HomeMy WebLinkAbout20110539.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
FEBRUARY 23, 2011
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, met in regular session in full
conformity with the laws of the State of Colorado at the regular place of meeting in the Weld County
Centennial Center, Greeley, Colorado, February 23, 2011, at the hour of 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by the Chair and on roll call the following members
were present, constituting a quorum of the members thereof:
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Chair
Commissioner Sean P. Conway, Pro-Tem
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Douglas Rademacher
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Elizabeth Strong (9:00 a.m., to 9:40 a.m.)
Acting Clerk to the Board, Esther Gesick (9:45 a.m., to 7:00 p.m.)
Director of Finance and Administration, Monica Mika
MINUTES: Commissioner Long moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of February 16, 2011, as printed. Commissioner Rademacher seconded the motion, and it
carried unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the Certification of
Hearings conducted on February 16, 2011, as follows: 1) USR #1765 - Coronet Investment
Company, LLC, c/o Kurt Althen, and 2) CZ #1156 - Balmes Homes, LLC, do Greg and Lisa Balmes.
Commissioner Rademacher seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: Commissioner Rademacher moved to add the following Proclamation:
1) Congratulations to Fort Lupton Middle School as National Winner of the National Middle School of
the Year Award; add the following item to the Consent Agenda, under Miscellaneous: 13) Quotation
and Terms of Sale for Equipment for Northern Colorado Regional Forensic Laboratory; and add the
following New Item of Business: 3) Consider Justice Assistance Grant Application for Northern
Colorado Regional Forensic Laboratory Capacity Enhancement and authorize Chair to sign, and
renumber subsequent New Items of Business accordingly. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion,
which carried unanimously.
PUBLIC INPUT: No public input was given.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the Consent Agenda as printed.
Commissioner Long seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
\\ Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 1 BC0016
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: Commissioner Conway stated the House approved
House Bill 1082 yesterday by a vote of 34 to 31, which is the Emissions Bill that Representative Glenn
Vaad and Senator Scott Renfroe worked on, along with the Weld County Attorney and the Board of
County Commissioners. He stated the next step will be at the State Senate and he has requested that
the Senate President, Senator Brandon Shaffer, withhold assigning the Bill to a committee until the
Board has a chance to meet with him. Chair Kirkmeyer stated the meeting with Senator Shaffer has
been scheduled for March 3, 2011.
PROCLAMATIONS:
CONGRATULATIONS TO FORT LUPTON MIDDLE SCHOOL AS NATIONAL WINNER OF THE
NATIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOL OF THE YEAR AWARD: Chair Kirkmeyer read the proclamation into
the record, congratulating Fort Lupton Middle School as the National Winner of the National Middle
School of the Year Award.
BIDS:
PRESENT BID #B1100035, CABLE/FIBER FOR ADMINISTRATION BUILDING (FORMERLY SYKES)
- DEPARTMENT OF PHONE SERVICES: Monica Mika, Director of Finance and Administration, stated
this bid will be presented for approval on March 9, 2011, four (4) potential vendors submitted bid
proposals, and H and H Data Service, Inc., appears to have submitted the lowest bid. Commissioner
Rademacher stated there is a large discrepancy between the bid amounts, and he inquired as to
whether the County has worked with H and H Data Service, Inc., before. Ms. Mika indicated the
County has worked with H and H Data Service, Inc., extensively, and the vendor has an understanding
of the County's expectations and what can be anticipated in the project, which may account for the
difference in the amount of the bids.
PRESENT BID #61100040, 2011 STEEL BID - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Ms. Mika stated
seven (7) potential vendors submitted bid proposals, and said bid will be presented for approval on
March 9, 2011.
APPROVE BID #B1000151, CNG FUELING STATIONS - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
(CON'T FROM 2/16/11): Ms. Mika recommended rejecting this bid and rebidding the stations for
three (3) specific contracts. Commissioner Rademacher moved to reject the sole bid from Clean
Energy, based on staffs recommendation. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion. Chair
Kirkmeyer stated the sole bid proposal is not consistent with at least four (4) of the evaluation criteria.
There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVE BID #61100034, SIGN MATERIAL FOR 2011 - DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS:
Ms. Mika stated this bid was presented to the Board on February 9, 2011, and it has multiple
components. She recommended awarding each component of the bid to the lowest bidders/best
vendor for each item, as indicated on the approval letter from Pat Persichino, Director, Department of
Public Works. In response to Ms. Mika, Chair Kirkmeyer stated it is not necessary for Ms. Mika to read
each recommendation into the record. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve the bid,
according to the recommendations delineated in Mr. Persichino's letter. Seconded by Commissioner
Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVE BID #61100038, 4X4 FULL-SIZE EXTENDED CAB DIESEL PICKUP - DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS: Ms. Mika stated the Department of Public Works has evaluated this bid and staff
recommends the low bid be rejected, and that the bid be awarded to the second lowest bid proposal,
since the lowest bid proposal does not meet the bid specifications. Commissioner Garcia stated
$25,000.00 was budgeted for this item and the recommended bid exceeds this amount. He inquired as
to how the budget will be balanced. Ms. Mika stated the Department will remain within its overall
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 2 BC0016
budget, due to cost savings on other equipment which were able to be purchased for lower prices than
anticipated. Commissioner Rademacher moved to reject the low bid from Phil Long Ford of Denver,
since it does not meet specifications, and award the bid to Stone Motors, for $36,939.00, based on
staff's recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
APPROVE BID #B1100050, 2011 CRUSHING OF RECYCLED ASPHALT MININGS - DEPARTMENT
OF PUBLIC WORKS: Ms. Mika recommended the bid be awarded to the sole bidder. She stated the
bid information was provided to three (3) other vendors, none of which submitted bid proposals.
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the sole bid from J2 Contracting, in the amount of$10,750.00,
based on staff's recommendation. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion and he stated he is
glad the bid is being awarded to a local vendor. There being no further discussion, the motion carried
unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER PETITION TO VACATE A PORTION OF COUNTY ROAD 31 - WELD COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS: Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated this petition is pursuant to
the agreement the County has with the Union Pacific Railroad Company to close a railroad crossing.
He stated in order to close the railroad crossing, the Board needs to vacate a portion of this roadway.
He stated various landowners in the area were notified, even though the State statute only requires that
notification be provided to the adjacent landowners, which only consist of the Union Pacific Railroad
Company and Noble Energy. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Barker stated he is not aware
of any responses received from the surrounding property owners.
Leon Sievers, Department of Public Works, confirmed he has not received any correspondence from
surrounding property owners; however, he has spoken with two (2) of the surrounding property owners
about this matter and no major concerns were expressed. Commissioner Kirkmeyer requested that the
background concerning this matter be explained, and she stated there have been several work
sessions regarding this matter, and it was discussed with the surrounding municipalities, CDOT
(Colorado Department of Transportation), and the pertinent Fire District and School District at a Bull's
Eye meeting.
Wayne Howard, Department of Public Works, reiterated this vacation is necessary as a part of the
agreement with the Union Pacific Railroad Company, where a new crossing will be installed, and in
exchange for the new railroad crossing, the Union Pacific Railroad Company requested the vacation of
two (2) existing crossings of its selection. He stated the Board signed an agreement to close the
railroad crossing at County Road 31 and U.S. Highway 85, and in lieu of a closure, the Board agreed to
signalize County Road 80, at U.S. Highway 85, in order to meet the requirements of the Union Pacific
Railroad Company to install a new railroad crossing at County Roads 49 and 54. He stated staff has
been working on this agreement for over a year. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Howard
confirmed the signals to be placed on County Road 80 are railroad signals; not traffic signals. Chair
Kirkmeyer provided the opportunity for public testimony; however, none was given. Commissioner
Rademacher moved to approve the vacation of a portion of County Road 31. Seconded by
Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT APPLICATION FOR INTENSIVE COURT
SUPERVISION PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Commander Ken Poncelow, Sheriff's
Office, stated he spoke to the Board about this grant application yesterday, and the application
requests $29,025.00, in order to enhance and streamline the Intensive Court Supervision Program. He
indicated there is no county cash match required for this funding. Commissioner Long moved to
approve said application and authorize the Chair to sign. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion.
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 3 BC0016
In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Commander Poncelow stated he is the new Chief of Police for the City
of Fort Lupton. There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT APPLICATION FOR NORTHERN COLORADO
REGIONAL FORENSIC LABORATORY CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO
SIGN: Randy Winsett, Weld County Sheriff's Office, stated the Board reviewed this grant application at
a work session last week. He stated this grant will address numerous items to both enhance and
upgrade equipment at the Northern Colorado Regional Forensic Laboratory, which will improve the
areas of digital evidence, latent prints, and firearms. He stated he is presenting the application on
behalf of the Laboratory Director, Ronald Arndt, who is attending a Laboratory Directors Conference
today. Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve said application and authorize the Chair to sign.
