(a) 
Purpose.
The purpose of these regulations is to:
(1) 
Establish standards for operations and maintenance of the Persigo Wastewater Treatment Plant, and appurtenant facilities including interceptors, trunk lines, collectors, lift stations, and other connecting pipes, easements and rights-of-way therefor, and interconnecting systems and pipes whether or not owned or controlled by the City or the County (“the system”).
(2) 
Implement the agreements between Mesa County and the City of Grand Junction, i.e., the October 17, 1979 agreement, the May 1, 1980 agreement (which together constitute “the agreement”). Since the agreement does not address many issues concerning the system, its use or operation, conditions and requirements for connection, and others, the City adopts these regulations to direct and allow the Manager to exercise, to the fullest extent possible, its discretion and power, except to the extent limited by applicable law.
(3) 
Establish financial planning requirements, describe types and restrictions on the use of the funds of the system, and adopt the accounting and reporting standards applicable to the revenues and expenditures of the system. Through such implementation, and pursuant to the general grant of both power and duty to the Utility Director, acting as the Manager of the system, and the City Council operate, plan for, extend, and maintain the system in the manner deemed appropriate by such Manager so long as not contrary to the terms of the agreement, with regard to the assets and resources of the system:
(i) 
Accounting and financial guidelines;
(ii) 
Establishment of fund balance requirements;
(iii) 
Lending rules, limitations and procedures;
(iv) 
Ten-year capital and operating plans based on assumptions and projections deemed reasonable by the Manager;
(v) 
Billing and collection rules and rates;
(vi) 
Pay scales and positions for employees of the system;
(vii) 
Administrative overhead services provided to the system by the Manager and charges and expenses for such services rendered;
(viii) 
Surcharges to residents within special districts which provide sanitation services, unless prohibited by federal law or the terms of any EPA grants; and
(ix) 
Allocation of revenues received by system customers to the various capital reserve accounts.
(4) 
Facilitate the implementation of the annexation policies of the City.
(5) 
Control and plan any system expansion in the 201 planning area and expansion of the 201 area.
(6) 
Not by way of limitation, these regulations are intended to provide for the fullest exercise of: a home rule city’s powers, acting through the Manager, derived from Colorado’s Constitution, Article XX, Section 6; the authority obtained by virtue of the County’s delegation pursuant to § 29-1-203, C.R.S., the powers stated or implied in § 31-35-101, C.R.S., et seq.; and other applicable law.
(7) 
To provide a written resource to guide not only the Manager over time, but also the County as a co-owner of the plant and other interested parties.
(b) 
Process to Adopt Existing and New Regulations.
The regulations adopted this date [December 1, 1993] describe, in part, existing procedures and rules, i.e., administrative and not legislative which apply to the system and which have been implemented by the Manager since May of 1980. From time to time, the Manager may propose to the City Council supplements or changes to these administrative procedures and rules with additional existing administrative procedures, rules, and policies which have been implemented by the Manager since May of 1980.
From time to time, the Manager may propose changes to existing procedures, rules and policies which are legislative in nature. With respect to such new or additional changes to existing legislative procedures, rules, and policies, the following process should be followed:
(1) 
The Manager shall publish, in a newspaper of general circulation in the City, the text of the proposed amendment and notice of a meeting at which the text shall be considered for adoption by the City Council. The City Council shall, at such meeting provide an opportunity to interested parties to make comment and to suggest changes. The City Council shall determine whether the text is adopted or is changed in whole or in part.
(2) 
The Manager may immediately implement a new or modified procedure, rule or decision concerning administrative matters if the Manager determines such change to be in the best interests of the system or the Manager may delay the implementation of any such new administrative procedure, rule or decision until after an appropriate comment period.
(Res. 80-95 § 2, 9-20-95. Code 1994 App. D § 1)
In the construction of these regulations, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms and phrases shall have the meanings set forth:
Agreement.
Joint Sewerage Service Agreement dated October 17, 1979, between the City of Grand Junction and Mesa County, as amended and the May 1, 1980, agreement between the City and Mesa County.
ARIX Study.
A study done by ARIX Engineering in 1985 entitled, “Grand Junction/Mesa County 201 Wastewater Facility Planning Update.” The study deals with areas within the 201 planning area that are not practical to serve with the present facilities.
Backbone system.
The plant and its appurtenances and all of the principal sewer lines including interceptor sewer lines and trunk sewer lines as shown on City of Grand Junction drawing No. 02-826, dated December 15, 1993. The drawing, as amended from time to time, is on file with the City of Grand Junction Public Works and Utilities Department.
Banner study.
A report done by Banner Associates, Inc., in 1987 entitled, “Report on Preliminary Study of Sanitary Sewer Line Extensions Within 201 Planning Area for City of Grand Junction, Colorado.” The report investigates the cost and engineering feasibility of extending sanitary sewer service to some areas in the 201 planning area.
Basin study.
A study done by HDR Engineering, Inc., in 1993 entitled, “Comprehensive Wastewater Basin Study.” The study analyzes and predicts current and future sewer flows in the 201 Planning Area, delineates drainage basins requiring future trunk extensions and provides cost estimates for the future extensions.
Board.
The Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County or, as the context may require, the Utility Director or the City Council of the City pursuant to the agreement.
Bonds.
Securities issued by the City and the County entitled, “Mesa County, Colorado, Sewer Refunding Revenues Bonds, Series 1992.” The bonds were issued for the purpose of refunding outstanding “County Sewer Improvement Revenue Bonds, Series 1980A” and “County Sewer Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 1980B.”
CH2M-Hill study.
A rate study done by CH2M-Hill in 1992 entitled “Wastewater Utility Rate and Cost Allocation Study.” The study reviews the financing of the sewer system. A methodology is presented which results in rates for sewer service that are adequate to meet the financial needs of the utility and are equitable among the various users of the system.
City.
The City of Grand Junction, a home rule city.
Code.
The City Code of Ordinances, as amended from time to time.
Collection sewer lines or collection lines.
All sewer lines, with the exception of private service lines, which collect sewage from residences, businesses, and other uses, and convey sewage to a trunk or interceptor sewer line.
Collection system.
All collection lines, trunk lines, pump stations and other appurtenances, which collect and convey sewage from private service lines to an interceptor sewer line.
Combined sewer.
A sewer intended to receive and convey wastewater and storm or surface water.
Council.
The City Council of the City of Grand Junction. The City Council is the governing body of the City for purposes of § 31-35-701, C.R.S. et seq. and has legislative and other powers.
County.
The County of Mesa, a statutorily created body politic of the State of Colorado.
District.
A body politic which obtains sewage conveyance and treatment service pursuant to a contract with the City. Each district is authorized by and acts pursuant to Title 32 C.R.S.
EQU.
An “equivalent residential unit” as defined in GJMC § 13.04.010.
Facilities plan or 201 facilities plan.
The “Facilities Plan, City of Grand Junction.” Prepared by NHPQ, September 2, 1975, as amended in the “Summary Update of 201 Facilities Plan and Predesign” report prepared by HDR, June 28, 1977, and by ARIX in the “201 Wastewater Facility Planning Update,” May, 1985, and by HDR in the “Comprehensive Wastewater Basin Study,” February 4, 1993.
Fund.
City of Grand Junction/Mesa County joint sewer system fund.
HDR predesign study.
A report done by Henningson, Durham and Richardson, Inc., of Colorado in 1977 entitled, “Predesign Report for Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Interceptor Sewers.” The report updated the 201 facility plan for interceptor sewers and wastewater treatment facilities serving the designated Grand Junction and Mesa County planning area. The report provides a recommended plan and an evaluation of several wastewater management techniques.
