The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20103035.tiff • A I BBA water consultants BISHOP- BROGDEN ASSOCIATES, INC. ENGINEERING REPORT SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY • SYSTEM Prepared for Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District JANUARY 2011 (Revised February 2011) O7O IW-3c35 s ; _ • IA &Rb tarn° Nv bbaw arcr.com It);\\ .n-I Jan A,r.�ii. �unc Wm.) ��glr��nnl. nli,r.di)SOHO ring], 1U;3��03L5_ I.r_ ;0;AIC'a,)9; • TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Paae SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION 2-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SECTION 3 —WATER RIGHTS 2 3.1 Surface Water Supplies 2 3.2 Consolidated Mutual Contract 3 3.3 Farmers High Line Canal 3 3.4 Surface Water Rights for Future Use 4 3.5 Brantner Ditch 4 3.6 Fulton Ditch 5 3.7 Ground Water Rights 5 • 3.8 Total Potential Ground Water Rights 6 3.9 Existing Deep Wells 7 3.10 Total Available Water Supplies 7 SECTION 4— WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE 8 4.1 Overview 8 SECTION 5 -IRRIGATION WATER SYSTEM 9 5.1 Sources 9 5.2 Reservoirs 9 5.3 Marcus Reservoir 10 5.4 Smith Reservoir 10 5.5 Baseline Lakes 10 5.6 Signal Reservoirs 11 5.7 Pipelines 11 • 5.8 Irrigation System 11 I.\ww.hb;m'urer.cum Gnh„h hn ,,Irn .A."„i.ar.. lm • Table of Contents—continued SECTION 6—POTABLE SYSTEM 12 6.1 Sources 12 6.2 Reservoirs 12 6.3 Pipelines 12 6.4 Water Treatment Plant 12 6.5 Potable Water Storage 12 6.6 Delivery System 13 SECTION 7-WATER DEMANDS 13 7.1 Irrigation Demand 13 7.2 In-House Potable Demand 13 7.3 Total Demand 14 7.4 Total Current Available Supply Compared to Total Demands 14 • • ceww.bbavvatcr.com ,J,n \„,„ • WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM SUMMARY TODD CREEK VILLAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION The Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District (TCVMD or "District") was established in 1996 to provide water service to primarily residential development north of Denver and just west of Brighton. The District is located in Adams and Weld Counties generally between E-470 on the south, one-half mile north of Weld County Road 6 to the north, the South Platte River on the east, and Weld County Road 15 (Holly Street) on the west, as shown on the attached map. Based on current planning estimates, the TCVMD may provide service to upwards of 3,800 single family residential units (SFE's) in Adams County and 14,000 SFE's in Weld County. There are several areas with existing homes or small developments within the District's service area that already have established water supplies that may opt to receive service from the District in the future. Currently, TCVMD serves approximately 1,350 SFE's in Adams County south of 168th Avenue. This report summarizes the physical water supply system and water rights currently used by TCVMD, and comments on anticipated future water supplies and infrastructure. The TCVMD's supply system currently consists of the following key features: ❖ A dual-supply system for potable(indoor) demands and outdoor irrigation demands ❖ Water rights including rights in the Brantner and Fulton Ditches, as well as the Farmers High Line Canal ❖ Water storage in several reservoirs within the service area + South Platte River alluvial wells Denver Basin wells from the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer SECTION 2 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the legal water supplies currently available to the District and the • demand associated with the current and proposed development within the District. This report - 1 - www.bbawatcr.Lem A—ii,i.ttr..hit • also shows that the legally available water is sufficient to support the current demands as well as significant portions of the proposed future demands. The table below presents a summary the District's current legal supply, the number of single family equivalents the water rights will support and the current District obligations. Maximum Legally Available Supplies (all sources,Residential Use—Excludes Golf Course Allocation) 3,343 acre-feet per year Number of Estate (1 ac) Residential Units (@ 0.564 af/yr) =5,927 units Number of Suburban Residential Units (@ 0.47 af/yr estimated) =7,113 units Average Legally Available Supplies (all sources,Residential Use—Excludes Golf Course Allocation) 2,203 acre-feet per year Number of Estate (1 ac) Residential Units (@ 0.564 af/yr) =3,906 units Number of Suburban Residential Units (@ 0.47 af/yr estimated) =4,687 units Current District Obligations Total Taps Sold Approximately 2,300 SFE's Total Active Customers Approximately 1,350 SFE's SECTION 3 - WATER RIGHTS 3.1 Surface Water Supplies TCVMD owns and leases numerous surface and ground water rights. The direct flow surface water rights that are currently used are summarized in Table 1 below. S - 2 - www bhaw at Cr Cum Ui,h„h Rii`,klrn A• cii iCL,. [lit • Table 1 TCVMD Surface Water Rights Currently In Use Consolidated Mutual Potable/ 500 500 Contract Irrigation Carlson FHL Lease Irrigation 400 400 Coors FHL Lease Irrigation 300 100- 1,650 Potable/ Coors Effluent Lease Irrigation 160 160 - 250 3.2 Consolidated Mutual Contract The District entered into a contract with the Consolidated Mutual Water Company that provides for the delivery of 500 ac-ft per year. The contract deliveries are made to the South Platte River based on an agreed-upon schedule. All deliveries are fully-consumable water; however lawn irrigation and potable return flows are not currently being recaptured or reused. These return flows may be quantified and reused in the future under a plan for augmentation approved by the Water Court. 3.3 Farmers High Line Canal The Farmers High Line Canal (FHL) diverts from Clear Creek near Golden, Colorado, and carries water to Standley Lake and beyond. While this canal was originally constructed for the irrigation of lands as far north as Big Dry Creek, it is now primarily owned and operated by municipalities such as Westminster, Thornton and Arvada. It has direct flow rights on Clear Creek for a total of 733.6 cfs, as well as diversion rights on Ralston Creek, Little Dry Creek and Leyden Creek. In addition to storage in Standley Lake,the FHL system also has storage rights in Broad Lake, Hyatt Lake, and Leyden Reservoir. The deliveries for FHL water can vary depending upon system supplies. Average year farm headgate diversions for FHL shares are believed to be approximately 33 ac-ft/yr per share, and dry year (such as 1954) farm headgate diversions are expected to be approximately 15 ac-ft/yr per share. The yields shown in the table above have been reduced to account for delivery loses • in the Signal Ditch system, where TCVMD receives deliveries of the FHL shares. - 3 - www.hh:mvatcr.cum PrF'gili n \—,',F it log 3.4 Surface Water Rights for Future Use Additional direct flow surface water rights owned by TCVMD are summarized in Table 2 below. These irrigation water rights will need Water Court approval to change the location of use prior to use in some of the District's service area. Table 2 TCVMD Surface Water Rights for Future Use Old Brantner 18 14.5 261 New Brantner 18.375 17 312 Fulton Ditch 7 1.6 11 Total Acct Witter Notes: Estimated yields for Old Brantner and Fulton developed by BBA Estimated yield for New Brantner developed by Deere& Ault 3.5 Brantner Ditch • The Brantner Ditch serves shareholders in the Old Brantner Ditch Company and the New Brantner Ditch Company. The District currently owns 18 shares of the 108 outstanding shares in the Old Brantner Ditch Company and 18.375 shares of the 300 outstanding shares in the New Brantner Ditch Company. The Brantner Ditch diverts from the South Platte River in the NE1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 67 West. The ditch conveys water to Old Brantner Ditch shareholders over the first 4.7 miles along the ditch to Riverdale Road, and conveys water to New Brantner Ditch shareholders for the remaining roughly 22 miles of ditch. The Brantner Ditch has direct flow rights totaling 111.18 cfs, including the most senior water right(Priority No. 1)on the mainstem of the South Platte River. The Brantner Ditch has historically been operated so that the Old Brantner Ditch shareholders can take as much water as can be beneficially used while leaving the remainder of the diversions in the ditch for the New Brantner Ditch Company shareholders. TCVMD currently has a Water Court application filed (Case No. 08CW165) in order to change 17 of the 18 Old Brantner shares. The annual consumptive use of 17 of the 18 shares was estimated to be an average of • approximately 247 ac-ft/yr, or 14.5 ac-ft per share. A portion of the New Branter shares are -4 - www.bbawatc c c om A ui.. Im • currently being diverted at the Guthrie Pump Station to the Baseline Lakes. Future plans are to increase the pump capacity to take additional shares at the same location. 3.6 Fulton Ditch The District currently owns seven (7) Fulton Ditch Irrigating Company shares recorded under Certificate No. 3427. The ditch is decreed for a total of 204.18 cfs for irrigation and has a total of 7,185 shares. The Fulton Ditch diverts from the South Platte River in NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 2 South, Range 67 West. The Fulton shares are not currently being used by TCVMD. The Fulton Ditch bylaws state that all shareholders must divert their water through the ditch prior to delivery. Because the service area of the Fulton Ditch is on the opposite side of the South Platte River and does not overlap the District service area, a Water Court change case and approval from the ditch company will be required prior to the shares being utilized for irrigation in the District. • 3.7 Ground Water Rights The District owns various ground water rights from the nontributary Laramie-Fox Hills in the structural geologic basin known as the"Denver Basin". Nontributary water has been determined to not affect surface streamflows to a significant amount and, therefore, does not need to be augmented. The ground water rights currently owned by TCVMD are summarized in Table 3 below. • - 5 - yv1 w.hbaw;tecr.cum Ili.li„h hm,ilin hPkuI.lit, hit_ • TCVMD Groundwater Rights Completed Laramie-Fox Hills Decree Wells (nontributary) 83CW136 27 87CW258 Nos. 1-6 226 96CW242 No.9 15 97C W186 186 39 98C W396 396 38 99C W124 124 Nos.7& 8 24 99CW141 38 99CW042 34 00C W254 254 134 02CW106 No. 10 178 04CW108 91 Total Decreed 843 Potential Future Ground Water Rights 780 Total Potential Ground Water Rights 1,623 • Notes: 02C W106 106 is also referred to as the"Five Parcel Decree" 3.8 Total Potential Ground Water Rights There are additional nontributary ground water supplies available to the District that have not been decreed at this time. The total nontributary supply that can be filed for in the future is approximately 780 ac-ft/yr. If all ground water rights accessible to TCVMD in Adams County are successfully decreed, it will bring the total ground water rights available to the District to approximately 1,623 ac-ft/yr. • - 6 - yyw.bbawatcr.coIll A..nt i.ii�. Ins • 3.9 Existing Deep Wells Table 4 summarizes the existing wells currently owned and operated by the District. Currently, only Well Nos. 3 and 7 are in operation Table 4 TCVMD Operational Wells Summary Permit Well No. Case No. Aquifer Completed Location Well#1 46216-F 87CW958 LFH Section 10,TIS, R67W,3810 ftFNL, 1300 ft FWL Well #2 47815-F 87CW958 LFH Section 10,TIS,R67W, 540 ft FSL, 1900 ft FWL Well #3 49680-F 87CW958 LFI I Section 15,T1S,R67W,5 ft FSL,20 ft FWL Well#4 49941-F 87CW958 LFH Section 15,TIS,R67W, 15 ft FSL, 1170 ft FWL Well#5 53128-F 87CW958 LFH Section 15,T1S,R67W,5 ft FSL,2620 ft FEL Well #6 53127-F 87CW958 LFH Section 15,T1S,R67W,5 ft FSL, 1320 ft FEL Well#7 54359-F 99CW 124 LFH Section 22,T1S,R67W, 1000 ft FNL, 1790 ft FEL Well#8 54358-F 99CW 124 LFH Section 22,TIS, R67W, 1400 ft FNL,300 ft FEL 87CW258 and Well#9 55804-F 96CW242 LFH Section 15,TIS,R67W, 100 ft FSL,450 ft FEL Well#10 59157-F 02CW106 LFH Section 16,T1S,R67W, 1800 ft FSL,2210 ft FEL Notes: • All wells located west of the Sixth Principal Meridian. FNL=from North section line. FSL=from South section line. FEL=from East section line. FWL=from West section line. The decreed ground water supply currently available to TCVMD totals approximately 843 ac- ft/yr. The existing wells tap into 443 ac-ft of the decreed available nontributary ground water. Therefore, with construction of additional wells, the District could access and deliver the remaining presently decreed ground water rights of 400 ac-ft/year. 3.10 Total Available Water Rights The total available water rights with a minimum of 1,160 ac-ft of surface water and 843 ac-ft of decreed ground water, adds up to a minimum of 2,003 ac-ft/yr, as shown in Table 5, below. Using the maximum available surface water rights, that sum increases to 3,643 ac-ft/yr. The currently available water with the existing wells adds up to a minimum of 1,603 ac-ft, and a maximum of 3,243 ac-ft/yr. • - 7 - www.hbawatcr.com A„0(i • Table 5 TCVMD Total Currently Available Water Rights (ac-ft) Sources Legally Available Currently Available LFH(nontributary) 843 443 Total Ground Water 843 443 Sources Minimum Maximum Consolidated Mutual Contract 500 500 Carlson FHL Lease 400 400 Coors Ft IL Lease 100 1,650 Coors Effluent Lease 160 250 Total Surface Water 1160 2800 Totals Minimum Legally Available 2003 Minimum Currently Available 1603 Maximum Legally Available 3643 Maximum Currently Available 3243 • SECTION 4 -WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE 4.1 Overview TCVMD has a dual water system which provides potable and irrigation water through separate delivery systems. The irrigation water system includes alluvial wells, raw water storage, various ditches, pipelines and pumps. The irrigation water system can also be supplemented from the deep ground water wells if necessary. The irrigation water pipelines and pumps bring water into the system, are able to redistribute the water among certain reservoirs and deliver raw water for irrigation to the service area. The potable water system includes the same alluvial wells as the irrigation water system and the Denver Basin wells. The alluvial well water is piped to a reverse osmosis (R.O.) treatment plant, where it is blended with the Denver Basin water for delivery to the potable distribution system. The raw water storage and ditch deliveries are not currently used as a potable source, although these sources could be treated at the R.O. plant with a different set of filter membranes. • - 8 - WWW.b km r.c um Gi.h,y, Uri ,Jin ASS t i.aL.. Iw. • SECTION 5 - IRRIGATION WATER SYSTEM The irrigation water system can use both the surface water and ground water rights; however the surface water rights are primarily used. 5.1 Sources The direct flow surface water rights are taken two ways; the Coors and Carlson Farmers High Line (FHL) leases are delivered through the FHL Canal, while the Consolidated Mutual Contract and Coors Effluent Lease are diverted from the South Platte River through the two alluvial wells. A portion of the Brantner water is presently diverted at the Guthrie Pump and Pipeline and stored in Baseline Lakes. 5.2 Reservoirs TCVMD currently has five reservoirs online; Smith, Marcus, the recently rehabilitated Signal Reservoir No. 2 and the East and West Baseline Lakes. A sixth reservoir, Signal Reservoir No. 1 • will be rehabilitated and made operational when demand requires it. The reservoirs currently only store irrigation water for TCVMD. A summary of the reservoirs and capacities are shown in Table 6 below. Table 6 Reservoir Storage Capacity (ac-ft) Smith 300 Marcus 18 Signal No. 2 160 Baseline Lakes (East& West) 105 Active Storage Total 583 Signal No. 1 300 Total Future Storage 883 • - 9 - www.hbawatcr.corn p A..ai.11& hit . • 5.3 Marcus Reservoir Marcus Reservoir receives flows from the FHL shares through the Signal Ditch and from the alluvial wells through the Seltzer Pipeline. Eventually, it will receive flows from the Old and New Brantner shares through the Guthrie Pipeline and Seltzer Pipeline. From Marcus Reservoir, water can be delivered to Smith Reservoir, Signal Reservoir No. 2 or Baseline Lakes for longer term storage. Water can be pumped back to Marcus Reservoir from the Signal Reservoir No. 2 and then delivered to Smith Reservoir when needed. Marcus Reservoir is located in Section 4, Township 1 South, Range 67 West, shown on the attached map. 5.4 Smith Reservoir TCVMD owns the structure and water rights associated with the Smith Reservoir (Smith Reservoir). The reservoir is located in the SW 1/4 of Section 9, in Township 1 South, Range 67 West. Smith Reservoir has a capacity of approximately 300 ac-ft, and is filled from FHL/Signal Ditch deliveries and from the South Platte River alluvial wells. • There are two decrees for the Smith Reservoir. One decree is for 263.6 ac-ft from Clear Creek with an appropriation date of May 1, 1907. (CA 60052) A second water right was decreed from Todd Creek for 150 ac-ft with the same appropriation date. Therefore, a total of 413.6 ac-ft is decreed for the reservoir. The Clear Creek water right was decreed for domestic, stockwatering, and irrigation uses; the Todd Creek water right is decreed solely for irrigation uses. The Smith Reservoir water rights are not calculated into the available water rights for TCVMD and the reservoir is discussed herein only for its storage capacity for other water rights. 5.5 Baseline Lakes Baseline Lakes are also known as the Stouffer Reservoirs or Guthrie Reservoirs. Like Smith Reservoir, these reservoirs also have water rights decreed in CA60052 which are not included in the total available water rights for TCVMD. These reservoirs are actively used for their storage capacity. Baseline Lake No. 1 has a decreed capacity of 50.71 ac-ft and No. 2 has a decreed capacity of 54.47 ac-ft for a total of 105.18 ac-ft. They are currently being used for storage of FHL deliveries and New Brantner shares taken through the Guthrie Pump and Pipeline, and for irrigation of the Baseline Lakes Development. These Lakes will be fully incorporated into the - 10 - %VW v.bh.nvater.com \—,n i.r,� Ink • TCVMD irrigation system once the source water (Old and/or New Brantner shares) has been approved for irrigation throughout TCVMD and the future TCVN. The Guthrie Pipeline can already connect to Marcus Reservoir. 5.6 Signal Reservoirs The Signal Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2 were acquired by TCVMD from the City of Westminster in approximately 2008. Presently, Signal Reservoir No. 2 has been rehabilitated and made active within the TCVMD raw water system. Signal Reservoir No. 1 will similarly be rehabilitated and put into service when needed to help meet system demands. Signal Reservoir No. I and Signal Reservoir No. 2 have storage capacities of approximately 300 ac-ft and 160 ac-ft, respectively. Currently, No. 2 can store excess water when Smith and Marcus Reservoirs are full, then provide water back to Smith and Marcus when needed. Both filling and return pumping are through Marcus Reservoir. 5.7 Pipelines • The Seltzer Pipeline connects the South Platte alluvial wells with the R.O. Plant and Marcus Reservoir. Water can be directed to either or both locations; however, it primarily directs water to the R.O. Plant. Any water not utilized by the R.O. Plant is stored in Smith Reservoir. The location of the Seltzer pipeline is shown on the attached map. The Guthrie Pump and Pipeline diverts water from the New Brantner portion of the Brantner Ditch and stores it in the Baseline Lakes for irrigation of nearby lands. The Guthrie Pipeline has been extended beyond the Baseline Lakes to the Seltzer Pipeline for future deliveries to Marcus Reservoir. The tie-in to the Seltzer Pipeline is beyond the R.O. Pipeline, so water can only be delivered to Marcus Reservoir from the Guthrie Pipeline. 5.8 Irrigation System TCVMD provides raw irrigation water to all homes and the golf course through a separate water line as part of their dual water system. Irrigation water is moved to Smith Reservoir as needed from the raw water sources and other reservoirs and pumped from there through the raw water irrigation line. • - 11 - yycv.bhawatcr.co m fi,h, 1, Gm,{l, In. • SECTION 6 -POTABLE SYSTEM 6.1 Sources The two existing alluvial wells and the LFH ground water wells provide all the potable source water for the existing demands through the R.O. Plant. A third alluvial well has been acquired from the City of Aurora, but has not been put online at this time. The third alluvial well will be able to tie into the Seltzer Pipeline to provide both potable source water and raw water. 