Commissioner Conway seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
CONSIDER GOVERNMENT ENTITY TOWER LICENSE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO
SIGN - GLOBAL SIGNAL ACQUISITIONS II, LLC: Mr. Barker stated this agreement will be effective
for five (5) years, and the agreement is to relocate a tower to a site in the Town of Mead, which is
located next to the John Deere building on State Highway 66. He stated the County will pay $950.00
per month, and a change was made to paragraph 5.4 regarding the payment of taxes. He stated
typically the party leasing the tower pays the taxes; however, local entities do not have the capability to
do that; therefore, he has modified the language, and Global Signal Acquisitions II, LLC, has agreed to
the change. Mr. Barker recommended approval of the agreement. Commissioner Long moved to
approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN WELD COUNTY COLORADO, AND THE
HUMANE SOCIETY OF WELD COUNTY AS A RECIPIENT OF WELD COUNTY GENERAL FUND
MONIES AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Barb Connolly, Controller, stated this is an agreement
to pay the Humane Society of Weld County $67,000.00 for the year, which is based on approximately
1,000 animals being accepted, at a rate of $67.00 per animal, and it includes animals which residents
bring to the facility from unincorporated portions of the County, in addition to animals turned in by
Animal Control officers. She stated the Humane Society will verify where the animals are from and it
will continue to write the summons for owners who come in to redeem animals. Ms. Connolly stated
she has requested monthly reports to be provided to her, in order to be able to monitor how many
animals are being brought to the facility, and whether the animals are being submitted by citizens or
officers. Commissioner Rademacher thanked Ms. Connolly for her work on this agreement, and he
stated the agreement for this year is greatly improved from the past agreements the County has had
with the Human Society. Commissioner Conway thanked Sheriff John Cooke and his staff for bringing
transparency and accountability to this process, and he moved to approve said Memorandum of
Agreement and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENT AND REAPPOINTMENTS TO WELD FAITH PARTNERSHIP COUNCIL:
Commissioner Long moved to appoint Charlotte Jimenez to the Weld Faith Partnership Council as an
additional member, and to reappoint Richard Hartman, Lynnda Easter, and Jodi Hartmann, all with
terms to expire November 1, 2013. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER REAPPOINTMENTS TO FAMILIES, YOUTH, AND CHILDREN COMMISSION:
Commissioner Long moved to reappoint Dr. Christopher Moore to the Families, Youth, and Children
Commission as the physician representative; Lawrence Raimer as the law enforcement representative,
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 4 BC0016
and Gwen Schooley as the mental health representative, all with terms to expire December 31, 2013.
Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT BOARD: Commissioner Garcia
moved to appoint Don Schofield to the Workforce Development Board, with a term to expire
December 31, 2011. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, the motion carried unanimously. Chair
Kirkmeyer called for a five (5) minute recess, in order to allow staff to prepare to present the next item
of business. (Clerk's Note: Elizabeth Strong has been the Acting Clerk to the Board up to this point in
the meeting, and upon reconvening, Esther Gesick will be the Acting Clerk to the Board, and shall be
for the remainder of the meeting.)
OLD PLANNING BUSINESS:
FINAL READING OF CODE ORDINANCE #2010-1, IN THE MATTER OF REPEALING AND
REENACTING, WITH AMENDMENTS, CHAPTER 22 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CHAPTER 26
REGIONAL URBANIZATION AREA (RUA), OF THE WELD COUNTY CODE - DRY CREEK RUA
(CON'T FROM 08/23/2010): Commissioner Conway moved to read Ordinance #2010-1 into the record
by title only. Seconded by Commissioner Rademacher, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Barker
read the Ordinance into the record by title. Chair Kirkmeyer explained the hearing procedure and
indicated the Board plans to recess the hearing from 11:30 a.m., until 2:00 p.m., to accommodate
previously scheduled meetings that require their attendance. She also stated prior to the break they
would allow for public testimony from those who are unable to return in the afternoon.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, stated staff received the RUA application in August,
2009, and she provided a brief description of the proposed location, which creates an extension of the
Denver metropolitan area. She stated the proposed boundary will encompass 2,095 acres, with the
potential for development of 2,200 to 6,600 residential dwellings and a population of approximately
13,500 people. Ms. Martin stated at full buildout it is anticipated the development will generate 50,700
vehicle trips per day, central water will be provided by the Todd Creek Water District, and the City of
Fort Lupton has agreed to provide sanitary sewer services. She further stated emergency services
would be provided by the Fort Lupton and Greater Brighton Fire Protection Districts, and a Law
Enforcement Authority is yet to be established. She further stated the students residing in the
development would attend within School Districts RE-8 or RE27-J, and the application proposes the
construction of five (5) Kindergarten through 8th Grade schools, and one (1) High School, with an
anticipated buildout date of 2039. Ms. Martin stated the area is currently held in agricultural production,
and, if approved, the Weld County Code will be amended to update the Urban Development Map and
the Goals and Policies of Chapter 26, and to adopt the RUA Structural Land Use Map to be included as
an Appendix to Chapter 26. She also explained the third reading of the Ordinance was continued on
August 23, 2010, for six (6) months to allow the applicant additional time to address concerns.
Heidi Hansen, Department of Public Works, stated she received no additional information for review;
therefore, her comments remain the same. She noted extensive off-site improvements will be required,
the developer will be expected to fully fund all on-site and off-site improvements, Master Drainage and
Transportation Plans will be required, and a study of the Big Dry Creek floodplain will need to be
submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In response to Chair Kirkmeyer,
Ms. Hansen stated, if approved, staff will be requesting two textual changes to the language proposed
for Chapter 26. She further stated currently there is no cost estimate for fully funding the
improvements.
Lauren Light, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated staff has not received any changes
since second reading. She noted they will review any future Sketch Plans as the development
progresses.
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 5 BC0016
Commissioner Garcia requested clarification on what testimony will be allowed. Chair Kirkmeyer stated
the Board does have access to the full record; therefore, she requested the applicant and members of
the public restrict their testimony to new information since the last hearing.
Jim Johnson represented the applicant and stated during the past six months the focus of public input
has shifted from the merits of planning and growth within the proposed RUA to concern over the status
of the Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District. Mr. Johnson clarified Todd Creek is only a water
service provider which helped facilitate the application materials on behalf of seven (7) landowners, five
of which are families who have resided in the area for many years. He explained George Hanlon is the
President of the Metropolitan District and service provider. Mr. Johnson stated he represents the
individual property owners who jointly submitted the application. He referenced a Denver Post article
commending Weld County for its leadership, foresight, and fiscal responsibility, and asked the Board to
review this application with similar concepts of planning for the future in an area that is anticipated to
grow because it is within a convenient commuting distance for working families. He stated the County
will still have an opportunity to review the development as it moves forward through the various
planning phases, which will only happen when the market is right. He further stated the Board must
also consider the value of retaining water resources in Weld County, which will result in a higher tax
base. If denied, Mr. Johnson stated the action will imply the Board believes it is acceptable for
additional water to leave Weld County; and it will compromise private property rights and allow random
planning.
Mr. Johnson stated the applicant has been diligently focusing on public outreach and speaking with
municipalities and area service providers. He indicated they hosted two meetings at the Northern Hills
Christian Church on December 2, 2010, and January 20, 2011, with more than 250 households invited;
however, only 28 and 40 attended, respectively. He also reviewed the six neighborhood meetings
detailed in his PowerPoint presentation, marked Exhibit HHH, and indicated the applicant also
contacted individuals in person or by telephone. He stated they also met with the School Districts to
address their referral comments, and the Fort Lupton School District indicated it is too early in the
process to address their requirements, although the applicant has committed to pay cash-in-lieu-of-land
fees and to continue discussions as development moves forward. Mr. Johnson explained the Greater
Brighton and Fort Lupton Fire Protection Districts want to preserve their borders and assessed
valuations; he assured the Board that the proposed development will not compromise the established
boundaries; and the Sheriff's Office has also provided a letter of support, marked Exhibit EEE. He also
submitted a copy of the 2008 audit filed with the State yesterday, marked Exhibit RRR, and stated
although the 2009 audit is not yet finalized, there is an unqualified opinion pending agreements with the
bond holders and holders with certificates of participation. He explained the schedule to sell taps
plummeted when the market failed; however, Todd Creek is committed to continued service, and there
is a provision on how the bond holders will get paid. Mr. Johnson submitted a report summarizing the
availability of water, marked Exhibit SSS, and indicated although there are water rights which are not
fully adjudicated; there are current water resources and associate quantities, which he reviewed as
detailed in the PowerPoint presentation. He assured the Board there is an adequate supply to start the
development, and future developers will have to ensure availability of additional water prior to
development. He stated the applicant also met with the City of Thornton concerning the area of
overlapping service boundaries. He explained Thornton has first right of service; however, if Thornton
refuses, or is unable to provide service, then Todd Creek is prepared to serve. Mr. Johnson stated they
also met with the City of Brighton and attempted to negotiate an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA);
however, they were unable to agree on density levels. He further stated there is an IGA with the City of
Fort Lupton to provide sewer service within the RUA area, with the understanding that the District will
construct the sewer main to be dedicated to the City, at which point the City will govern and control
service, and District customers will pay the same fees as Fort Lupton residents.