Improvement district.
An assessment district established pursuant to Chapter 12.12 GJMC or applicable State statute.
Industrial pretreatment.
“Pretreatment” as defined in GJMC § 13.04.360.
Industrial pretreatment program.
Administration of uniform requirements to prevent the introduction of pollutants into the system pursuant to GJMC § 13.04.350 through 13.04.500.
Infiltration.
The total extraneous flow entering a sewer system, or portions thereof, excluding sanitary sewage, because of poor construction, corrosion of the pipe from the inside or outside, ground movement or structural failure through joints, porous walls or breaks.
Inflow.
The extraneous flow which enters a sanitary sewer from sources other than infiltration, such as roof leaders, basement drains, land drains, and manhole covers.
Interceptor sewer lines or interceptor lines.
The principal sewer lines which collect and convey sewage from trunk sewer lines and collection sewer lines to the Persigo Wash Wastewater Treatment Plant. Interceptor sewer lines are shown on Figure 2-3 of the basin study.
Manager.
Public Works and Utility Director of the City or the City Manager or the City Council, as the context may require.
Permit.
“Colorado Discharge Permit System” (CPDES permit CO-0040053), issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, allowing discharge of pollutants into navigable waters of the United States or waters of the State of Colorado.
Persigo Wash Wastewater Treatment Plant or plant.
The facility described in the current CPDES permit numbered CO-0040053.
Plant investment fee.
A fee paid to the City to recover costs of construction of the system as outlined in GJMC § 13.04.280 through 13.04.300, which sections describe payment, amount, and formula for computing the fee.
Sanitary sewer.
A pipeline (also “line”) that conveys liquid and waterborne wastes from residences, commercial and other buildings, industrial plants and institutions, and other uses, together with minor quantities of ground, storm, and surface waters that are not admitted intentionally.
Series 1980A bonds.
“Mesa County, Colorado Sewer Improvement Revenues Bonds” originally issued by the City and County in the aggregate principal amount of $7,420,000.
Series 1980B bonds.
“Mesa County, Colorado Sewer Refunding Revenue Bonds” originally issued by the City and County in the aggregate amount of $805,000.
Service charge.
Monthly sewer service charge or rental on each lot, parcel of land, building or premises having any connection to the system as set forth in GJMC § 13.04.250 through 13.04.270 and 13.04.310 through 13.04.340, which sections describe such charges, their computation, and administration.
Service line.
The line from the building drain to the sanitary sewer.
System or sewer system.
City of Grand Junction/Mesa County, Colorado, joint sewer system including all real, personal, mixed and other property, now a part of or hereafter acquired by the system through purchase, construction or otherwise and used in connection with the system. “System” includes the plant including interceptor lines, trunk lines, collection lines, lift stations, and other connecting pipes, easements and rights-of-way therefor, and interconnecting systems, lines, and pipes whether or not owned or controlled by the City or the County, and used in connection with the system. Ownership of the system is determined by the agreement.
Trunk sewer lines.
Sewer lines that serve a specific drainage basin which collect sewage from tributary sewer collection lines and convey sewage to an interceptor sewer. Trunk sewer lines are shown on City of Grand Junction Drawing No. 02-826, dated December 15, 1993, which drawing is on file with the City of Grand Junction Public Works and Utilities Department.
201 planning area.
The 201 planning area boundary described in the “Comprehensive Wastewater Basin Study” prepared by HDR, February 3, 1993.
208 plan.
Region 11 Water Quality Management Plan, adopted by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission in December 1980, assessing water quality, identifying treatment works, prioritizing water quality problems, and identifying agencies to implement recommendations outlined in the plan.
Utility coordinating committee.
A committee consisting of representatives of service providers within the 201 area, e.g., City, County, Ute Water Conservancy District, Public Service Company of Colorado, which meets regularly to review development submittals and coordinate regulation of construction activities.
Wastewater.
Spent or used water which contains dissolved and suspended matter, as defined in GJMC § 13.04.010.
(Ord. 4574, 4-3-13; Res. 80-95 § 2, 9-20-95. Code 1994 App. D § 2)
(a) 
Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants (Audit).
An audit of the system’s financial statements shall be completed once each year. Each audit shall be conducted by independent certified public accountants who shall deliver a copy of the audit to both the City and to the County. The auditor will express an opinion as to the financial position and results of operation of the system and whether or not the Manager is operating the system in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The auditors will, from time to time, provide additional opinions upon instruction from the Manager and will annually certify in the audit as to compliance with sewer revenue bond requirements. The Manager shall select the auditor. The auditor for the system may be the same auditor who audits for the City.
(b) 
Basis of Accounting.
The system shall be accounted for as a proprietary enterprise fund. The name of the fund shall be the “joint sewer system fund.” The financial statements shall be prepared on the accrual basis of accounting. A summary of significant accounting policies shall be outlined in the footnotes of each audit.
All of the funds and accounts described infra shall be maintained as book accounts in the “joint sewer system fund,” shall be kept separate from all other funds of the City, and shall be accounted for and used solely for system purposes.
(c) 
Budget and 10-Year Financial Plan.
A two-year budget of the joint sewer system fund (hereinafter “fund”) shall be used. Such a budgeting and accounting system complies with the requirements outlined in the County resolution MCM 92-160. County resolution MCM 92-160 authorizes the sale of sewer refunding revenue bonds dated January 21, 1993. County resolution MCM 92-190 replaced County resolution MCM 80-179 which authorized the sale of sewer revenue bonds dated November 1, 1980. To effectuate the sale of the bonds, the City adopted analogous ordinances numbered 2626 and 1922.
The Manager shall continue to prepare a 10-year operating and capital financial plan for the fund, which includes the two-year budget. The 10-year plan shall be a rolling 10-year plan which is reviewed and changed annually, by the Manager, to reflect changing operational and capital needs and economic conditions of the fund.
The 10-year financial plan shall be based on the Manager’s estimates of system revenues, operation and maintenance expenses, debt service requirements, bond fund reserves, operation and maintenance expense reserves, minimum working capital reserves, planned capital improvements, and capital improvement reserves.
The 10-year plan shall incorporate bond covenant revenue requirement ratios, current-expense-to-current-revenue ratios, and the Manager’s anticipated rate changes during the 10-year period to insure that all requirements of the bond covenants, and the requirements of the Manager, are met and balanced over each “rolling” 10-year period.
(d) 
Budget Submittal.
Prior to October 1st of each year, the Manager shall submit to the County and to the City Council its anticipated budget for the following year, including the Manager’s recommended user charges, tap fees, and plant investment fees. The County shall adopt such user charges, tap fees, and plant investment fees.
It is the practice of the Manager to begin preparation of the fund budget well in advance of October 1st. Submission of each draft budget in late September typically reflects all changes to date. Additional review and changes occur after October 1st. Such a process is approved. The Manager shall endeavor to communicate all changes in a timely fashion to the City Council and County.
Review and final adoption of the budget and proposed rates may occur in the following sequence:
(1) 
Submission of the proposed budget and proposed rates to the City Council and the County Commissioners.
(2) 
Resolution of the City Council adopting the rates. The practice of the Manager is to adopt rates to be effective January 1st of the following year. To this end any rate change may be adopted separately from an appropriation ordinance.
(3) 
Resolution of the County Commissioners adopting the rates.
(e) 
System Revenue Funds.
