% a covenatit ri"nilling with the land that the owner or an
when requested by the city and cooperate in related proceeding-r,
(6) With respect to property which, at the fitne of application for tttffity
scrvicc , is cligible for annexation into tfic city, the owner of the Property
has executed a petition for annexation which does not contain a right o
withdrawaf, together with all related ductiments, and paid any fifing fee
- elated theret - -
Ill interest ffiat they will abide by and be subject to all of the
f the respective utility articles .
Section 5 . That a new Section 26-652 is hereby added to the Code of the City of Fort
Collins, as follows, and the existing Section 26-652 is hereby renumbered accordingly:
Sec. 26-652 . Conditions for furnishing service outside Growth Management
Area.
Any person outside of the Growth Management Area 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 shall submit in connection with any application such
information as the General Manager may determine to be appropriate to allow him
or her to review such application or to advise the City Council in its review of such
application, and as necessary to plan and arrange for the requested service
connection. A connection permit maybe issued subject to compliance with § 26-253
and any other requirements imposed as a condition of approval for service hereunder,
upon either:
( 1 ) review and approval by the City Council by resolution of an application
for service ; or
(2) review and approval by the General Manager of an application for
service of the type and in an area consistent with a service plan for the
provision of particular utility services within a defined area that has
been approved by the City Council by resolution.
No grant of approval hereunder shall give rise to any vested right to utility
service and said service shall be contingent upon the issuance of a permit hereunder
prior to the expiration of any such approval .
Section 6 . That newly renumbered Section 26-653 (previously Section 26-652) is hereby
amended to read as follows :
Sec . 26-65-2.7 . Permit is revocable ; agreement of user.
(a) So long as the-a 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, including but not limited to all requirements
of the Code applicable to utility services . 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 ) Provide a current title memorandum showing that title to the property
is vested in the applicant's name at the time of issuance of a permit;
(2) With respect to property that, at the time of issuance of a permit, is
within the Growth Management Area and not eligible for annexation
into the city, the owner of the property shall enter 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, will pay any filing
fee related thereto, and will cooperate in related proceedings ;
(3) With respect to property that, at the time of application for utility
service, is within the Growth Management Area and eligible for
annexation into the city, the owner of the property shall execute a
petition for annexation which does not contain a right of withdrawal,
together with all related documents, and shall pay any filing fee related
thereto ;
(4) 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;
(5) Bear the costs of construction, installation and connection of utility lines
except for such oversizing participation or reimbursement as may be
authorized in accordance with this Chapter;
(6) Pay any surcharges upon such utility service imposed by the City
Manager pursuant to his or her authority in § 7 . 5 -3 .
(27) 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;
(S8 ) Use the utility service only for the qualifying use and make no
extension, enlargement or alteration of the service or the use for which
the connection was made without first obtaining the written permission
of the respective utififyGeneral Manager;
(4) Beat the costs of constrnction, installation and connection of utility fines
except for such oversizing participation or reimbursement as may b�-
(59) Pay for cne+irany and all utility service min accordance with the rates
applicable to said service asfor otrtside-city users established by the City
Council from time to time;
(f 10) Execute and record in the real property records of Larimer County, in a
form satisfactory to the General Manager, an instrument acknowledging
and agreeing that the utility service provided to the served property is
subject to the obligations set forth herein, and that convey thesaid
real property scrvcd from a city utility unicss such convcyancc is subject
to the applicable provisions of the permit and this Chapter;
(711 ) Make noNot assignment of the utility service permit or agreement to any
other property unicss such assigrmicift is first approvcd in writing by the
eitywithout first obtaining the written permission of the General
Manager;
(812) For any water service, 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 futility service 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.
Section 7 . That a new Section 7 . 5 -3 is hereby added to the Code of the City of Fort Collins
to read as follows :
Sec. 7.5-3. Establishment of special surcharges.
The City Manager may, from time to time, establish an administrative surcharge
to be imposed at the time of issuance of a connection permit for utility services from
the city outside of the Growth Management Area pursuant to Article X of Chapter
26, to be determined based upon projected demand for city streets, community parks
and libraries to result from the development that is to receive utility services, which
surcharge may be adjusted to reflect benefits to accrue to the city as a result of said
development. The City Manager shall include in his or her recommended budget an
itemization of the fees currently being charged for such services and facilities,
together with an estimate of the amount of annual revenue anticipated to be
generated by such fees during the budget term.
Section 8 . Individual service connection permits for utility service that have been approved,
whether individually or on a subdivision or project basis, by the General Manager as of the effective
date of this Ordinance shall be deemed subject to Article X of Chapter 26 as it existed at the time
of said approval by the General Manager.
Introduced and considered favorably on first reading and ordered published in summary form
this 1 st day of March, A.D . 2005 , and to be presented for final passage on the 15th day of March,
A.D . 2005 ,
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk
Passed and adopted on final reading this 15th day of March, A.D . 2005 ,
Mayor
ATTEST :
City Clerk