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 6 BC0016
Mr. Johnson reviewed the displayed Standards of Approval and the Table of Financial Viability for the
record. He stated, if approved, the proposal will keep water in Weld County, it improves property
values, and Weld County will be in control of determining what development will take place in the
future. He further stated development will not start immediately, rather, the applicant wants to continue
planning to ensure they are ready for future growth. In response to Commissioner Conway,
Mr. Johnson stated the Todd Creek District does have the ability to serve with the existing water rights,
once they are fully adjudicated. He stated the District owns 18 of the 108 shares of Old Brantner Ditch,
as well as 18.375 shares in the New Brantner Ditch (see page 4 of the Engineering Report, marked
Exhibit SSS). Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Johnson stated the future customer capacity
includes the existing Todd Creek developments in Adams County, as well as the proposed RUA, and
the slide on Financial Viability does include two Metropolitan District developments which are located in
Weld County. He displayed a slide titled "Proposed Resolution for URA Approval" and explained the
applicant would like to request the flexibility to administratively move uses on the adopted Map without
going through the ordinance process. Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Johnson stated the Land
Use map does not include an agricultural component; just open space and parks. Ms. Martin stated the
large community park is proposed to be approximately 20 acres, with limiting sight factors around the
riparian areas. Mr. Johnson clarified the proposal includes seven (7) parks and buffers totaling
approximately 200 acres, the entire RUA consists of 2,100 acres, and the proposal also includes three
(3) public facilities for a total of 20 acres.
Nancy Kerr represented the applicant and stated the Financial Viability slide reflects 167.2 mills, which
is an average of ten (10) surrounding similar communities (8 located in Adams and 2 in Weld County).
She stated the table also includes the development's ranking and range of financial burden.
Mr. Johnson stated all of the residential areas on the plan have specified percentages of open space
ranging from 15 to 20 percent, which is not included in the total from the parks and public open space.
John Cooke, Weld County Sheriff, stated his letter of support recognizes the need for long term
planning. He also summarized the response times for the various classifications of calls for service,
indicating higher priority calls tend to have a quicker response time. He stated the applicant has
agreed to provide a substation for Sheriff Deputies to work from, and to pay the corresponding mill levy.
Sheriff Cooke stated he also anticipates a lower crime rate due to the type of development proposed for
the area. Responding to Commissioner Conway, Sheriff Cooke stated an assessment of 7.0 mills
would be a 270 percent increase over the current level for the area. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer,
Sheriff Cooke provided the average salary per deputy, and stated the applicant has verbally agreed to
provide a substation, although there is no written agreement at this time. Chair Kirkmeyer reviewed the
mill levy amounts assessed against existing Law Enforcement Authorities, and Sheriff Cooke indicated
the amount generated is based on the number of homes constructed.
Hazel Frank, surrounding property owner, displayed and submitted a copy of an RUA map, marked
Exhibit TTT, reflecting which property owners are in support of, or in opposition to, the request. She
stated the City of Dacono Comprehensive Land Use Plan, marked Exhibit UUU, overlaps the RUA
boundary and designates differing planned uses. She also submitted a petition including 30 new
signatures and a summary of the issues of concern, marked Exhibit VVV. Ms. Frank stated the RUA is
not consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan, nor is the proposed urban level development
compatible with the rural agricultural nature of the area. She stated during the open house meetings
the applicant's representative indicated the development would not pay for the building of schools or
fire stations; however, the school board's were not informed and consequently indicated the RUA would
not have a negative impact. She also expressed concern regarding water service, since the Todd
Creek District is in competition with the City of Westminster to purchase water. She stated the Weld
County/Dacono IGA encompasses Section 28 and the proposed RUA; however, pursuant to the IGA,
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 7 BC0016
urban development is to be denied within the municipal Urban Growth Boundary, and there is a similar
IGA between the County and the City of Fort Lupton. Ms. Frank also expressed concern with the lack
of a finalized IGA between the applicant and the City of Fort Lupton, which was just discussed at a
council meeting last night. She indicated there is a surplus housing inventory; the area does not need
urban level development outside of a municipality, and she has submitted petitions containing more
than 150 signatures in opposition to the proposal, marked Exhibit XXX. In response to Commissioner
Rademacher, Ms. Frank indicated the location of her property, which she purchased in 1980 and has
resided at since 1983. Responding to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Frank explained the Fort Lupton
School Board stated it has a current availability for 800 students; however, once existing houses begin
to sell, they will quickly reach capacity without the proposed development. She reiterated the School
District Board members were not familiar with the RUA, and she is uncertain how the Superintendent is
negotiating with the developer without direction from the School Board.
Charleen Krantz, surrounding property owner, indicated she purchased the property in 1977, it is
completely surrounded by the proposed RUA, and she was not asked to be part of RUA, nor did she
receive any notice concerning the application, other than open house announcements. Ms. Krantz
expressed concerns regarding a delayed response time for the Sheriff's Office, increased traffic along
County Roads 6 and 2, and impacts to the local school districts. She stated she works for the
Administration Office of the Brighton School District, and although it is the fastest growing district in the
State, it has the lowest mill levy in the Denver metro area, recent increases did not pass the ballot
issue, and they are facing budget cuts. As a Fort Lupton resident, Ms. Krantz also expressed concern
regarding the potential impacts to the Fort Lupton School District, and the taking of private property
rights by forcing area residents to connect to the Todd Creek water supply or public sewer if existing
septic systems fail. She stated there should be a task force to ensure property owners are involved in
the planning process and she requested the Board vote against the proposal. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Ms. Krantz indicated the location of her property.
Bob Sakata, surrounding property owner and Chair of Sakata Farms, stated he respectfully disagrees
with the plan explained by Mr. Johnson. He stated the RUA borders 980 acres which contain prime
irrigated vegetable farms. Mr. Sakata stated agricultural operations are subject to strict regulations and
this development will create an adverse impact and restrict future operations. He stated his son is a
third generation farmer who intends to continue the business which has been operating for 65 years
and is recognized as the oldest agricultural industry surviving in Weld and Adams Counties. Mr. Sakata
stated he was appointed by the Governor to serve on the Smart Growth Committee and he is opposed
to development which is not adjacent to a municipal boundary. In this instance the properties do not
have water rights and the applicant is depending on the developers to obtain water at the time of
development. He acknowledged that water will remain in Weld County; however, it will be for the
purpose of serving residences, not agricultural production. He stated there have been many
developments in rural areas which have gone bankrupt, which results in nothing but weeds; therefore,
he believes the designated RUA area should remain agricultural and help retain Weld County's ranking
of third in the nation for agricultural production. In response to Commissioner Long, Mr. Sakata stated
the river water is already over appropriated and new development will have to obtain shares from
agricultural operations. He stated he was recently appointed by the Supreme Court to study how water
is distributed between agriculture and development, and he explained development requires water
which will dry up good productive farmland. He clarified he does own his water from the Brantner and
Brighton Ditches, which has an extremely high value, and his family intends to use it for agriculture.
Responding to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Sakata agreed he is one of the largest share holders in the
Brantner Ditch and explained that when water is purchased by other entities, the matter must go
through water court for approval before transferring from agricultural production to development. He
commented the transfer also depletes the strength of the streams which is necessary for irrigation. He
reiterated his concern with negative impacts and environmental restrictions on agricultural operations,
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 8 BC0016
such as crop dusting; however, he is proud to state Sakata Farms has successfully co-existed with
neighboring development. Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Sakata indicated a recent water sale
cost $15,000.00 per acre foot of consumptive use, meaning not the amount of water put on the ground,
but what the crop consumes.