The Manager shall continue to establish and maintain revenue accounts within the fund, coded by number, for each type of system revenue. A current copy of the account description and account numbers will be available for inspection at the Administrative Services Department of the City. From time to time, as system revenues are received, the Manager shall credit them to the appropriate accounts. The Manager shall maintain a summary of each revenue account within the fund. As revenue types change, the Manager may create, modify or delete appropriate accounts.
The Manager shall, as a part of the biennial budget process, estimate system revenues by account. Such estimates will be submitted to and reviewed by the City Council and submitted to the County.
(f) 
System Facilities Operation and Maintenance Expenditures.
The Manager shall continue its practice of creation and setting aside, in separate accounts, funds sufficient to pay operations and maintenance expenses as they become due and payable. Such funds shall be the first charge against system revenues. These accounts will be known as the “sewer system facilities operation and maintenance funds.”
The Manager shall provide, within the fund, separate expenditure accounts for all system operations and maintenance expenses.
A description of system operation and maintenance expenditure accounts will be kept on file in the Administrative Services Department of the City. From time to time as expenses are paid, these shall be charged to the appropriate expense accounts. Summaries will be maintained on each expenditure account within the fund accounting system.
The Manager shall make annual estimates of system operation and maintenance expenditures by account as a part of the preparation of the biennial fund budget. These estimates will be submitted to and reviewed by the City Council and submitted to the County Commissioners.
(g) 
Bond Retirement.
On January 21, 1993, the outstanding bonds of the system were advance refunded by the issuance of $8,200,000 of Mesa County, Colorado, Sewer Refunding Bonds, Series 1992, issued by the City and the County.
The bonds and interest on the refunded bonds are payable solely from net system revenues, after payment of the costs of facility operation and maintenance.
The Manager shall, as a part of the biennial budget process, provide for bond payments and expenses, in a separate account within the fund in a manner consistent with generally accepted accounting principles and in a manner that meets applicable requirements of the bond covenants.
The bonds require that gross revenues of the system be sufficient to “pay the annual operation and maintenance expenses and an amount equal to 120 percent of both the principal of and interest on the refunded bonds payable.” This calculation will be made as part of the annual audit and will be described in the audit footnotes as to the sufficiency of gross revenues.
(h) 
Bond Reserve Fund.
The bond reserve fund was created in 1980 and partially funded from the reserve fund moneys on hand deposited in connection with the 1978 sewer bonds of the City and from proceeds of the Series 1980A bonds. Subsequent required deposits have been made semiannually from system revenues.
The 1992 bond documents require a bond reserve of “... not less than the average annual principal and interest requirements.” This reserve was established at the issuance of the 1992 bonds from the prior bond reserve fund as a reservation of cash and investments, and as a reservation of fund balance within the fund.
Each audit will provide the auditor’s opinion concerning the sufficiency of the bond reserve fund and whether bond reserve requirements have been met.
(i) 
Capital Reserve Accounts.
The Manager shall continue to maintain expenditure accounts within the fund for system capital improvements. These expenditures will be budgeted and made after operation and maintenance expenditures, debt retirement, and required reserve fund deposits are made. These capital expenditures are designated as “backbone capital” and “collection system capital.”
System customers, as part of their monthly service fees, pay for specific sewer services. These services are described as “backbone operation and maintenance,” “backbone capital,” “collection system operation and maintenance,” and “collection system capital.” Such terms are defined in the definitions section of these regulations. The monthly service fees shall continue to be calculated based on the various service fee components provided to each customer. The components of the monthly service fee collected for backbone capital and for collection system capital shall continue to be credited as revenues to special reserve accounts set aside for planned capital expenditures in these areas.
The establishment of these capital reserve accounts was ratified by Resolution 98-92 of the City Council on December 16, 1992, which directs that the Manager reserve all current and future fund balances of the fund, after all required credits are made and reserves funded, for future capital improvements and system replacements.
(j) 
Operation and Maintenance Expense Reserve.
The Manager shall continue, within the fund, an “unallocated fund balance” the amount of which the Manager shall determine each year as part of the two-year budget process. This unallocated fund balance, which shall be considered in the 10-year plan, represents the amount of money remaining in the fund after all expenditures and designations for operations and maintenance, debt retirement, current capital, bond reserves, and future capital reserves are made. The unallocated fund balance is and shall continue to be designated as the “operation and maintenance expense reserve.”
The Manager shall continue the established minimum balance to be maintained in the operation and maintenance expense reserve. This minimum balance is, and shall be, known as “minimum working capital.”
The Manager may use such reserve to pay for or offset any deficiencies in system revenues required to defray operating and maintenance expenses, bond retirement expenses, or bond reserve fund shortfalls.
(k) 
Rate Setting.
The Manager shall establish rates, fees, and charges sufficient to generate annual revenues to meet the requirements of the bonds and to fulfill the policies and decisions as evidenced in the 10-year plan. The Manager will submit to the City Council for its review, approval, modification or denial, and shall submit to the County Commissioners, its recommended user charges, tap and plant investment fees to be charged within the system. The user charges and fees will be uniform for those similarly situated within the system as determined by the City Council.
The amount of plant investment fees is intended to recover the cost of construction of interceptor lines and sewage treatment works as described in the Grand Junction and Mesa County predesign report for wastewater treatment facilities and interceptor sewers dated August 1977 (GJMC § 13.04.300).
Rates and fees sufficient to meet the obligations and financial requirements of the bonds and capital improvement needs of the system are projected in the 10-year plan. Rates shall be amended from time to time as deemed necessary by the Manager having considered the policy that annual incremental rate increases are preferred over larger increases implemented less frequently.[1]
The Manager shall, in addition to the independent periodic rate analyses outlined below, annually review and recommend rates to meet system and bond requirements.
As outlined in Mesa County Resolution MCM 92-160, if the City or the County deem necessary, the Manager, not less than once every five years, will cause an independent professional engineer to prepare an analysis of the rates and fees. A rate analysis was completed in June of 1985 by ARIX Engineering. In May of 1991 another was completed by CH2M-Hill Engineers.
Sewer use charges and plant investment fees shall be charged on the basis of EQUs. An EQU is an “equivalent residential unit” as defined in the City Code.
GJMC § 13.04.250 and 13.04.300 et seq. shall govern rate administration.
[1]
Editor’s note: In 1987 it was the policy of the City and the County to schedule rate adjustments once every three years. Rates were amended in 1987. In 1990 rates were amended. The scheduled rate increase for 1993 was postponed until 1994 as a result of the better than projected financial condition of the fund.
(l) 
Interfund Transfers.
The agreement, section (a)(2), paragraph 2, allows the Manager to include in its anticipated budget a line item specifying the amount of money needed to reimburse the City for expenses incurred by the Manager and other departments of the City for services provided to the system.
Each budget shall include such a line item, which may be amended from time to time.
(m) 
Utility Billing.
The Manager, unless specifically prohibited by contract, shall bill all sewer customers for services received whether those customers are served directly by the system or another entity, including a special district. The existing arrangement is approved whereby Fruitvale Sanitation District bills customers who are not in the City limits.[2]
There shall be included on each bill, and identified as such, any additional charges made to a customer by any other entity which provides sewer service.
[2]
Editor’s note: The Manager bills Fruitvale customers who are then located in the City.
(Ord. 4574, 4-3-13; amended during 2009 recodification; Res. 80-95 § 1, 9-20-95. Code 1994 App. D § 3)
The City has a duty, as the Manager of the system and a co-owner, to plan for, control and restrict, if necessary, future users of the system so that the needs of the system, including capital, are met.
