|  |
 |
|
SJWCD Considers the Horizon |
Bill Hudson | 9/8/08
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The San Juan Water Conservancy District gave a new look at some impact fee "talking points" at last week's special meeting, apparently with the intention of questioning some of the assumptions implied during discussions at recent Community Economic Roundtable meetings.
 The talking points concerned a Roundtable proposal coming from Archuleta County Commissioner Bob Moomaw, who has been urging local government entities to cooperate on an update to a two-year-old impact fee study — a study which one of the local water districts, Pagosa Area Water and Sanitation District, essentially rejected when it came out in 2006. The study had been done by consultants Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) on behalf of the Town, County, Fire District, School District, and SJWCD.
SJWCD — which is working arm-in-arm with PAWSD on a proposed 35,000 acre foot reservoir in Dry Gulch — accepted the EPS study, and has been collecting a $1,100 impact fee on new construction since 2006. PAWSD instituted their own impact fee in 2006, based on very different population data and a very different "rational nexus" from the EPS study. The PAWSD impact fee is currently priced at $7,210.00 per Equivalent Unit.
Impact fees, under Colorado law, may be used only for new capital projects. The funds may not be used to maintain or repair existing infrastructure, nor used for day-to-day operations. The fees must be charged based on a “rational nexus” — that is, there must be supportable evidence for how much the proposed capital projects will cost and how many new-comers will be sharing the accessed cost of the improvement. By Colorado law, the cost of the improvement should be charged fairly to all new-comers who will benefit from the improvement.
Moomaw has been able to get PAWSD, SJWCD, the Town of Pagosa Springs and other government entities to agree — in principal at least — on doing a jointly-funded revision to the 2006 EPS study. Moomaw's long term goal is to have local entities work together and collaborate on a mutually acceptable impact fee schedule — so that impact fees are shared fairly among the various governments and special districts.
But the SJWCD "talking points" raise a few questions about whether the water districts will be able to fully embrace the proposed collaboration.
For a collaborative impact fee program to be formulated by EPS, the governmental entities probably need to agree upon at least three important factors: an acceptable population projection, a prioritization of the community’s necessary capital improvements, and a reasonable total impact fee. Right now, the community has three separate impact fee schedules: the PAWSD schedule, the Town schedule and the County schedule. The total impact fee being paid by new construction depends upon where in the county the construction is taking place.
The talking points at last week’s SJWCD meeting were mainly the work of a new member of the PAWSD and SJWCD team, Administrative Assistant Sheila Berger. Berger recently worked as Archuleta County’s Special Projects Director, so she undoubtedly brings a different perspective to the table. The document discussed at the SJWCD meeting was clearly labeled “DRAFT.”
SJWCD director Fred Schmidt began the talking points discussion by noting that he had added a new paragraph to the end of the document, suggesting that all of the entities involved in the EPS update ought to first agree on a mutually acceptable planning horizon. Schmidt seemed to feel that a 20-year planning period might be appropriate.
SJWCD, as noted, is working hand in hand with PAWSD on its long-term capital projects — notably, the controversial Dry Gulch Reservoir. Of all the government and quasi-governmental entities in Archuleta County, PAWSD has clearly put the most effort into long-term planning. As far as I know, neither the Town of Pagosa Springs nor Archuleta County have long-term capital improvement plans. PAWSD, meanwhile, has several plans, based on different time frames. According to the PAWSD website, the water district has its financial plan built around a 2007-2022 timeframe — in other words, a 15-year plan — and has a Capital Improvement Plan based on a 2006-2040 timeframe — in other words, a 34-year plan.
The population projections for the proposed Dry Gulch Reservoir, however, have been based on a 100-year time frame.
“Which time frame has a chance of containing some realistic numbers?” local community leaders might ask themselves.
Obviously, the further out into the future a population projection — or a cost projection — tried to extend, the more likely that projection is to become pure speculation. This is particularly true in a community like Pagosa Springs, which has no accurate current population figures. It is, in fact, a matter of speculation as to how many people lived here in 2006. It’s possible that our only reasonably accurate population numbers date from 2000 — the last U.S. Census.
PAWSD, however, has accurate numbers of the total water taps within the PAWSD district. Based on those accurate numbers, PAWSD asked Durango Water Engineer Steve Harris to develop water district population projections through 2040 and beyond. The population numbers Harris developed have been the basis of the proposed Dry Gulch Reservoir land purchases.
Harris’ numbers have so far proven to be woefully inaccurate. Harris predicted in 2006 that PAWSD would collect $4.8 million in impact fees during 2008. Recently, PAWSD Finance Manager Shelley Tressler suggested that the district's total WRF collections during 2008 might hit $80,000 — less than 2 percent of the Harris projections.
It appears that Harris’ projections — after just a two-year period — are already off by at least 6,000 percent. Not 6 percent, not 60 percent, not 600 percent. 6,000 percent.
This poses something of a problem for PAWSD — besides the obvious financial problem inherent in its Dry Gulch budget being $4.8 million out of whack after only two years. It suggests that PAWSD’s 2022 financial plan, its 2040 Capital Improvement Plan, and its 100-year Dry Gulch Plan all need a fresh look — a seriously fresh look.
PAWSD appears to be making just such a fresh look — but only at the cost of a new reservoir. They have hired engineering firm MWH America to update the costs of the proposed year-2040 Dry Gulch Reservoir, and preliminary numbers are expected by mid-October. MWH will no doubt do an excellent job of predicting project costs — as best as can be done, that is, in a time of monthly price increases on nearly every important building material.
Meanwhile, the Town of Pagosa Springs has yet to agree on a prioritization of its own capital projects — and is facing its own financial difficulties, including a state-mandated update to its sewer treatment facility, a project which has at least doubled in price, and perhaps tripled, in the past two years.
At the same time, housing and commercial development in the Town limits has come to a virtual standstill.
The County, as far as I know, has done no long-term planning in the past two years — it has been struggling simply to keep itself out of bankruptcy.
Can these three entities come together and seriously discuss the 20-year planning horizon suggested by Fred Schmidt?
Would a one-year planning horizon make more sense?
You can download the PAWSD 2022 Financial Plan here (Large PDF file, 56 pages)
You can download the Harris Dry Gulch Feasibility Study here (PDF file, 16 pages)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|