Katie Kirkmeyer, surrounding property owner, stated she is the fifth generation to live and work on the
family farm located at County Roads 6 and 23. She referenced the previous comments made by
Commissioner Rademacher regarding the benefits of the 1-25 MUD and the time for proper planning
and stated she is opposed because it will result in a taking of private property rights and establish
residential uses which are not compatible with the existing land use codes. She agreed this is the right
time for planning; however, she questioned whether Weld County should have notified property owners
in the area concerning the potential Code change. Ms. Kirkmeyer also expressed concern with the
applicant's failure to address the Board's concerns during the past six months, and the already delayed
response to calls for service by the Sheriff's Office. She reiterated there is plenty of time for Weld
County to do a sub-area plan and there is no reason to approve the proposed RUA today.
Chris Mueller, surrounding property owner, stated he resides within the service area and attended the
open house meetings. He stated the applicant is trying to offer a product for people to buy; however,
existing residents in the area are being forced to buy the project although they already have good water
and septic available. Mr. Mueller stated if the RUA is approved, residents will have to connect to public
water and sewer if their private wells or septic systems fail, and if County Road 2 is expanded it will
conflict with the placement of his functioning septic system and he will be required to connect to the
public sewer. He stated he asked questions at the meetings; however, he was informed that the
proposed development will help some and hurt others, and he also expressed concern with increased
taxes. Mr. Mueller stated he supports local agriculture which has helped Weld County remain free of
debt, he is opposed to the realignment of County Road 2 for the sole benefit of the proposed RUA, and
he questioned the interests of the property owners and the Todd Creek District, which does not have
enough money from tap sales to pay back the bonds. If approved, Mr. Mueller asserted Weld County
tax payers will be stuck with the bill, and he also disagreed with Sheriff Cooke's comments regarding
crime rates and response times for the area. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Mueller
indicated the location of his residence.
Anthony Espinosa, stated he once placed a call to dispatch which indicated a deputy would be there in
about 45 minutes; however, they did not arrive until 2.5 hours later. He submitted a letter, marked
Exhibit YYY, and stated the District does not have the necessary funding to pay for the water which
they are committed to providing, and although a majority of the area residents have expressed
opposition, the District has not listened. He stated if approved, the fees and taxes will be too high for
future residents, proposed roads expansions will impact existing residences, and Weld County tax
payers will be held responsible.
Chair Kirkmeyer recessed the meeting at 11:45 a.m., until 2:00 p.m., to allow adequate time for the
Board to attend previously scheduled lunch meetings.
Upon reconvening, Chair Kirkmeyer submitted a letter from the Town of Firestone Manager, Wes
LaVanchy, marked Exhibit ZZZ, for the record.
Ramona Mecillas, Wattenburg resident, stated the community has existed for 100 years, current
residents enjoy watching eagles and are opposed to the destruction of natural habitat and farmland,
and there is not a need for more homes. She stated the response times provided earlier by the Weld
County Sheriff are not an accurate reflection of what the area residents experience, area residents
should not be burdened with higher taxes, new development costs, and additional traffic hazards on a
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 9 BC0016
proposed four-lane highway, which will also endanger the school children. Ms. Mecillas stated she is
speaking on behalf of her immediate and extended family members who reside in Wattenburg.
Frank Galicia, surrounding property owner, indicated it appears the applicant does not have sufficient
facilities to serve extra residences and he questioned whether they will be able to provide service,
should the community of Wattenburg decide to connect. He expressed opposition to paying the
connection costs and associated fees when it is more economical to replace a failing septic system. He
also stated the residents have made a big investment in the Wattenburg Water District, and they should
not have to go through the Todd Creek Metropolitan District to get permission concerning their water
use. Mr. Galicia indicated he would not be opposed if the applicant controlled the land; however, in this
instance they are making a request that affects property owners who do not want to be included. He
stated there are many instances of failed developments with hundreds of lots that have been approved
and are unable to sell. He further stated approval of this proposal will result in less County control in
the region and area residents are depending on the Board of Commissioners to protect their property
interests. Mr. Galicia stated the Wattenburg residents have approached the County on previous
occasions seeking assistance to improve their community; however, if they become a part of the
proposed RUA, the residents will have no selection rights concerning the Metropolitan District Board.
He reiterated the RUA boundary should be limited to the property owned by the applicant and not
encompass other area residents who will not benefit.
Esther Rodriguez, Wattenburg resident, stated her family has lived in the area for five generations and
this will affect their tight knit community. She stated they cannot afford to pay higher taxes or connect
into the new water and sewer systems. She also expressed opposition to expanding County Road 6 to
a four-lane highway which will go straight through their properties. Ms. Rodriguez stated they have
worked hard to keep the community running, and the community church hosts classes and traditional
benefits for area residents. She also expressed concern with the Aurora Water Plant and the potential
designation within the flood zone.
Gary Howard, County resident, stated radio commentator, Amy Oliver, recently aired a show
commenting on property rights. He stated he supports property rights and, although farming is not very
profitable, he is looking toward his retirement. Mr. Howard stated he has considered both the Vista
Ridge and Todd Creek Developments for his future retirement home and supports a development
similar to Dry Creek.
Kathy Kropp, resident of the Todd Creek Metropolitan District, stated she is a current member of the
District board, previously served on the Homeowners' Association, and became involved as a result of
discussions concerning a proposed water rate increase. She stated the District subsequently
requested a group of residents to participate on the rate increase study and work with a consultant who
reviewed the information to develop cost-based rates for the overall community. Ms. Kropp indicated
since 2008 the Metropolitan District has changed its structure so that it now consists of five members
(three employed by the development group and two independent resident members). She stated they
strive to be more transparent, reach out to the community, and encourage public input regarding
various issues in an effort to make improvements. In response to Commissioner Rademacher,
Ms. Kropp reiterated she moved to the Todd Creek development in 2006. Responding to
Commissioner Garcia, Ms. Kropp stated she was a customer of the Todd Creek District when she
became involved to discuss their operations and fee increases, she still serves on the Board, and the
water quality is good. Responding further to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Kropp confirmed she became a
member of the Board in January, 2010, she is not an employee, and she is not certain of the standard
water rate. Responding to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Kropp stated the first annual meeting was in
the year 2008, when the Todd Creek Water District proposed a water rate increase, at which time it was
determined more information was needed and they created a committee and engaged a consultant.
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 10 BC0016
The review subsequently resulted in a five year plan with a first annual rate increase of nine
percent (9%), versus the proposed twenty percent (20%), and the rates are now reviewed on an annual
basis. She further stated the District did provide a presentation to the homeowners to discuss the
factors driving the increase. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Ms. Kropp stated the District Board's legal
counsel will be more qualified to address the results of a bankruptcy.
Tamara Seaver, General Counsel for Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District, responded to Chair
Kirkmeyer and stated presently the District does not meet any of the criteria for a Title 32 action, and
bankruptcy would be a violation of their bond covenants.
Michael Martinez stated he is a Florida resident who was raised in Wattenburg, which is a very tight knit
community. As a teacher in both the Denver, Colorado, and Florida public schools, he expressed
concern for children in the area and potentially limited educational opportunities. He stated school
districts are currently facing large budget cuts and reductions in staff; therefore, he questioned how the
RUA development intends to fund the proposed new schools.
Raul Rodriguez, Florida resident, stated he previously resided in Wattenburg and enjoyed the nice
views, so he understands why it is attractive to a developer. He stated this proposal erodes the prime
qualities of the area, it will negatively impact the environment, and it will benefit the developer rather
than the existing residents. He stated advanced planning is always good; however, no one knows what
the future holds and the application materials are unclear. He further stated the County should not
grant so much control to one developer without the proper oversight. Mr. Rodriguez acknowledged the
development may generate some tax revenue; however, he questioned whether the funds will cover the
cost of services. He indicated that house prices are still declining and he questioned whether the future
residents will embrace the longstanding agricultural way of life. He further stated farmers cannot
sustain their operations with higher taxes and opposition from future residents, and he asked that the
Board honor the wishes of the constituents who have spoken by striving to keep Weld County debt free
and supporting agricultural values.
Joe Rider, surrounding property owner, stated he supports the RUA because it presents the opportunity
to upgrade the value of his land. He stated in a time of economic decline the applicants should not be
faulted for trying to improve the value of the properties. He further stated as a self employed county
resident who pays 40 percent of his income in taxes, he wants County oversight to ensure his interests
are protected. In response to Commissioner Rademacher, Mr. Rider stated he purchased his property
approximately eight years ago; however, he did not move to the area until 1.5 years ago. He further
stated he did not appreciate the County allowing the City/County of Broomfield to annex the southern
portion of Weld County; however, Chair Kirkmeyer clarified the Commissioners did not allow it; rather it
was a constitutional amendment following a public vote. She also explained the Vista Ridge
Subdivision has been annexed to the Town of Erie, and she agreed this is not a Change of Zone, but
the RUA process is the first step in a process that may lead to a Change of Zone application in the
future. Mr. Rider stated he is uncertain what he will do with his property in the future.
