HomeMy WebLinkAbout780527.tiff •
OF FICI OF ROAfin OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PHONE: (3031 356-4000 EXT. 200
P,O. BOX 758
• GREELEV, COLORADO 80631
e.
COLORADO
July 31, 1978
Mr. John B. Fiori
Frederick, CO 80530
Dear Mr. Fiori :
RE: Letter to Mr. Robert Matuschek, dated 6/28/78
Mr. John S. Beale, Jr. , Director of the Program Management Division of
the Community Planning and Development Dept. of HUD, has forwarded a copy
of the above-referenced letter which you sent to HUD, with a request that
Weld County respond directly to you concerning questions raised in your
letter.
Points addressed in your letter to which Weld County is responding are
as follows:
1. That work is progressing without adequate prior consultation with
the Town of Frederick, the Tri-Area Planning Commission, and the citizens
of the Evanston area;
2. That the street improvements are resulting in damage or potential
damage to existing utility lines, fire plugs, water meters, and private
driveways;
3. That streets have been narrowed to the point of prohibiting adequate
access to fire trucks and other emergency vehicles;
4. That streets and alleys formerly in use have been curbed off;
5. And, that the County and engineering firm have not been responsive
to citizen concerns with the street improvements projects.
As you will see from the attached letter from Mr. Maurice Rupel , dated
September 19, 1977, attempts were made during the preliminary design
discussions on street improvements to involve the Towns of Firestone and
Frederick, the Tri-Area Planning Commission and the general public in the
Evanston area through publication in the Frederick Farmer and Miner.
The County also consulted Frederick and other utility companies prior to
implementation of the street imrprovements design. On October 12, 1977,
all utilities involved in the project were sent a set of plans with a letter
from Hogan and Olhausen requesting review and forwarding of any placement
problems. On June 6, 1978, the County Engineer, the project engineer and
, r , 780527
Mr. Fiori : July 31, 1978
Page Two
the construction manager met with Mr. Frank Milavec, Frederick's representative,
who reported that the project, as it related to Frederick's utility lines,
was satisfactory.
The concern you express about access to individual driveways was also
discussed at a meeting in Frederick on June 21, 1978. The County's work
on street improvements is confined to the public rights-of-way; the only
involvement with individual driveways will be the access point to the
road. We have been assured that, although some entries into driveways may
be somewhat higher, they will be constructed so as to give proper access.
Material changes have not been made to the engineering design which was
presented at the public meeting on September 29, 1977. Johnson Street,
the main artery, is 40 feet in width, and the other streets included in
the project are 28 feet wide with a 24-foot asphalt surface, widths
considered adequate for the traffic load. The County did check on the
possible problem of fire truck access; we found that the streets will
accommodate cars parked on both sides of the street, a traffic lane for
the fire truck and a 5' extra clearance. Residential street widths are
traditionally not constructed to allow vehicles of that length to complete
U-turns.
We are not aware of the curbing off of streets or alleys formerly in use,
to the point where access is entirely prohibited. As development occurs
in an area, there are of necessity changes to be made in roadways, such
as removal of sections of curbing to install new streets and driveways.
However, if you know of specific, instances where access to existing streets
and alleys has been restricted, we would appreciate your providing detailed
locations.
In the matter of responsiveness to citizen concerns, there have been many
hearings, informal presentations and public meetings during the develop-
ment of this Community Development Project. The County Commissioners and
engineer have tried to stay in touch with project developments; Commissioners
Steinmark and Roe have been on the job site at least six times since the
beginning of construction. On the evening of July 6, 1978, Commissioner Roe
and Commissioner Steinmark visited the area after a telephone call from Mrs.
Fiori , who said it was flooding in Evanston. At that time, they found four
areas within the project with highly visible drainage problems. Upon review
of the plans on July 7th, it was determined that three of the areas were
scheduled in the project but not completed, and corrective measures have
been added on the fourth. In addition, Commissioner Jacobucci has been in
that area in the past few months during other instances of flooding.
After the Evanston Streets meeting held on June 21, 1978, Weld County
contacted Commissioner Pete Mirelez of Adams County to seek a third party
review of the street improvements and engineering design. Mr. Clifton
Coleman, Community Development Director for Adams County, inspected the
Evanston site on June 29, 1978, along with Commissioner Roe, Drew Scheltinga
of Weld County, Marge Easton of the Farmer and Miner, and Rich Peterson of
Hogan and Olhausen. Mr. Coleman' s report of the situation is included; the
recommendations listed in that report have been incorporated into the design
for Evanston street improvements.
--...� _... ....v......... ... .... ,._,..+.wry=,.. ,..xmaYw�o.. ,.: ..wnswz...
