Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fountain council approves first readings on water allocation rules and repeals tap‑fee ordinance to allow updated fees
Summary
Council approved first readings of two related measures: ordinance 18‑17 would change how new water resources and tap reservations are handled (including a proposal to set aside 20% in a restricted account for council‑directed public needs); ordinance 18‑18 repealed prior tap‑fee language so new fees can be adopted by resolution.
Taylor Murphy, the city’s Water Resources and Engineering Manager, told the council the city is operating with limited water supplies and proposed code changes to ensure new growth “pays its own way.” Murphy explained the 2024 water‑adequacy code required developers to demonstrate they have water, and the proposed amendments would add a reservation process (a deposit for half the expected tap fees) and create a council‑controlled restricted account for 20% of new water resources to preserve capacity for future public needs.
Murphy framed the change as both an allocation and fiscal protection: the utility currently carries roughly $37 million of debt taken on to serve growth, and existing tap fees (many unchanged since 2008) do not adequately recover cost for large meter installations. He warned that selling the same supply as many small residential taps would generate far more connection revenue than selling it as a few large irrigation or institutional meters. “If I sell it as just households, the utility brings in $35,000,000 and pays off just about all of its debt. If I sell it as big irrigation meters, we bring in $2,000,000,” Murphy said.
The council voted 6–1 on first reading of Ordinance 18‑17 (Councilmember Geeke moved; Councilmember Ruffinock seconded; Councilmember Verhoff voted no) and also approved first reading of Ordinance 18‑18, repealing the existing connection/tap‑fee ordinance to enable new fees to be adopted by resolution at the Feb. 10 meeting (6–1, Verhoff opposed). Councilmembers asked staff to bring a proposed split for the remaining 80% of taps (commercial vs. residential) as a resolution so council can adjust allocation without revising code.
Council also discussed practical exceptions and economic development incentives: staff and city legal counsel said council retains discretion to allocate restricted‑account water to public‑benefit projects or negotiate fee incentives as part of economic‑development agreements. Staff emphasized the distinction between monthly water rates (which fund operations and maintenance) and one‑time tap/connection fees (which reimburse the utility for capacity and water‑right costs).