6.2 Reservoirs While all of the TCVMD reservoirs are currently used as raw water reservoirs, Smith Reservoir can store potable supplies from the alluvial and LFH wells, then use them later by using different filters at the R.O. Plant, if necessary. 6.3 Pipelines TCVMD delivers water to the R.O. treatment plant through the Seltzer Pipeline to a tee that • delivers water directly to the plant. A line is also connected to the ground water wells that deliver water directly to the plant. 6.4 Water Treatment Plant The water treatment plant is located on W. 153`d Avenue as shown on the attached map. It is a reverse osmosis (R.O.) plant with a pretreatment filtration and post-treatment disinfection. The initial R.O. module can treat 450,000 gpd currently, with the ability to expand up to 675,000 gpd. 6.5 Potable Water Storage TCVMD has an elevated potable water storage tank capable of storing one million gallons, or 3.07 ac-ft. There is also a buried potable clear well at the WTP which can store up to 250,000 gallons, or 0.77 ac-ft. The total potable storage is 3.84 ac-ft. • - 12 - yy hh.m C m A—,iL .dc.. Ins. • 6.6 Delivery System Potable water is delivered through a separate line from the irrigation water as part of the dual water system. The potable system delivers water directly from the R.O. Plant and the potable storage. SECTION 7-WATER DEMANDS 7.1 Irrigation Demand A demand projection was completed in a BBA May 2002 Engineering Report. The projection was modeled on irrigated lawn standards of 5,000 square feet per Estate (1 acre) residential unit. The total demand for the lawn grass irrigation at the residences is based on the average crop irrigation requirement for lawn grass in the area and assuming an average sprinkler irrigation efficiency of 80 percent. The average crop irrigation requirement (CIR) was found to average 2.20 feet per year. The demand per SFE was determined to average approximately 0.32 ac-ft/yr for 5,000 square feet of lawn. Current demands from 2010 were compared with the projections • as shown in Table 6, below. Demands for 2010 show approximately 0.41 ac-ft/yr per SFE for lawn irrigation, or 0.09 ac-ft/yr per SFE more than projected long-term average. It is estimated that future lots within TCVMD (Suburban Residential) will be closer to the original projected use of approximately 0.32 ac-ft per SFE. 7.2 In-House Potable Demand Projected water demands for in-house use at the single family equivalents (or SFE's) were also calculated in 2002 using commonly accepted water use assumptions. Assuming an average of three residents per unit, 80 gallons per person per day, and year-round occupancy, the average annual in-house use per SFE is approximately 87,600 gallons per year, or 0.269 acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr). Current demands from 2010 were compared with the projections as shown in Table 6, below. Demands for 2010 show 0.154 ac-ft/yr per SFE for potable use, or 0.115 ac-ft/yr less than projected. • - 13 - vaww.hhayatcr.tom hnh,•p hi,,,,tlt n I.al•. Iiii • 7.3 Total Demand The total demand per SFE is equivalent to the demand for both in-house potable use and lawn irrigation demand. The total demand projected per SFE is approximately 0.585 ac-ft/yr per Estate SFE and 0.47 ac-ft per Suburban SFE which is summarized in Table 7 below. The total 2010 demands per SFE is 0.564 ac-ft/yr, or 0.021 ac-ft/yr less than projected long-term average. Table 7 TCVMD Projected Water Demand per SFE (ac-ft/SFE) Demands Lawn Irrigation Potable Total Estate Projected 0.316 0.269 0.585 Estate 2010 0.41 0.154 0.564 Suburban Projected 0.32 0.15 0.47 The projected average and actual demands in acre-feet have been summarized in Table 8 below. Table 8 • TCVMD 2010 Water Demand (Estate Only) (ac-ft) Demands Lawn Irrigation Golf Course Total Irrigation Potable Total Demand Projected 426.6 330 756.6 363.15 1119.8 2010 553.5 268 821.5 207.9 1029.4 Notes: Demands based on 1350 single family equivalents in 2010. While lawn irrigation demand for 2010 exceeded the long-term average projections by approximately 127 ac-ft, golf course demand was 62 ac-ft less than projected. Overall, total irrigation exceeded projected average demands by approximately 65 ac-ft. Potable demands for 2010 were less than projected the average by approximately 155 ac-ft. Overall, 2010 total demands were approximately 90 ac-ft less than the projected long-term average. 7.4 Total Current Available Supply Compared to Total Demands The total current water supply available to TCVMD ranges between a minimum of 1,603 ac-ft/yr and a maximum of 3,243 ac-ft/yr based on the surface water amounts shown in Table 1 and the water available to the existing ground water wells. As a whole, these supplies, even at the • minimum level, more than satisfy the current level of demands shown in Table 8. - 14 - www.bbawatcr.com fl \,,L1(I(It. li+L 02/17/2011 THU 9: 16 Fr 303 637 0423 0001/001 ril 4. ; \ A.4 RKid ) \ ( , 5 M f@Z ° q ! ®` \ � ! ! % , | ! - ! | k | { § k $ Zj • § \\\/ !j { \\\ ) » l; E //!f \ §/) /& a; )\} §/ i 02 \} 2 ° §[ $/Q©, !2 a» ;� ! «agog \/} ( `i �kk hE) © ! U.)))k ! O. � o W. o/ 2\ \k\\\ } a. a\ //_, ! ;�7! ! ; G 8=E !k!§! f q/7», ! !!a OZ # ` �o)® a `\ *` f ! -.1; aO/; z EXHIBIT • ! 1388 ogo so#-I zzae,a meaC IVA ea, zrave Feb 16 11 10: 41a P' 2 ae _ Administration Office www.ftlupton.k12.co.us • r♦` ` F 301 Reynolds Street Ph; 303-857-3200 fort'Upton Colorado Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Fax: 303-857-3219 February 16, 2011 Dear Weld County Commissioners, I have conducted a series of meetings with the Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District and am enclosing a letter I received from George R.Hanlon,Jr. that reflects the outcome of our conversation. I am confident,when the time comes, that the mechanisms outlined in the body of this letter, in terms of new school construction, will be addressed. The Dry Creek RUA is a comprehensive plan amendment,and not a specific land use application.And I ask that you keep this in mind as you make important decisions about the Dry Creek RUA application. Yes, the details need to still be addressed, and I am confident that will take place on behalf of the students and taxpayers of the district when appropriate as we stand collectively together on behalf of our educational community. • Sincerely, ark A. Payler • EXHIBIT • A community united for student success...college ready! ( t okA tow- 1 Una comunidad unida pare el exito de sus estudiantes... iListos pars la universidad! Feb 16 11 10: 41a p' 3 TODD CREEK VILLAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 10450 E 159th Ct. Brighton, CO 80602 Tel: (303)637-0344 www.toddcreekvillage.org Fax: (303) 637-0423 Mr, Mark Payler February 15, 2011 Weld 8 School District 301 Reynolds Street Fort Lupton,CO 80621 via email:mpaylerct ftlupton.k12,co.us In re: Dry Creek RUA Application to Weld County, CO Dear Mark; As a follow up to our meeting, the Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District, on behalf of the Dry Creek RUA applicants, seeks to support Ft. Lupton Weld 8 School District's near and long term student capacity needs in southern Weld County. The Dry Creek RUA applicants understand that currently, if land use applications were made in the Dry Creek RUA, the School District has excess student capacity in its existing facilities. Therefore, we understand the School District may be capable of serving new students for the early phases of any development in the Dry Creek RUA and that Weld 8 would seek cash in lieu of land dedication. In the longer-term, or as capacity is diminished, the School District will require the following • mechanisms to promote new school construction: • Schools Site Dedications (currently 11 acres per Elementary, 25 acres per Middle, 50 acres per High School). • In addition to Sites, the Dry Creek RUA applicants recognize that additional support, monetary or otherwise, may be needed to promote the development of Weld 8 schools within the Dry Creek RUA area, The applicants understand that additional support will be negotiated with Weld 8 at the time that application is made,with the anticipation that any additional financial support would occur at the time of building permit. Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District will lend its support to Weld 8 in this regard as development plans for property located within the Dry Creek RUA move through the Weld County entitlement process. As we discussed, the Dry Creek RUA is a comprehensive plan amendment and not a specific land use application. The School District will be an important referral partner with each subsequent Weld County review process (Sketch Plan, Change of Zone, Final Plat). We look forward to continued strong relations with the Weld 8 School District. The applicants stand beside you in your commitment to public education. Regards, Todd Cr.: ' ge .. tropolitan District George R H_nl Jr President Esther Gesick oom: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Thursday, February 17, 2011 11:18 AM o: Commissioners; Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Dry Creek RUA For the file. . . Original Message From: Lucille R. Wagner (mailto:ladvwinemaker(ajuno.coml Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 9:58 AM To: Barbara Kirkmeyer Subject: Dry Creek RUA Barbara, This is to inform you that as property owners that are close to the boundaries of the proposed RUA that we are against it, and hope that the commissioners see fit to vote against it. As it will affect my children and grandchildren inheritance in the future and force us as land owners to go along with their rules and regulations. I have been on this property since 1943. Thanks for letting us voice our feelings. Clifford S. Wagner 638 WCR 19 Brighton, CO. 80603 .ama Urges Homeowners to Refinance If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Obama's Refi Program http://thirdpartvoffers.Juno.com/T6L3141/4d5d5318e642c4da9em03vuc • l -D7D, LI. taio- 1 Esther Gesick 0rom: Michelle Martin ent: Friday, February 18, 2011 7:55 AM o: Esther Gesick Subject: FW: Dry Creek RUA Referral Letter from Weld County Sheriff Attachments: Sheriff Cooke Letter 2.17.11.pdf Esther, Please include the attached letter in the Dry Creek File, thanks. Michelle Martin Planner III 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley,CO 80631 mmartin@co.weld.co.us PHONE: (970)353-6100 x 3540 FAX: (970) 304-6498 , a, 11 ' 1 fa I .1 confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for e person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Nanci Kerr fmailto:nkerr@skytouround.coml Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2011 3:16 PM To: Michelle Martin Subject: Dry Creek RUA Referral Letter from Weld County Sheriff Hello Michelle, Attached, please find a letter from the Weld County Sheriff's Office for your files and presentation next Wednesday. Please don't hesitate to call me with questions or comments. Thank you for your time and attention. Best, Nanci Nanci Kerr, LEED AP Sky to Ground LLC 1550 Larimer Street,Suite 605 Denver,CO 80202 . 303.592.1122 I F 303.592.1144 I M 303.472.7870 skytoground.com I 1 sheriff Jokn a Cooke • weld County February 8,2011 Weld County Commissioners 915 Tenth Street PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Headquarters Dear Commissioners: 1950"O"Street Ph.Greeley,970 35O 8063-4015 Please allow this to serve as a letter of support for the Dry Creek RUA application to Ph.(970)356-4015 Fax(970)304-6467 amend the Weld County Comprehensive Plan creating the opportunity for suburban level residential development in southwest Weld County. This Office recognizes the need for long-range planning to accommodate the eventual growth in this part of the County due to its proximity to the Denver Metro Area. Fort Lupton Substation 330 Park Avenue Ft.Lupton,CO 80621 The Sheriff's Office responds to all priority one calls in the 4,000 square miles of the Ph.(303)857-2465 county reaching to the Nebraska boarder, within 11 minutes. For the particular Fax(303)857-3027 district that Dry Creek is located the Sheriff's Office response time is even lower; eight minutes for priority one calls. We are capable and prepared to continue to meet or exceed this level of service now and in the future. Southwest Complex 4209 WCR 24 // Creating a Law Enforcement Authority (LEA) authorized to collect up to 7 mills for Longmont,CO 80504 expanded operations is critical to serving the Dry Creek RUA. A LEA in this area • Ph.(720)652-4215 can generate more than 270% additional revenue than the County's current annual Fax(720)652-4217 law enforcement funding. A LEA is an equitable means of paying for services because citizens seeking urban level services pay for them through higher property taxes. North Jail Complex 2110"O"Street Please don't hesitate to contact me on this and other law enforcement service matters. Greeley,CO 80631 Ph.(970)356-4015 gards, Ext.3922 Fax(970)304-6461 (*t— ofu).Cooke heriff "...to provide an environment designed to maintain and enhance the general health, welfare, and safety of the people of • Weld County. " • L- v8 u'ta ( C"--.- /2‘f l9 0« � 3,0 c 3 r . 7(tc k.vf,,. t c : 25 wa,�T �� is i r �� p .---),‘,..„ct _-Lkc f? U A 7t-c7=-=.�-e C o/ ��z z�f /_ 9. ' .2t Cj Cjt , C C-ny ,u-�-- .L'c.1x.r _"" —ex.... 'vkI-c-'7 - L'-L�2 . CC�Il Jcf 1-7 CA 1 O'rill- .may /I- L.,11 A .'"..cX . if e ,z41 • EXHIBIT c-VC O► ► . . - Delsa Dee Johnson 10487 CR 8 • Fort Lupton, CO 80621 Commissioner Rademacher Weld County Commissioners 915 Tenth St. • P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Dear Commissioner Rademacher:: It is my hope that you will vote against the Todd Creek RUA proposal. There is no need in this area for a large development. The school at Sweet Grass in this area, Quest Academy, holds school in temporary buildings. For eight years they have not been able to get the money to build a real school. Those children have no gym, no hot lunch program, a very marginal library. Some classes go outside into another temporary building to use the bath room. There is no seating for an awards ceremony for parents. Would you want this for your children or grandchildren? If the Dry Creek proposal goes through and they build over 1, 000 homes where are these 2,000 plus children going to go to school? The land owners sell the land then move on, the land developers give a small plot of land for the school and say their part is done, and they move on. It is left to the tax payers to foot the bill. There are many lots for sale in this area, many already built homes for sale, we do not need or want • another large development. To think that a small group can force other land owners to come into this PUD is unbelievable to me. Please vote NO on the 23`d. Sincerely, (-14- kik /31 62tINCO1 Delsa Dee Johnson • EXHIBIT I D 15 cgoio-f Esther Gesick Michelle Martin nt: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:45 PM .om: : Esther Gesick Subject: FW: DC RUA:: BOCC PPT for the Record Attachments: 110218_DC RUA_BOCC PPT Main_vll.pdf Esther, Please add the attached document to the dry creek file, thanks. Michelle Martin Planner Ill 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley,CO 80631 mmartin@co.weld.co.us PHONE: (970)353-6100 x 3540 FAX: (970)304-6498 ' An 1011 confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for e person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Diana Rael jmailto:drael@norris-desion.coml Sent: Friday, February 18, 2011 3:27 PM To: Michelle Martin Cc: Bonnie Niziolek Subject: DC RUA :: 8OCC PPT for the Record Hi Michelle: Happy Friday! Please find attached a PDF version of the PPT for next week's BOCC hearing. Do we need to send you the actual PPT at some point or do we just bring our own laptop next week?Sorry to ask questions that may seem elementary, but I have taken over the day-to-day since John Durham retired and I am newer to the hearing process in Weld County. Thanks so much and have a great weekend! EXHIliff Diana Rael, RLA, CAASH Principal I 1-11114 1 N .iS DESIGN oink 1101 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 P 303.892.1166 F 303.892.1186 D 303.575.4505 C 720.810.4807 www.norris-design.com www.nd-visual.com ® Follow us on Linkedln r .il<ornni cation a cu d iort.l For I`r of I,,.Irt t t< Ho,or (IN;orniri'nun of rhr ri rn.n i, ion h.;cinvono other.han m„ un, dad i.,erprnnK•or flair duly ri harieYb(It rr II, ,r-ndc'r r: rl r r n.. ,i n'mil -Hot a¢c i z „ i -.pcn dhi0ty for v:ru i(nnyl thi:smell-.xd .es,if;le +Itachnonti. ICt Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. • • 2 I a) C 0 • in VI • E VCe >DM 4-I -. M a) zo cu p CIII) LEI ri 0 ilimi el 0 0 O N M 0 -2 >II i MEIJI co WCO 1.. 3 E OCI _C2 m a D cr. . t, , t!j!, w t. .. •• '7 i,"' C , , 4.' ) ' 0 il -iv Av .� •i r y; s •- i1 ! t t 114 • • 01 i i fir y r I 1�, I- � `, i.a r.�. nt r y }�4 .Ir t��1 TTT`, r. 0 '+a{,. , J., *et� W'A'SH,.y �• , •' a 1 `,• t ,t% � #;� � � ,• C a'.?S. - , el C M et illM 0 CO > C 0 0 SIME • la > +-• la • < . 0 flv CCI 4) 1:3 O • 11.:C C0 > Z -C 13 TS CO O .1O is- Ifit CU s.. co CCI V Vil >tAA0 4U O 0 L S CO a CL V 4 CO IZ MIO 0. • C s. CO • . • > • it e ' .'B, - s1 , `, ;1� � it r„ Y., (i ilk1 .• jii. ., � A?{t.4,i cu ' AY ;.tt,St• % ::1.le ' ' ! 1 it,41 $43 ti • f1 s I ,1. it kiit f 'VII 1 i ` . • `_ .•'�> ♦ i..,. rrfiSC. i"�1JyJr� 1 �fr1�p � . 1• j ; I� { ,) II teli>ti �f ' � . N ry,. 4-+ VI tio Q it. ;so b.0 O N �. Si . - ., ' s I s • .. 1 CC p ; . � '� }+ - M - r_ be •C a-+ C• C Imo C (11 4- O p CO O 4- 4-+ O 4-1 in. iall se Sim C Sim INC = O r to a4-0 til Li) C I- 00 LL III . -tan > CI 4- 4- 4- CC �„ III v0 p c 2 O O O O O>>> = s 4 O V := 4- 1 4- 1 CI) u V -O V O d. c/) V �- V V V L.La aa a a CO 0 4- CZ O • _ 0 N CU i N ca 4, S O M V V N Q O CO CO Q m Q II p CC QJ ». L . - V • r •.. 11 g I 17 ill Ot . ift . 1 .'..rii:I.ic' . . :• . /I) IL * ' • Y: OW ' 1 M ti 1O 1:3 CU CU -0 -C3 a 4,, c ( .( ri i,, r Ilc I 7•1x, , - CU CU t C C ? gilt:1H 4 sill I .t -, VI tin , X1/26 ill - ..... co ca II 1 / I 6 _,A; , .— •—. ear { A/I / Or el "ID MO N _ � l S N o0 Oglit i a N t � I 7 � 4.' �` .� N ma O -3 CU N CU U 4-+ .i-► C a) c _ C ti) CO CO •• a— al 4-0 C n I TS I -a 4-0 - • a i el 0 N O V CIDCU t.A 0 2 _ c O c ' 4' ' 2 � _ N = N m Iot% cD O L 2 N 2 N s = CU V c mc CO 3- el N 0) a I- 0 z 0 Q a D QC V�/ y < , •r ,_ CU ISIMI .' • !. :If il l • .' 1i• • ' •! r; .. 1 J l l R■■ <J•I 1 ', ' \3" • : V ' T �r�`tlPt=4iil ! a 7 vi 1 • rl ' `;•1! • !! ..'. r ItY t1M�l•7�t; is it •J • k•,,i, ' y {• { { c 11 r' i 4 Iit aTT QD 0 CU -D CU Q) -O CU 13 -O C 'O C Q1 C CU C WQJ 4-• Q) 4-+ CU CD N Q Q v)4-0 Q N M N V it CO = -� ,- ._ > .- > im ._ ii > > I) > •- s SO> � t C1O 1O an Q - - 00 - M N N M CU a CU ;CU += aw ffi.+ Ilellj la CU 4-0 CC 4..0 > C C C — — — O •0 tn C v) u) -D 1O o o Sc Scs LA O Sc ScCD 0 vi O = = O p = O o = N f �--I II' M el el 2 (n ..txo ...... O O O O el el el '-4 O O O O O • - • ' O N N N N N O +-+ lD 00 V) N a) e� . . LO C2 s_. O1 rl N el elel 0 CU O O s .O . U s 0:3z z 2 z z . . › >. LL V simi CO OJr A N V 0) a) CO 0 Z W _ _ Is N+ D O CO Q D CU CC lm may,• t ! - IS. . i: Nj�+. .` :, �t4.y��,�1 •i 1 �, •� � :' V t •'r - • t it Q • • St SI 11 • - LA 4 CU -as tin tliksit Y • In . 41111.01r NW � � V lk ,, LL C • (iik, ._ . 0 — C Ma. - 11 � 1 . V) I i it CO co) A y . v) -O C I •O R 4J fat C � tt ' 11 0 CO E Om C ii a s tes) a-+ . 4 I I iiIn CO 'O W CU 4-0 L _ CC _. c ) Q ,ca NC CO cm s C O 4U CO s.. 4••• J a = 3 CU J CC C .4� CO . s- :�+ ' 4U S L.L N = . _ V 4-0 I (O CO . — 2 mal • — C 'a 1 I ow a a -c C coO w cn +.+ ti) . _ S s to Z LL>J V s 1 °]. LS a) z ..... L. O O O U • Q iz i S its / 4 *" i ,r ‘ �Zck,{ i a) .1 y iJ �t I . fry �f,{9 '�r,! i �'• >14 . ) lim O 1fF4 'R •� 0 � '' . . j it • VI .Cl) V • _ L L CO 4-a p MD tin IE' CI O n SC IIIMI X LL can CU vii WI) 0 c O. VI ,N X N • — 'Cr o CC VI C 2 LL S °' c c O 0 ' _ +� •a-+ :. u a. u L V .� • o C CU = > = la wila CO m a O 12 4J .� • • O 0 +ar N V tin 0 0 agt • ce is, .4. tJ •1 ,i it . Jr .. ��$j{ i .,, CI k �1� + l • >181 i�i�'.I! '•1 II JyIlm N 1 iii al cli al• l I QJ 4-0 v) . ik, __I_____,e...s..._,:el a) a) E0 NMI 4, ' i i O O s W 11 4-, 4-• ... CU QJ ..