Council approves water service agreement for proposed Amy’s Acres development after lengthy debate on annexation and controls

The Glenwood Springs City Council on June 4 approved a water service agreement authorizing the city to supply 84.5 Equivalent Residential Units (EQRs) of potable water to a proposed development at 50235 Highway 6 & 24 (the applicant described the site as an attainable single‑family subdivision with about 98 new units plus two existing residences). The vote approving the mayor to sign the agreement was 5–2.

City staff explained the background: the property abuts the West Glenwood water district and was formerly served by on‑site wells. As part of the proposed deal, the developer will transfer one of two existing wells to the city, which staff said would increase the city’s water rights portfolio after a diversion‑point change with Division of Water Resources. The agreement in the packet commits the city to provide a specific amount of water tied to the project—84.5 EQRs—and staff said can‑and‑will‑serve documentation will be project‑specific, tied to numbers of units and bedroom mixes, and include a one‑year end date if development milestones are not met.

Council members pressed staff and the applicant on regulatory and fiscal tradeoffs. Council asked whether annexation would apply; staff and the city attorney said voluntary annexation is now subject to voter approval and that the city cannot compel annexation. That reduces the city’s future land‑use control and tax base for parcels outside city limits. Staff also noted the city will collect capacity (EQR) fees and receive a well in exchange as part of the terms.

Developer Neil Scott told the council the project would focus on smaller, owner‑occupied homes and include 10 percent income‑capped units. He said the development will add five new fire hydrants and that mitigation measures for debris flow, fire access and traffic had been reviewed in the county’s land‑use process. Public comments included support from a local listing agent who emphasized the need for workforce housing and the relative proximity to Valley View Hospital.

Council members who voted in favor cited housing goals, the addition of fire protection, infrastructure benefits and the practical reality that the development would proceed with or without city water. Those opposing the agreement said they were uncomfortable supplying municipal services to a property outside city limits without annexation and worried about precedent and regulatory loss.

Implementation: the signed agreement will be specific about the number and configuration of units (bedroom mixes), EQR calculations and an implementation timeline; staff said they will prepare a can‑and‑will‑serve letter tied to the exact unit mix and include a one‑year expiration if the developer does not commence construction under the agreed parameters. The council’s approval instructs the mayor to sign the water service agreement and allows staff to finalize required exhibits and permits with the county and the developer.

Vote: The motion to approve the water service agreement passed 5–2 (yes: Councelor Shakar, Mayor Prom Solinsky, Councelor Smith, Councelor Shacker, Councelor Townsley; no: Councelor Wymer, Councelor Schmall).