The Manager’s policy is to require that all development within the 201 is served by and connected with the system. This policy promotes the public health, welfare and safety by facilitating the annexation of urban and urbanizing lands to the City and by reducing the use of septic systems, package plants and other treatment systems and by, overall, reducing the costs of sanitary sewer.
(Res. 83-03, 9-3-03; Res. 80-95 § 2, 9-20-95; Res. 62-94, 7-20-94; Res. 41-94, 6-1-94. Code 1994 App. D § 4)
There is a finite limit to the capacity of the system. Such capacity was established in the original planning efforts. When the 201 plan was adopted it determined what capacity was needed. Persigo was sized to meet that need. The capacity was calculated based on land use assumptions for a defined area. That area is called the 201 service area. Requests for service outside the 201 service area have occurred. These regulations establish policies and rules to decide such requests for service inside and outside of the 201 service area. Rules may or may not be designated as such.
(a) 
Facts.
(1) 
The design capacity of the plant is 25,000,000 gallons per day. Source: Predesign Report for Wastewater Treatment Facilities, HDR, 1977.
(2) 
The adopted per dwelling use per day is 263 gallons. Source: Basin Study, 1993.
(3) 
The total population equivalent which can be served by the ultimate design capacity of the Persigo plant per day is 237,650.
(4) 
The total population equivalent which is presently being served by the Persigo plant per day is 72,337.
(5) 
Based on present land use approvals and zoning, the total population equivalent which are “approved” (this includes all potential future development) is 260,380. Source Basin Study, 1993.
(b) 
Policy.
The Manager finds it to be in the best interests of the citizens of the community, and in the interest of the public health and welfare of the public in the City and in the 201 service area, that growth be directed, both in the City limits and in the other areas of the 201 service area. As indicated in the adopted annexation plans of the City, it is expected that, over time, the City’s limits will be coterminous with the boundaries of the 201 service area.
To meet those goals, sewer availability shall be managed, controlled and allocated throughout the 201 service area. The method selected to allocate such availability (which means the plant capacity) as to a particular parcel or lot is described in the basin study completed in 1993.
(c) 
Rule 4.1.
Upon adoption of this regulation, no development shall be approved which requires sewer service within the 201 service area until the Manager finds that the proposed development (as that term is defined in the zoning and development code of the City) can be served by the existing infrastructure, after having duly considered the residual capacity of the existing lines, the Persigo plant and the system. To determine if the development can be served by the existing infrastructure, the Manager shall examine the sub-basin (as defined in the basin study) within which the development is located.
(d) 
Rule 4.2.
The Manager shall maintain a compilation of the allocated sewer approvals which have been given. At such time as the calculated allocation of the plant’s ultimate design capacity has reached 55 percent, and each fifth percentile thereafter, the Manager may give notice of such calculation to the public.
(e) 
Rule 4.3.
If any person requests that the Manager modify the boundary of one or more sub-basins which have been established (in the 1993 basin study), or the allocations of density that have been established for each such sub-basin, such person shall deliver such data and studies as the Manager may require in order to decide such a request. The Manager may require that such person pay a fee calculated to reimburse the Manager for the costs and expenses, including personnel costs, incurred in such review.
(f) 
Rule 4.4.
The Manager may modify the capacity allocated to any sub-basin based on other available infrastructure (such as water, streets, schools, and the like) and based on the Council’s willingness to provide urban level of services.
(g) 
Rule 4.5.
The principle of “first come, first served” shall apply when determining if capacity is available.
(Res. 83-03, 9-3-03; Res. 80-95 § 2, 9-20-95; Res. 62-94, 7-20-94; Res. 41-94, 6-1-94. Code 1994 App. D § 4(a))
System expansion can occur by providing sewer service to developing areas, sub-basins, and basins and to developed, unsewered areas, sub-basins, and basins. Each requires different rules and considerations, and financing mechanisms or charges.
(a) 
 
(1) 
Developing Areas.
Typically, system expansion in developing areas occurs at the time of subdivision or development approval: the developer pays the costs needed to extend/expand the system to serve the subdivision or development. This system expansion occurs when lines are installed within a development or through trunk lines extensions to a development. The latter circumstance is outlined in Rule 4.8.
(2) 
Sewer Reimbursement Policy.
The Manager determines that if a developer extends the system to the benefit of other property near or adjacent to the extension, the developer should be allowed to recoup some of the costs of system expansion from the benefited property when that property receives the benefit of the expanded system. Additional system expansion which further extends an extension will not be required to reimburse for the costs of a previous extension. The extent of property benefited by the system expansion shall be determined by the Manager.
(3) 
Rule 4.6.
The Manager, at present, chooses the method of sewer reimbursement agreement to provide a mechanism to allow a developer to recoup some of the costs described above. A copy of a standard form sewer reimbursement agreement is on file in the City Clerk’s office. The Manager may negotiate different terms as circumstances may require.
The term of such agreements shall not exceed 10 years. The rate at which interest shall accrue on the developer’s costs of extension shall be established by the Manager based on then current conditions.
(b) 
Developed Areas.
(1) 
Policy – Provide Sewer.
Some areas have already developed as individual lots and uses without sewer service, however, it is the policy of the Manager as confirmed by the Persigo agreement that sewer should be provided whenever and wherever practicable. Specific circumstances when sewer must be provided to such individual lots and uses include:
(i) 
A residential unit served by an ISDS (individual septic disposal system) which fails and the property is within 400 feet of a sewer; and/or
(ii) 
The expansion or subdivision of an existing residential or nonresidential use or property.
The property owners in both of these circumstances must pay the cost of sewer extension and appurtenant sewer service facilities. The Manager finds that the system should not pay for such costs, except as provided for herein.
The costs of retrofitting an area for sewer service is typically much higher than if sewer is connected/constructed at the time of development and many times construction/connection after the fact means that the costs attributable to each lot, especially residential lots or parcels, is high. The Manager finds that some form of financing may be required, under certain circumstances, to promote providing sewer service and thereby protecting the public health.
(iii) 
An improvement district is a useful financing tool which allows for payments over time of the costs of retrofitting an area. The Manager endorses and approves the use of improvement district(s).
Typically, an improvement district is used when a neighborhood or other identifiable area needs sewer service and the owners in the area can garner sufficient owner consent to form a district. For areas within the City limits, the City improvement district process is available. For areas not wholly within the City limits, other improvement districts, requiring the oversight and consent of the County Commissioners, may be available.
(iv) 
In an area where insufficient owners consent to form a district, other mechanisms are needed to allow the continuing use of a property which does not have sewer service available, but for which sewer service is required. Such a situation may arise in an area generally served by ISDS where one septic system fails or does not meet current standards.
(c) 
Rule 4.7.
(1) 
In the case of subsection (b)(1)(i) of this section (a residential unit served by an ISDS (individual septic disposal system) which fails and the unit is within 400 feet of a sewer) if a property owner demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Manager that the following two conditions exist:
(i) 
The construction of a sewer line is impracticable; and
(ii) 
Adequate disposal and treatment facilities exist as defined by current regulations (generally by the repair/reconstruction of a failed ISDS);
Then the Manager may authorize the continued use of an ISDS.
That approval/permit shall be issued on the following terms and conditions, which shall be specifically agreed upon by the property owner pursuant to a written agreement in advance of repair/reconstruction of an ISDS.