„- N. QJ CU 4-A V CO se O Q WCC CU i iii CU 2 4) ale 4) — cn V ow ii- 4) a o i 4.1 _ L = a-+ O � U � N 0 W Q D CC • 4 a)( .4ii, %rt ... sin •-. '� r "4. `fir } � y �� r .� -F \i'�/ 1 ' � r1 I1 •� � � .: I � iP 4 ` ��r ,. r IrM � r 1 r S. .t .i , 5 ime 4. , , 0 •+ 4., { �. J .'py., -r� •~ CI r • x L N C ^ W 41 O i n -3 c0 a) 4-• ' u c� QJ E cc • .... CO a a) Q ca Q. ' CO a cG o0 (0) V C0 E = coCO V @ a) QJ O 0u . . I I- c E ca 0) O O v)1 CO V E 4.., 0),... O 0}+ i'Z p cn V = p O v) = V p Q • - CO IX - O O a 0) O = = CU N4-0 I I I to Li- C) C0 ca v c O O 0 -D -C2 00 = . . Cr 4-+ R N '4 3/4 ' 3 V O 4) CU 2 N 4-+ V el N M C ' O ' LL • Q D ce i$ 4) _ _ _ s _ �c �� r Y • . . , , , . . ?'� F ,4l l•, fir.; r r0. : i - .., • .4..??. . ,...64.. ,. • ,........,44. tf • , . lc L . _ T i l4 t} O V) al C O no 13 L W W O s s s O :;= 4-1 C •0 VI > CO4-1 4-1 Sim VI V) CO CU E CU J C > > O i a-+ i O •vi O s s Q 4-1 � DC L. _ V 4-+ _ V C CO C CD o CO C) CO a) c O m a� O 00 =._a� . _ 2 O O0 03 •V .-... O V 4-• c c -0 -0 = c CU = a O . . O O > • � O W --, O " s ' - V Z m E CO 4,,, ,Oswamlii •O O CUU aril 4.84 im �+ +_ O a ;i O O = V V "I V V tan • CD • CI • Q D oc , :i. r r*, R., ., 04 if JO 1..31 ii !“ . , , i CU CU . _ ‘ 14, ?II,a YIP:$ Loll.. witi' li r :II' , t i 3'I. i • it- 0 , a , 0 A4 F ,I. , L 0 el CU 73 C) C 0 -D ca 4) C 03 13 6.0 4-5 03 > O a-+ DC IN 0 0) 4-0 4j • IMOO — G) COs. = V u O C 2 a� > as a N s.. ....• cu = Q au VI4-0 J � _c O - 4-0 s VI . —C CL Q a� O +, O O. CU CL O 4-0 ,C ;2 = ..,_ 4) CU '= (/)O O O C LL O SCU CU c � a. al 2I- • ,_ C in +r > s_ = O V V O +.+ CO " w LA > V LL O L �+ ; ' rl a) N M = V 0 Q ix a) ' ,s3 . . , 444- .Pirr , , , ,:: . , r, . *1,441 ji :i Mf'. • . j }J • i174 .. ,, , „� 04 4.- '� . ., • ,... ,? ..,,,, ic , 4-. . c , in );•'f.. i , 'y 1 , {' 'dry `# f� . . ' '0 y L I r. , 0 L. .t el I l >' C C 0 IS O O > N ca . -• SImi L to L > O ' > -D o = LiuC O 03 Eimma VI ce >t O W C C TT n3 . - 4O c,- U2 to Q a. Sc)VI I— = V O a. —1:2 O D w .._ c ma CU p a- = a) et) a C CU• J O O s. fl a-+ La G) V ra O ca Li lin CD In a) cow CO on, 4_9 • _ > CU M E 0 O •s-- 4-i E (1) +a ,.... 0 > • _, O tr, s- tic s_ cu c c ma O s O a. °' cu O Q 4U C I I > � s to ut to lino V in o E V W _c a. W • `w V 4-• n; E >1 imemo 4) �- C IC vam. p 0 4-• • -•• • - O E a) O .ca tit C -O C Q. C tin V bp O O (a) 03 O 2 • a senj cnU u.i V = - • — MO aA aA C Om LEI CO c • — tai) co La intj cm a) RS �--I N M 0 Q C ' x au s s Lu VIr cc CO • a CC , rec(4 a) .. . X11 - , ! ' P :': t w ' `' Y • ��. .`is,*g t cu 1i ' . t:1;'‘ ; .- . ! d r. • S 1 ... 2..,, .t,--r 14.•0 . f*' . - ' r ~'1 'TN ✓?`1e 'i �• ,: �� .D%• �' ~. •r 4R• • t ,,,4., {. ) ; � 1 ` r 1 •` • 1 ,,, • L r • ,•,, , _ 4, „,. 0, 'le' '. 4:i N t113 eii C V) }+ • - 4U X L N vi CU s . aA X C) C • W i 0 s liii ' v) 1. iiii in a)CO D V 0 OA E .� > 01 i b�0 E O •- v U 03 O C Q C O DC -c cn v C O O TO _ o CO C a @ 1- - o s o a. Q >� C 4� =poi ?: - ca G� �, cn U -a •71 C °o a� vir 4 — L u 03 L. CL to W W Qi U a CO V 4) Q GC Z VI CC a Q > IMO a Q CO J ca u -a CD nj Q ma ei c O C) Z Z CO VI a) • Q D CC Ia } a 0 CU ,13 fe CU , r_ . . • , ,,,, :., , ,;12 . , . t " . ,4 , i . 0 • . •- , .SAS ��If{ 1 ti ' )V I. I*: 1 sft $ ^. 1 ,? :4 y M el V _� f13 o a ao O 'I • • ) N V >, C C v +a • _ a) c 4-• • • +, O_ = CD Cs_ c Co O U. a)O E 0 CU4- EE 73 c Sim E C CU (l) � Q p O s - V 4U CO CU f� V CU aj = etli O V +.1 VI td) VI C V i > to E tt. 4-• im4- ...... , in av) . _ — = o = • _ x I/I C Iro fa V m W a.) p > 2 CU ma INC °C 'vI u 0 be C .� • - CO 4 L • - > CU Q °W • - CCO C v N a, Q O 4-; N }�.+CO co . - 4 • CU 1-1 � i i t i to vi O ca 4-. 3i E O cr re= s ca O 03 CU -o 4U CO 10 E � V Q J CC a. a I.. _ Cit CO N M 13 C CO 4-, V) tI • Q CC MIMI ,a 'j 4'. l' : ,(.. .T '• }jj 'I ( .• ' l' L: � ti , . - CU• PffP Y L 1 . 1.1; 14•'1. [ .eJ"1 -i- .. . -, Yii:1;s.;:',IYiiimg.O14,,i, . i . 1 CI ., . . . ; -1 / .-,..",-7704( ` 1. 3 .1* 4 • it •: !:t4: 4 •-:s14..7 fa • ,, ,,,, ,. .,.„ , .4..4 . , ..„ ,. . ,.., . it, .} t : ' . el 13 Nct W a) > 13 • - cm CU C O O 4u > O V c • — ca co O m 0 Q au tat fu 5 .fd .a fts u .1. E o a) •V a) a) >, • V c0 '� as E 0 _ 0 cu > m › o_ u a) 0 a LA O o E o ' — s_ cu a, — O 1... a w al 1.., moO. E it t cu ... . > E. 0 a3 a w C 4) O au < 0 (5 w .O n_ c y--� +-+ tI0 c0 co ca . - co .� i O N • 0 O v 0 4� C ' - 4) 'in U b.0C - �+- 0 CU a U O C Q = Ce Q O cn Lin a VD N 1O CU a CO 4-1 th • Q cc . - .. . . , ' • •?. • Mi: ' ,, . 4. • . Ti ../1.. 1 ),,, ( k. e, 03) 4 �t - L t' . r:(i± . c. . - �2 . N ,a) LA al,N }' el -a c N U c O C O v N E J i (6 c •— C +-' -a O • CC ca tv0 Q1 0 Cr) `r' Q N to CO 00 LA er u •`em n N lap ._ co > ,- � Q � E � t%1 J — J to co 'a Aj1/4 NCO WO O cu —a ,N N N .E u +a w flirt -O • .. 3 • - 1,. CO Q CU N v• CD 10 � w CIA .- . . — > oQ , •— .— C c = o urt c0 0 Ln Q. cv cu E a _ J C N ._ Q 13l0 No m O D w c a_ N to CO .Q • -O CC 4-I v s- z cu a o J > O- mila CU E c13 • N u O O- 0 4-' aJ u >" E -Q CC 4- a) % • CO .Cs. E u- CO in 4-+ i • 2 C m - u to o o •- C d d C ,.....• 4-+ u O Cf N to 4-• •- C • CO 1:3 = C •-, o O o • — vi W CU m ca _ L. O .i .0 �TS �-- Q. •- > CC to °' co C . . L. . . c Q1 I-- tio 4-1 C X N CU f0 N o eto co f •C o` . � i ._ ts •_ • -' =CO v H H Z • U Q c0 I- O U < Z el N CC i L. - it, 1 iii Sai d p. 04):: �. �1. ��rn�'r. �tAiy ,.y• c 'It 1;u !( t • y,�,`' �. CU A'. • x: O CU tel o W W 'A E V) • _ o +.• Li cm E >ft v) 4.• 4-0 -O E c = CO alma I ' l ! o CD > — III NMI CZ E ma Sim Sim a O E rt; a) 4-EP C > Sc CAA . - v O . _ O O O C O Imo CL CU a c c Q. • —CO a CU Ii.) CO • ... c Q • • • CI • Elitt D cC f.' '‘ . .., _ a v 1 sZ s r • r +1' I7‘a t {�{I • _ 4 ti`s,,t.. , ! N C CO CO CO 'an E � TS ^^ '' W W L■ <IC 'n NC 0 co D a) 4.- z W N rt O SIEN MO Ce Lin ilij *IC 0 a) — SI 03 a) w .O .4 _ E a Z< cwOmEEtoas > Co CU la) Lic.) Q CC aJ U VI}+ to s s CU s - o C °' u i > +NJV W a) W L. .O CC c -3/4 0 O bW • - 1_, L. }+ -O co s 4-• C mis-, tn it O > s ca + 0 C = a) 0 y� is aJ .�+ a = C co C • — to O on v to — to L •c 0 ^ , a III MIMI ca E 4... a • — W C L .1..r a) o s c O a z 4-e �' >`4-# , >W o co °' D . C CU Z O E O > ii, co t.) Era m s 0 S a >a) a) cu ., c >, v .w • tin > �, L. C a) c ca — CU a 0 = o o CE .O a) • 3... 4-IP • ...• c�CC a Ss a) L. s u a) 4-•'D CO = T.3 C 4.-0 " M O C 4-+ -O 0 • ca _ CU on co w 4- W E 4U 4+ D a N - C to E }+ CU ("0 a a) • . 0 VI O 0 0 0 to • � O • _ ;+_ �_+ • a C . C Q. O. u) a t • tte. •C Z cuE O O o N co a) o as a� CO g E .O L. 2aULflanaaUDESCto - • a > D Cc At • M J fl: 4% W 1"'1J , Ill • ttSti l ib'‘''''';;,: :.1.''.`,,". y1, � �f, A 'i` r - ' '�. r 1 t i '!' t It r ' e ;s. • 1_ .. MEIER • ii= IdMI >MI CO s IIIII gitt oC i y31• 4t it . • S. I .'S' .4 l' 1 I \Itil-,' Lei 0 : , tot - 4.../4 , ..1 ..), ..•... • , . ...t.„4. . : . • tt,„. sts fr 0 . . „.. , ?' (�.a� - rya i. 0 r . Esther Gesick iiprom: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Saturday, February 19, 2011 6:50 AM o: Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick Subject: Fw: Vote No on the Dry Creek RUA Application From: Jane wycoff <icw0321@aol.com> To: Barbara Kirkmeyer; Dave Long; Douglas Rademacher; Sean Conway; William Garcia Sent: Fri Feb 18 15:26:20 2011 Subject: Vote No on the Dry Creek RUA Application To : Weld County Colorado Board of County Commissioners, The application by Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District falls decidedly short of satisfying goals and policies for a new Regional Urbanization Area. It needs to be voted no on and rejected. Among a long list of failings several critical items include: * It does not pay its own way (Goal 4) County studies show over a $5M shortfall of expected County income and service costs. The County taxpayers should not subsidize a business venture with tax creases or reduced services. * It is located outside a municipality or other urban services and facilities provider. (Goal 2) There is no planing or development principal or philosophy that justifies this project. * It is inconsistent with County plans, the desires of a majority of area residents and is incompatible with surrounding land uses (Goals 1 & 2). Please support the citizens of this part of your County by voting no on the Dry Creek RUA Application. Sincerely, Jane Wycoff COW I III 1 Esther Gesick 0.orom: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Sunday, February 20, 2011 8:30 PM : Commissioners; Esther Gesick; Bruce Barker Subject: Fw: Todd Creek For the record Thanks From: dan stanton <danstantonou44(@hotmail.com> To: Barbara Kirkmeyer Sent: Sun Feb 20 12:40:58 2011 Subject: Todd Creek Dear County Commisioner Kirkmeyer: As a long time resident of the Weld County area, I am opposed to the Todd Creek development due to additional housing and increased traffic through our area. This development will bring increased traffic along with many additional monetary costs which residents in the area will have trouble affording. This will greatly adversely have an affect of the current living conditons of many residents with lower incomes and directly affecting their way of life. thanks for your support of us in this matter. Sincerely Dan stanton EXHIBIT • I V 1 Esther Gesick Oorom: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:21 AM : Commissioners; Esther Gesick; Bruce Barker Subject: Fw: T odd Creek Fyi From: Mary Morales <mlmorales1950@hotmail.com> To: Barbara Kirkmeyer Sent: Mon Feb 21 19:38:08 2011 Subject: T odd Creek We object to the Todd Creek Housing Development Annex .Because of the effect it will have on our community and taxes. We do not want it or need it! Sincerely, John and Mary Morales 11510 Edward St. Fort Lupton,Co. 80621 • Extuarr Esther Gesick 00M: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:21 AM : Commissioners; Esther Gesick; Bruce Barker Subject: Fw: stating objection Fyi From: Mary Deherrera <dmdeherrera7@yahoo.com> To: Barbara Kirkmeyer Sent: Mon Feb 21 18:19:21 2011 Subject: stating objection I object to the Todd Creek Housing Development Annex. We don't agree with Todd Creek Housing taking over our community. We have been established here for 58+ years and are content with the way things are now. Please don't make any changes. Sincerely, Arthur D. DeHerrera Mary A. DeHerrera Arthur& Mary DeHerrera 1513 Caroline Ave. Wattenburg, CO 80621 • L 1 Esther Gesick rom: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 6:22 AM o: Esther Gesick; Bruce Barker Subject: Fw: Dry Creek RUA Fyi Original Message From: sharkrantzPaol.com <sharkrantzPaol.com> To: Dave Long; Douglas Rademacher; Barbara Kirkmeyer; Sean Conway; William Garcia Sent: Mon Feb 21 14:59:24 2011 Subject: Dry Creek RUA Good afternoon Weld County Commissioners, My name is Sharlene Krantz. My husband and I live at 1755 Weld County Road 23. We have lived at this location for 33 1/2 years. Our property is surrounded by the proposed Dry Creek RUA. I have attended all the public meetings hosted by Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District (TCMVD) and also I have attended all but one of the county commissioner meetings in the past. (I did not attend the first commissioner meeting in June 2010 because I had just had surgery and was not physically able to attend. ) I am opposed to the Dry Creek RUA and have voiced my opposition to you ♦t o prior commissioner meetings. The list of reasons why I am opposed the Dry Creek RUA is long, but most recently I have learned of the TCMVD financial situation and am very alarmed by what I have learned. These new findings will be presented to you on February 23, 2011. I am planning to attend the February 23, 2011 County Commissioner meeting and again voice my opposition. Thank you for serving our county and listening to your constituents. Sharlene Krantz 1755 Weld County Road 23 Fort Lupton, Colorado . t,, 41 I 'Y� 11Y 1 Esther Gesick om: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:22 PM o: Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick Subject: Fw: Dry Creek RUA From: bmllovd@aol.com <bmllovd@aol.com> To: Dave Long; Douglas Rademacher; Sean Conway; William Garcia; Barbara Kirkmeyer Sent: Tue Feb 22 09:50:51 2011 Subject: Dry Creek RUA Commissioners Long, Rademacher, Conway, Garcia and Kirkmeyer: I have not met many of you; however, I have been an Adams County resident for over 11 years and have owned property in Weld county for about as long. I live on 168th Avenue-which is the Adams County side of Weld County Road 2. I am a retired audit partner with the largest CPA and consulting firm in the world. My interest in this matter stems from my property being adjacent to Baseline Lakes, being a share owner in the New Brantner Ditch and a property owner in Weld County. After attending the Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District's (the District') public meetings, which left me very dissatisfied with the District's answers to questions, I decided to undertake a little research relating to the District, who controls the District and the District as the applicant for the 8 property owners in the proposed RUA. ide from a number of major non-financial issues I have with the proposal, I have severe concerns about the District's eing controlled by the developer of Todd Creek and the District's apparent severe financial situation (including, related party transactions and developer controlled board, history of losses, operating fund deficit, substantially declining tap fee revenue, debt defaults, bankruptcy filing of debt guarantor, defaults on forbearance agreements, forbearance agreements not in place, delinquent audit reports, and the indication that the 2008 and 2009 auditor's report on the District's financial statements will be a "going concern" report.) If you are not familiar with a going concern auditor's report - in a nut shell - it will indicate that there is material uncertainty that may cast substantial doubt on the District's ability to continue to function as a business entity. In addition, I have been exposed to more grief than I care to have been exposed to by the developer that controls the District and have seen what is likely to happen if the proposed RUA is approved. One example is in my back yard! My neighbor sold the Land for Baseline Lakes in approximately 2003 or 2004 and the development was sold to the public as being an up-scale development of 5-acre custom home sites. It quickly changed to 1-acre lots and as of today, (7 or so years later), there are a total of 6 homes on the site, only one or two of which are owner-occupied. The remaining homes are model or spec homes and some are modular homes. Much of the property has been foreclosed upon by lenders, and from what I undertsand, at a public sale this past year, one of the lenders was unable to obtain a bid of$10,000 per lot for finished lots (with streets, utilities, etc.)! So much for property values. I have no issue with a land owner's right to sell or develop their property as long as it is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning and Subdivision regulations. I believe the land owners that want to develop their property have many alternatives other than the RUA as proposed, to do so. My main concerns are with the District and what appears to me to be severe financial stress that will not be resolved in any quick manner, if at all, and the resulting severe lack of capability to provide service in the proposed area. I will attend the Commission meeting on Wednesday to make a number of comments related to the Districts financial situation. I sincerely hope that you are open to listening to the all of the public comments that will be made and will cognize that there are severe public concerns with the application and that it does not meet Weld County standards - d, accordingly, vote to DENY the application. Sincerely, I 3 !n, A1 Lloyd 1 Esther Gesick om: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:23 PM o: Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick Subject: Fw: Dry Creek RUA and Todd Creek Village Metro District(TCVMD) From: Larry Johnson <Iarry@kitchentech.biz> To: Barbara Kirkmeyer; Dave Long; Douglas Rademacher; Sean Conway; William Garcia Cc: dbeckman@co.weld.us <dbeckman@co.weld.us> Sent: Tue Feb 22 11:18:10 2011 Subject: Dry Creek RUA and Todd Creek Village Metro District (TCVMD) Weld County Commissioners, Health issues prevent "our" attending this hearing, however...we "adamantly" oppose the requests of both issues in permitting this"exclusive" franchise of either party. As I deal with commercial contracts and specific performance in construction, I have yet to hear or read of any stipulations placed upon either party. Everything appears as a open-ended exclusive franchise which benefits only the applicants. Why and Where are the "normal" contractual requirements, such as: a) Certified Financial statements? b) Certification of financial ability to perform? c) Background checks of applicants? • d) Specific thresholds and trigger dates/time lines? e) Individual applicants bonds? f) Surety and Performance Bonds? g) Certificate of Insurance coverage's with Weld County as Loss Payee? h) Progress flow charts guides approved by public and commissioner's input? i) Oversight by Weld County and/or citizen committee which applicants must answer to? j) Breach of contract documentation? k) Liquidated damage (s)schedule of failure to meet scheduled trigger dates? I) Notification of contract breach and Counties right to terminate and re-assign to other parties? There are many additional obligations the applicants "must" make to us....the citizens of Weld County, which will protect us as a community and you, our elected officials to represent our best interests, and your duty to insure that we "do not" open the hen house door to the fox! Excepting the potential tax base revenue,there is not one indication nor reason these applicants are the "correct and proper" entities to provide this expansion, and then....when "they"fail as their history clearly demonstrates, are we the citizens of weld county and this community,obligated to carry the financial disaster that follows? Thank you and anticipate your rejection of these applicants. Larry, Karen and Keith Johnson 1171 Weld Road 21 Brighton, CO 80603 303-809-8904 net 1 Esther Gesick rom: Barbara Kirkmeyer nt: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:24 PM o: Commissioners; Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick Subject: Fw: Todd Creek Proposal Importance: High From: Adame, Stella <Stella.Adame@coloradodefenders.us> To: Barbara Kirkmeyer Sent: Tue Feb 22 13:39:28 2011 Subject: Todd Creek Proposal Commissioner Kirkmeyer, I apologize for the fact that I am sending an e-mail and unable to appear at the hearing scheduled on Wednesday, February 23`d I am placing my trust that the Weld County Commissioners can see all of the negative impact that such a proposal would have if it passes. I am AGAINST this proposal. I have been a resident of Wattenberg all my 48 years of life. I was born and raised in the area and chose to purchase my home and raise my son there. I also am the primary caregiver for my Mother who was actually born 80 years ago in Wattenberg. We still reside there and should this proposal pass I'm not sure we would financially be able to continue our simple community lifestyle. I am currently employed with the Brighton chool district and am a first hand witness of what such proposal REALLY means. lease be my voice against this proposal. Please feel free to contact me at any of the below listed telephone numbers. Respecfully yours, Hope Adame 11661 Edward Street Fort Lupton, CO 80621 303-659-4948 (home) 303-304-4023 (cell) MONT • I PPP 1 Esther Gesick oorom: Michelle Martin nt: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 2:41 PM : Esther Gesick Subject: FW: proposed IGA Please include the below email in the Dry Creek RUA 2009-xx application. Thanks. Michelle Martin Planner III 1555 N 17th Ave Greeley,CO 80631 mmartin@co.weld.co.us PHONE: (970)353-6100 x 3540 FAX: (970) 304-6498 I8e )) i I 'N [ fl. CO JN 'Y u Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return iltmail and destroy the communication.Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the ntents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Roger Hollard jmailto:roger@equinoxland.comj Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011. 