Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carbondale staff propose sharp rise in water‑rights dedication fee; trustees seek more analysis
Summary
Town staff proposed increasing the water‑rights dedication fee from roughly $3,465 to $13,500 per acre‑foot (about $2,600 to $10,000 per EQR) to reflect long‑term water valuation; trustees asked for master‑plan tie‑ins, clarified how fees are used and signaled willingness to consider targeted fee relief for affordable housing.
Town staff presented the Board of Trustees with a proposal to increase Carbondale’s fee‑in‑lieu of water‑rights dedication — the payment developers can make instead of conveying water rights — from about $3,465 per acre‑foot to $13,500 per acre‑foot.
Staff said the recommendation followed a net‑present‑value analysis of water rights over a 50‑year horizon and reflects evolving water markets and the town’s need to protect legal ability to supply treated water for new development. The fee change translates to an increase in the cost per equivalent residential unit (EQR), staff said, from roughly $2,600 to about $10,000 per EQR under the proposed schedule.
Trustees used the presentation to press staff on several operational and policy points: whether fee receipts are ring‑fenced (they are coded to the water fund but not legally restricted to water‑rights purchases), how much cushion the town has in its existing water‑rights portfolio, how agricultural‑to‑municipal conversions (water‑court processes) could affect supply, and whether climate‑driven changes in runoff and snowmelt factored into the analysis. Staff said a forthcoming water and wastewater master plan will produce more precise estimates of system capacity and risks and that the town currently holds several high‑priority rights on the Crystal River.
On affordable‑housing tradeoffs, several trustees voiced support for considering targeted relief: waiving or replenishing the fee from the general fund for qualifying nonprofit or workforce housing projects if doing so would be decisive for project feasibility. Staff cautioned that routinely waiving fees would harm the utility enterprise; officials said any subsidy ought to be a deliberate policy decision by the board rather than an administrative waiver.
Trustees directed staff to return with updated Appendix A and fee language for a future consent agenda item and additional material tied to the town’s master plan and capital program.