(2) 
Examples of when sewer construction may be “impracticable” include but are not limited to:
(i) 
There is a low likelihood of a local sewer improvement district being formed in the near future based on the Manager’s discussions of the formation of the same with the benefiting owners, and the number and location of POAs to form a district is insufficient to create the same; or
(ii) 
The sewer line, to be constructed by the property owner, is in a location or with grades such that few if any other nearby properties can be efficiently served by the new line; or
(iii) 
The location of the closest (within 400 feet) sewer line is in a different drainage basin or is across a major street, waterway or similar impediment to the construction of a line such that the expense of the new line is wholly out of proportion to the average cost of extending residential service; or
(iv) 
To construct pumping facilities and a force main would be too great an expense compared to participation in a future local improvement district.
Adequate disposal and treatment facilities means that a local package treatment plant is or will be made available and functioning or that the ISDS may be regularly pumped and disposed of at the plant.
Repair/reconstruction of a failed ISDS means that the property owner meets all State and County Health Department regulations for ISDS repair or replacement.
(3) 
Terms and Conditions of the Written Agreement.
(i) 
The property owner shall deliver an executed power of attorney for formation of a future sewer improvement district; and
(ii) 
The property owner shall pay that amount of money which the Manager calculates to be the proportionate share of the sewer line construction costs, as defined by the Manager, attributable to the development or property, plus an administrative charge of six percent of the principal amount of such proportionate share (the “payment”); and
(iii) 
The Manager may authorize the payment, described in Rule 4.7 (subsection (c) of this section), over a term of years, not to exceed 10, upon the execution and delivery by the developer of a promissory note and mortgage or deed of trust sufficient, in the judgment of the Manager, to reasonably ensure that the payment will be timely made; and
(iv) 
Interest shall accrue on the payment at a rate established by the City Council, by resolution, or in the absence of such a resolution, at a rate which is equal to the rate of return on City investments obtained by the Finance Director of the City on the City’s long-term investments; and
(v) 
The obligation to pay the payment, in addition to the mortgage or deed of trust, shall constitute a lien upon the property and shall be equivalent to the lien provided for in the City Code establishing a water lien, presently GJMC § 13.08.090. All remedies available pursuant to GJMC § 13.08.090 shall equally apply to the lien described and created herein; and
(vi) 
In the event that an improvement district is formed and some or all of the payment has been paid, the assessment which would otherwise be payable shall be reduced by the amount of principal of the construction cost which has been paid; and
(vii) 
The property owner shall dedicate, at no cost to the City, such right-of-way or easements as the Manager shall deem necessary to construct, operate, and maintain the system, in accordance with City specifications and standards. In the event that insufficient information is available to determine the legal description of the required rights-of-way or easements at the time of approval or permit issuance, the developer shall promise and covenant to make such a conveyance or grant at such time in the future as the Manager shall require.
If adequate disposal and treatment facilities do not exist or a failed ISDS cannot be repaired so that such a system can adequately serve a property during an interim period before sewer lines are constructed, then the property shall be abandoned or vacated until adequate treatment or disposal is available. Adequate disposal may include regular and periodic pumping and disposal of accumulated waste at the plant.
(4) 
(i) 
In the case of subsection (b)(1)(ii) of this section (the expansion or subdivision of an existing residential or nonresidential use or property) if a property owner/developer demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Manager and the County that the following two conditions exist:
(A) 
The construction of a sewer line is impracticable; and
(B) 
Adequate disposal and treatment facilities exist as defined by current regulations (generally defined as the construction of an engineered ISDS);
Then the Manager and the County Commission may authorize expansion or subdivision of the property however that approval or permit, if any, shall be issued based on the conditions in Rule 4.7, subsections (c)(3)(i) through (vii) which shall be specifically agreed upon by the property owner/developer pursuant to a written agreement.
The Manager and the County Commissioners may deliberate and act separately but the concurrence of both is required to grant an exception to the sewer construction requirement.
Application for an exception to the requirement that sewer be constructed shall be made prior to submission of development/subdivision plans on forms provided by and with detail determined by the Manager and shall not be made for more than two lots in any subdivision or use expansion.
That approval/permit shall be issued on the following terms and conditions, which shall be specifically agreed upon by the property owner pursuant to a written agreement in advance of construction of an ISDS on any lot of for any expansion.
(ii) 
Examples of when sewer construction may be “impracticable” include but are not limited to:
(A) 
There is a low likelihood of a local sewer improvement district being formed in the near future based on the Manager’s discussions of the formation of the same with the benefiting owners, and the number and location of POAs to form a district is insufficient to create the same; or
(B) 
The sewer line, to be constructed by the property owner, is in a location or with grades such that few if any other nearby properties can be efficiently served by the new line; or
(C) 
The location of the closest (within 400 feet) sewer line is in a different drainage basin or is across a major street, waterway or similar impediment to the construction of a line such that the expense of the new line is wholly out of proportion to the average cost of extending residential service; or
(D) 
To construct pumping facilities and a force main would be too great an expense compared to participation in a future local improvement district;
Adequate disposal and treatment facilities means that a local package treatment plant is available and functioning or that an ISDS may be constructed, regularly pumped and disposed of at the plant in accordance with all State and County Health Department regulations;
(E) 
Residential service; or
(F) 
To construct pumping facilities and a force main would be too great an expense compared to participation in a future local improvement district.
Adequate disposal and treatment facilities means that a local package treatment plant is or will be made available and functioning or that the ISDS may be regularly pumped and disposed of at the plant.
(5) 
Terms and Conditions of the Written Agreement.
(i) 
The property owner shall deliver an executed power of attorney for formation of a future sewer improvement district; and
(ii) 
The property owner shall pay that amount of money which the Manager calculates to be the proportionate share of the sewer line construction costs, as defined by the Manager, attributable to the development or property, plus an administrative charge of six percent of the principal amount of such proportionate share (the “payment”); and
(iii) 
The Manager may authorize the payment, described in Rule 4.7, subsection (c)(5)(ii) of this section, over a term of years, not to exceed 10, upon the execution and delivery by the developer of a promissory note and mortgage or deed of trust sufficient, in the judgment of the Manager, to reasonably ensure that the payment will be timely made; and
(iv) 
Interest shall accrue on the payment at a rate established by the City Council, by resolution, or in the absence of such a resolution, at a rate which is equal to the rate of return on City investments obtained by the Finance Director of the City on the City’s long-term investments; and
(v) 
The obligation to pay the payment, in addition to the mortgage or deed of trust, shall constitute a lien upon the property and shall be equivalent to the lien provided for in the City Code establishing a water lien, presently GJMC § 13.08.090. All remedies available pursuant to GJMC § 13.08.090 shall equally apply to the lien described and created herein; and
(vi) 
In the event that an improvement district is formed and some or all of the payment has been paid, the assessment which would otherwise be payable shall be reduced by the amount of principal of the construction cost which has been paid; and
(vii) 
The property owner shall dedicate, at no cost to the City, such right-of-way or easements as the Manager shall deem necessary to construct, operate, and maintain the system, in accordance with City specifications and standards. In the event that insufficient information is available to determine the legal description of the required rights-of-way or easements at the time of approval or permit issuance, the developer shall promise and covenant to make such a conveyance or grant at such time in the future as the Manager shall require.
If adequate disposal and treatment facilities do not exist or cannot be constructed that such a system can adequately serve a property during an interim period before sewer lines are constructed, then the property shall be abandoned or vacated until adequate treatment or disposal is available. Adequate disposal may include regular and periodic pumping and disposal of accumulated waste at the plant.
(6) 
Rule 4.8.