2:36 PM To: 'Falconburg, Man/ Cc: Michelle Martin; 'George Hanlon'; 'Bill Jerke' Subject: proposed IGA Marv, As you're aware the major concern for the property owners in the RUA has to do with limiting density to the point where development may be untenable. I've been very clear in our discussions that densities need to be in the 3.3 to 3.5 du/acre range within the RUA to adequately support the level of development and services required, and to garner support of the property owners. TCVMD could have supported an agreement that dealt with the area holistically and dealt with density globally in the TCVMD service area. Brighton's desire to narrowly focus the conversation toward limits within the current RUA application and those related properties is something that we can't support. It's also worth remembering that TCVMD is a utility provider and ultimately our concern has to do with providing service to property owners within our service area that request service. TCVMD does not regulate zoning or land use. Land use and density issues remain in the control of the Weld County Commissioners. Thank you, EXHIBIT • I -013-Q- Roger G Hollard 1 Sr. V.P. Land Operations Equinox Land Group 303-659-1400 acel 303-726-2147 10450 E. 159th Ct. Brighton CO 80602 From: Falconburg, Mary fmailto:mfalconburc@dbriahtonco.govl Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2011 1:29 PM To: Roger Hollard; oeorge@ieciuinoxland.com Cc: Bradford, Jason; Brubaker, Margaret R.; Hoel, Natalie; Michelle Martin; Prather, Holly Subject: Approved IGA George/Roger, Attached is the IGA that the City Council approved last night. We will get you the signed original later today. This was approved with the condition that it be signed by you and back to us by 5 p.m. on February 22. You will notice that it is the IGA that was the last version in the council packet, which references 2.5 d.u./acre gross residential density for only that portion of the RUA within the Brighton Influence Area. The Council was not interested in the alternative approach which arose after the packets were printed and was discussed on Monday of this week which would (lave indicated 1.7 d.u./acre for the entire metro district service area. We believe that this agreement is in line with our original negotiations of 2.5 du/acre and shows a good faith effort on the part of Brighton. This gross density allows well over what we would like to see in this area, but represents a compromise that we can live with. We appreciate your willingness to work with us on this important effort and look forward to receiving the signed IGA back soon. Sincerely, Mary Falconburg, AICP Community Development Director City of Brighton 22 South 4th Avenue Brighton, CO 80601 303-655-2021 (phone and fax) mfalconburg(adbrightonco.gov Integrity l Vision 1- Stewardship A Progressive Community • `A Unless you really need to, please don't print this e-mail. Think Green and Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. 2 • r Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District (Adams County, Colorado) FINANCIAL STATEMENTS with Independent Auditors' Report December 31, 2008 jaw 4.v . i . Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District TABLE OF CONTENTS December 31, 2008 Independent auditors' report 1 Basic financial statements: Statements of net assets 2 Statements of revenues, expenses, and changed in net assets 3 Statements of cash flows 4 Notes to financial statements 6 Supplemental information: Statement of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balance— budget and actual (budgetary basis) 18 Reconciliation of actual (budgetary basis) to statement of revenues, expenses and changes in net assets 20 Schedule of debt service requirements to maturity 21 TIM WAGNER BARNES, pc (.rritlyd Public :ACe,n,nt.Inrx n Buyinc s ( ,nsul'ants Independent Auditors' Report Board of Directors Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District Adams County, Colorado We have audited the accompanying basic financial statements of Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District, as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and for the years then ended, as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the District's management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatements. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinions. The District has not presented management's discussion and analysis that the Governmental Accounting Standards Board had determined is necessary to supplement, although not required to be part of, the basic financial statements. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects the financial position of Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District, as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the changes in its financial position and its cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our audits were conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the basic financial statements. The supplemental information listed in the table of contents is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the financial statements of the District. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audits of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. CO or 7Ua M pe February 21, 2011 Lakewood, Colorado 1 Wagner Barnes, P(: NHL- I ,ka«.,.,d, 1 ,I ,nd•' roi3?R ,ni I nn : at:cv • i':; ',-1115 I ,c. • '''.u, v,hcp.¢ LC,an i f Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District STATEMENTS OF NET ASSETS December 31,2008 and 2007 Restated 2008 2007 ASSETS Current assets Cash and cash equivalents $ - $ 22,515 Cash and cash equivalents-restricted 2,924,561 5,420,136 Accounts receivable 88.568 163,750 Prepaid expenses 15,594 140,594 Total current assets 3,028,723 5,746,995 Capital assets Water rights 5,907,934 5,680,261 Operating system and storage 51,539,901 49,498,009 57,447,835 55,178,270 Accumulated depreciation (4,934,595) (3,647,031) Total capital assets 52,513.240 51,531,239 Other assets Escrow funds - 200,006 Bond issuance costs(net of accumulated amortization of$1,526,669 and$1,145,002, respectively) 1.243,105 1,624,772 Certificates of Participation issuance costs(net of accumulated amortization of$51,653 and $31,129, respectively) 193,220 213,744 Certificates of Participation discount(net of accumulated amortization of$31,968 and$19,266,respectively) 119,582 132,284 Total other assets 1,555,907 2,170,806 TOTAL ASSETS 57,097,870 59,449,040 LIABILITIES Current liabilities Bank overdraft 44,178 - Accounts payable 134,734 81,110 Accrued interest payable 88,260 88,260 Line of credit payable 980,713 1,255,050 Total current liabilities 1,247,885 1,424,420 Long-term liabilities Bonds and certificates of participation payable 27,785,000 27,785,000 TOTAL LIABILITIES 29,032,885 29,209,420 NET ASSETS Invested in capital assets, net of related debt 24,728,240 23,746,239 Restricted 2,924,561 5,420,136 Unrestricted 412,184 1,073,245 TOTAL NET ASSETS $ 28,064,985 $ 30,239,620 The accompanying Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements 2 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS For the Years Ended December 31,2008 and 2007 Restated Operating revenues 2008 2007 Water revenue $ 1,510,407 $ 1,424,101 (FTC) Failure to connect 774,284 - Meter fees 15,375 25,150 Inspection fees 1,350 5,600 Penalties and other income 105,116 162,413 Total operating revenues 2,406,532 1,617,264 Operating expenses Accounting and audit 9,416 Depreciation 1,287,564 1,242,221 Directors fees 3,300 4,225 District management 576,000 576,000 Engineering 18,320 84,907 Insurance 15,278 - Rental 3,540 - Legal 214,156 31,450 Miscellaneous 24,234 86,651 MXU system 48,542 105,490 Office expense 79,867 62..607 Public relations 29,888 - Repairs and maintenance 182,697 201.040 Utilities and water leases 226,634 191.756 Water treatment 68,977 57,688 Total operating expenses 2,788,413 2,644,035 Operating (loss) (381.881) (1,026,771) Nonoperating revenue and(expense) Investment earnings 145,159 449,854 Amortization expense (414,893) (414.893) Credit enhancement fee (125,000) (171,262) Interest (1,148,602) (1,238.319) Interest expense-certificates of participation base rental (521,688) (521,688) Issuance costs (418) Loan fees (2,792) - Paying agent fees (1,400) - Total nonoperating revenue and (expense) (2,069,216) (1,896,726) (Loss)before capital contributions (2,451,097) (2,923,497) Capital contributions Tap fees 276.462 3,663,301 Contributed assets . - - Total capital contributions 276,462 3,663,301 Change in net assets (2,174,635) 739,804 Net assets-beginning 30,239,620 29,499,816 Net assets-ending $ 28.064,985 $_30,239,620 The accompanying Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements. 3 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS For the Years Ended December 31,2008 and 2007 2008 2007 CASH FLOWS FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES Receipts from customers and users $ 2,758,176 $ 5,180,629 Payments to suppliers (1,278,047) (1,587,061) Net cash provided by operating activities 1,480,129 3,593,568 CASH FLOWS FROM CAPITAL AND RELATED FINANCING ACTIVITIES Acquisition of capital assets (2,269,567) (4,585,115) Net proceeds (payments) on line of credit (274,337) 631,000 Escrow(payments) receipts for capital acquisitions 200,006 9,994 Payments received on developer borrowings - 225,131 Interest paid certificates of participation (521,688) (521,688) Principal paid on revenue bonds - (2,310,000) Interest paid on revenue bonds (1,059,123) (1.170,850) Interest paid on line of credit (89,477) (76,613) Other debt-related expenditures (129,192) (171,680) Net cash (used) by capital and related financing activities (4,143,378) (7,969,821) CASH FLOWS FROM INVESTING ACTIVITIES Interest and dividends received 145,159 449,854 Net cash provided by investing activities 145,159 449,854 NET(DECREASE)IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS (2.518,090) (3.926,399) CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS - BEGINNING OF YEAR 5,442,651 9,369,050 CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS -END OF YEAR $ 2,924,561 $ 5,442,651 (continued) The accompanying Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements 4 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (continued) For the Years Ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 2008 2007 Reconciliation of operating(loss)to net cash provided by operating activities: Operating loss $ (381,881) $ (1,026,771) Adjustments to reconcile operating (loss)to net cash provided by operating activities: Depreciation expense 1,287,564 1.242,221 Tap fees received from customers 276,462 3.663,301 (Increase)decrease in accounts receivable 75,182 (99,936) (Increase)decrease in prepaids 125,000 (140,594) Increase(decrease) in bank overdraft 44,178 - Increase(decrease) in accounts payable 53,624 (25,392) Increase(decrease) in retainage payable - (3,486) Increase(decrease)in other payables - (15,775) Total adjustments 1,862,010 4,620,339 Net cash provided by operating activities $ 1,480,129 $ 3,593,568 The accompanying Notes to Financial Statements are an integral part of these statements 5 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2008 Note 1 —Definition of reporting entity The Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District (the District) is a quasi-municipal corporation organized on November 19, 1996 and is governed pursuant to provisions of the Colorado Special District Act, The District's service area is located in Adams and Weld Counties, Colorado. The District was established to provide water and wastewater services to an area encompassing approximately 6,725 acres in Adams County and 6,000 acres in Weld County. The District has no employees and all operations and administrative functions are contracted. The District follows the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) accounting pronouncements which provide guidance for determining which governmental activities, organizations and functions should be included within the financial reporting entity. GASB pronouncements set forth the financial accountability of a governmental organization's elected governing body as the basic criterion for including a possible component governmental organization in a primary government's legal entity. Financial accountability includes, but is not limited to, appointment of a voting majority of the organization's governing body. ability to impose its will on the organization, a potential for the organization to provide specific financial benefits or burdens and fiscal dependency As of December 31. 2008, no component unit has been identified as reportable to the District, nor is the District a component unit of any other primary governmental entity. Note 2-Summary of significant accounting policies The accounting policies of the District conform to generally accepted accounting principles as applicable to governmental units accounted for as a proprietary enterprise fund. The enterprise fund is used since the District's powers are related to those operated in a manner similar to a private utility system where net income and capital maintenance are appropriate determinations of accountability. The District has elected to follow Governmental Accounting Standards Board pronouncements Therefore, statements issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board after November 30, 1989 are not applied. The more significant accounting policies of the District are described as follows: A. Basis of accounting The District's records are maintained on the accrual basis of accounting. Revenue is recognized when earned, and expenses are recognized when the liability is incurred. Depreciation is computed and recorded as an operating expense Expenditures for capital assets are shown as increases in assets and redemption of bonds and certificates of participation is recorded as a reduction in liabilities Tap fees are recorded as capital contributions when received When both restricted and unrestricted resources are available for use, it is the District's policy to use restricted resources first, then unrestricted resources as they are needed. 6 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) December 31, 2008 B. Operating revenue and expenses The District distinguishes between operating revenues and expenses and nonoperating items in the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets. Operating revenues and expenses generally result from providing services and producing and delivering goods in connection with the District's purpose of providing water and wastewater services to its customers. Operating revenues consist of charges to customers for service provided. Operating expenses include the cost of service, administrative expenses and depreciation of assets. All revenue and expenses not meeting this definition are reported as nonoperating revenues and expenses or capital contributions. C. Use of estimates The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires District management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenditures during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. D. Deposits and investments The Districts cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits and short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less from the date of acquisition. Investments for the District are reported at fair value. E. Restricted cash Certain proceeds of the District's revenue bonds and certificates of participation, as well as certain resources set aside for their repayment, are classified as restricted assets on the balance sheet because they are maintained in separate bank accounts and their use is limited by applicable bond covenants. Restricted cash totaled $2,924,561 at December 31, 2008 and $5,420,136 at December 31. 2007. F. Accounts receivable, allowance for doubtful accounts Use fees and tap fees constitute a perpetual lien on or against property served until paid. Such liens may be foreclosed upon as provided by the State of Colorado. Therefore, no provision for uncollectible receivables has been made in the financial statements. G. Capital assets Capital assets, which include water rights, water wells, storage and treatment facilities and delivery systems, are recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if purchased or constructed. Donated capital assets are recorded at estimated fair market value at the date of donation or at the developer's cost. Capital assets are defined by the District as those assets with a cost or value of$1,000 or greater. The costs of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially extend assets lives are not capitalized. 7 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) December 31, 2008 Major outlays for capital assets and improvements for which the District retains title are capitalized as projects are constructed. Interest incurred during the construction phase of capital assets is not included as part of the capitalized value of the assets constructed Property, plant, and equipment of the District is depreciated using the straight line method over the estimated useful lives (40 years for water system infrastructure). The cost of water rights includes acquisition cost, legal, and engineering costs related to the development and augmentation of those rights Since the rights have a perpetual life, they are not amortized. Depreciation expense for the years ended December 31. 2008 and 2007 totaled $1,287.564 and $1,242,221, respectively H. Amortization of bond and loan costs Bond and loan issue costs and discounts are being amortized over the respective terms of the bonds or loan using the straight-line method. Amortization expense for bond, loan, and discounts amounted to $414,893 and $414,893 for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively I. Budgetary information In accordance with State Budget Law, the District's Board of Directors holds public hearings in the fall of each year to approve the budget and appropriate funds for the ensuing year. The appropriation is at the total fund expenditures level and lapses at year-end. The District's Board of Directors can modify the budget by line item within the total appropriation without notification The total appropriation can only be modified upon completion of notification and publication requirements On January 13, 2011, the District's Board of Directors amended the 2008 budgeted appropriations from $5,484,554 to$7,984,554 J. Contributed capital Tap fees and water resource fees are generally recorded as capital contributions when received. Lines contributed to the District by developers are recorded as capital contributions and additions to the systems at the developer's cost or at the estimated fair value at the date of contribution Note 3—Cash and investments Cash and investments as of December 31, 2008 and 2007 are classified in the accompanying financial statements as follows 2008 2007 Cash and cash equivalents $�T $ 22,515 Cash and cash equivalents—restricted 2,924,561 5,420,136 Total cash and investments $ Cash and investments in the amount of $1,118,772 and $3,078,021 was restricted at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively. for use in the construction, installation, and completion of improvements in the water system and completion of a wastewater transmission system. Cash and investments in the amount of$1,805,789 and $2,342,115 was restricted at December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, for the payment of bond and certificate of participation interest and principal. 8 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) December 31, 2008 A. Cash deposits Colorado statutes require that the District use eligible public depositories as defined by the Colorado Public Deposit Protection Act(the Act). Under the Act, amounts on deposit in excess of federal insurance levels must be collateralized. The eligible collateral is determined by the Act and allows the institution to create a single collateral pool for all public funds The pool is to be maintained by another institution or held in trust for all the uninsured public deposits as a group. The market value of the collateral must be at least equal to the aggregate uninsured deposits The State Regulatory Commissions for banks and financial services are required by Statute to monitor the naming of eligible depositories and reporting of the uninsured deposits and assets maintained in the collateral pools. Custodial credit risk—deposits Custodial credit risk is the risk that in the event of a bank failure, the District's deposits may not be returned to it The District's cash deposit and investment policy adopts State statutes regarding custodial credit risk for deposits. As of December 31, 2008 and 2007, none of the District's bank balance was exposed to custodial credit risk. The Districts cash deposits at December 31, 2008 are as follows. Carrying Bank Balance Balance Cash deposits $ - $ 25 428 The District's cash deposits at December 31, 2007 are as follows Carrying Bank Balance Balance Cash deposits $_.