Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Supply Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aurora Water urges trimming of planning boundary as supplies tighten
Summary
Aurora Water told the Planning & Economic Development Committee it recommends reducing the city's planning and annexation boundary to avoid creating service expectations the utility cannot meet, citing drought, shrinking mountain supplies and multi‑billion‑dollar costs for new water acquisitions.
Get email alerts on the Water Supply Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Aurora Water told the Planning and Economic Development Committee on Nov. 12 that it wants the city to ‘‘strategically trim’’ the Planning and Annexation Boundary (PAB) to avoid future development expectations the utility cannot meet. The request came during a presentation on water supply and the city's long-term planning tools.
Daniel Krasnowski, supervisor in the city's Long Range Planning Division, introduced the amendment and explained that only properties inside the PAB are eligible to apply for annexation. ‘‘The PAB is a tool the city uses to identify areas outside current limits that may be annexed in the future,’’ he said.
Alexandra Davis of Aurora Water outlined why staff recommended the change, saying Aurora relies on a diverse portfolio of supplies — including the Upper Colorado River, the Arkansas basins and South Platte projects such as Prairie Waters — but that long-term supplies are shrinking. ‘‘Snowpack is considered Colorado's largest reservoir,’’ Davis said, citing drought outlooks and projections of above-normal temperatures. She noted the city currently delivers about 55,000 acre‑feet annually to customers but that roughly 93,000 acre‑feet of raw supply is required to produce that volume — a roughly 2:1 ratio when accounting for transmission, treatment losses and contractual commitments.
Davis described planned projects that expand supply but said those projects are not certain and that remaining options will be more expensive and competitive. She said the city has secured about 7,500 acre‑feet from an Arkansas farm under a multi‑year access pattern and can access other supplies only intermittently; staff estimated that fully implementing an all‑in portfolio could cost between $1.5 billion and $3 billion.
Because of that uncertainty, Davis said staff recommended trimming areas inside the PAB so the city does not create an expectation of service that could lead to legal claims or demands staff cannot meet. She pointed to the Lowry Ranch State Land Board property near Aurora Reservoir, which the city continues to identify as long‑term open space but keeps in the PAB to support existing conservation easements and to maintain dialogue with the State Land Board.
Committee members asked for an updated map; Krasnowski said staff would present a revised map as part of the formal process. Krasnowski asked the committee to move the amendment forward for a Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation and public hearing, then to city council for public hearing and two readings. Chair Bergin and Council Member Gardner signaled support to proceed to the formal adoption process.
Next steps: staff will place the PAB amendment on the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda for recommendation and public hearing, followed by two readings at council if the commission recommends approval.