No development within a basin or sub-basin in the 201 service area for which inadequate or no lines exist, as determined by the Manager, shall be permitted to proceed to final plat or other final approval, whichever is earlier, until the developer thereof has paid to the Manager, for retention by it within an appropriate fund, the trunk line fee established pursuant to subsection (c)(7) of this section. Nothing contained herein shall limit the obligation of the developer to pay for additional costs required to provide sewer service to the development, such as but not limited to the costs of collection lines.
The Manager shall collect such amount from each such developer in accordance with subsection (c)(7) of this section.
Should the developer desire to extend a trunk line before the Manager is prepared to build such trunk line, the developer may request approval from the Manager to do so at the expense of the developer. Upon completion and acceptance by the Manager of the extension, the developer may apply to the Manager to be reimbursed for the cost of the extension (less any trunk extension fees required of the developer). Any such reimbursement by the system shall apply only to a trunk extension which the Manager has planned, as approved in the current two-year budget, to construct within 24 months of the developer’s completion of such work. The developer would then, with approval of the Manager, be reimbursed from the trunk line extension fund. Interest on the cost of construction would not be included as a part of the reimbursement.
(7) 
Sewer Trunk Line Extension Fund.
(i) 
Establishment of Fund.
A separate fund will be established within the joint sewer fund for the purpose of financing trunk lines and collecting fees and charges for said trunk lines, said fund to be known as the “sewer trunk line extension fund.” The amount of $1,150,000 from the joint sewer fund balance shall be appropriated and deposited in the sewer trunk line extension fund.
(ii) 
Budget.
Each fiscal year as a part of the approval of the joint sewer system budget, a separate accounting of the sewer trunk line extension fund shall be provided to the City Council. Such accounting shall include all revenues, expenditures and fund balance associated with the sewer trunk line extension fund. Each year as a part of the joint sewer system budget, the Manager (as described in the agreement) shall prepare a recommendation on any trunk line projects to be considered for construction during the budget year. In making its recommendation, the Manager shall seek advice from the Mesa County Planning Department, Mesa County Health Department and interested homebuilders and realtor groups.
(iii) 
Project Criteria.
In determining if a trunk line construction project is eligible for the sewer trunk line extension program, the Manager shall consider the following:
(A) 
The trunk line must be included in the sewer lines shown in Figure TM 4-5 of the Black and Veatch 2008 Comprehensive Wastewater Basin Study Update.
(B) 
The trunk line shall be located in an area of the 201 Sewer Service Area that is developed or developing.
(C) 
At least 15 percent of the total cost of the trunk line shall be committed by property owners within the basin area prior to construction of the trunk line. This commitment may be in the form of prepaid development fees/escrow or contracts to pay upon the award of contract to construct the trunk line. The Manager may waive this requirement if the best interest of the sewer system is served by constructing a trunk line in an area that does not meet these criteria.
(D) 
The Manager may determine that, based on subsections (c)(7)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section, a particular trunk line request is not financially in the best interest of the sewer trunk extension fund. Notwithstanding that determination the property owner(s) in the basin may propose to construct the trunk line with the owner(s) funding an amount greater than 15 percent of the project cost. With consent of the Manager the owner(s) may fund up to 100 percent of the project cost. Should the requesting property owner(s) costs be greater than the trunk extension revenues there will be no credit or reimbursement made to the owner(s).
(E) 
The financial objective of the sewer trunk line extension fund shall be to collect sufficient development fees to recover trunk line construction costs and finance further trunk line project on a self-sustaining basis.
(F) 
In the event the Manager denies an extension, the property owner(s) may (1) request that the Manager provide its calculation/evaluations of the revenue anticipated to be received if the trunk line project is constructed and/or the financial projections on which the decision is based and (2) the property owner(s) may appeal any denial first to the City Manager and if the project continues to be denied to the Commissioners and City Council sitting in joint session as the Persigo Board. Appeals shall be timely made and decided; an appeal shall be in writing and must be filed within 10 days of the Manager’s denial. The City Manager shall hear and decide the appeal, in writing, within 10 business days after it is filed with him. If the denial is not overturned or terms established that are acceptable to the Manager and the property owner then the Persigo Board shall hear and decide the appeal within 30 days unless the property owner agrees to a later decision date.
(iv) 
Development Fees.
The cost of constructing trunk lines shall be reimbursed to the sewer trunk line extension fund by all properties which connect either directly or indirectly into the trunk line. The following fees and charges shall be assessed to all properties within the trunk line basin to reimburse the sewer trunk line extension fund for the cost of constructing the trunk line:
(A) 
Subdivision Development.
The development of any platted lot or the platting of any land within any basin in which a trunk line has been funded and constructed by the sewer trunk line extension fund shall be charged an extension fee per lot as follows:
Density
Extension Fee per Lot
1 Unit/Acre or less
$750
>1 <3 Units/Acre
$675
≥ 3 Units/Acre
$500
(B) 
New Construction.
Any building permit requiring a sewer clearance and connection to any public sewer line within the trunk line basin will also require payment of an extension fee as follows:
Density
Extension Fee per EQU*
1 Unit/Acre or less
$1,750
>1 <3 Units/Acre
$1,500
≥ 3 Units/Acre
$1,000
* Equivalent Residential Unit – As defined by GJMC § 13.04.010.
The above fees are in addition to the plant investment fee charged for new sewer connections.
(Amended during 2009 recodification; Res. 83-03, 9-3-03; Res. 80-95 § 2, 9-20-95; Res. 62-94, 7-20-94; Res. 41-94, 6-1-94; Res. 47-93 (as amended by Joint Persigo Board, 4-30-14), 8-4-93. Code 1994 App. D § 4(b))
Those standards adopted by the Manager concerning development and infrastructure shall apply throughout the system.
(Res. 83-03, 9-3-03; Res. 80-95 § 2, 9-20-95; Res. 62-94, 7-20-94; Res. 41-94, 6-1-94. Code 1994 App. D § 4(d))
(a) 
Rule 4.10.
Sewer service outside the 201 service area is prohibited, unless the Manager determines, by resolution of the City Council:
(1) 
That the area proposed to be served is urban or urbanizing, i.e., the City is willing to provide urban services to such area, in the reasonable future; and
(2) 
The Manager determines that sufficient capacity to serve such area is available; and
(3) 
The Manager determines that other necessary infrastructure to provide urban services is reasonably available;
(4) 
The Manager has evaluated the probability of including the area proposed to be served pursuant to Rule 4.11 and has found that such inclusion is reasonably likely to occur in the reasonable future. The Manager shall seasonably initiate the process to cause such area to be included within the 201 service area.
(Res. 83-03, 9-3-03; Res. 80-95 § 2, 9-20-95; Res. 62-94, 7-20-94; Res. 41-94, 6-1-94. Code 1994 App. D § 4(e))
(a) 
Rule 4.11.
Any person desiring that the boundary of the 201 service area be modified, including a political subdivision, shall begin by making application to the Manager. The application shall include such information as the Manager shall require in order to evaluate the effect of such modification on the plant capacity, the ability of the City to serve such included area, and the ability of the City to control the infrastructure standards which shall apply, and to ensure continued compliance with applicable federal and State law.
The Manager may initiate such a modification.
Upon the determination by the Manager that the information supplied is sufficient to make an informed decision on the request for modification, the Manager shall schedule a public hearing thereon with prior notice of such hearing to be published at least twice, 10 days prior to such hearing.
The decision on the question of modification shall be made by the City Council, and if required by applicable law, shall be forwarded to other agencies whose decision is required.
The Manager may require that such person pay for the costs incurred, including personnel costs, in evaluating and deciding such a request.