Bill Wycoff, surrounding property owner, stated he has been an area resident since 1982, and he has
issues with property rights or development if they are pursued in accordance with established
regulations. Mr. Wycoff submitted his comments, marked Exhibits BBBB and CCCC, which he
reviewed for the record. His first concern dealt with the fiscal integrity of the District in relation to
delinquent audits, and he also addressed the appearance of"taking" since they are not the only service
provider in the area but are attempting to eliminate the option of existing property owners to obtain well
permits from the Division of Water Resources. Mr. Wycoff also indicated that according to State
statute, the cost to a property owner and the quality of the supplier's water cannot be reasons to issue a
well permit, and wells can be taken away and the property owner forced to connect to a water supplier.
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 11 BC0016
He stated the status of the service area is unclear, as maps are not available through the State, and he
asserted denying access to water rights fits the description of a "taking", and should not be allowed.
John Howard, area resident since 1949, stated he supports the RUA because it increases his farm's
value. He commented many of his neighbors are opposed because they enjoy his farm for its vistas
and recreational opportunities; however, those issues are not his responsibility.
Mike Lloyd, Brighton resident and Weld County property owner, submitted a written copy of his
comments, marked Exhibit DDDD, although some of his spoken testimony changed based on previous
testimony from the applicant. He stated he is not opposed to the proponents of the RUA; however, he
is opposed to the Water District representing the application rather than the various landowners actually
involved. He stated the representation by the developer on the District Board is still a majority, with
only two independent parties for input. He further stated the District is an Adams County entity, formed
in 1996, which desires to extend into Weld County, along with a management fee established by
Mr. Osborne, a former principle of the District. Mr. Lloyd stated three of the five members are District
employees, and they have guaranteed the District's performance on $19 million in bonds. He stated
Mr. Osborne currently sits on the New Brantner Ditch Board, and although the District has no
agreements or contracts with Mr. Osborne, it needs to be considered in relation to its history. He
reviewed the District's financial performance as detailed in his submittal, and indicated the District is
estimating the "failure to connect" fees for 2010 total approximately $708,000.00. He further stated the
evidence does not indicate the revenue source from tap sales is sustainable and will result in
substantial legal fees. Mr. Lloyd indicated he is a Certified Public Accountant by profession and he
expressed concern with the applicant's practice of amending the budgets from 2008, 2009, and 2010.
He reviewed the District debt and defaults on Series 2004 bonds, as well as the 2011 bankruptcy filing
by Mr. Osbourne, although he was not connected with the District at this time. He stated there are very
strict rules regarding contributed assets and, in 2011, the current Board took action to correct the
District books previously maintain by Mr. Osbourne. He explained the District is structured to function
based on tap fees and without them they do not have adequate money and are already in default on
the forbearance agreement and certificates of participation. He explained their line of credit is secured
by their water rights and storage facilities; however, a default would likely impair service. Mr. Lloyd
stated his comments are not intended to reflect negatively on the land owners, rather, all of his concern
revolves around the sustainability of the District. He reiterated the application is based upon a
developer using a severely stressed Water District to promote their financial gain, and the proposal
should be denied. In response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Lloyd explained a "Going Concern" means there
is evidence indicating the entity may not remain in business. He further stated he has serious doubt
concerning the District's ability to resolve all of the outstanding issues in the last month because the
forbearance agreements are in default and it is unlikely the bond holders want to come in and run the
District, although they do have the option of brining in new management. He indicated the District
cannot take on any more debt, and even if the debt is paid off, it is unlikely the bond holders will allow
the issuance of any further debt unless the market recovers.
Wayne Mueller stated he is a 30 year resident of Erie but also owns a farm in Adams County. He
stated his agricultural operations are impacted by all of the existing traffic when he moves equipment
on County roads, and it does not appear the developer intends to contribute towards the widening of
the area roadways to accommodate the anticipated traffic from the proposed development. Mr. Mueller
stated he lives adjacent to the Vista Ridge Subdivision and when that developer failed, the Town of Erie
was forced to take over the water system, Weld County was left to fix and pave County Road 3, and the
area residents are lacking the promised amenities. He expressed concern with allowing the developer
to change land use designations without prior consent from the Commissioners, with the proposed
financing arrangement. He stated a majority of the Water District Board are developers who stand to
gain from this development; however, he questioned who they intend to finance the new sewer line for
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 12 BC0016
the City of Fort Lupton when they are already in debt. Mr. Mueller also expressed concern with impacts
to the surrounding water rights, increased taxes, and an increased cost to the County for the higher
demand for services. He stated of the 3,838 total existing taps available, only 1,327 taps have been
paid for, the collection efforts have been unsuccessful, and the entity has filed for bankruptcy.
Mr. Mueller provided a summary review of how water rights within the Old and New Brantner Ditches
are distributed or reallocated, and asserted the City of Aurora wants to move Weld County agricultural
water south to be used for residential purposes. He stated the District does have a two line system and
he reviewed the current infrastructure and water amounts owned or leased for the past two years. He
referred to an Engineering Report, marked Exhibit EEEE, which indicates the current supplies are not
sufficient for use in Adams County (see page 15, Table 9). He noted if they were to add in decreed
water they would have adequate water for Adams County development but would still require additional
wells, which could cost between $250,000 and $500,000 to install. Mr. Mueller stated the applicant is
surviving on "failure to connect" fees; however, they are amassing significant legal costs and suits are
pending. He stated the District asserts they have no remaining contracts with Gene Osborne for water
services; however, he did represent them at the Brantner Ditch. Lastly, he indicated the landowners
who jointly filed this application have many other development options which would not receive
objection from the surrounding property owners, would result in less liability, and would not create an
increase of 2,700 additional vehicles on the roads, a negative impact to County services, or a financial
burden on County taxpayers at-large.
Chair Kirkmeyer issued a five minute recess.
Upon reconvening, Lori Hawthorn, surrounding property owner, stated her family has been involved in
agriculture in the area since 1963. She stated many of the recent changes in the area have placed
stress on area residents and agriculture as Metro Denver continues to encroach. She stated many of
the properties in the area no longer have enough water to continue farming; therefore, she wants to see
something come in that involves some planning and will result in a viable place for people to live, rather
than random development. Ms. Hawthorn indicated there are established processes and rather than
focusing on the Water District she believes residents should be considering the merits of a planned
RUA for the growth and development which are inevitable in the future.
Joy Gerdom, Planning Management for School District 27-J, stated the District's enrollment has tripled
in the last ten years and they have constructed numerous new schools at a cost of$240 million born by
tax payers in District 27-J. She explained they have created a public/private foundation, which is an
entity where builders and developers pay fixed amounts needed for student growth, and since the year
2000, they have collected $13 million toward new school construction. Ms. Gerdom stated the District
referral response indicated they do plan on building a school in the development area; however, they
are requiring a cash-in-lieu of land fee and suggest the developer participate in the foundation, although
it is on a voluntary basis. She explained State statutes prohibit school impact fees; however, more than
90 percent of the area builders are participating in the partnership, which is a significant benefit to the
taxpayers. She noted Equinox and the former owner, Gene Osborne, did promise to participate;
however, that commitment was never fulfilled. In response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Gerdom
reviewed the anticipated cost to the District to develop a school site.
Mary Falconbhrg, City of Brighton, stated they focused on the proposed land uses and although they
attempted negotiations, at this point they have not come to an agreement. He stated there is an
existing IGA with Todd Creek in Adams County, which covers 4,480 acres and allows 2,246 units, with
a density of one unit for every two acres. He stated they have attempted to reach a similar agreement
for the proposed RUA; however, this application is for up to 6,600 units with a density of three units per
acre. He further stated the applicant is not in agreement with the City's request for 2.5 units per acre;
therefore, the City is taking a formal position of opposition, as outlined in the referral from September,
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 13 BC0016
2009, and the Resolution passed in May, 2010. He thanked the Commissioners for continuing the
matter to allow additional time for negotiation; however, following various drafts and proposals, they
have been unable to come to an agreement. He noted if the presented IGA is signed, the City will
withdraw its statement of opposition. Mr. Falconbhrg indicated from a planning standpoint it seems it
would be better to direct development to the surrounding municipal entities which have the capacity and
residential inventory to serve new residents. He stated the proposed density is not compatible with the
surrounding neighbors, and the Cities of Thornton and Brighton and School District 27-J have all
expressed opposition due to outstanding issues. He cited the Weld County Code and the 29-page staff
report indicating various sections of criteria contained in the Comprehensive Plan have not been met.
