Some Colorado Springs City Council members ask for more time to mull water proposal

Oct. 24—Several Colorado Springs City Council members called for more time to consider a proposed water rule that could limit annexations during a Monday meeting, while on the same day hearing the benefits of a 3,200-acre community that wants to join the city.

The water rule was introduced last week and would require Colorado Springs Utilities to have 130% of the water needed to serve existing demand and projected demand for land the city could annex. The calculation does not include demand from undeveloped property that has already been annexed.

If the water rule is adopted ahead of a vote on the 3,200-acre property, called Amara, it would prevent the property from coming into the city. The council did not make decisions on the water rule or the annexation.

City Councilwoman Nancy Henjum called for slowing down decisions on both issues because they are so closely tied. Other council members did not seem interested in impinging on projects in progress.

"I think it's pretty clear that we need some breathing room, a pause, to really address these questions," Henjum said.

If You Go

Colorado Springs will hold a town hall on the Amara annexation at 5 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall in the council chambers.

Utilities is asking residents to send feedback on the proposed water rule to waterordinance@csu.org.

She noted that she did not want to see the development community solely drive the conversation around water. Last week, accusations flew in a Utilities board meeting after a large development company in town proposed the water rule. City staff pushed back, saying the rule had been in development for months.

Utilities CEO Aram Benyamin said in an interview Monday that 130% is a reasonable buffer. The city calculates existing demand using a three-year average of water use, which is 75,000 acre-feet of treated water annually, he said. The city can provide 95,000 acre-feet of treated water annually on a reliable basis. Benyamin said the numbers likely need to be further refined for the proposed ordinance.

Several council members called for more time to better understand the buffer and whether water guidelines should be applied to undeveloped areas that have already been annexed.

The council also wanted time to hear more about unintended consequences that could arise from the proposed water rule, such as introducing uncertainty into the annexation process and pushing more development into El Paso County where it would rely on groundwater, a nonrenewable source.

Councilman Bill Murray criticized the lack of analysis behind the proposed buffer and the introduction of the rule for consideration around the same time as Amara.

"These aren't on parallel tracks; it is a train crash," he said.

The Amara annexation cannot be slowed down until a formal public hearing on Nov. 22, when the council could choose to delay a vote, Council President Tom Strand said.

To help inform its decision on Amara, the council heard the results of an economic impact analysis on the potential of building up to 9,388 homes and 2 million square feet of commercial space in an area near Fountain. The commercial space could include about 827,000 square feet of retail space and 272,000 square feet of office space and 900,000 square feet of light industrial space. The build-out could take until the 2040s.

Economic and Planning Systems Inc. estimated the project could create 8,800 jobs and create a positive economic impact of $18.6 billion from the construction, business-to-business purchases and indirect benefits such as spending by chain company employees and household spending from the residential development.

The net benefit for the city could be about $271,500 annually from the project, the analysis showed.

The analysis assumed voters will extend dedicated tax revenues, including the Trails Open Space and Parks tax and the 2C2 tax that funds road maintenance.

It also estimated that new fire stations needed to serve the area could cost $2.9 million, a number council members questioned for being too low.

It did not factor in the cost of utilities extensions because Colorado Springs Utilities has its own cost-recovery process, said Bob Cope, the city's economic development officer.

The city administration is not taking a position on the annexation, he said.