Mr. Fiori : 7/31/78
Page Three
Annexation of Evanston by either Frederick or Firestone is a new issue,
not addressed in prior hearings , which the County believes is a future
local concern not relevant to the Evanston Street Improvement Project,
so I do not feel that I can comment on that question.
In addition, your statement concerning devaluation of property in that
area is a matter which could only be determined by a qualified appraiser
who had inspected the properties before the project and after project
completion. It would seem likely that improvements made in the streets
and the overall rehabilitation of homes in the area would enhance, not
detract from the value of existing homes. That, again, is a matter which
the County cannot fully address.
The Evanston street improvement project will not and was not intended to
correct all the drainage problems which occur in Evanston. In 1975, Weld
County designated Nelson, Haley, Patterson and Quirk to complete an
engineering study and design of the drainage problems in the Tri-Town area.
This study was done and reported to the Board of Weld County Commissioners
with an approximate cost of $350,000. To date, local , state, or federal
funds to implement this NHPQ study have not been available.
We are informed by Mac McGraw, of Representative Johnson's office, that
the Corps of Engineers has placed high priority on their study and project
to provide a permanent solution to the drainage problems in the Tri-Town
area. The timetable reported to us included a hearing on the Environmental
Impact Statement in July, 1979; project start-up in December, 1979; with
completion in 1981. Until such time as that process is completed, the
drainage in the area will continue to be a problem.
The County wishes to address your concerns and those of other citizens in
the Evanston area and will be happy to take action in clearing up individual
problem areas within the scope of the County's involvement. We hope that
the citizens will contact us directly as they see problems arising.
It appears that problems in communications have developed. It was certainly
not our intent to eliminate or discourage citizen participation; to the
contrary, it is our belief that reasonable attempts were made to notify and
involve area residents in the preliminary design discussions. We hope to
continue receiving direct input from local citizens as the project proceeds,
and we hope you will keep us informed of problems which come to your
attention. Thank you for your consideration' in this matter. We hope that
this addresses your concerns as expressed in your letter to HUD.
Sincerely,
/91:? e ft iel.e
Ed Dunbar, Chairman
Board of Weld County Commissioners
clb Ho I
cc John S. Beale, Jr.
pF tp�„EMT 1 pL .. :.
�, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVEL j
s' IIIIIIII ttLti97Bjj
J EXECUTIVE NTOWER - 80202 STREET
ti
p>annp O' DENVER, COLORADO 80202
GREELEY. COLO.
2 4 JUL 1918
REGION VIII IN REPLY REFER TO:
8CM
Edward Dunbar, Chairman
Weld County Board of County
Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Dunbar:
Enclosed is recent correspondence from Mr. John B. Fiori concerning
program activities in the Community Development Block Grant efforts
in the Evanston division of Weld County, Colorado.
We are asking that Weld County respond directly to Mr. Fiori within
fifteen days and answer each item of complaint in his letter. Please
send copies of your response to this office.
As you are aware, under the Community Development Block Grant Regula-
tions, recipients have the responsibility of answering citizen complaints
in a timely and responsive manner.
Sincer
2ij, John S. Beale, Jr.
Director, Program Management Division
Community Planning and Development
Insuring Offices
Casper, Wyoming•Denver, Colorado•Fargo, North Dakota Helena, Montana•Salt Lake City, Utah Sioux Falls, South Dakota
Frederick, Colorado
June 28, 1978
Mr. Robert Matuschek
Ass't. Regional Adm.
Denver, Colo. 80202
Dear Sir:
At the surrestion of Mayor Hall of Frederick I am writing you and
sending the enclosed material for your consideration. We, the people
who have signed the opinion moll enclosed, hate a setious problem
wttt: drainage. We live in the unincorporated area known as Evanston,
bounded on the south by Frederick and on the north by Firestone,
about 25 miles north of Denver. I have lived here bb years and have
seen many devastating floods and have slides to show some of them..
All re^uest.s to our County Commissioners over the year for help
have been denied until this year when the HUD grant of 5150,000 was
given them, for a drainage program, curb & rttter and street paving.
The work got under way a few weeks aro without consultation with
Frederick which supplies us with water or the Tri-Area Planning
Commission for any recommendations as tc what should be done for the
best interest of all. They have turned it into a worse disaster area
by cuttinr down streets which should have been raised,and vice versa,
some as much as 3 or 4ffeet. Due to these drastic cuts the water
mains in some places were exposed and had to be relaid and the re t
are sc near the surface they-Twill freeze this winter and about 70
homes will be without water. Frederick has s:gent about 66030 already
tc replace some lines, but the entire system needs to be re-done at
a cost of about 360,000, which is out of the cuestion for a snarl
town of less than 1000 population. We have met with County officials
and en-ineers an they have turned a deaf ear to our cleas for help.