He acknowledged the importance of property rights; however, it seems out of balance to support the
property rights of eight owners over the interests of hundreds of neighboring properties and surrounding
entities. He further stated there is no need or justification for approving the request at this time. In
response to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Falconbhrg stated the existing IGA is between the City of Brighton
and Todd Creek Metropolitan District#1, Mr. Osborn, and Equinox LLC. He indicated that although the
parties have changed, the document provides a basic understanding of the general limitations and
scope of the project, and that is what the City is requesting for the subject proposal.
Dick McClain, Brighton Mayor, agreed with the statements submitted by Mr. Falconbhrg, and he
indicated he offered comments in opposition at the two previous hearings.
Carol Howard, applicant/landowner, stated she has lived in Weld County for 89 years and has
witnessed many changes, acquired many new neighbors, and accepted that the area is no longer
primarily agricultural. She stated southern Weld County is changing and the Board would be wise to
establish a plan to prepare for the ongoing transition from agriculture to development.
Tommy Holton, Fort Lupton Mayor, stated the City has not taken a formal position on the matter
because regardless of whether they negotiate a new IGA, they will remain subject to the existing
agreement entered into in the year 2006. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Holton confirmed
there are ongoing negotiations; however, it has not been considered by the Council during the past six
months, and he reviewed the road boundaries of the service area.
Steve Lefforge, surrounding property owner, indicated he resides adjacent to the northernmost
boundary of the proposed RUA, he has lived there since 1989, and he is opposed to the application.
He stated he believes in private property rights; however, he does not support a request that
encumbers other properties which are not owned by the applicants. In response to Commissioner
Conway, Mr. Lefforge indicated the location of his personal property, as well as that of his extended
family, and he mentioned they do still have some water rights to sustain minimal farming.
Tom DeHerrrera, surrounding property owner, stated this proposal extends past the applicants'
properties and adversely affects others within the proposed district boundary.
Eric Rinard, surrounding property owner, stated he purchased his 30 acres in the year 2003, and
subsequently replaced an existing junkyard with a riding arena and working horse farm. He explained
he installed a line from the Brantner Ditch and raises 2,000 bales of hay to feed the horses. Mr. Rinard
stated he was very careful to work with his neighbors in an effort to not change or disrupt the way of life
in the area, and he has visited the Howard home and considers them to be a pleasant acquaintance.
He further stated he supports private property rights; however, he believes development plans are
subject to guidelines and restrictions. He indicated he believes there will be development in the area in
the future and it will be a good thing; however, he is opposed to the Todd Creek District extending north
from Adams County and imposing more taxes and higher urban scale densities which are inconsistent
with the surrounding area. Mr. Rinard expressed serious concern with the possibility that the water
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 14 BC0016
provider may have veto power over the drilling of residential water wells, and, if approved, he
suggested the RUA boundary should be consistent with the water service boundary. Based on the
various issues of concern, Mr. Rinard advised the land owner applicants to discard this plan and
association with the Water District and go forward with a different approach
Rachel DeHerrera, Wattenburg resident, stated she wants to retire and if this goes through it will take
her rentals and her livelihood, therefore, she requested the Board deny the application.
Caroline Kirkmeyer, surrounding property owner, stated both sides of her family farm around the
proposed RUA and she reminded the Board they must find the application is in compliance with certain
criteria. She submitted a copy of her current comments, marked Exhibit III, a copy of her comments
from August, 2010, marked Exhibit HHHH, and a copy of the comments made by her sister, Katee
Kirkmeyer, marked Exhibit GGGG. She also displayed a PowerPoint presentation, marked Exhibit
FFFF, which she reviewed for the record. Ms. Kirkmeyer stated the Fort Lupton IGA requires
residences within the growth area to obtain sewer service from Todd Creek if they develop their land;
however, most developers do not want approval from another developer, and it also affects private
property owners who must connect to the public sewer if their septic system fails. She stated the plan
is flawed because the RUA overlaps the Northglenn 208 Boundary, there is no sewer provision north of
County Road 6, and the District is in Forbearance, meaning it cannot go into further debt to finance
sewer infrastructure to service the area. Ms. Kirkmeyer stated the District is also delinquent on its
audits from 2008 and 2009, the proposal will result in "Takings", pursuant to the definition of the
Colorado State statutes, it is not compatible with the existing or future land uses, the taxpayers will
likely pay for the development, there is no balance of housing with commercial development and
employment, and it has not been demonstrated that the necessary services are currently available or
reasonably attainable. Ms. Kirkmeyer reviewed a list of referral entities and individuals who
recommend denial and she reiterated the proposal does not meet RUA goals, it will cost taxpayers, and
the applicant has done nothing within the last six months to correct any of the issues.
Brian Howard, surrounding property owner, stated he farms land within, and adjacent to, the proposed
RUA and he supports the proposal, which he believes will be a benefit to the area. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Mr. Howard indicated the areas he farms and stated he has not experienced a
conflict with farming next to the Eagle Shadow development. There being no further comments, Chair
Kirkmeyer closed public testimony.
Mr. Johnson requested a five-minute recess to confer with the applicants and form a response to the
testimony submitted. Upon reconvening, Mr. Johnson stated most of the public comments were related
to the Water District's financial viability. However, this proposal is focused on land use planning at the
Comprehensive Plan level, so a lot of the information and detailed planning is not required at this time,
although the applicant is required to address whether the services are reasonably obtainable. He
stated the School Districts each stated they are having trouble funding the expected level of service,
and he confirmed any impacts will be addressed at the time of development to offset capital
improvement costs. He further stated not one of the service providers indicated they could not provide,
although there were conditions on how they could be provided. Mr. Johnson explained if an issue
cannot be addressed at the time of development, the Board of Commissioners has the authority to deny
a request, thus ensuring the property continues as farm ground until a suitable application is made. He
noted the Pioneer development has been approved, yet it remains farm ground which is likely because
it is not in the path of growth. He stated the area residents have raised valid concerns and most will be
addressed when a more detailed application is presented. He confirmed this phase of the process will
not increase taxes, the service area for the Water District has already been expanded, and the existing
Service Plan stipulates it cannot levy a mill or taxes; rather it may only generate revenue from tap fees.
Mr. Johnson clarified mill levies may be imposed in the future to a specific development if service plans
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 15 BC0016
are submitted and approved, and he indicated because the Service Area overlaps with that of Thornton,
either entity may provide service. He further stated the applicant is hesitant to sign the agreement with
the City of Brighton because the applicant does not own all of the property within the RUA, nor is it
appropriate to commit for future developers. He also noted the service area and the existing IGA map
with the City of Fort Lupton are not consistent with the Fort Lupton 208 boundary; however, there is no
area south of County Roads 6 or 6.5 that cannot receive service.
George Hanlon, President of Todd Creek Village Water District, stated he has provided full disclosure
throughout the entire ordinance hearing process. He stated there was a default on a large tap
purchase, and when he became president in the year 2008, he began to take steps to correct the
situation. Mr. Hanson stated he initially joined the District Board in 2005, and in the year 2006, they
began looking at the overall operations. He referred to the 2008 Audit, and footnote #8 on page 15
indicates Mr. Osborne was bought out in 2009. He explained the "failure to connect" fees were initiated
to cover the costs of infrastructure maintenance, although various developers have defaulted. He
further stated the District was challenged by Lennar to pay the "failure to connect" fee, which they
successfully pursued through litigation, and the District is currently connecting $65,000 per month in
various failure to connect fees to keep the District going. Mr. Hanlon stated the 2009 Audit will be
completed soon as an unqualified opinion. He stated the District Board estimates $7 million in
outstanding tap fees, which they are pursuing legally. He acknowledged a setback subsequent to a
motion filed by Guarantee Bank and the District is obligated by the bond holders to appeal that
decision. He stated if the District is successful in collecting the tap fees, then their issue with the bond
holders will be solved. He stated they are in default on $5.4 million in principal payment; however,
payment of the tap fees will go a long way to satisfy that issue. To clarify previous testimony,
Mr. Hanlon explained at the end of January they had 1,350 taps in service, in addition to 2,300 prepaid
taps which the District reserves water for, as well as some that are also paying "failure to connect" fees.