__14,49_3_ 369 B. Investments Credit risk The Districts cash deposit and investment policy adopts State statutes regarding credit risk for investments. Colorado statutes specify investment instruments meeting defined rating and risk criteria in which local governments may invest, which include. • Obligations of the United States and certain U S. government agency securities • Certain international agency securities • General obligation and revenue bonds of the U.S local government entities • Bankers' acceptances of certain banks • Commercial paper • Written repurchase agreements collateralized by certain authorized securities • Certain money market funds • Guaranteed investment contracts • Local government investment pools The District's money market account with Valley Bank 8 Trust is not rated 9 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) December 31,2008 Interest rate risk Colorado revised statutes limit investment maturities to five years or less unless formally approved by the Board of Directors. Such actions are generally associated with a debt service reserve or sinking fund requirements. As of December 31, 2008, the District had the following investments: Maturity Fair Value Colorado Surplus Asset Fund Trust Weighted average $ 1,284,363 under 60 days Aim Trust Treasury Portfolio (Zion) Less than 1 year 123,929 Non-rated Money Market and Certificates of Deposit Less than 1 year 1,516,269 $ _2,924.561 As of December 31, 2007, the District had the following investments: Maturity Fair Value U.S. Treasury money market fund (ANB) Less than 1 year $ 2,342,115 Aim Trust Treasury Portfolio(Zion) Less than 1 year 3,078,021 Non-rated Money Market Less than 1 year 8,022 Colorado Surplus Asset Fund Trust(CSAFE) During 2008, the District invested in the Colorado Surplus Asset Fund Trust(CSAFE), which is an investment vehicle established by state statute for local government entities to pool surplus assets. The State Securities Commissioner administers and enforces all State statutes governing the Trust. The trust is similar to a money market fund, with each share valued at $1.00. CSAFE may invest in U.S. Treasury securities, repurchase agreements collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities and highest rated commercial paper. A designated custodial bank serves as custodian for CSAFE's portfolio pursuant to a custodian agreement. The custodian acts as safekeeping agent for CSAFE's investment portfolio and provides services as the depository in connection with direct investments and withdrawals. The custodian's internal records segregate investments owned by CSAFE Concentration of credit risk The District's cash deposit and investment policy adopts state statutes regarding concentration of credit risk for investments. The District invests primarily in money markets and/or U.S. securities, U.S. agency securities, or U S. sponsored corporate securities, which are not subject to concentration of credit risk. Custodial credit risk—investments For investments, custodial credit risk is the risk that in the event of the failure of the counterparty, the District will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The District's cash deposit and investment policy adopts state statutes regarding custodial credit risk for investments As of December 31, 2008 and 2007. the District had $2,924,561 and $5,442,651, respectively, of investments held by outside parties. 10 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) December 31, 2008 Note 4—Capital assets Capital asset activity for the year ended December 31, 2008 was as follows Beginning Ending Balance _ Increases Decreases Balance Capital assets, not being depreciated: Water rights $ 5,680,261 $ 227,673 $ - $ 5,907,934 Capital assets, being depreciated: Water distribution and 46,607,049 storage 44,794,537 1,812,512 Sewer system 4,703.472 229,380 - 4,932,852 Accumulated depreciation (3,647,032) _ (1,267,563) (4,934,595) Total capital assets, being depreciated, net 45,850.978 2,041,892_ _ (1)287,563) 46,605,307 Capital assets, net $ 51,531.239 $2,269,565 $(1,287,563) $ 52,513,241 Note 5—Long-term debt and related subsequent events A. Changes in long-term debt The following is an analysis of changes in bonds and loans payable for the year ended December 31, 2008: Balance New Principal Balance Due within 12/31/07 Issues Payments 12/31/08 one year Series 2004 Bonds $19,125,000 $ - $ - $19,125,000 Series 2006 Certificates of 8,660,000 Participation - - — 8,660,000 Total $27,785,000 $ - $ - $27,785,000 B. Bonds payable $25,575,000 Water Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds, Series 2004, dated December 27, 2004 The bonds are term bonds in the amount of $25,575,000 maturing through December 2019. The bonds were issued to finance the construction, installation and completion of improvements to the water supply, purification, transmission and distributions system, wastewater lift station, force main and interceptor trunk line, and to refund and discharge the outstanding District revenue bonds as well as other District obligations. The bonds bear interest from 4 75%to 6 125% per annum payable semi-annually on June 1 and December 1 The bonds are subject to redemption prior to maturity, at the option of the District, as allowed under a "Special Mandatory Redemption" provision whereby the District, from sources other than borrowed funds or funds derived from refunding or refinancing of the Series 2004 Bonds, may redeem certain bonds at a price equal to the principal amount plus accrued interest. Accordingly, bonds with an original maturity date of December 1. 2009 may be redeemed no 11 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) December 31, 2008 earlier than December 1, 2005, bonds maturing on December 1, 2014 may be redeemed no earlier than June 1, 2008, and bonds maturing on December 1, 2019 may be redeemed no earlier than June 1, 2010 Alternatively, the bonds are subject to redemption prior to maturity, at the option of the District, redeemed with borrowed funds beginning on December 1, 2012, and on any date thereafter, upon payment of par and accrued interest, with a redemption premium through November 30, 2014, and without a redemption premium thereafter. The bonds are payable solely from and secured by an irrevocable pledge of and first lien upon the "pledged revenue" as defined in the bond indenture. Additional security for the bonds is provided by a "debt service reserve fund" and by guaranty agreements dated as of December 27, 2004, one between the District and The Equinox Group LLC (the Developer), a Colorado limited liability company, whose affiliates own or control approximately 58%of the property to be served with water services and facilities by the District, and the other between the District and an individual principal of the Developer. With respect to "pledged revenue" that may be derived by the District's water system, the Developer and its principal have entered into a Standby Tap Purchase Agreement whereby the Developer and its principal have guaranteed the payment of principal and interest on the bonds in the event that "pledged revenues" are insufficient in any year. The Developer and its principal agree, jointly and severally, to purchase water and wastewater taps from time to time in the amount necessary to pay when due the scheduled amounts of principal and interest with respect to the Series 2004 bonds. The Trustee issued a demand letter on November 9, 2009 calling on the Developer and its principal to fulfill its obligation under the Standby Tap Purchase Agreement to assist the District in making bond interest and principal payments. Due to economic conditions, neither the Developer nor its principal was able to purchase taps to provide funds for payment of bond interest and principal on December 1, 2009. Consequently, the District withdrew funds from the Bond Reserve Fund to satisfy the required interest payment. Forbearance Agreement/Event of Default Due to insufficient pledged tap fee revenue, a portion of bond principal payments for maturities that were originally due on December 1, 2009 were not paid on that date, and have not been paid as of the date of the auditors' report (event of default). The District entered into a Forbearance Agreement (the Forbearance) with the bond Trustee on December 1, 2009, whereby 100% of the bondholders of the 2009 maturities agreed to defer redemption of the bond principal to June 1, 2011 Under the terms of the Forbearance, the District, among other requirements. must 1 continue to pay interest in a timely manner to all holders of the Series 2004 Bonds; 2 maintain the Bond Reserve Fund at a minimum of S1,000,000 on and after December 1, 2009; 3. maintain the COPS Reserve Fund after December 1, 2009 at or below$351,000, 4 not cause a condition of default under the COPS Indenture; 5 impose an Availability of Service Fee and deposit the proceeds with the Trustee; 6 impose a Failure to Connect Fee and deposit with the Trustee amounts in excess of those necessary for operations, 7 not make capital expenditures in excess of$250,000; 8 not expend more than $2,483,901, $2,733,433, and $2,958,724 for the years ending December 31, 2009, 2010, and 2011. respectively; 12 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) December 31, 2008 9. not incur any additional indebtedness: 10 not dispose of any assets other than in the ordinary course of business, and certain water rights. The District did not make required minimum rental payments of $675,845 on December 1, 2010, which is an event of default under the COPS agreement, thereby violating requirement number 4 above. Further, the District withdrew$529,561 from the Bond Reserve Fund to make bond interest payments on June 1, 2010, leaving a balance of $769,488 in the reserve fund, which is an event of default under the Forbearance Agreement(number 2 above) The District, as of the date of the auditors' report, is negotiating a new forbearance agreement with the bond trustee and bondholders. C. Certificates of participation (COPS) The District entered into a lease purchase agreement for a principal amount of $8,660,000, dated May 18, 2006, with Todd Creek Farms Metropolitan District No.1 Water Activity Enterprise Leasing Trust 2006 (the Trust). The Trust acts as lessor, and the District acts as lessee The Trust was created by the trustee (Zions First National Bank, Denver, Colorado) pursuant to a trust indenture and laws of the State of Colorado. The proceeds of the issuance of the COPS are used to fund the acquisition of water rights and the acquisition, construction and installation of various water and non-potable water facilities The Trust leases such water rights and facilities to the District pursuant to a 16 5-year lease agreement Base rentals under the lease agreement are sufficient to cover the payments of principal and interest on the certificates, and all trustee costs. The District may elect at any time to purchase the property from the Trust in an amount sufficient to redeem, pay, and defease all outstanding COPS. At the termination of the lease, ownership of all assets reverts to the District. The obligations of the District under the lease are not secured by a pledge or lien on any revenues, funds, or property of the District. and are payable on a parity basis with other general unsecured capital obligations of the District. The COPS bear interest at rates ranging from 5.75% to 6.125%. They are subject to optional redemption on December 1, 2012 and thereafter at prices ranging from par to par plus a 2% premium. Certain certificates are subject to a mandatory sinking fund beginning on December 1, 2010. The District accounts for proceeds of the issuance of the COPS as debt proceeds, and reports all assets of the trust and all outstanding COPS on its financial statements. Rental payments to the Trust are reported as interest expense and principal reductions by the District. The District did not make required minimum rental payments of $675,845 on December 1, 2010, which is an event of default under the COPS agreement. As of the date of the auditors' report, the District is in negotiation with the Trustee for the COPS holders to obtain a Forbearance Agreement similar to the Forbearance with bondholders of the Series 2004 bonds. D. Debt maturities Debt maturities for the next five years and to maturity, based on the above agreements with trustees, are as follows 13 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) December 31, 2008 Year ended December 31, Principal Interest Total 2009 $ - $ 1,796,701 $ 7,146,701 2010 415,000 1,326.688 1,741,688 2011 5,790,000 1,302,825 1,742,825 2012 465,000 1,277,525 1,742,525 2013 490.000 1,250,788 1,740,788 2014-2018 10,305,000 4,130,764 14,435,764 2019-2022 10,320,000 1,085,958 11,405,958 Total $_ 7.785_,000 $_.,.1.2,111249 $_3_9,9561249 E. Refunding On December 27, 2004, the District advance refunded and defeased (debt legally satisfied) $12,500,000 of its Water Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds dated November 1, 2001 by portions of the proceeds from the issuance of$25,575,000 Water Revenue Refunding and Improvement Bonds, dated December 27, 2004 with an interest rate ranging from 4.75%to 6 125%. $6,200,000 of the bonds were redeemed outright and $6.300,000 were defeased The defeased bonds are not considered a liability of the District since sufficient funds ($6,751,058) were deposited with a trustee and invested in U.S. government securities for the purpose of paying the principal and interest of the defeased bonds when due. Note 6-Line of credit The District has a $1,000,000 line of credit agreement with Valley Bank & Trust which matured November 3, 2008 and has been extended to May 3, 2011. The credit agreement provides for monthly interest payments at 8.5%. Borrowings under this note agreement are secured by a deed of trust on the District's water rights and storage facilities. Additional security for this agreement is provided by a guarantee from the Developer and an individual principal of the Developer. At December 31, 2008 and 2007, respectively, the outstanding balance was $980,713 and$1,255,050. Note 7-Net assets The District has net assets consisting of three components - invested in capital assets, net of related debt; restricted; and unrestricted. Invested in capital assets, net of related debt consists of capital assets, net of accumulated depreciation and reduced by the outstanding balances of bonds, loans, notes or other borrowings that are attributable to the acquisition, construction, or improvement of those net assets. As of December 31, 2008 and 2007, the District has invested in capital assets, net of related debt of $24,793,240 and $23,746,239. The District had $2,924,561 restricted by contractual obligation for payment of debt service and capital projects as of December 31, 2008. Beginning net assets of the District at the December 31. 2007 were reduced by $845,341 (Note 15) 14 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) December 31, 2008 Note 8—Related parties The majority of the Districts Board of Directors are either stockholders or employees of a company partially owned by the individual principal of the primary developer of land (the Developer)within and around the District The District entered into an agreement with a management company (the Company) partially owned by the individual principal of the Developer to perform administrative duties, maintain and administer operations, and handle the financial affairs of the District. The contract is renewable annually. Under the terms of the agreement, the Company received a monthly fee for these services in an amount not to exceed $25,000 for January through July 2005, $32,000 from August, 2005 through January, 2006, and $48,000 thereafter. During the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007, the District paid $576,000 per year to the Company under this agreement. Effective January 1, 2009, the individual principal of the Developer sold his interest in the Company to the remaining stockholder The District is assessed an additional 10% by a construction company, affiliated with the Developer, on all construction costs as a construction management fee. Total amounts paid to the construction company in construction management fees for the years ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 were$46,420 and$282.684 In 2008 and 2007, the District paid credit enhancement fees of $125,000 and $171,262, respectively, to the principal of the developer for assisting in obtaining, and guaranteeing, financing agreements for the District. Note 9—Water agreements Water Lease Agreements On January 1. 2004, the District entered into two Water Lease Agreements with Coors Brewing Company (Coors), both renewable annually until December 31, 2006. Under the terms of the agreements, the District received the water rights for a minimum of 250 acre feet of water at a rate of $175 per acre foot in 2005 and $200 per acre foot in 2006, with minimum annual payments of$45,500 and $52,000, respectively, payable on January 1 each year Effective January 1, 2007, the District renewed its two Water Lease Agreements with Coors, both now terminating on December 31, 2011 (initial term). Both Agreements may be renewed for an additional five year term after the initial term. Under the terms of the first Agreement, the District will receive the right to 100 acre feet of Leased Water at the following per acre foot rates 2008, $250; 2009, $275; 2010, $300; and 2011, $325 The minimal annual payments are as follows: 2008, $25,000, 2009, $27,500; 2010, $30,000; and 2011. $32,500, payable on January 1 each year. Under the terms of the second Agreement, the District will receive the right to 250 acre feet of Leased Water at the following per acre foot rates. 