We are located in the center of a new rich cii and gas field and much
revenue is going to the county and little, if any, is being returned
here. Mossis being used in the county seat, Greeley, 30 miles north
of us. The only money being spent here is 'EU' funds, and it is being
wasted, in fact, it is worse than wasted, we are being harmed. A few
have been helped, but most residents feel their property has been
devalued. We are maffily a town of retired and low income people and
many cannot come up with the money to repair their damaged driveways
and water meters. When the joo is finished some fire plurs will be
burie , others will be 3 or 4 feet in the air. One street has been
narrowed to 24 feet from its original 60 feet. At a house fire at the
end of this street last week, the fire truck could not turn around f:
had to back 2 blocks to pet out. When cars are narked on this street
fire equirment and ambulances will not be able to get thru. Streets
and alleys formerly in use have been curbed off, stopping future
development. Frederik had plans to annex this area but they cannot
now as tney have no money to bring the water works and streets u; to
standard with theirs. We need help and hope you can do something for
us. The enclosed pictures add news paper items will. be further
explaaatc-- . I and others from this area will be glad to meet with
you at any time. My phone number is 833-2704 and I live at 450
Johnson. St. Thanking you in advance for anything you can do for us.
Respectfully,
` LL
I I(;E OI HOARD Of COUfdl Y COMMISSIONERS WI PHONE'. (303) 356-4000 EXT. 200
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
O
•
COLORADO
July 13, 1978
Governor Richard D. Lamm
State Capitol
Denver, CO 80203
RE: HUD -- Community Development Grant, Evanston Street
Improvements and John B. Fiori letter dated 6/17/78
Dear Governor Lamm:
For your review, I am writing a response to the above-captioned
letter which was addressed to you. To the best of my knowledge, the
background on the Evanston project is as follows:
1. In 1975, Weld County designated Nelson, Haley, Patterson and
Quirk to complete an engineering study and design of the drainage
problems in the Tri-Town area, which area includes Dacono, Frederick,
and Firestone. This study was done and reported to the Board of Weld
County Commissioners with an approximate cost of $350,000. To date,
local , State or Federal funds to implement this NHPQ study have not
been available.
2. In July, 1976, Weld County filed a preapplication for Federal
assistance -- DHUD, Community Planning and Development, in the total
amount of $2,833,573. Included in this amount was a $595,573 request
for Evanston (Attachment A) . From the original preapplication, only
the Evanston project was funded, the allocation of grant funds being:
1) street improvements, $150,000; and 2) housing rehabilitation,
$100,000 (Attachment B).
3. On July 27, 1977, Weld County contracted with Hogan and Olhausen
for engineering services to design and supervise construction of street
improvements in Evanston. The designs were reviewed by the County
Engineer, and a public meeting was held on September 26, 1977 for the,
purpose of reviewing the street improvements design.
4. On December 21, 1977 , the contract for construction of street
improvements was let to Bestway Paving.
Governor Lamm -- Evanston Project
July 13, 1978
Page Two
To review the points in Mr. Fiori 's letter; I assess the following
as being relevent to the situation:
1. To my knowledge, an original drainage study was done by NHPQ
in 1975; the Hogan and Olhausen 1977 engineering design for the
Evanston project street improvements was based on the information
in the 1975 study. The Weld County Engineer reviewed the 1977 Hogan
and Olhausen design and found it acceptable. After the Evanston streets
meeting held on June 21, 1978, (Attachment D) I had asked Commissioner
Pete Mirelez if Adams County would provide a third party review of the
street improvements and engineering design. Mr. Coleman's report of
that review is included (Attachment E). After the June 21st meeting,
I also reviewed the meeting (Attachment F).
2. Material changes have not been made to the engineering design
which was presented at a public meeting on September 29, 1977. Johnson
Street, the main artery, is 40 feet in width, and the other streets
included in the project are 28 feet wide with a 24-foot asphalt surface.
3. On October 12, 1977, all utilities involved in the project were
sent a set of plans with a letter from Hogan and Olhausen requesting
review and forwarding of any placement problems. On June 6, 1977, the
County Engineer, the project engineer and the construction manager met
with Mr. Frank Milavec, Frederick's representative. Mr. Milavec
reported that the project, as it related to Frederick's utility lines,
was satisfactory.
4. Annexation of Evanston by either Frederick or Firestone is a new
issue, not addressed in prior hearings, which the County believes is
a future local concern not relevant to the Evanston Street Improvement
Project.
5. Many hearings, informal presentations and public meetings have
been held during the development of this Community Development Project.