Concerning the Brantner Ditch, he stated he personally signed the voting proxy, not Mr. Osborne. He
explained the District owns 18 shares, and there are six additional shares that are provided to the
District from Baseline Lakes by proxy, for a total of 24 shares. Concerning application fees, Mr. Hanlon
explained the application was initially submitted as a Mixed Use Development (MUD); however, staff
directed the applicant to switch to the RUA process, with the RUA boundary being consistent with the
Water District's service area. He clarified the District has continued to process the application on behalf
of the individual property owners who signed the application; however, in hind sight, he wished he
would have deferred to the actual applicants because the process has resulted in continual attacks on
the District. He further stated they previously expanded the service area in accordance with State
statute, and any individuals who are in opposition to the District need to address their concerns with the
legislature because they have complied with the law. Mr. Hanlon stated there are no Adams County
residents who have been forced to abandon their well and hook up to public water; rather, the District is
approached by property owners, and he is not in control of what the Colorado Division of Water
Resources mandates. He explained when the service area was created with a developer controlled
District parcel, they gave up the ability to tax. Lastly, he reiterated this application is at the
Comprehensive Plan level and the process does allow for further discussion on specifics when actual
development is proposed.
In response to Commission Garcia regarding the question posed by Frank Galicia, Mr. Hanlon stated if
the District is approached by an individual or developer to bring in water resources, they must provide
the financial resources to support the placement of necessary on-site and off-site infrastructure. He
clarified Mr. Osborne previously contracted with an accounting firm that was not very experienced;
however, in the year 2006 he started making the necessary arrangements to improve the bookkeeping
process. He explained the State makes its decisions for issuing water wells based on whether there
are public water resources in the vicinity that are better suited to provide service. He reiterated the
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 16 BC0016
connectivity issue is not driven by the District and its service area; rather, it is based on mandates from
the Colorado Division of Water resources or requests from property owners.
Responding to Commissioner Garcia concerning comments from the public, Mr. Barker stated if the
RUA is approved pursuant to the Code, it may also be amended to include or exclude properties. In
response to Commissioner Long, Mr. Johnson stated the proposed language provides the applicant
with the flexibility to move designated uses around within the RUA boundary. For example, the School
District has indicated it does not want new school sites, and the proposed language would allow for
removal of the school sites without further review or ordinance amendments. He stated it also allows
the flexibility to reduce the scope of amenities if the development builds out to a lesser density.
Mr. Barker stated the Southeast Weld RUA map note did allow for flexibility regarding the placement of
schools; however, he expressed concern with accepting the proposed language, because it would allow
flexibility beyond the scope of the Code. Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Barker and Ms. Martin
agreed the recent inclusion/exclusion and changes to the Land Use Map for the Southeast Weld RUA
did go through the Code amendment process. Mr. Barker stated if the Board desires to allow the
requested language, they will have to include a motion to amend the map as part of this hearing.
Responding to Chair Kirkmeyer, Mr. Barker reiterated he believes the request is also a procedural
change and goes beyond what the Planning Commission reviewed, therefore, it would be appropriate
to request their review before making a final amendment. Commissioner Long stated he does not
recall having to send Ordinance changes back to the Planning Commission; however, Mr. Barker stated
he would classify this request as a substantial procedural change, since it is different from how the
other RUAs are amended.
In response to Commissioner Conway regarding comments made by Mr. Mueller, Mr. Hanlon explained
that if someone wishes to develop within the service area at a non-urban level, they do not have to
connect to public water, nor has he seen the State require that if there is not a water line in the area.
Chair Kirkmeyer clarified it is more in instances when property owners pursue development. She also
referenced the IGA with the City of Fort Lupton which indicates the City and the District will retain full
power and authority to provide sewer service to all inhabitants in the growth area, and it further
indicates the District will impose and collect the district fees from all development within the growth
area. Mr. Hanlon reiterated those requirements will only be imposed if the property owner chooses to
develop to a level that requires centralized water and sewer; however, anything greater than 2.5 acres
can be on a well.
Chair Kirkmeyer commented, contrary to some testimony, this request is not an overall Comprehensive
Plan revision; rather, it is an application for a specific RUA which is subject to specific criteria in the
Code, and Ms. Martin agreed. Commissioner Long requested clarification on the difference between
an overall comprehensive revision, versus this particular revision request. Chair Kirkmeyer commented
that subsequent to a work session with the Todd Creek District, the Board did include new language to
distinguish between existing and proposed RUAs. Ms. Martin reviewed the criteria as listed in
Sections 22-1-150.B.12 for the record.
Commissioner Garcia thanked the applicants for the thorough presentation and the neighbors for
attending and expressing their concerns. He commended Frank Galicia, Raul Rodriguez, the School
District representative, Eric Rienard, and Lori Hawthorne who all provided comments that helped him
form his opinion on the matter. He stated he feels a majority of the discussion strayed away from the
RUA application and confirmed the specifics of development will be required as future applications are
submitted. He stated the overall Comprehensive Plan was recently revised and the subject RUA was
not included because it wasn't ready at the time. He further stated the Board does have the flexibility to
amend the Comprehensive Plan, as appropriate, and he believes it is important to keep wealth and
water in Weld County. Commissioner Garcia stated the area has been subject to change in
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 17 BC0016
socio-economic and land use conditions in recent years, specifically recognizing the expansion of
Halliburton, the development of Vestas, and increased pressures on land uses with the Prairie Waters
Project and transportation corridors such as E-470, U.S. Highway 85 and Interstate 25. He stated this
proposal addresses land use from both local and regional contexts, as well as impacts on the natural
environment (i.e., maintaining water, open space, trails, parks, etcetera). He further stated it is
compatible with existing surrounding land uses, and future uses will be subject to the Weld County
Right to Farm Statement which recognizes agricultural production. Commissioner Garcia stated the
amendment also addresses social amenities, such as paying cash-in-lieu of land fees, providing a
Sheriff's Office substation, providing easy access to employment, and he believes the referral
comments have been adequately met.
Chair Kirkmeyer stated her family has been in the area for five generations, and she believes there are
more standards that need to be met. She stated the RUA will impact existing water service capabilities,
as evidenced by State Engineer Guidelines, and she believes this proposal will result in a "taking" of
private property rights under the State Constitution. She explained property owners will not be issued a
well permit if they are within the service area, regardless of cost, and as an owner of 35 acres, she
would be very upset if she were unable to obtain a well permit, and the District requirements are not
reasonable. Chair Kirkmeyer stated the RUA must be compatible with existing uses; however, there is
farming in the area and development does result in adverse impacts, as evidenced by public testimony.
She indicated based on past performance of District Board members, she believes the existing
taxpayers and new residents will pay for the development of the RUA, 20 acres of parks is not sufficient
for 20,000 people, and there is not an adequate balance of residential and commercial uses. She also
expressed concern with the Metro District being committed to provide service in the area, yet it cannot
provide for infrastructure since it is in forbearance. Chair Kirkmeyer referenced the referral from the
City of Thornton which indicates that according to the IGA, Todd Creek cannot provide water or sewer
service within the overlapping area north of County Road 6. She expressed frustration that the
applicant waited until the night before this hearing to turn in requested audits, nor did they successfully
amend the IGAs with Fort Lupton or Thornton. She stated although four members of the City of Fort
Lupton Council are opposed to the RUA, they are subject to the existing IGA. She also cited the
referral comments from the Weld County Finance Director expressing serious concern with the financial
structure. Chair Kirkmeyer indicated much of the water has already left Weld County, and with this
proposal, the remaining water will switch from agricultural production to residential development. She
stated Weld County has no debt as a result of generally sound planning, and she does not support a
proposal that does not meet one planning standard of approval. She further stated she personally
attended the open houses and the public was told what would be happening and did not engage or
invite the surrounding property owners. She acknowledged the area may be in the path of growth;
however, the currently developed portion of Todd Creek has 2,500 open taps and the surrounding
municipalities have 28,000 to 70,000 open lots; therefore, it is her belief that growth will likely start to
take place in this area in 20 to 30 years, and at that time she wants to be present to discuss specifics
for development.
Commissioner Rademacher thanked everyone for coming and explained he initially requested the
six-month continuance because he felt it was important to have all the facts concerning what would be
the third RUA in the County. He stated his family has benefited from being residents of the 1-25 RUA,
and although their agricultural operations receive complaints from surrounding development, they are
protected by the Right to Farm and do not have to go to court. He stated the Planning Commission
voted unanimously to approve this RUA, and it speaks highly that none of the existing Todd Creek
residents are present to express any concerns with their water service. He addressed the Wattenburg
residents and indicated the proposed RUA is not a direct threat to the community; rather they should be
more concerned with the fact that the State has adopted a floodplain ruling which will prevent
Wattenburg residents from rebuilding structures if they are destroyed by fire or other disasters.