2008, $250; 2009, $275: 2010, $300; and 2011, $325 The District agrees to pay a minimum amount each year equal to the cost of 160 acre feet of Leased Water The minimal annual payments are as follow: 2008, $40,000: 2009, $44,000; 2010, $48,000; and 2011, $52,000. payable on January 1 each year. 15 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) December 31, 2008 Note 10-Commitments and contingencies and related subsequent events Commitments The District had active construction projects as of December 31, 2008 and 2007. Commitments under these projects totaled $218,972 and$154,337 at December 31, 2008 and 2007 Effective March 1, 2009, the District entered into an operating lease ending February 28, 2014 for its administrative offices. The lessor is an entity related to the Developer. The rental rate is $3,080 per month, on a triple-net basis whereby the District pays taxes, maintenance and repairs, and insurance Minimum base rental payments, including expected property taxes, due for the next five years and in total are as follows. Year ended December 31, 2009 $ 34,730 2010 41,676 2011 41.676 2012 41,676 2013 41,676 2014 6,946 Total $ 208,380 Contingencies Subsequent to December 31, 2008, the District is party to lawsuits or pursuing three banks in which the District asserts that it is owed $6,849,267 in unpaid tap fees, arising from the transfer of title for lots within the District's boundaries to the banks In the event the District is not successful on an open records act issue in one of the bank litigation matters, it may incur attorneys' fees in an amount to be awarded by the court, likely less than $10,000. The outcome of these legal actions is undeterminable as of the date of the auditors' report. Subsequent to December 31, 2008, the District was named as defendant in a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief requiring the District to repair a reservoir within the District's boundaries. The outcome of the case and any potential liability is undeterminable as of the date of the auditors' report. Note 11 —Risk management The District is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; thefts of, damage to, or destruction of assets; errors or omissions; injuries to employees, or acts of God. The District maintains commercial insurance for all risks of loss. Settled claims have not exceeded the commercial insurance coverage limits in any of the past three years. Note 12—Tax,spending and debt limitations Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado constitution, commonly known as the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights (TABOR) contains tax, spending, revenue and debt limitations which apply to the State of Colorado and all local governments 16 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (continued) December 31, 2008 The District's management believes it qualifies under the Water Activity Enterprise definition of TABOR and therefore is not subject to the requirements of TABOR However, TABOR is complex and subject to interpretation. Note 13—Noncompliance with Colorado Revised Statute Colorado Revised Statutes require that local governments submit audited financial statements for calendar year-end by July 31 of the following year. The District was not in compliance with the statutory requirement. Note 14—Net assets and notes receivable restatement In December of 2004 and January of 2005, the District entered into notes receivable from the Developer in the amounts of $725,000 and $100,000, respectively. An analysis by management subsequently determined that the District had erroneously recorded capital assets as contributed by the Developer, which should have been paid for by the District On January 13, 2011, the Board of Directors deemed the two notes, with a combined balance of$845.341 at December 31, 2007. had been satisfied by the Developer through the previous contribution of capital assets in amounts in excess of the note amounts. The District and the Developer agree that this Board action precludes either party from future claims against the other party. To reflect this action by the Board of Directors, beginning net assets at December 31, 2007 have been reduced by S845,341, and the notes receivable previously recorded, with a combined balance of$845,341, have been reduced to$0. 17 SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION • i • Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District STATEMENT OF REVENUE,EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUNDS AVAILABLE-BUDGET AND ACTUAL(BUDGETARY BASIS) For the Year Ended December 31,2008 Variance with Original Final Final Budget Budgeted Budgeted Favorable Amounts Amounts Actual (Unfavorable) ENTERPRISE: Revenues Water revenue $ 1 623.000 $ 1.623.000 $ 1 510.407 $ (112,593) (FTC)Failure to connect - - 774,284 774,284 Meters 25,000 25.000 15,375 (9,625) Inspection fees 6.500 6.500 1,350 (5,150) Tap fees 662,000 662.000 8,000 (654,000) Investment earnings 1,000 1.000 54,217 53,217 Penalties and other income - - 105,116 105,116 Total revenues 2.317.500 _ 2.317,500 2,468,749 151,249 Expenditures Accounting and audit 9.350 9.350 9,416 (66) Administration 74,000 74,000 79.867 (5,867) Credit enhancement fee 153,938 153.938 125,000 28,938 Directors fees 4.500 4,500 3.300 1.200 District management 576.000 576,000 576.000 - Engineering 45.000 45,000 18,320 26,680 Insurance 7,000 7,000 15,278 (8,278) Interest 75,000 75,000 89,477 (14,477) Lease payment 481.000 481.000 521,688 (40.688) Legal 20 000 20.000 214.156 (194.156) Loan fees - - 2,792 (2.792) Miscellaneous - - 24,234 (24,234) MXU system 120,000 120,000 48,542 71.458 Public relations - - 29,888 (29,888) Raw water acquisition 210.000 210,000 65.000 145,000 Repairs and maintenance 190,000 190,000 182,697 7,303 Rental - - 3.540 (3,540) Utilities 200,000 200.000 161.634 38,366 Water treatment _ 70,000 70,000 68,977 1,023 Total expenditures 2,235,788 2,235,788 2,239,806 J4,018) Excess of enterprise revenues over(under)enterprise expenditures 81.712 81.712 228,943 147,231 Funds available(deficit)-beginning enterprise fund (1,281.543) (1,281,543) " (753.846) 527,697 Funds available(deficit)-ending enterprise fund $ (1,199.831) $ (1,199,831) $ (524,903) $ 674,928 (continued) 18 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District STATEMENT OF REVENUE,EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUNDS AVAILABLE•BUDGET AND ACTUAL(BUDGETARY BASIS)1 (continued) For the Year Ended December 31,2008 Variance with Original Final Final Budget- Budgeted Budgeted Favorable Amounts Amounts Actual (Unfavorable) GENERAL GOVERNMENT: Revenues Tap fees $ 3.608,766 $ 3.608.766 $ 268.462 $ (3.340,304) Investment earnings 80.000 80,000 90 942 10,942 Total revenues 3,688,766 3.688,766 359.404 (3.329,362) Expenditures Debt service Interest 1,175,000 1,175,000 1,059.125 115,875 Principal 2.073,766 2.073.766 - 2,073,766 Paying agent fees - - 1.400 (1,400) Capital Outlay Water rights - - 227.673 (227,673) Operating system and storage - _ 2.500,000 2.041.892 458,108 Total expenditures _ 3.248,766 5,748,766 3.330.090 2,418.676 Excess of general government revenues over(under)general government expenditures 440 000 (2.060,0001 (2.970.686) (910,686) Funds available(deficit)-beginning general government 841,424 841.424 (2,200.155) (3,041,579) Funds available(deficit)-ending general government $ 1 281,424 $ (1,218.576) $ (5,170,841) $ (3,952.265) Total district revenues $ 6 006 266 $ 6:006 266 $ 2,828,153 (3,178,113) Total district expenditures 5 484,554 7 984.554 5,569,896 2,414,658 Total excess of revenue over (under)expenditures 521.712 (1 978,288) (2.741,743) (763.455) Funds available(deficit)•beginning — 4.036,851 4.036.851 (2,954,001) (6,990,852) Funds available(deficit)-ending $ 4,558.563 $ 2.058.563 $ (5.695.744) $ (7.754,307) 19 Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District RECONCILIATION OF ACTUAL(BUDGETARY BASIS)TO STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS For the Year Ended December 31,2008 REVENUE(BUDGETARY BASIS) $ 2,828,153 Total revenue(GAAP basis) 2,828,153 EXPENDITURES(BUDGETARY BASIS) 5,569,896 Add Depreciation 1,287,564 Amortization 414,893 Less Capital outlay (2.269,565) Total expenses(GAAP basis) _ 5,002,788 CHANGE IN NET ASSETS PER STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS 20 MMN N 000M M N 0)) '- O CI CD N OD 000000U) n (DnO .- NT- U) N .- Q N OONNOn6) rOnnnn Q Q OD 61 0 Q Q .- N M M N N CO M O (T N U) O O P- r-- .. CO M MM P.- Ch 0 OD C) e- e- n - 0 .- r- '- 6 OA fA M M M O_ N N 0 r NCh O M (0 N _ 00 0 0 U) n (D n 0 ." N ,- U1 N .- Q (0 a) 66 N n O N 6) co-O N N n N g Q) 0 0 0 n V) N n Q — n M 0) U) O H U) U) M N N N n n n O (O N C .- .- .- e- N_ U) (fl 88888888888880 (0 00000000000000 .0 CI � rnmrnrn UU') 0 ((N20g a`�D 8 (00 v n Q Q O U) U) O O O n n N- n -c: ui n r= .- n N I OD OD COO N N OD M .- N T 0 0 M O N C') ). (D CO CO U) n (0 n 0 .- N '- U) N ."' N H (0 .- OD n n U)n n 0) S) U) U) n n Ti C ..• Q' 0 M v.- i_ c0000MCDMMO10Q) MM OOD U) ..... M D 2 • N 0 E E 0 c O C a.) .on )r/a) cocococoMMU) Q00 .- (O .- 0 O t0 U) (0 > (0 0 a0 00 N N of ,- N 01 O O1 O N M .A„ H O Q N y O > iO (D O O0 U) n up n o � N c- U) N •" N O H C (CS OD O O) W )p Q Tp N N N 0 r- Q III P--GO Q m cco Q 0) O O W N- m N4 N a COC C N 11'1 Q Q Q Q M M M CNN .- 01 - Ti- 6,4 '0. '0 a) W 1') U C6 N C to ff) a1 _ • d C O 00 N a 3 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O N D O O O O O O O O O O O O RD E ' 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ W U) O U) 6 O O U) O U) U) O a) 6 O Q (O C) N U) OD N U) Q) Q O O OD O CC w o d c Tr Q Q QU) U) LO (O0O (Onn n (D & U9 69 y• U u.U fi O N N 0 0 0 0 8 8q 8 8 0 v0) H m O O O S 0 OP 0 0 '. ' (V W D (0 Cr;O) U) U) U)O N(V N N N M O U) U) O O (0 O) O) a) C) C) r- O Q � � ~ (C' O ((0 a0000MMMM (n0 c1.7) m � N O E 69 U) O) C N- 'O U O • ON C U) (f) 000000000 O, O 'O m N (V N C) C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U)' O C C `y .— O CO e- , 000000000 " ' N' LO y D N `) 0 0) ii) U) U)U) N N N N N a0 n `al E cD CO rc) v) 000o 00000 0, U) w c y D C O O 0 OO OO OO M M M M M N U) y j U -' (p r- CO (A � O N Q I 69 a. D > E y i, (d O O O • — oC c ( ' . O . , O ' , , , O ) ' ' 0 "U UO) r 6 N ui N d a) c co co Q a) 0 U) r- CO Q). c 69 691 N co c N N O M (0 0 4) W D O N N N O .- N M Q U) (O n 00 O 77 C 7 E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO • e - .. - N N N N N N N N N N N N N N } g s 4.lILBBA 1t c n lcdIIr BISHOP - BROGDEN ASSOCIATES , INC. ENGINEERING REPORT SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM Prepared for Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District JANUARY 2011 (Revised February 2011) EXHIBIT L. Ong acitC3 rr� A- , 3 � `iww,trbawater coin 333 West Hampden AN nue,Suite 1050 Fnglc,coud,Colorado 80110 phone 303.806.8952 h\ 303.806.8953 TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Page SECTION 1 -INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION 2-EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 SECTION 3 - WATER RIGHTS 2 3.1 Surface Water Supplies 2 3.2 Consolidated Mutual Contract 3 3.3 Farmers High Line Canal 3 3.4 Surface Water Rights for Future Use 4 3.5 Brantner Ditch 4 3.6 Fulton Ditch 5 3.7 Ground Water Rights 5 3.8 Total Potential Ground Water Rights 6 3.9 Existing Deep Wells 7 3.10 Total Available Water Supplies 7 SECTION 4-WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE 8 4.1 Overview 8 SECTION 5 — IRRIGATION WATER SYSTEM 9 5.1 Sources 9 5.2 Reservoirs 9 5.3 Marcus Reservoir 10 5.4 Smith Reservoir 10 5.5 Baseline Lakes 10 5.6 Signal Reservoirs 11 5.7 Pipelines 11 5.8 Irrigation System 11 1111: 1RWM1V. r�7I711v9jCT,L'firli� " Bishop-Bmgdcn Associates,Inc. • Table of Contents—continued SECTION 6—POTABLE SYSTEM 12 6.1 Sources 12 6.2 Reservoirs 12 6.3 Pipelines 12 6.4 Water Treatment Plant 12 6.5 Potable Water Storage 12 6.6 Delivery System 13 SECTION 7—WATER DEMANDS 13 7.1 Irrigation Demand 13 7.2 In-House Potable Demand 13 7.3 Total Demand 14 7.4 Total Current Available Supply Compared to Total Demands 14 ,'VVWWlllS'1kW1CCtCom bishopr 6rngdcn Ansociutcs.Inc. WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM SUMMARY TODD CREEK VILLAGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION The Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District (TCVMD or "District") was established in 1996 to provide water service to primarily residential development north of Denver and just west of Brighton. The District is located in Adams and Weld Counties generally between E-470 on the south, one-half mile north of Weld County Road 6 to the north, the South Platte River on the east, and Weld County Road 15 (Holly Street) on the west, as shown on the attached map. Based on current planning estimates, the TCVMD may provide service to upwards of 3,800 single family residential units (SFE's) in Adams County and 14,000 SFE's in Weld County. There are several areas with existing homes or small developments within the District's service area that already have established water supplies that may opt to receive service from the District in the future. Currently, TCVMD serves approximately 1,350 SFE's in Adams County south of 168th Avenue. This report summarizes the physical water supply system and water rights currently used by TCVMD, and comments on anticipated future water supplies and infrastructure. The TCVMD's supply system currently consists of the following key features: ti A dual-supply system for potable (indoor) demands and outdoor irrigation demands Water rights including rights in the Brantner and Fulton Ditches, as well as the Farmers High Line Canal Water storage in several reservoirs within the service area South Platte River alluvial wells Denver Basin wells from the Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer SECTION 2 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the legal water supplies currently available to the District and the demand associated with the current and proposed development within the District. This report - 1 -- I — 't:'si , ie .-.,. tltl. ,iY$'- Bishop-6ru drn :Associ,acs,Inc .1 ":.r �Se �r-: also shows that the legally available water is sufficient to support the current demands as well as significant portions of the proposed future demands. The table below presents a summary the District's current legal supply, the number of single family equivalents the water rights will support and the current District obligations. Maximum Legally Available Supplies (all sources, Residential Use—Excludes Golf Course Allocation) 3,343 acre-feet per year Number of Estate(1 ac) Residential Units(@ 0.564 af/yr) = 5,927 units Number of Suburban Residential Units(@ 0.47 af/yr estimated) = 7,113 units Average Legally Available Supplies (all sources, Residential Use—Excludes Golf Course Allocation) 2,203 acre-feet per year Number of Estate(1 ac) Residential Units(@ 0.564 af/yr) =3,906 units Number of Suburban Residential Units(@ 0.47 af/yr estimated) = 4,687 units Current District Obligations Total Taps Sold Approximately 2,300 SFE's Total Active Customers Approximately 1,350 SFE's SECTION 3 - WATER RIGHTS 3.1 Surface Water Supplies TCVMD owns and leases numerous surface and ground water rights. The direct flow surface water rights that are currently used are summarized in Table 1 below. - 2 - ,1 hi.hop hrokdrn :\.,oCLUc.,Inc. Table 1 TCVMD Surface Water Rights Currently In Use Water Supply Yield(ac-ft/y4 Source Use Average Range Consolidated Mutual Potable/ 500 500 Contract Irrigation Carlson FHL Lease Irrigation 400 400 Coors FHL Lease Irrigation 300 100- 1,650 Potable/ Coors Effluent Lease Irrigation 160 160- 250 Total Surface Water 1,360 1,160-2,800 3.2 Consolidated Mutual Contract The District entered into a contract with the Consolidated Mutual Water Company that provides for the delivery of 500 ac-ft per year. The contract deliveries are made to the South Platte River based on an agreed-upon schedule. All deliveries are fully-consumable water; however lawn irrigation and potable return flows are not currently being recaptured or reused. These return flows may be quantified and reused in the future under a plan for augmentation approved by the Water Court. 3.3 Farmers High Line Canal The Farmers High Line Canal (FHL) diverts from Clear Creek near Golden, Colorado, and carries water to Standley Lake and beyond. While this canal was originally constructed for the irrigation of lands as far north as Big Dry Creek, it is now primarily owned and operated by municipalities such as Westminster, Thornton and Arvada. It has direct flow rights on Clear Creek for a total of 733.6 cfs, as well as diversion rights on Ralston Creek, Little Dry Creek and Leyden Creek. In addition to storage in Standley Lake, the FHL system also has storage rights in Broad Lake, Hyatt Lake, and Leyden Reservoir. The deliveries for FHL, water can vary depending upon system supplies. Average year farm headgate diversions for FHL shares are believed to be approximately 33 ac-ft/yr per share, and dry year (such as 1954) farm headgate diversions are expected to be approximately 15 ac-ft/yr per share. The yields shown in the table above have been reduced to account for delivery loses in the Signal Ditch system, where TCVMD receives deliveries of the FHL shares. - 3 - t'--,�" *w bb Y['&w c np Bishop-Rrogdcn Assoc taus,Inc 3.4 Surface Water Rights for Future Use Additional direct flow surface water rights owned by TCVMD are summarized in Table 2 below. These irrigation water rights will need Water Court approval to change the location of use prior to use in some of the District's service area. Table 2 TCVMD Surface Water Rights for Future Use Source Shares Estimated Yield per Share Total Yield Old Brantner 18 14.5 261 New Brantner 18.375 17 312 Fulton Ditch 7 1.6 11 Total Surface Water 585 Notes: Estimated yields for Old Brantner and Fulton developed by BBA Estimated yield for New Brantner developed by Deere&Ault 3.5 Brantner Ditch The Brantner Ditch serves shareholders in the Old Brantner Ditch Company and the New Brantner Ditch Company. The District currently owns 18 shares of the 108 outstanding shares in the Old Brantner Ditch Company and 18.375 shares of the 300 outstanding shares in the New Brantner Ditch Company. The Brantner Ditch diverts from the South Platte River in the NEL/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 67 West. The ditch conveys water to Old Brantner Ditch shareholders over the first 4.7 miles along the ditch to Riverdale Road, and conveys water to New Brantner Ditch shareholders for the remaining roughly 22 miles of ditch. The Brantner Ditch has direct flow rights totaling 111.18 cfs, including the most senior water right(Priority No. 1) on the mainstem of the South Platte River. The Brantner Ditch has historically been operated so that the Old Brantner Ditch shareholders can take as much water as can be beneficially used while leaving the remainder of the diversions in the ditch for the New Brantner Ditch Company shareholders. TCVMD currently has a Water Court application filed (Case No. 08CW165) in order to change 17 of the 18 Old Brantner shares. The annual consumptive use of 17 of the 18 shares was estimated to be an average of approximately 247 ac-ft/yr, or 14.5 ac-ft per share. A portion of the New Branter shares are -4 - $ 7s iV.HII.. . CO1X' Bishop Rrokdcn Associutcs Inc. currently being diverted at the Guthrie Pump Station to the Baseline Lakes. Future plans are to increase the pump capacity to take additional shares at the same location. 3.6 Fulton Ditch The District currently owns seven (7) Fulton Ditch Irrigating Company shares recorded under Certificate No. 3427. The ditch is decreed for a total of 204.18 cfs for irrigation and has a total of 7,185 shares. The Fulton Ditch diverts from the South Platte River in NE 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 2 South, Range 67 West. The Fulton shares are not currently being used by TCVMD. The Fulton Ditch bylaws state that all shareholders must divert their water through the ditch prior to delivery. Because the service area of the Fulton Ditch is on the opposite side of the South Platte River and does not overlap the District service area, a Water Court change case and approval from the ditch company will be required prior to the shares being utilized for irrigation in the District. 3.7 Ground Water Rights The District owns various ground water rights from the nontributary Laramie-Fox Hills in the structural geologic basin known as the"Denver Basin". Nontributary water has been determined to not affect surface streamflows to a significant amount and, therefore, does not need to be augmented. The ground water rights currently owned by TCVMD are summarized in Table 3 below. - 5 - www.bb'awaer.cotn, bishop Gro..den:Associatcs.Inc. TCVMD Groundwater Rights Completed Laramie-Fox Hills Decree Wells (nontributary) 83CW136 27 87CW258 Nos. 1-6 226 96CW242 No.9 15 97C W186 186 39 98C W396 396 38 99CW124 Nos.7& 8 24 99C W l41 38 99CW042 34 00C W254 254 134 02CW 106 No. 10 178 04C W 108 91 Total Decreed 843 Potential Future Ground Water Rights 780 Total Potential Ground Water Rights 1,623 Notes: 02CW 106 is also referred to as the"Five Parcel Decree" 3.8 Total Potential Ground Water Rights There are additional nontributary ground water supplies available to the District that have not been decreed at this time. The total nontributary supply that can be filed for in the future is approximately 780 ac-ft/yr. If all ground water rights accessible to TCVMD in Adams County are successfully decreed, it will bring the total ground water rights available to the District to approximately 1,623 ac-ft/yr. -6 - '^ WWW.hbaWArtLtifrlll Bishop lirogdcn .\ssoclatck Ent_. 