The County Engineer and Commissioners have attempted to keep abreast
of the project; Commissioner Roe and myself have been on the job site
since the beginning of construction no less than six times. On the
evening of July 6, 1978, Commissioner Roe and I visited the project
because of a telephone call from Mrs. Fiori , who said it was flooding
in Evanston. At that time, we found four areas within the project with
highly visible drainage problems. Upon review of the plans on July 7th,
we found that three of the areas were scheduled in the project but not
completed, and we have added corrective measures on the fourth one.
I am enclosing attachments concerning the project which I hope will
be of value to you. The total Evanston project file is over 6" thick
and is certainly open to your review.
Mr. Fiori ' s letter deserves response, and I hope that this background
information will help to alleviate some of the concerns addressed by
Mr. Fiori and other residents in the Evanston area.
Governor Lamm -- Evanston Project
July 13, 1978
Page Three
We would invite you to make a site visit to the Evanston Project.
Please let me know if you require further information.
Thank you for your consideration concerning this matter.
Sincerely,
/7
("June K. Steinmark
Weld County Commissioner
Coordinator: Dept. of Planning Services
JKS/clb
- xr .-,•,rq\
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPEr
i\
** * a REGIONAL OFFICE ^�sr $ EXECUTIVE TOWER - 1405 CURTIS STREET li
A O4 gQ� DENVER, COLORADO 80202 \978
en sni
> raGOO'
REGION rfFl 2 5 AUG 1978 GROI9UralbLY REFER TO:
8CM
Mr. Edward Dunbar
Chairman
Board of Weld County Commissioners
P. 0. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Mr. Dunbar:
Enclosed is recent correspondence from Mr. John Fiori concerning
citizen participation in the Community Development Block Grant
efforts in Weld County, Colorado.
We are asking that the County of Weld respond directly to Mr. Fiori
within fifteen days and answer each item of complaint in his letter.
Please send copies of your response to this office.
As you are aware, under the Community Development Block Grant
Regulations, applicants and recipients have the responsibility of
answering citizen complaints in a timely and responsive manner.
Sincerely,
G. Gordon Brown
Acting Director
Program Management Division
Enclosure
S' ' Insuring Offices
ni%c �� grni
Casper,Wyoming•Denver, Colorado•Fargo, North Dakota•Helene, Montana•Salt Lake City, Utah•Sioux Fells, South Dakota
a . ..
i`
.'. ) .j o__orado
_ 4 July , 1978
h+Y a
i`v '11 t `
Dept. of HUD . '
1405 Curtis Street
Denver, Co. 80202 /
Ms. Lee—testa Rhoad:
In reply to my letter and other information which I sent your office
on June 28, Mr. John Beale wrote on July�im 25 stating that meetings
had been held in Evanston about the HUD grant of 4150,000 for drainage,
curb & Fetter and paving. These meetings must have been a well-guarded
secret as we and our local paper editor can only recal 2 being held,
the first merely a preliminary as to what might be done, but no specifics
given and the second a year or so later which concerned only the qualifi-
cations necessary for updating of houses. The Tri-Area Planning
Commission, the Frederick Town Board and Evanston residents were never
briefed on defini to plans. The Weld County Commissioners hired an
incompetent engineer who made a mess of this area, turning it into a
flood area worse than it was before any word was done. Are you willing
y to take the word of one County Commissioner against the signatures of
(41" ' 77 dissatisfied residents of this area without coming here to see for
v yourself what has been done? Dont you ever follow up on your grants
to see if they are properly spent? We are not spending our time and
,t+ 'Id money to complain without reason, we only wilt to see justice done.
r i/ Please come out here any time for a guided tour of this area and make
v your own judgment as to whether it is right or wrong.
As to the statement by Ms. .iteinmark that the independent engineer from
Adams County found no fault with the work is not the same account we get
from the editor of our local paper who accompanied the group. At that
time he made several recommendations for changes. Also the engineer
sent out here by Gov. Lamm at our request, found many things wrong with
the engineering. We have no fault to find with the paving crew, the work
id fine, but the engineering is all wrong. We had two-tenths inch of
rain 2 weeks ago and one intersection which never had watee before, was
a lake for 3 days and last night we had another small rain and the same
thing happened. There is no place for this water to drain now and it
stays there until it evaporates, in the meantime becoming a breeding
place for mosquitoes which are becoming an almost unbearable nuisance.Our biggest concern and worry is: What is going to happen when we get
s big rain of 2 inches or more, whicn hapens every few years? some
homes will be wiped out. In all fairness to the people of this area
you should inspect the :project. A tour and explanation of the problems
will gladly be provided at any time.
Thank you. The undersigned are some of the residents most affected.
. __ J7/l. C1'.l./�l�t/�
Z CZ
U
Hello