(Res. 83-03, 9-3-03; Res. 80-95 § 2, 9-20-95; Res. 62-94, 7-20-94; Res. 41-94, 6-1-94. Code 1994 App. D § 4(f))
(a) 
Background and Policy.
The importance of the use of the availability of sewer service to obtain annexation of properties to the City cannot be understated. The City annexes: to control the location, quality and density of development; to ensure that the development standards of the City are complied with; to control the impacts on City streets and other City infrastructure; to prevent a decaying core City by adding to the City newly developing areas, and already developed areas which are urban or urbanizing; and to provide planning and fiscal responsibility.
For decades, the City has required powers of attorney to be delivered to the City at the time that permission to physically connect to the system has been granted. At times, this has occurred when the plant investment fee has been paid and a planning clearance issued. Where the only approval is a building permit, this method has an inherent weakness: because the annexation process requires significant lead time and procedural steps, development can occur faster than annexations can be completed. Thus, a developer can obtain permission to install infrastructure for subdivisions/developments without City inspection and without City specifications being met. Additionally, because at times in the past some County-adopted standards have been waived, the City finds that it must to protect its taxpayers from bearing the burden of upgrading deficient infrastructure upon annexation, implement a supplementary method of obtaining control over the infrastructure which is installed.
A second inherent weakness in the method used in the past is that the discretionary planning and land use decisions are made by entities other than the City for lands which the City annexes shortly thereafter. The City finds that its citizens are best served, and the public welfare is best served, if the land use review process occurs under the City’s jurisdiction. Earlier acquisition of powers of attorney facilitates that important public policy decision.
The following rule will assist in promoting the City’s annexation policies and is therefore adopted.
(b) 
Rule 4.12.
The Manager requires, prior to its review or approval of construction drawings for sanitary sewer and prior to approval of sewer service related to any plat or other development approval, whichever occurs first, that the Manager receive an approved executed power of attorney (POA) for annexation. POAs shall be provided using the forms furnished by the City, and shall include a full legal description of the entire parcel(s) and property intended to be developed, or which are subject to review.
To implement Rule 4.12, the City has requested the assistance of the County Planning Department to:
(1) 
At the time of the County preapplication conference, make developers aware of the City POA requirement and inform them that the Manager requires an executed POA before it will review or approve any sewer construction plans, preliminary or final plat and in any event prior to connection to the system;
(2) 
Provide the Manager with a full legal description of the entire parcel(s) (not just the portion being final platted) at the time the County refers development proposals in the 201 service area to the Manager for review, comment and/or approval;
(3) 
The Manager will not begin the review of, nor approve preliminary or final sewer constructing plans, or preliminary or final plat approval or other development approval, without first having obtained a proper and completed POA. Should preliminary plans be submitted without the signed POA, the Manager may inform the property owner/developer that no further review will occur, nor approval be given, nor connection allowed, until the Manager’s requirements for a signed POA are satisfied.
(Res. 83-03, 9-3-03; Res. 80-95 § 2, 9-20-95; Res. 62-94, 7-20-94; Res. 41-94, 6-1-94. Code 1994 App. D § 4(g))
The plant investment fee, as adopted by resolution, is not intended to pay for the expansion of the sewer plant; rather it is intended only to pay part of the payments due on the 1992 bonds on the existing plant and infrastructure. Based on the number of current and projected users, it is insufficient to pay for completing the infrastructure that is needed to utilize the existing plant capacity and other system expansion. Source: City audits, the bond documents, et al. The Manager has analyzed the financial requirements of plant and system expansion(s).
The Manager’s philosophy, which is adopted herein, is that current users should pay only for current capacity and current operations. When the capacity is used up, the system should borrow to expand the system and future users should pay for such bonds and the then current operational costs.
The City finds that it would be improper to require the present users of the system to subsidize future system expansion(s) such expansion should be paid for by those future users which necessitate such expansion. Hence, the Manager’s policy, hereby adopted, is that there should not be a charge, paid by present users of the system, to be used to pay for system or plant expansion.
(Amended during 2009 recodification; Res. 83-03, 9-3-03; Res. 80-95 § 2, 9-20-95; Res. 62-94, 7-20-94; Res. 41-94, 6-1-94. Code 1994 App. D § 4(h))
This section of the sewer rules and regulations describes rules and regulations for entities, organizations, special sanitation districts or homeowners associations which discharge sewage to the 201 joint sewer system. In this section, “person” includes individuals, contracting entities and permittees, unless the context requires otherwise.
(a) 
Application.
These rules and regulations apply to and govern each person or entity who obtains treatment at the Persigo plant and/or receives any sewage services from the City, including the owners and/or operators of a collection system.
(b) 
Authorization.
No person shall cause any sewage to be transmitted to or treated by the system unless during all times pertinent thereto:
(1) 
A written agreement is in effect signed by the Manager and the person (“contracting entity”); or
(2) 
Such person has obtained a current permit from the Manager (“permittee”) which permit is issued by the Manager in compliance with these regulations.
(c) 
Written Approval – Descriptions of Connections.
(1) 
No person shall connect to the system at any point or location unless previously approved in writing by the Manager. Connections which have been previously authorized by the Manager and which exist as of the date of adoption of this section are approved.
(2) 
Each contracting entity and each permittee shall within 60 days of connection to the system or notice from the Manager notify the Manager of the location(s), size and type of each such connection to the system, along with a description sufficient to distinguish each connection from another and the location, size and type of all lines and facilities which constitute the collection system of such person.
(d) 
Confirmation of Connections – Annexation Agreement.
(1) 
No connection, line or facility other than described and approved as provided in subsection (c) of this section, to the system shall occur until the Manager has approved the location and specifications. Each contracting entity and permittee shall pay such costs and expenses which are required to comply with the requirements of subsection (c) of this section. Each contracting entity and permittee shall pay to the Manager the expenses, costs and charges established by the Manager to confirm connections to, or disconnections from, the system. For the purposes of this provision, “expenses, costs and charges” means the time of the Manager’s employees, the fees and charges of any or other experts required, value of the use of equipment and materials, and the costs of mapping, copying and the like. All expenses of connection, or disconnection, shall be borne by the contracting entity or permittee.
(2) 
No connection to the system nor to any facilities connected to the system shall be made or authorized until each property served by the collector system of such person is annexed to the City or until the City has received an annexation agreement (e.g., power of attorney for annexation).
(e) 
Specifications – Expenses.
No person shall install, or authorize to be installed, any collection sewage lines which are designed to connect to the system unless the prior written approval of the Manager is obtained; the Manager shall not grant such approval unless the improvements conform with the several requirements of the Manager, including size and technical standards for sewer construction. During the period of construction, and with regard to each enlargement, extension, or replacement, such person shall pay the expenses of the Manager’s construction inspector, or other professional as is deemed necessary by the Manager, which inspector shall have complete access to the construction and the work.
(f) 
Maps – As-Builts.
Within 30 days of any replacement, enlargement, extension or connection to the system (other than permitted pursuant to subsection (c) of this section), each contracting entity or permittee shall provide the Manager with maps, as-built drawings and other documentary information from which the Manager may determine the type, date, and specification(s) of each such replacement, enlargement, extension and individual sewer connection to the collection system of such person.
(g) 
Fees, Charges – Hook-Up Permit.
Each applicant for connection to the collection system of any person shall pay directly to the Manager a tap fee (if applicable), the applicable plant investment fee, and shall execute a hook-up permit (including a power of attorney for annexation) at the Grand Junction City Hall. No person or entity shall issue any approval or clearance for connection to the collection system of such person or entity until, and after, the Manager has evidenced its approval by the issuance of a hook-up permit. The present form of the hook-up permit is at the end of this chapter as Exhibit 6A.[1]
[1]
Editor's Note: Exhibit 6A is included as an attachment to this title.