3.9 Existing Deep Wells Table 4 summarizes the existing wells currently owned and operated by the District. Currently, only Well Nos. 3 and 7 are in operation Table 4 TCVMD Operational Wells Summary Permit Well No. Case No. Aquifer Completed Location Well#1 46216-F 87CW958 LFH Section 10,TIS,R67W,3810 ft FNL, 1300 ft FWL Well#2 47815-F 87CW958 LFH Section 10,TIS,R67W,540 ft FSL, 1900 ft FWL Well#3 49680-F 87CW958 LFH Section 15,TIS,R67W,5 ft FSL,20 ft FWL Well#4 49941-F 87CW958 LFH Section 15,TIS,R67W, 15 ft FSL, 1170 ft FWL Well#5 53128-F 87CW958 LFH Section 15,T15,R67W, 5 ft FSL,2620 ft FEL Well#6 53127-F 87CW958 LFH Section 15,TIS,R67W,5 ft FSL, 1320 ft FEL Well#7 54359-F 99CW124 LFH Section 22,TIS,R67W, 1000 ft FNL, 1790 ft FEL Well#8 54358-F 99CW 124 LFH Section 22,TIS,R67W, 1400 ft FNL,300 ft FEL 87CW258 and Well#9 55804-F 96CW242 LFH Section 15,T1S,R67W, 100 ft FSL,450 ft FEL Well#10 59157-F 02CW 106 LFH Section 16,TIS,R67W, 1800 ft FSL,2210 ft FEL Notes: All wells located west of the Sixth Principal Meridian. FNL=from North section line. FSL=from South section line. FEL- from East section line. FWL=from West section line. The decreed ground water supply currently available to TCVMD totals approximately 843 ac- ft/yr. The existing wells tap into 443 ac-ft of the decreed available nontributary ground water. Therefore, with construction of additional wells, the District could access and deliver the remaining presently decreed ground water rights of 400 ac-ft/year. 3.10 Total Available Water Rights The total available water rights with a minimum of 1,160 ac-ft of surface water and 843 ac-ft of decreed ground water, adds up to a minimum of 2,003 ac-ft/yr, as shown in Table 5, below. Using the maximum available surface water rights, that sum increases to 3,643 ac-ft/yr. The currently available water with the existing wells adds up to a minimum of 1,603 ac-ft, and a maximum of 3,243 ac-ft/yr. - 7 - q1; bishop-Lirogdcn Assad.}tce,Inc. Table 5 TCVMD Total Currently Available Water Rights (ac-ft) Sources Legally Available Currently Available LFH(nontributary) 843 443 Total Ground Water 843 443 Sources Minimum Maximum Consolidated Mutual Contract 500 500 Carlson FHL Lease 400 400 Coors FHL Lease 100 1,650 Coors Effluent Lease 160 250 Total Surface Water 1160 2800 Totals Minimum Legally Available 2003 Minimum Currently Available 1603 Maximum Legally Available 3643 Maximum Currently Available 3243 SECTION 4 - WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE 4.1 Overview TCVMD has a dual water system which provides potable and irrigation water through separate delivery systems. The irrigation water system includes alluvial wells, raw water storage, various ditches, pipelines and pumps. The irrigation water system can also be supplemented from the deep ground water wells if necessary. The irrigation water pipelines and pumps bring water into the system, are able to redistribute the water among certain reservoirs and deliver raw water for irrigation to the service area. The potable water system includes the same alluvial wells as the irrigation water system and the Denver Basin wells. The alluvial well water is piped to a reverse osmosis (R.O.) treatment plant, where it is blended with the Denver Basin water for delivery to the potable distribution system. The raw water storage and ditch deliveries are not currently used as a potable source, although these sources could be treated at the R.O. plant with a different set of filter membranes. - 8 - 4S. 1 tNIib' iQY.t4 ' 1,. b'hop-Bro.dcn Asaociates,Inc. x i;" re., i.e SECTION 5 -IRRIGATION WATER SYSTEM The irrigation water system can use both the surface water and ground water rights; however the surface water rights are primarily used. 5.1 Sources The direct flow surface water rights are taken two ways; the Coors and Carlson Farmers High Line (FHL) leases are delivered through the FHL Canal, while the Consolidated Mutual Contract and Coors Effluent Lease are diverted from the South Platte River through the two alluvial wells. A portion of the Brantner water is presently diverted at the Guthrie Pump and Pipeline and stored in Baseline Lakes. 5.2 Reservoirs TCVMD currently has five reservoirs online; Smith, Marcus, the recently rehabilitated Signal Reservoir No. 2 and the East and West Baseline Lakes. A sixth reservoir, Signal Reservoir No. 1 will be rehabilitated and made operational when demand requires it. The reservoirs currently only store irrigation water for TCVMD. A summary of the reservoirs and capacities are shown in Table 6 below. Table 6 Reservoir Storage Capacity (ac-ft) Smith 300 Marcus 18 Signal No. 2 160 Baseline Lakes (East &West) 105 Active Storage Total 583 Signal No. 1 300 Total Future Storage 883 - 9 - g ' . akti•' 'iVOi.tijui Bishop Brogdcn Associ.nis,Ins. • 5.3 Marcus Reservoir Marcus Reservoir receives flows from the FHL shares through the Signal Ditch and from the alluvial wells through the Seltzer Pipeline. Eventually, it will receive flows from the Old and New Brantner shares through the Guthrie Pipeline and Seltzer Pipeline. From Marcus Reservoir, water can be delivered to Smith Reservoir, Signal Reservoir No. 2 or Baseline Lakes for longer term storage. Water can be pumped back to Marcus Reservoir from the Signal Reservoir No. 2 and then delivered to Smith Reservoir when needed. Marcus Reservoir is located in Section 4, Township 1 South, Range 67 West, shown on the attached map. 5.4 Smith Reservoir TCVMD owns the structure and water rights associated with the Smith Reservoir (Smith Reservoir). The reservoir is located in the SW 1/4 of Section 9, in Township 1 South, Range 67 West. Smith Reservoir has a capacity of approximately 300 ac-ft, and is filled from FHL/Signal Ditch deliveries and from the South Platte River alluvial wells. There are two decrees for the Smith Reservoir. One decree is for 263.6 ac-ft from Clear Creek with an appropriation date of May 1, 1907. (CA 60052) A second water right was decreed from Todd Creek for 150 ac-ft with the same appropriation date. Therefore, a total of 413.6 ac-ft is decreed for the reservoir. The Clear Creek water right was decreed for domestic, stockwatering, and irrigation uses; the Todd Creek water right is decreed solely for irrigation uses. The Smith Reservoir water rights are not calculated into the available water rights for TCVMD and the reservoir is discussed herein only for its storage capacity for other water rights. 5.5 Baseline Lakes Baseline Lakes are also known as the Stouffer Reservoirs or Guthrie Reservoirs. Like Smith Reservoir, these reservoirs also have water rights decreed in CA60052 which are not included in the total available water rights for TCVMD. These reservoirs are actively used for their storage capacity. Baseline Lake No. 1 has a decreed capacity of 50.71 ac-fl and No. 2 has a decreed capacity of 54.47 ac-ft for a total of 105.18 ac-ft. They are currently being used for storage of FHL deliveries and New Brantner shares taken through the Guthrie Pump and Pipeline, and for irrigation of the Baseline Lakes Development. These Lakes will be fully incorporated into the - 10 — .Lot,, r t. `,,,=•%14.a cre Bishop Bro};cicn Assoc i itcs,Inc. TCVMD irrigation system once the source water (Old and/or New Brantner shares) has been approved for irrigation throughout TCVMD and the future TCVN. The Guthrie Pipeline can already connect to Marcus Reservoir. 5.6 Signal Reservoirs The Signal Reservoirs No. 1 and No. 2 were acquired by TCVMD from the City of Westminster in approximately 2008. Presently, Signal Reservoir No. 2 has been rehabilitated and made active within the TCVMD raw water system. Signal Reservoir No. I will similarly be rehabilitated and put into service when needed to help meet system demands. Signal Reservoir No. 1 and Signal Reservoir No. 2 have storage capacities of approximately 300 ac-ft and 160 ac-ft, respectively. Currently, No. 2 can store excess water when Smith and Marcus Reservoirs are full, then provide water back to Smith and Marcus when needed. Both filling and return pumping are through Marcus Reservoir. 5.7 Pipelines The Seltzer Pipeline connects the South Platte alluvial wells with the R.O. Plant and Marcus Reservoir. Water can be directed to either or both locations; however, it primarily directs water to the R.O. Plant. Any water not utilized by the R.O. Plant is stored in Smith Reservoir. The location of the Seltzer pipeline is shown on the attached map. The Guthrie Pump and Pipeline diverts water from the New Brantner portion of the Brantner Ditch and stores it in the Baseline Lakes for irrigation of nearby lands. The Guthrie Pipeline has been extended beyond the Baseline Lakes to the Seltzer Pipeline for future deliveries to Marcus Reservoir. The tie-in to the Seltzer Pipeline is beyond the R.O. Pipeline, so water can only be delivered to Marcus Reservoir from the Guthrie Pipeline. 5.8 Irrigation System TCVMD provides raw irrigation water to all homes and the golf course through a separate water line as part of their dual water system. Irrigation water is moved to Smith Reservoir as needed from the raw water sources and other reservoirs and pumped from there through the raw water irrigation line. - 11 - ;,+ 3;e's4r,Wl , x&e 1Qta ',:.,, Bishop Brogdcn \ssociateti,Inc. SECTION 6- POTABLE SYSTEM 6.1 Sources The two existing alluvial wells and the LFH ground water wells provide all the potable source water for the existing demands through the R.O. Plant. A third alluvial well has been acquired from the City of Aurora, but has not been put online at this time. The third alluvial well will be able to tie into the Seltzer Pipeline to provide both potable source water and raw water. 6.2 Reservoirs While all of the TCVMD reservoirs are currently used as raw water reservoirs, Smith Reservoir can store potable supplies from the alluvial and LFH wells, then use them later by using different filters at the R.O. Plant, if necessary. 6.3 Pipelines TCVMD delivers water to the R.O. treatment plant through the Seltzer Pipeline to a tee that delivers water directly to the plant. A line is also connected to the ground water wells that deliver water directly to the plant. 6.4 Water Treatment Plant The water treatment plant is located on W. 153rd Avenue as shown on the attached map. It is a reverse osmosis (R.O.) plant with a pretreatment filtration and post-treatment disinfection. The initial R.O. module can treat 450,000 gpd currently, with the ability to expand up to 675,000 gpd. 6.5 Potable Water Storage TCVMD has an elevated potable water storage tank capable of storing one million gallons, or 3.07 ac-ft. There is also a buried potable clear well at the WTP which can store up to 250,000 gallons, or 0.77 ac-ft. The total potable storage is 3.84 ac-ft. - 12 - � kt 'y�� k^3 tt Qgtlt Rishnp-Rrot;ilcn,lssocixac,Inc t `7 w 6.6 Delivery System Potable water is delivered through a separate line from the irrigation water as part of the dual water system. The potable system delivers water directly from the R.O. Plant and the potable storage. SECTION 7-WATER DEMANDS 7.1 Irrigation Demand A demand projection was completed in a BBA May 2002 Engineering Report. The projection was modeled on irrigated lawn standards of 5,000 square feet per Estate (1 acre) residential unit. The total demand for the lawn grass irrigation at the residences is based on the average crop irrigation requirement for lawn grass in the area and assuming an average sprinkler irrigation efficiency of 80 percent. The average crop irrigation requirement (CIR) was found to average 2.20 feet per year. The demand per SFE was determined to average approximately 0.32 ac-ft/yr for 5,000 square feet of lawn. Current demands from 2010 were compared with the projections as shown in Table 6, below. Demands for 2010 show approximately 0.41 ac-ft/yr per SFE for lawn irrigation, or 0.09 ac-ft/yr per SFE more than projected long-term average. It is estimated that future lots within TCVMD (Suburban Residential) will be closer to the original projected use of approximately 0.32 ac-ft per SFE. 7.2 In-House Potable Demand Projected water demands for in-house use at the single family equivalents (or SFE's) were also calculated in 2002 using commonly accepted water use assumptions. Assuming an average of three residents per unit, 80 gallons per person per day, and year-round occupancy, the average annual in-house use per SFE is approximately 87,600 gallons per year, or 0.269 acre-feet per year (ac-ft/yr). Current demands from 2010 were compared with the projections as shown in Table 6, below. Demands for 2010 show 0.154 ac-ft/yr per SFE for potable use, or 0.115 ac-ft/yr less than projected. - 13 - , ,tt+,„ wwwtviTottatetata Bishop BrogdcnIfriSt, Asnociares.Inc. {k 7.3 Total Demand The total demand per SFE is equivalent to the demand for both in-house potable use and lawn irrigation demand. The total demand projected per SFE is approximately 0.585 ac-ft/yr per Estate SFE and 0.47 ac-ft per Suburban SFE which is summarized in Table 7 below. The total 2010 demands per SFE is 0.564 ac-ft/yr, or 0.021 ac-ft/yr less than projected long-term average. Table 7 TCVMD Projected Water Demand per SFE (ac-ft/SFE) Demands Lawn Irrigation Potable Total Estate Projected 0.316 0.269 0.585 Estate 2010 0.41 0.154 0.564 Suburban Projected 0.32 0.15 0.47 The projected average and actual demands in acre-feet have been summarized in Table 8 below. Table 8 TCVMD 2010 Water Demand (Estate Only) (ac-ft) Demands Lawn Irrigation Golf Course Total Irrigation Potable Total Demand Projected 426.6 330 756.6 363.15 1119.8 2010 553.5 268 821.5 207.9 1029.4 Notes: Demands based on 1350 single family equivalents in 2010. While lawn irrigation demand for 2010 exceeded the long-term average projections by approximately 127 ac-ft, golf course demand was 62 ac-ft less than projected. Overall, total irrigation exceeded projected average demands by approximately 65 ac-ft. Potable demands for 2010 were less than projected the average by approximately 155 ac-ft. Overall, 2010 total demands were approximately 90 ac-ft less than the projected long-term average. 7.4 Total Current Available Supply Compared to Total Demands The total current water supply available to TCVMD ranges between a minimum of 1,603 ac-ft/yr and a maximum of 3,243 ac-ft/yr based on the surface water amounts shown in Table 1 and the water available to the existing ground water wells. As a whole, these supplies, even at the minimum level, more than satisfy the current level of demands shown in Table 8. - 14 - ° ,;}, ii+*N bbaj ater.co` t Bishop-Rrogdcn Assoc iatcs Inc. 0 - -- — • C O � Y = _ _ ca ' g LL d ITS •—• - vr 1e 2 ii ..' L Vp d m a V W d 1 Q tiQ J a C C ` 2 m 6 Y Q - o x a m m ° L 214: v cLMEL' L 1C O E a 0 t eV u ri ar Q• CD a .4... a ea •JLO dm7;61 v c 'I 4.) C0 U L 1. a i C7 a J O Lo C.D r s o t N 2 g di ass ea 1 fir, _ . CD i 4 •;�. ,- r ; .• x t I ; ! 11-- '- ,1 . i g - --- - -t`' �� - 1 --' '-T�• , ,. ' Ali { 1,Bi �:-r �l ! --- �I -7— •- _ - -—-- - .i ; ice ' "�a��_• - ; _ _ - ••, �• II a , IN; • t +y Mi , n 10 u J L7 5 u N i/—/-% N-- 7 5 • (I\-- . bit• i • Llpr c a • g t CO .1 ••, r{ \ b O {D b r o r o e Z • o e t K Y I. c f a o- _ IX \\\> I. 44 1 T H :r I- Z_ l I.... I Z D i . = o I r O c) I V I N -I . 1 1 J. . .. f: t q .:7 - .•lam —r- -�, • f! i l - . IA *. .... .; 1 1 - = sy • . I Z N ter • ti .• y .,, }- fiPP f ,':yIE..Y•Fiiiir_.,• fri ''' •• bie .1 . �. ,NjT a CI. :� a { :t ., � `;F•TZ'� 1 '_ - ff , C :IQ -E ;a, Q p y'lir i. > W f— ...� ._. • '.' � � 1 _ ..; \ �.. 1.. r 1;�� < `p„f, j 1; +Oj Z_ (n O .- L C1 L.... i r JJ Q Z .7 1; �f: '>• Q. �\ Y iE .- - .., �'�— + - , LL WQ' C ll a !!!/// l ; a ^ t ' Y o • i"{ N � W 11O017pz �- �. "L�"'."✓'LL' 1. �,•• Q �% fi' • ',_ :�-: e ".� •1� U O O z U (� p TaL L tJ1' {- `� `f W 7 : � .Yr. U) ( _ •'ogi'o ', y% SO L aca aLL ¢ } ZW m a Uv i 2c > ZZ O '+:rt,: . - '" . �' ,`y 1L ' (��'t' 19 � WQcc Q EC p ,�n •. ncc QQ 1.9 r Q • ^ 'OPt`'. I.r. r,K •� n �.- ..n < "a I W /�,{.• ! It ! HHIfl• 11 UflHHPJI . !_Q - ►r-.A ,4 • ` , a)• ' st. \Cc.ti i •- • / i• CO IWPHI! l s •' . 1O ( li g', •'.3 .L rM P L�..' - 1-. -- - _ i.t.i ....+ :1 w- -��+ ,-..E. N (D Q Y F- c1' L E f0 ! 7,fi �. 'y , y ._ -.,,.i .rte.. T N @ IiiO 1- r- Q U 2' c_ > pto °' • . __ -A_ 1 `. n �i ,�. . I , ��.rr�'. A _".s - �!1 ' tin C O >.�ticnZW p E ` •, • _ .,_• .- � .. , : v Wit( V<+ ✓ HU. ,,,�.. : CC • -i L_ 'y4. b'.,,• `,?-n.,Allilit •• ; ll ! ,ii:„. p O ' or a 2' p a_ d J � D c c 1 ' tom . jrJ 0 ffLii Cr (� W J- x : m c !CD Qc o � �= ' 1.11 U _J A . •" P U O En tl — : (o ( w Ql11 1 •� j c UipLi_ Z S5 . 41 �, i., s, L r i is • /� , y ts L ` W W O L T� • �4YWI,ile ..-,7 . - , ,.a ► 11 .. -� _ .,• K• ... _ �' �r (- - al ; A f fir. - yt 4 y N 3 C X Z x Z m O In • F _ tu,u Irf' \ R4r 1 : . o 00_ W )- 0 c _ b iii i�f l� i ,l .EL — i__, U ? ((} • r r - _ z � wZ c �t i o c� �e � . . 7q�� s '.;r� ■q j HmO � W = OZi �co c fa '�. Y" „ I'-- ~ 'c) - - , ti. 3,.- j }"_ • 1, .. ,�.,. .iw -'- - `M. fi• _ _ • i -moo g `o p w U Q E H 3, • iii W u N %sill --7 t Y a w -“ ,- .. . L 111 1 r;.. ,_ r .>_ 'J / . m P '! T Z Q 7 ' '-- } !' - �1�1 • \•:. __wry"—_.IY/.�,' t N 'a ��'} •,JJ • 13-- v' •• n -.1. T /__• or CID d y T' IX Q 4 D � WFW- !'.. u, 2 [ � `l - i <E. -s-i— co cc . a 'x I4 " ~`1 N . N lY nIt r J . u1 • Q r' �L -.1. 1.- 111 O � r ; ; t1Z 1 - 1- z = �C Z CY = �t1 iu d" c a z U1 � < I n Q Z lii t . ,ry..r -; ,y t Yi 1.177:etk�- • r'- r r 4 , r. ill Q Z J r: 1 f C </� Lr 1 ' ;': .sapQQil t D f- - i.11 • 1t CO '- _ '�� D pia (�� O ,CC Cr w � G J ,, Z !rG -. -' -- uU'i � r • Ith �U? Q x ~'\ 410, hll,>u', . ,, . S11!1 ,. . • - �, �:,. Y .' r. Z (11 y it..., In D�1 © s 0 W _1 • W 7 f ;i ( i I O r�.. � Z'G 4' Wiz, '• r - / U cilL .yy /y �x A ` .. �' l �YI h :� A n A,�� Ste' —.. ` o Ili. !L I: ♦ r-.:A Tla' CI i._, `j .. _ Gi 1 V Q (�1 J - _ ' \l � I- :�,��i r.�y'srY T" y U ]; J. 1, y CO CI) it_i` tit • J}` 4 44 C J as., Yn M' • t- a COr O,,,.. Yi,_ Wince• - ` ,. v a CL N - I- H 2. Z 14-1 7.,...i ., -_. ...' . i. :..1 ...: r si '±',/,, . _ }tif'21' 11�. .- �rez + !. i e� � - . • fW 1(70:.". Q y�y —'' �I H•, I. :••••• '. - 1� 1. rt. t 7. d :Q . • LZy t"5 u > }+ F !_J i ,:w.----. CB's C H W MUD' --'.it . •EN\ Cr.) i II,. ilY0 n: Li. _,... '' c ::-.] z.tia •:. . # , — 1 t i v - it - f . .� - .l \/�' l X. f r` - M� f f i �`'I° U— ii 11 q ;� r cu 4' S;„ _� J. . aft In_' {.'- - _ �. - - "i i r • V7 : - -<-.. ,.hip - • V{ ,,.� .- _ i„,‘„. 1— '�7' a t.% •f wl J` c]„ O G J +1 G: , , OL Q-lin. 2 ) . • CC T c ID 4 tb ' w 1- Z •0J it;' j W ks --•-1 �• -, n • ' �( Q 0 0 J .....-- . . a L./.) Ce(L) 8 , ... . , , . ._._ _. ..... ....._.L.n. i ..„ .,... .: I . -4 CO CJ z O CO t -4-91..:.:::1: ,j4e4":"S t'..7%WI :.'. .1..1.‘: .1 . . .. NI hin" ,J CL' f"` 11+ C? Z O V Z d tr. •._ e ::::-.: ...I:. _ _.. . '.S.,. Q LX O i -z � u, �' Th Y oCr) y U ) ti `= s - Mt C) 0- W � � lY i _ .N Cr.Z Ul `' —. ~ c ) cif) 0 Q .'�,_ . 'C :Y..'-- Gt. W. v rl�'�►` __- - z rtH. :; •1.S, .Sr T3 }. `,` , = aisle =1 � x � W _ ¢ 3 any a ,. s. ,� J , T i.I1I •.i -r. it 0. �! , 4i. s, 4 � u li , :i, r L ! • 1r o 1 10,4 Pei � � m i b. tS w w ,( COO � 9 iQ t 6in 2rsJ 51 n $ il im 5 -11: j il i 1 i r 1 g g 1 , . glil 5 (1- 1 It sataqm Q & Z • Q n. I a j y't * • A t r, • i ■ dr CI001) t • I ► ` is ` A h • II • kr: t RS •ill 0 I + t is IP 01 le I -.a 111471/11.14• li 'seI • IS , r • I . 1 :on •liti L . I x it/ [ , . • y • 4111) 11.4 il Vi' St \ t :.. .., it , .... . CD1 For#%- I. 1 eft/I/fit( 1 It/4 $ } I' I' • y ffT T : t4'L , I._ ,e•V --- • ,.ztiz ts. :.,./ •e-i��. .t • , • f .„,,s,„{:,,,,. .• ,. ♦ ysto, /- _//' -•,,I . t %»'f) :I / it, '- .1 1 IR s�—.� ---- z•-1 _ --- _ _.. , ' ` rZ i 1 ! se ^ I t 4. ,,,�Lill t ion 4 - .... i ri -;.. klisk _ aii� y t I' , !? ,..f:—. , 41) Q t. I • \ , 1., / ilp .. . i 72 tit , b Iron an....."--- .u'ilifi. : tir: ,, re ,.. , '•\ i / 1 , MS 0 •- i a r" Hu.. c _, i ,_ \ 1 I , witimut:c . . „... , \... ' ' ti is Hy , i}; '�3 ,z,,,,? ti ; .„ m - 3 4 II 1 . _ -- b ; it, au au },ti 5 a .r` U - G t1 _ • • • IIMMNN.. �1 f f O N t . cri fit! • 4:1-<%t - - i C +,,Q ,r ,.s i • i fit! 1 1 ...,-;<__.1/4„..‘ --tli, -..i,..\\iL. ' 2 I• 'I11‘3 . \/ Ur,. 0'•, i� 1il`•f1l; I: t IA rat, a • ^` J •if . • ' . -*II CCI _Si e .. , . _ ife. . . t.... „.._ cr. .. . , ..,re—.- ; . it, fe-..,,,--, . , .. ..7 •.,,...„.,..., / i ),..,,- ,, /I) T. ,---- %. . .---,, , -\ _- -t k. , i 3t)\iv i , .. P. _..1 � l I C� L § , fi ft , f ' � $ p y,0 1 ` 4-I le lirI Ulj i it% M I .� s-. Z • . w _ ^. -14 o - - - of II `° U l' �` �. n IN . c., - a_ _BON 0 > lice) ► `� __ �N� I Peon a6e}uoad`_Z-`r _ 6 ; . x I I tJL i 1 i . 