HomeMy WebLinkAbout20103037.tiff Esther Gesick
oorom: William Garcia
nt: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 11:02 AM
: Esther Gesick
Subject: FW: Dry Creek RUA support
For the record.
Bill Garcia
Weld County Commissioner at-Large
9Th 10th St.
Greeley, CO 80631
970-336-7204
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
e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the
.ontents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited.
From: Linda and Carl Zimmerman fmailto:zcrew@hotmail.coml
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2011 5:56 PM
To: Dave Long; William Garcia; Douglas Rademacher; Sean Conway; Barbara Kirkmeyer
Subject: Dry Creek RUA support
Commissioner,
I support the approval of the Dry Creek RUA as previously stated in my e mail and my testimony for the August 23rd
hearing.
Thank you for your consideration.
Linda Zimmerman
&C)1O- 36 3'7
EXHIBIT
• i 4imp
1
• Comments on Dry Creek RUA Application
Weld County Colorado - Board of County Commissioners
February 23, 2011
Good day, Honorable Commissioners. I am Bill Wycoff of 333 CR 17. My family
and I have continuously resided there since July, 1982.
Comments today are in addition to those of August 23, 2010.
I and a number of other people have absolutely no issue with any land owner's
right to sell his or her property; or develop their property in accordance with our
(1) Weld County Comprehensive Plan and (2) zoning and subdivision regulations.
However, you clearly have an obligation to deny this proposal as it not in
accordance with either the Plan or the regulations. Furthermore, there is a potential
"Takings" issue with the Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District (TCVMD)
Service Area.
Fiscal Integrity
• Recall that in August I made a point that the 2008 and 2009 Audits for Todd Creek
Village Metropolitan District were delinquent. This inexcusable non-conformance
to requirements was explained by the vague comment of"we are having
problems". While the audits remain delinquent (as of February 18), we have
worked to gain an understanding of the range and scope of some of the problems.
The problems that exist with TCVMD fail to meet an RUA applications goal of
maintaining fiscal integrity.
In August an issue was made of TCVMD being a "Not for Profit" entity. The
message was that as such, their mounting losses were of no consequence. My
point was and remains that regardless of a concern being a "for profit", "non-
profit" or a "not-for-profit" they each generally:
o have a business plan that is expected to work
o have wages to pay
o have operating costs to pay
o have long term and other debts to pay
• o have an obligation to maintain a reserve EXHIBIT
irrnalt?
wrw 2010-02-23
o should not run up massive losses. •
I am sure that the Commission was not misdirected by the "not for profit" ploy. It
certainly could not pass anyone's straight face test. A "not for profit" does not get
extra points for losing massive amounts of money -- they cease to exist!
A key factor in creating an RUA is "maintaining fiscal integrity", Sec. 22-2-130.
TCVMD is not doing any better now than in August. It is not in a fiscal position to
expand into Weld County. You will hear much more about finances from another
speaker.
Water and "Takings"
Established water providers other than TCVMD remain in the area. Major water
providers within several miles of the RUA include Thornton, Central Weld and
Left Hand. Just six miles West of the RUA site, Erie announced a 2,880 unit
development that will use Erie's water. TCVMD is not the only potential water
source in the vicinity. In the absence of the RUA, developers have other options.
For many land owners a path for water is to obtain a well permit from the Division •
of Water Resources (DWR) and use water that is under one's own property. This is
fairly common in our neighborhood, and for large parcels effectively, automatic.
However, by virtue of a Service Area TCVMD can take that option away from
property owners. The DWR has a Guideline document to clarify granting well
permits per Colorado Revised Statute 37-92-602(6) (attached).
See: http://water.state.co.us/dwripub/documents/guideline2003-5.pdf
Copies for the Commissioners.
Note Guidelines B and C. on the first page. It states that the DWR will not issue a
permit to an applicant in the service area of a water supplier. Cost to the property
owner and the quality of the supplier's water cannot be reasons to issue a well
permit.
