Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impact Assistance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Torrington officials say impact-assistance awards tied to Chugwater Energy Project remain uncertain after administrative hearing
Summary
City Attorney Jim Eddington and Clerk Treasurer Lynette Strecker told the Torrington City Council that an administrative hearing reduced the city's temporary-worker estimate—from 253 to 150—creating about a $25,000 difference in the impact-assistance calculation; officials stressed awards are speculative and paid only after taxable construction purchases occur.
City Attorney Jim Eddington told the Torrington City Council that the city’s cost-of-service methodology for the Chugwater Energy Project was accepted at a recent administrative (ISD) hearing, but a disputed estimate of temporary workers altered the final award calculation.
“Our cost of service methodology was exactly the same that we used 3 years ago in the Goshen Solar Project,” Eddington said, noting the city originally used an applicant-provided estimate of 253 temporary workers. “The difference was that we claimed in our calculation 253 temporary workers, and that information came directly from the applicant. Goshen County used 150 temporary workers in their calculations.”
Eddington said a hearing commissioner moved to change Torrington’s figure to 150 and the commission agreed, which he said resulted in about a $25,000 difference in the money awarded to Goshen County versus the city.
Clerk Treasurer Lynette Strecker and the mayor emphasized that impact-assistance awards are not grants and are speculative: funds are derived from taxable purchases tied to the project and are disbursed only after construction begins and receipts are realized. Strecker described the timeline as potentially years long and said recipients must show proof of impact and are subject to audit before receiving reimbursement.
Council members questioned the inconsistency between local estimates and county calculations. Eddington said methodologies vary and, in his view, the administrative process is informal and fact-intensive—he described hearings that were scheduled for a day and a half but extended to four days because of extensive local testimony.
Eddington also described a multi-party memorandum of understanding among roughly 20 Goshen/Platte County entities designed to keep requests under a shared impact-fee pool (discussed in the meeting as a cap referenced as “12.3” and later noted as $12,000,000). He said requests approved in practice have included a wide array of projects—some atypical—such as cemetery maintenance and equipment purchases, and that the commission reviews and sometimes rejects proposed items that appear inconsistent with proximity or impact.
City officials stressed the practical consequences for Torrington: because the Chugwater Energy Project sits tens of miles from Torrington (Eddington cited distances such as Torrington being about 55 miles from the project site), the city’s realistic taxable impact may be small if workers choose nearer towns for lodging and services. That geographic reality made the worker-count estimate pivotal to the award calculation.
The council received the presentation as an informational item; no formal action was taken. Officials said they will monitor implementation, await project start and subsequent sales-tax collections, and prepare documentation should Torrington seek reimbursement under the impact-assistance program.