1�3 _• r' ji �� V I, ♦ SUMMARY The RUA application has not complied with the policies of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as to the following: • The RUA is not compatible with the existing use of the surrounding area. • The applicant will not pay for the building of schools and fire stations. • The applicant has not demonstrated that it can reasonably obtain the necessary water for the project and cannot provide sewer to the entire RUA. • The RUA is still in conflict with the following IGAs: Todd Creek and the City of Fort Lupton Todd Creek and the City of Thornton Weld County and the City of Fort Lupton Weld County and the City of Dacono • Urban scale development should occur within the urban growth areas of municipalities. • There is no need for urban scale development in this area because there are, conservatively, 22,000 zoned or unbuilt platted lots within five miles of the RUA and there will be a demand for only 12,000 to 16,000 dwelling units. Dacono 7,168 Brighton 8,000—9,000 Todd Creek 2,200 —2,600 (Adams County- south of RUA) Thornton 11,000 Total 28,168 It was announced last week that financing has been obtained for a 2800 unit development in the Weld County portion of Erie and Frederick's website indicates that they have 14,300 undeveloped lots. • The overwhelming majority of residents, over 150 in the area shown on the map, are in opposition to the RUA To the Weld County Commissioners: We,the undersigned,are adamantly opposed to the Dry Creek RUA. We own property within the proposed service area for Todd Creek Village Metro District(TCVMD)or live and own property adjacent to the proposed RUA. We are opposed for several reasons: 1. First and foremost we believe the expansion of the service area is an infringement on our property rights.Any future development of properties within the area,or for that matter,once the sewer lines are in place,any replacement of our septic systems will be require to utilize the sewer service of the TCVMD.If this is approved,property owners are bound to this developer for sewer service in perpetuity. We were not given the opportunity to vote on this matter or even noticed as to the expansion of the service area. The costs for the service will be up to 200%higher than those who live in Fort Lupton.We had NO say in being included in the service area;we had NO say in the costs of the service;and we have NO capability or RIGHT to even vote on the TCVMD board members which set the rates and make the determination of costs related to the infrastructure. This is absurd and clearly a breach of our rights. 2. The Sheriffs office lacks the resources necessary to absorb additional service demands.We already have up to 20 minute response times in the area—this proposal will just exacerbate the public safety issues we have in the southern most part of our county. 3. The RUA is not a"master planned community". It is a huge sub-division that belongs in a municipality.The request essentially proposes creation of a new stand-alone town, but without the full range of uses characteristic of towns. 4. There is no need for this proposal—the county has over 22,000 vacant homes now. The need for additional urban-scale development does not exist,this proposal is premature.None of the surrounding municipalities have expressed the interest or ability to annex the proposed area,and the amount of existing zoned land in the surrounding region is enough to support the projected future population for 20 years and beyond. 5. The RUA proposes to provide critical water and sewer from opposite geographic directions— sewer from Fort Lupton(to the north),and water from the current Todd Creek Metropolitan District(to the south).The logistics and financing of such a proposal do not provide for successful implementation,since development anywhere on the site would essentially require ultimate build-out extension of either the water or sewer line—a difficult proposition. 6. They are not creating any primary sector jobs. So no economic development. 7. We and other current taxpayers will pay for the costs of building 4 more schools.Growth should pay its own wayl 8. There are holes in the planning area—leaving enclaves of agricultural zoned properties. 9. TCVMD does not provide detailed information about whether it has either ownership or purchase rights to water,in amounts adequate to serve the proposed RUA.The state engineer questions the viability of enough water for the RUA. We are concerned about the impact on our water wells and our Mountain View Water Association. R• dry--1 Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new,expanded property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled,poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUM. Thank you— NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA . . i C r!-'4 //ACC:it ,90--3:21, L CLa/ L/1 f 4 isro J a '{�SS,if �\>� AinA iO`jc4WtR \�j \ aZ F\ -VryVida f Q d (.o..tt- ^1027(ooC,{Y Rot a- i AD 4t��.sNrneso.,k orkS Q�� s. I I M C R AA ckr) 4 an--c .t.Itt E at-L.Lrn-, tr nc ra.r..✓ rOvta7 Wet t S-err aryk 4Be a al.cot , m a-3/4 t 1 .0 cc --ta/ 1 o-16 j GC/! 2.� S`/2-S r, et .s1&flo-n aMisJe 1OMFG ,7 LUG$' I ye 3os-4 i S� �fAgs 3/er wc[z 4i ay .h 96-3-2_90?) M]{/� `4614Am'tta 3,co cRS I 15 303--gS4-1-7is? Sr e-n bPdN• ;Ai cle\c; a7i ci07 c1 7,10-L �in.�' 7i G c_tc, ;19, Li- 9 R t cr ,10,7:74.:)521172 ';5 5 .��i 7 e-2d , '7n(- Cuocit so? c'; °'s7 To the Weld County Commissioners: We, the undersigned, are adamantly opposed to the Dry Creek RUA. We own property within the proposed service area for Todd Creek Village Metro District (TCVMD)or live and own property adjacent to the proposed RUA. We are opposed for several reasons: 1. First and foremost we believe the expansion of the service area is an infringement on our property rights.Any future development of properties within the area,or for that matter, once the sewer lines are in place, any replacement of our septic systems will be require to utilize the sewer service of the TCVMD. If this is approved, property owners are bound to this developer for sewer service in perpetuity. We were not given the opportunity to vote on this matter or even noticed as to the expansion of the service area. The costs for the service will be up to 200% higher than those who live in Fort Lupton. We had NO say in being included in the service area; we had NO say in the costs of the service; and we have NO capability or RIGHT to even vote on the TCVMD board members which set the rates and make the determination of costs related to the infrastructure. This is absurd and clearly a breach of our rights. 2. The Sheriffs office lacks the resources necessary to absorb additional service demands. We already have up to 20 minute response times in the area—this proposal will just exacerbate the public safety issues we have in the southern most part of our county. 3. The RUA is not a "master planned community". It is a huge sub-division that belongs in a municipality. The request essentially proposes creation of a new stand-alone town, but without the full range of uses characteristic of towns. 4. There is no need for this proposal—the county has over 22,000 vacant homes now. The need for additional urban-scale development does not exist, this proposal is premature. None of the surrounding municipalities have expressed the interest or ability to annex the proposed area, and the amount of existing zoned land in the surrounding region is enough to support the projected future population for 20 years and beyond. 5. The RUA proposes to provide critical water and sewer from opposite geographic directions—sewer from Fort Lupton (to the north),and water from the current Todd Creek Metropolitan District(to the south).The logistics and financing of such a proposal do not provide for successful implementation, since development anywhere on the site would essentially require ultimate build-out extension of either the water or sewer line —a difficult proposition. 6. They are not creating any primary sector jobs. So no economic development. 7. We and other current taxpayers will pay for the costs of building 4 more schools. Growth should pay its own way! 8. There are holes in the planning area—leaving enclaves of agricultural zoned properties. f • 9. TCVMD does not provide detailed information about whether it has either ownership or purchase rights to water,in amounts adequate to serve the proposed RUA.The state engineer questions the viability of enough water for the RUA. We are concerned about the impact on our water wells and our Mountain View Water Association. Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new, expanded property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you— NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA J! l 1 / jam' :/' /7 ! s�' %G/<ir-y Van, - a sri- 2603 pct If7 to ca,-rC- 72 Cr flo 7o3 1 To the Weld County Commissioners: We,the undersigned, are adamantly opposed to the Dry Creek RUA. We own property within the proposed service area for Todd Creek Village Metro District (TCVMD)or live and own property adjacent to the proposed RUA. We are opposed for several reasons: 1. First and foremost we believe the expansion of the service area is an infringement on our property rights.Any future development of properties within the area,or for that matter,once the sewer lines are in place,any replacement of our septic systems will be require to utilize the sewer service of the TCVMD. If this is approved, property owners are bound to this developer for sewer service in perpetuity. We were not given the opportunity to vote on this matter or even noticed as to the expansion of the service area. The costs for the service will be up to 200%higher than those who live in Fort Lupton.We had NO say in being included in the service area; we had NO say in the costs of the service; and we have NO capability or RIGHT to even vote on the TCVMD board members which set the rates and make the determination of costs related to the infrastructure. This is absurd and clearly a breach of our rights. 2. The Sheriffs office lacks the resources necessary to absorb additional service demands. We already have up to 20 minute response times in the area—this proposal will just exacerbate the public safety issues we have in the southern most part of our county. 3. The RUA is not a "master planned community". It is a huge sub-division that belongs in a municipality.The request essentially proposes creation of a new stand-alone town, but without the full range of uses characteristic of towns. 4. There is no need for this proposal—the county has over 22,000 vacant homes now. The need for additional urban-scale development does not exist,this proposal is premature. None of the surrounding municipalities have expressed the interest or ability to annex the proposed area, and the amount of existing zoned land in the surrounding region is enough to support the projected future population for 20 years and beyond. 5. The RUA proposes to provide critical water and sewer from opposite geographic directions—sewer from Fort Lupton(to the north), and water from the current Todd Creek Metropolitan District(to the south).The logistics and financing of such a proposal do not provide for successful implementation, since development anywhere on the site would essentially require ultimate build-out extension of either the water or sewer line —a difficult proposition. 6. They are not creating any primary sector jobs. So no economic development. 7. We and other current taxpayers will pay for the costs of building 4 more schools. Growth should pay its own way! 8. There are holes in the planning area—leaving enclaves of agricultural zoned properties. 9. TCVMD does not provide detailed information about whether it has either ownership or purchase rights to water, in amounts adequate to serve the proposed RUA.The state engineer questions the viability of enough water for the RUA. We are concerned about the impact on our water wells and our Mountain View Water Association. Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new, expanded property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area. This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area—our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled, poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you— NAME ADDRESS YEARS in PHONE/EMAIL AREA z )G C � r t � X03 651 i 3 /—/ 17 1 0 3 c3 G,S y 176,5- /-/.5- CZ p.e ' 'P 7y.1 Q Cz& . 5 3D, gZ 3 i yi ff r ` c � C /4 I I 3'3--65'1 -�2'5 L S '=�� ll7 5/G . To the Weld County Commissioners: We,the undersigned,are adamantly opposed to the Dry Creek RUA. We own property within the proposed service area for Todd Creek Village Metro District(TCVMD)or live and own property adjacent to the proposed RUA. We are opposed for several reasons: 1. First and foremost we believe the expansion of the service area is an infringement on our property rights.Any future development of properties within the area,or for that matter,once the sewer lines are in place,any replacement of our septic systems will be require to utilize the sewer service of the TCVMD.If this is approved,property owners are bound to this developer for sewer service in perpetuity. We were not given the opportunity to vote on this matter or even noticed as to the expansion of the service area. The costs for the service will be up to 200%higher than those who live in Fort Lupton.We had NO say in being induded in the service area;we had NO say in the costs of the service;and we have NO capability or RIGHT to even vote on the TCVMD board members which set the rates and make the determination of costs related to the infrastructure. This is absurd and clearly a breach of our rights. 2. The Sheriff's office lacks the resources necessary to absorb additional service demands.We already have up to 20 minute response times in the area—this proposal will just exacerbate the public safety issues we have in the southern most part of our county. 3. The RUA is not a"master planned community". It is a huge sub-division that belongs in a municipality.The request essentially proposes creation of a new stand-alone town,but without the full range of uses characteristic of towns. 4. There is no need for this proposal—the county has over 22,000 vacant homes now. The need for additional urban-scale development does not exist,this proposal is premature.None of the surrounding municipalities have expressed the interest or ability to annex the proposed area,and the amount of existing zoned land in the surrounding region is enough to support the projected future population for 20 years and beyond. 5. The RUA proposes to provide critical water and sewer from opposite geographic directions— sewer from Fort Lupton (to the north),and water from the current Todd Creek Metropolitan District(to the south).The logistics and financing of such a proposal do not provide for successful implementation,since development anywhere on the site would essentially require ultimate build-out extension of either the water or sewer line—a difficult proposition. 6. They are not creating any primary sector jobs. So no economic development. 7. We and other current taxpayers will pay for the costs of building 4 more schools.Growth should pay its own wayl 8. There are holes in the planning area—leaving enclaves of agricultural zoned properties. 9. TCVMD does not provide detailed information about whether it has either ownership or purchase rights to water,in amounts adequate to serve the proposed RUA.The state engineer questions the viability of enough water for the RUA. We are concerned about the impact on our water wells and our Mountain View Water Association. '. Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan must balance the impacts of potential new,expanded property rights against the current rights of other landowners in the area.This proposal does not protect our current property rights. We live in an agriculturally zoned area-our expectations are we would live with those uses allowed by right NOT next to a large-scaled,poorly planned urban development the size of Windsor. Please protect OUR property rights and vote to deny the Dry Creek RUA. Thank you- NAME ADDRESS YEARS in n PHONE/EMAIL 11 L,Chtt- AREA t &.C.ti2 �1Lx 13 94 ,�1in; Lt 1kOI P 4C3 ace-$133 -ST 9(0 Wits-nn o,YJ 49300 6-rand vial) 43 30.°3 -€3333-3233 Till:die-64.01e-ii 4360 evary,l'v,e.✓ R., /.i .27 roY- VI 3233 morricalracing@aol.com <morricalracing@aol.com> Mon, Feb 21,2011 at 7:18 Reply-To: morricalracing@aol.com To: Hazel Frank <2hazelfrank@gmail.com> Hazel, Thanks again for the time to discuss a little more with us as we are not living there,we are a little out of the scoop. At this point, with the information we have received we consider ourselves against the Proposed Dry Creek RUA and you can use our names on the list. Thanks again, Kerr' and Trevor Morrical Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FEBRUARY 23, 2011 Three different Camps 1st Group is the RUA Staff Consultants Investors,and Those who hope to profit by selling their land to the RUA Problems; The RUA is selling a product they do not have and cannot deliver, specifically WATER and The RUA, from what I have been able to read is broke; they have not produced evidence to show they can meet the financial obligations they have committed themselves to. They are hoping the County will write them a blank check 2°a Group is the IGNORED These are the individuals, who have voice the opposition, either by standing before you, Signing petition, sending the Board letters, emails. These individual include property owners, elected officials, residents of the so-called Service Area, and your own depaitment heads. These individual have voiced the opposition, and some members of this Board continue to vote in favor of this project. 3'a Group, those members of this Board who continue to vote in favor of this project regardless of the financial burden you are placing on the County and on your constituents. It is my contention that those members of this Board, who continue to vote for the approval of this project, are ignoring wishes of their constituents and are voting to approve based on their own personal and/or financial interest. In the event you approve this project you saddling our grandchildren with the obligation to pay for this project. If the need arises: The RUA will have the right to force the residents of the so-called Service area to: purchase sewer service, approximately$5,000.00 for the cost of a tap and pay an undisclosed monthly service fee; To purchase a water tap, for approximately $15,000.00 for water tap The cost is the tap does not reflect the cost for piping the service to our place of residence. W(Mfd_, The RUA in their proposed plan they will have the right to levy taxes; this Board will be creating another layer of Weld County Government: Once the RUA fails, the county will them have to burden of paying for what the RUA promised it would pay. In the event, the Board of County Commissioners approves this project there will be many victims. I am speaking specifically about the Town of Wattenberg. I view the hearing not as a public meeting, but a memorial service, Your approval of this project will be the kiss of death for Wattenberg. If will please refer to the last of my presentation and you will find a DEATH CERTIFICATE of the Town of Wattenberg. I ISIlle f NINS It ! Z I WO G) p w t 4.4 cid c 16) i I o O •• •• .. as f e� ccct { z al A U jP I i I , , i 11 ! i! : , 1 i I ! FIRESTONE A COMMUNITY IN MOTION February 22, 2011 Weld County Commissioners Attn: Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair 915 Tenth Street PO Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 RE: Proposed Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area Dear Barb: This letter is to inform you that the Town of Firestone generally does not support the formation of any additional Regional Urbanization Areas (RUA) in Weld County and specifically the proposed Dry Creek RUA. The Town is not opposed to the urbanization of the area or the rights of the landowners to seek the highest and best use for their property. However, the Town is opposed to intense areas of urbanization outside of municipal boundaries. Having urban style development located within municipal boundaries is more effective and efficient as municipalities have the opportunity to generate sales tax for local public improvements and maintenance. Municipalities can also provide urban style police services for development within their boundaries. The proposed Dry Creek RUA is in close proximity to a number of municipalities and we believe should be encouraged to annex to one of them in order to fulfill their development objections. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, / ; I i // / /Y(4/7 /�_ . !'. (..� Wes,LaVanchy, Town Manager CC: Firestone Town Board of Trustees EXHIBIT 151 Grant Ave. • P.O. Box 100 • Firestone, CO 80520 1 Z ZwirL (303) 833-3291 • fax (303) 833-4863 6 Hello