ALAMOSA — In a 6-1 vote, with Councilman Charles Griego dissenting, the Alamosa city council denied a request from Alamosa County to waive $24,520 in water assessment fees for the People’s Place Subdivision in southern Alamosa.

The city council did deduct the fees attached to the food bank storage building, however, which totaled about $1,200. (That amount is not included in the $24,520 total.) The building involves little consumptive use for water, is primarily used as a warehouse and was a community project.

The fees are based on the estimated consumptive water use of the buildings associated with the development of the subdivision, specifically the portions related to the county annex building ($7,425), justice center ($14,818), Rio Grande Water Conservation District building ($2,277) and the food bank storage building ($1,206). The fees were part of the annexation agreement with the city and were due a couple of years ago but both the city and county lost track of it. The city recently notified the county that it had not been paid, and the county asked for it to be waived.

Alamosa County Commissioner Michael Yohn took the county’s request to the city council during the council’s January 16th meeting. He recounted the history of the subdivision, which predated his time on the commission. He said the area used to house a sawmill, and the commissioners before him had the foresight to purchase the 55 acres with the goal of expanding county services and bolstering economic development on the south side of Alamosa.

The county installed the infrastructure on the property, Yohn said, tying into the city water and sewer lines and expanding them to the first building to be constructed, the county road and bridge headquarters.

The county sold a portion of the property to SLV Behavioral Health for a new facility. Property was subsequently sold to the Colorado Department of Transportation, the City of Alamosa for a public works building and finally the Rio Grande Water Conservation District for its new building.

The county constructed the administration and public health building in 2002, the county annex in 2014 and the justice center in 2018.

The county with support from the community erected the food bank storage building, with the county paying for a lift station and sewer and water lines and the city donating the water and sewer tap fees.

Yohn reminded the council that the county annexed the property (except for Behavioral Health) in 2013.

Yohn detailed the county’s investment in the subdivision through the construction of the administration building in 2002: $153,651, water; $105,832, sewer; $43,000, lift stations; $40,568, electric and natural gas; $3,069, street lights (with continuing fees to Xcel); $8,891, hydrants; and $350,000, asphalt for Independence Way and Independence Circle.

Yohn asked for the city to waive the assessed water charge, saying, “Please recognize the same taxpayers are paying for this assessment.”

He added the county was not debating the fee but believed it was something the taxpayers were burdened with. It was like taking the money from one pocket and putting in another, he said.

Alamosa City Manager Heather Brooks said the city’s philosophy is that development pays for itself. The fees in question in this situation are water assessment fees and were included in the 2014 annexation agreement signed by the city and county, Brooks said.

She added that staff had discussed this with the city council during an executive session last year, when it was clear the council did not want to waive the fees except for the food bank building. The city would be willing to work out a payment plan with the county, however, Brooks said.

Brooks said she understood the county was working on that payment plan and was planning to pay the assessment fees, but then the county sent a letter asking them to be waived.

She said staff disagree with the county and do not believe the waiver should be granted. She said there is a burden to this expense, and it would make more sense to spread that burden among the approximately 15,000 county residents than the 3,400 city utility customers.

Brooks added that the city is always appreciative of any economic development and enhancement of property. However, the city’s philosophy is that the development needs to pay for itself.

Brooks said the city had already waived $35,000 in plant investment fees and about $10,000 in tap fees for these developments.

Councilor Kristina Daniel said she had had concerns previously when the city waived tap fees, and she still had those concerns with this waiver request. She said she appreciated the city’s partnership with the county, “but I do feel this is a necessary part of development.” She said she disagreed with Yohn that this was just passing the fee from one taxpayer to another but was instead putting the burden on 3,400 rather than 15,000 taxpayers.

Councilor Liz Hensley agreed that she appreciated the county’s partnership but believed this fee should be spread among the county residents rather than a smaller group of city residents. She said she also had a hard time waiving this fee, “giving something away,” when the city was raising the rates of its utility customers.

Councilor David Broyles favored negotiating with the county for a reduced fee, like maybe half. “I think we ought to give them some consideration,” he said.

Councilor Griego agreed that the city should work with the county on this bill and come up with a good medium. “We are both in the same business,” he said.

Daniel said the city has already waived fees for the county development, however. “I feel like we have met them halfway.”

Councilor Jan Vigil asked what the county might have done for the city. Brooks said the city uses some of the county’s equipment but pays for it. She added that the county participated in a recent trails project and county staff dedicates time to joint projects.

County Administrator Gigi Dennis said on a regular basis the county road and bridge department and city public works department share equipment and help each other out, for example during recent snowstorms.

Councilman Michael Carson said these fees were already agreed upon, and the city and county needed to move forward on taking care of them.

He added, however, that he agreed with Broyles that the city might give the county some consideration.

Alamosa Mayor Ty Coleman said he wanted the city to be fair and he had a hard time thinking it would be fair to waive these fees and put the burden on the city’s utility customers rather than the larger county taxpayer base. The cost of these fees is real and will have to be passed on to city customers if the city does not charge the county for it, Coleman said. He said the city has spent a lot of money addressing its water challenges. “It’s real dollars that we are spending.”

The council denied the county’s request to waive the fees, with Councilman Griego voting against the motion.