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 18 BC0016
Commissioner Rademacher stated the Comprehensive Plan indicates water and sewer service must be
currently available or reasonably obtainable, and he observed that water is a commodity that can be
moved, exchanged, or bought. He stated there is water in the area that is not appropriated for any use,
there are towns which do not have enough water, and Thornton acted proactively by purchasing farms
to obtain their water, which resulted in dryland parcels. He acknowledged the County's Financial
Advisor has indicated municipalities in the County do not pay their own way any more than independent
development; however, he stated his personal property values have increased six times since the 1-25
RUA was put in place. He stated the applicants believe the RUA is the best and highest use for their
properties, and the proposal will address public safety with a new substation for the Sheriff's Office, and
the local fire protection district has indicated it can serve the area. Commissioner Rademacher
commented Weld County was ranked first in job creation last year, and he believes the proposed RUA
area will continue to grow with jobs provided by Halliburton, Vestas, UQA, etcetera. He stated no one
knows for certain whether the area will get developed; however, the RUA will provide the opportunity for
future developers to try if the market supports it. Lastly, Commissioner Rademacher stated for the
record that, contrary to some testimony, he refused any campaign contributions from the applicants to
avoid the impression that they might influence his decision.
Commissioner Conway commented he appreciates all of the input from the public and the applicants.
He stated he supported the continuation in August in hopes the applicant would be able to negotiate an
IGA with the City of Brighton to address many of the questions and concerns; however, upon a review
of the Code, it is apparent that many of the provisions remain unsatisfied. He thanked the residents of
Wattenburg for their relevant and moving testimony and agreed that it is a special community; however,
they do have a lot of special challenges ahead of them. Commissioner Conway stated he reviewed the
testimony submitted by Mr. Warden, who is a highly respected financial advisor and is one of the
primary reasons Weld County is where it is today. He also considered the testimony of Bob Sakata,
who is a highly respected member of the agricultural community. He state the Board works very hard
to keep water in Weld County and to support agricultural production. He acknowledged the applicant
did hold meetings and reached out to area residents; however, he is not certain it was enough.
Commissioner Conway expressed concern with the fact that property owners cannot remove their
property from a service area, which does appear as a "taking", and he urged the applicants to take
another course because it appears the neighbors are willing and open to work with them in the future if
specific proposals are provided.
Commissioner Long commended everyone for attending each of the County ordinance readings and
open houses concerning this matter. He stated he supports the application because it was made with
the intention of planning for the inevitable growth that will take place in the area. He commented Weld
County has continued to grow through the recession, and is ranked third in the State. He
acknowledged there are other land use tools available; however, at the instruction of staff, the applicant
chose this one. He reiterated the economic downturn is cyclical, and he has observed instances when
opponents ended up benefiting from the proposed changes. He stated the change will be market
driven, and he believes it is important to keep water in Weld County. He further stated buffers are
possible, if purchased, not by limiting others' property rights. Commissioner Long stated, if approved,
there will be five more stages to scrutinize the fine details of future development, and without the RUA,
any future development would go forward without cohesive planning. He reiterated the RUA is a tool to
facilitate long term planning, and the specific components come later. He further stated water is a
property right, and just because it lies beneath your land does not mean you have access to it without
purchasing it. He commented a centralized service provider seems to be more economical and
practical for potable and non-potable water, and the RUA is comparable to the size of the Town of
Eaton which is able to coexist with the surrounding agricultural activities. Commissioner Long stated he
reviewed and respects Mr. Warden comments; however, he believes the comments are based on a
worse case scenario and do not necessarily reflect the potential benefits of the proposal. He stated it is
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 19 BC0016
important to include the surrounding community when proposing changes, and during the continuance
the applicant made an effort to engage the neighbors and provided evidence of their notification efforts.
Based on those comments, Commissioner Long stated he finds the applicants have met the
requirements, although he acknowledges there is still room for improvement as they move forward with
specific development.
Commissioner Rademacher stated it is human nature to resist change, and he suggested that if the
applicants were proposing a large agricultural operation, such as a dairy or hog farm, the area would
still be opposed. Regardless, he believes this is the highest and best use for the area.
Commissioner Rademacher moved to approve Ordinance #2010-1 on final reading. Commissioner
Garcia seconded the motion with the findings previously stated and in the drafted Ordinance. Upon a
roll call vote, the motion passed three to two, with Commissioner Conway and Chair Kirkmeyer in
opposition. Chair Kirkmeyer thanked everyone who attended and participated throughout the process.
Commissioner Conway reiterated this is just the beginning of the process and he urged everyone to
remain involved as the proposal moves forward.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
Consent Agenda. Ordinance #2010-1 was approved on final reading.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
` W D COUNTY, C O (
ATTEST: �; ��.» .• ) n/�
1861 1 .` ,: arbara Kirkmeyer/Chair /
Weld County Clerk tot B. - ;lv;� �- -
RP
Se way, Pro-Tem
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the
i ' m F. _rcia
APPROVE O FORM:
David E. Long
County Attorney atai, yv
Douglas adem her
Minutes, February 23, 2011 2011-0539
Page 20 BC0016
J
.x
c
W
co co< 5 v ( ' - 1 NI `c ' �� S'
ce a
- k,,- - n c -' c
W � � b �b Q �
a r� ,1 -.7-
z
p IIII
te N ors U S � v yC�
co
(Wj Q re i- of . c--7-- i I. ,� ‘..3_\,.1 \ \
< W co ti t // 3 r� ‘\S-)
T
TI
- L
H Q w 3 �J _ fit'
f s 1.0
a O m p p Z o ti, I h V r rr> \ S,c":� kLi‘ N N cc I- vN rert
s ._CL). tel C' RI
z p uj
w 'p ,) \l
l
O 5
v) V -1 r✓
; re :4 , `f
Q p• C CI n
�a' N 'z °p
a 6 '; i ,s 3 ra �. ( -cam r_ ` < c
N
fY it d -J cam'..t1` .. uu.r .��'" .c ` \-1 � v
-'�' - �� '-c -'--)°-C{
c.
2 Y Q a a c eF .7`C-1 ' \-. C jam / 1 -", ' `` J/ s ��.—S.mil.
C. -?i
\
W
U N R
5 ., . N v 3. d
5- 9 d b ° +�a opt ct
H _ 3 \ c�
D C-% r° \-. 4 c.„5, i t --c i 3 1
ra v v
Z 5 ..... o
O41_
m a 1-10 � � - �i� ;Ai-
0
7 fn Ce N i * a 4) CC .1 i ' NF- L V 1 _
N . J '
Q m W N t1 \ ) 'Na4 'T' S •1 < < d, f .3
r4J
O a Z
R t/5 t- \c N A S m
Z li 7 .d. N �' J A 1 �� s
F N a co t 4Z z. k � tiK. .� _. 7 ; c 3
H 0 :IA o W 0 2S) LO � � � tali) ,s
< u z c\ y \t,..\,3, r„, ti 9._Q ? 7 _q0Ito �. m
c G N l� t< ti cA .. tie. a N r- 0- r i ,A N
N Q co 2 CO Q _.
2 re IT I
Z p W i5 ^1
O
o
LO W >. :c.
%1
ti
_ E ✓ a %
Lv a O. ,: C-
b
ai # z d N r. 0 v `-• a It.
i 1 -?
z Y Z w W a O a r �r�n v -`gyp r•'� - ` - �J
= 0 o a z -, v) om` 1� � � r�� CUCY�4 I� �1
N
0 _..,-
be ' f6
w 0
`_
Ci
re Q
w _ %-%4 C.
t 0 r'
N r Q 4 . � ,
w - U off( S
O Z ��C ,4-
U ` m N M `� \d cc re, "" ��
w c O `` rij jo
Ce N I �i � NI` • r1/4ii..r
D CZ --
ct y._. Q./ (.7.
U c.
a m w $ v k. * `� � � S "�
Ill Z `
D u_ cu
e v \C
w O m o w r c i !lVv0 . %, ^ c�!,)
F O m ce `' G ( z-O O enL9 r T ,^ n C) r� 7:),{i
8 1
N s
I CC a
Z CO W 0
O b
re ≥. l
0 C ct v NJ
p < o % C 3 \, \ ' C.
a 2 *---Cd ,j
wr O 3 y d S ��.,•
C o T J °
Q N La CD a "r S1 `y
w ; Ow a� c b o
r w .
1
a v 0 W Q \...7� G_0 C� L Ce
2 o o d Z - ��
Hello