(h) 
Tap Permits.
Prior to connection an applicant shall either (1) agree to pay the Manager for the time and materials incurred in making the connection, or (2) obtain a permit issued by the Manager to an approved contractor who shall make the connection, or (3) have agreed to pay a district which controls a collection system.
The Manager may also require all excavations in public rights-of-way or utility easements to be done by system personnel and equipment with excavation piping and valves in these areas to be provided by the Manager and paid for by the contracting entity or permittee.
(i) 
Building Permit.
No building permit (but excluding foundation only permits and building permits for a structure not requiring sewer service) shall be issued by the Mesa County Building Department until the applicant has obtained a hook-up permit from the Manager at City Hall.
(j) 
Operation/Maintenance Services.
The Manager will not provide operation and maintenance services, e.g., flushing or jetting of the system of a collecting entity or permittee, unless provided for by a written agreement with the Manager.
(k) 
Connector’s Duties.
Any failure of a part of the collection system of a contracting entity or permittee, such as repair or replacement of a lift station, or blockage due to slippage or cave-in, whether by reason of faulty installation, age or otherwise, which requires excavation and/or replacement of pipe materials, shall be at the sole expense of the contracting entity or permittee. If the contracting entity or permittee fails to make such repairs or replacement in a timely manner, the Manager may elect to make the repair and replacement, and in such event the contracting entity or permittee shall reimburse the Manager for labor (direct and indirect), equipment costs, materials, plus 10 percent of such labor, equipment and material costs for the costs of administration.
(l) 
Inspection.
During the period of construction, and with regard to each extension of the contracting entity or permittee’s collection system, the contracting entity or permittee shall pay the expenses of a construction inspector, or other professional as is deemed necessary by the Manager, which inspector shall have complete access to the construction and the work.
(m) 
Billing.
No contracting entity or permittee shall collect from, or bill, any charge or fee, including any monthly fee or charge from a permittee or other user of the system or other person connected to the system, except as may be specifically provided otherwise in an agreement with the Manager. The Manager is authorized to enter into agreements with a contracting entity or permittee to bill and collect such additional amounts as may be agreed upon, such as a district surcharge for connecting district operations and maintenance. If the Manager bills and collects the contracting entity’s portion of monthly or other charges or fees, the Manager may, pursuant to such agreement, account to a contracting entity for the revenues collected upon a regular monthly basis.
(n) 
Written Agreements.
The Manager is authorized to enter into written agreements with a contracting entity whereby the Manager collects from individual users who are connected to the contracting entity’s collection system such additional tap or other fee the contracting entity shall determine. The contracting entity shall notify the Manager in writing of the amount of said additional tap or other fee(s) and shall indemnify and hold harmless the system, and the Manager and its employees and officers from any claims from any person that such fees or charges are improper or uncollectible.
(o) 
Property Served.
Except as provided in these rules and regulations, service or connection to the system will be furnished only to persons whose property is subject to these rules and regulations.
(p) 
Infiltration and Inflow.
(1) 
No contracting entity nor permittee shall permit infiltration or inflow into the system except as provided herein. Each such contracting entity and permittee shall, at its own expense and at no expense to the City or the system, rebuild such of its lines and other facilities, and remove any illegal or improper connections according to the plans, as to specifications and the time for performance, as approved by the Manager in order to reduce excess infiltration and inflow as required. Each such contracting entity or permittee shall perform such work immediately following the giving of notice by the Manager.
(2) 
The total of infiltration and inflow shall not exceed a rate of more than 200 gallons per inch diameter per day per mile of line and any amounts over such rate are “excess.” Inflow from existing combined sanitary and storm sewers, which the Manager has approved, shall not be considered as “excess.”
(3) 
During any period in which any contracting entity or permittee permits excess infiltration and/or inflow, the Manager may require such entity or permittee to pay a surcharge equal to the additional costs incurred by the Manager in conveying and treating the excess infiltration. The Manager’s calculation of such surcharge shall include the costs of the consumption of capacity of the system.
(4) 
The Manager shall calculate any infiltration/inflow rate by comparing peak flow during wet weather to peak flow during dry weather (especially summer months with irrigation activity versus winter months with no irrigation activity). Dry weather flow is measured during dry weather during the nonirrigation season (December through March). Each contracting entity and permittee shall provide the Manager with such information and data as the Manager may require to perform such calculation such as all pipe length and the size of each such pipe, age, material and conditions of all such pipe, and location of all connections and results of any infiltration and/or inflow studies and data.
(5) 
Infiltration and/or inflow shall be measured using calibrated equipment specifically designed to measure flow in sanitary sewers. Flow should be measured over an extended period of time (more than three months) and should be correlated to rainfall data for the drainage basin where the sanitary sewer flow is being measured. Flow from each contracting entity and permittee shall be measured at the points of connection with the City of Grand Junction sewer system. Each contracting entity or permittee shall perform such flow measurement as the Manager deems necessary to accurately establish the infiltration and/or inflow.
(q) 
Charges.
Each contracting entity and permittee shall timely pay all Manager adopted charges and fees within 30 days of billing by the Manager. Any such charges and fees not timely paid shall accrue interest thereon at a rate of 15 percent per annum.
(r) 
Pretreatment.
Each contracting entity and permittee shall comply with the requirements of the Manager concerning industrial pretreatment, including but not limited to obtaining a permit therefor prior to discharge into or connection with the system. See Chapters 13.04 through 13.12 GJMC, which are incorporated herein by this reference.
(s) 
Maintenance Program.
Each contracting entity and permittee shall adopt and implement a comprehensive collection system maintenance program. Such a program shall be developed to comply with the standards and methods provided in “Existing Sewer Evaluation and Rehabilitation (ESER),” published by Water Environment Federation Manual of Practice FD-6 and American Society of Civil Engineers Manuals and Reports on Engineering Practice No. 62 Second Edition, 1994, which is incorporated herein by this reference.[2] Include: routine cleaning and television inspection and replacement and repair of all portions of the collection system as required. The Manager may require additions or changes to such a program.
[2]
Note: ESER may be obtained by contacting Water Environment Federation, 601 Wythe Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-1994, (703)684-2400.
(t) 
Sewer Back-Up Policy.
(1) 
The City will reimburse the costs of immediate, professional cleanup service up to $750.00 (normally not to exceed $750.00, unless approved by the Wastewater Superintendent).
Claims for damages beyond the emergency cleanup shall be forwarded to the City’s Risk Manager. Once any adjustments for depreciation, prior conditions and cause are made, and if the owner of the property signs the waiver form, the City will pay one-half of the actual cash value of the damage, up to a maximum City cost of $2,500. Actual cash value is defined as replacement cost less depreciation.
(2) 
Public Awareness.
This amended policy shall be implemented with extensive public information to sewer customers that even in the best maintained sewage collection systems, blockages occur for many reasons; tree roots, grease, disposed items thrown into manholes which can cause blockages.
Because blockages may occur without anyone being “at fault,” the City recommends:
(i) 
That every owner who is concerned about back-ups make sure their insurance policy covers sewer back-up damages; and
(ii) 
That the owner pay to install an approved backflow device.
The information shall be posted on the City’s web site and provided through utility bill stuffers.
(Res. 22-03, 3-5-03; Res. 80-95 § 1, 9-20-95. Code 1994 App. D § 6)