There have been maps showing over 6,000 acres in Weld County as part of
TCVMD's Service Area. A property owner applying for a well permit within the
service area must have the water supplier's permission to drill a well per DRW. •
2
wrw 2010-02-23
• If a property owner did not know they were in a Service Area, were granted permit
and drilled a well; That well can be taken away and the property forced to
connect to the water supplier. I have had many contacts with the DWR engineers
and while unfortunate for the property owner, I am assured that this happens.
Mr. Barker and Mr. Hanlon provided explanations of Service areas in August.
Major points included:
1. A property owner cannot remove their property from the Service Area.
2. The Service Plan indicates TCVMD is provider of water service in their
Service Area.
3. The Service Area is not limited to the RUA.
As of two weeks ago, neither DWR nor the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA)
had a TCVMD Service Area map. (It was interesting to find that DWR's source
for service areas is DOLA). So it seems that property owners currently could
apply for well permits without a letter from TCVMD. However, by the simple act
of sending a Service Area Map to the DOLA; TCVMD takes away from an
• owner, water that is under their property.
It seems like this suddenly being denied to access their water under their property
fits the description of"takings" contained in Article II of the Bill of Rights of the
Colorado Constitution (attached). It can stop a family from being able to build on
their properly zoned, large acre parcel. The right of citizens to own and use their
property needs to be defended.
Solidly, there is an obligation to deny this proposal as it not in accordance with
either the Plan or the regulations.
From the draft plans of the proposed Todd Creek Village North it is clearly not
intended to be a town--with so little commercial. If allowed to start, it will not be a
town, it will be a tumor in Weld County that drains resources. Please don't let this
happen.
Thank You
•
3
wrw 2010-02-23
Attachment 1
•
CRS 37-92-602(6)
(6)It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state of Colorado that the exemptions set forth in
this section are intended to allow citizens to obtain a water supply in less densely populated areas
for in-house and domestic animal uses where other water supplies are not available. It is not the
intent that these wells be used to cause material injury to prior vested water rights, and, wherever
possible, persons seeking the use of such individual wells may be required to develop plans for
augmentation pursuant to section 37-92-302 or to develop other replacement plans acceptable to
the state engineer.
Colorado Constitution
Article II Bill of Rights
Section 14.
Private property shall not be taken for private use unless by consent of the owner,
except for private ways of necessity, and except for reservoirs, drains, flumes or
•
ditches on or across the lands of others, for agricultural, mining, milling, domestic
or sanitary purposes.
Section 15
Private property shall not be taken or damaged, for public or private use, without
just compensation. Such compensation shall be ascertained by a board of
commissioners, of not less than three freeholders, or by a jury, when required by
the owner of the property, in such manner as may be prescribed by law, and until
the same shall be paid to the owner, or into court for the owner, the property shall
not be needlessly disturbed, or the proprietary rights of the owner therein divested;
and whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be
public, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a
judicial question, and determined as such without regard to any legislative
assertion that the use is public.
•
wrw 2010-02-23
Guideline 2003-5
•
Regarding the Use of Wells Within Water Service Areas
In an effort to provide consistent review of well permit applications pursuant to section
37-92-602(6), CRS (2003), the following guidelines were prepared. Section 37-92-
602(6) states:
"It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state of Colorado that the exemptions set
forth in this section are intended to allow citizens to obtain a water supply in less
densely populated areas for in-house and domestic animal uses where other water
supplies are not available. It is not the intent that these wells be used to cause material
injury to prior vested water rights, and, wherever possible, persons seeking the use of
such individual wells may be required to develop plans for augmentation pursuant to
section 37-92-302 or to develop other replacement plans acceptable to the state
engineer."
There are three types of entities that we would consider legal water suppliers within
Colorado. Additionally, to qualify, we must have on file or access to, the legal
boundaries of each water supplier.
Municipal or quasi-municipal water supplier (e.g., water district) that would
assess property taxes for individuals within their taxing boundaries.
• II. Private water company who is registered with the Secretary of State and/or
the Public Utilities Commission.
III. Operators of decreed plans for augmentation (e.g., homeowner associations)
to augment on-lot wells or central wells for a residential or commercial
development.
The guidelines are as follows for permit applications requested under section 37-92-602
(including areas where ground water is available for appropriation).
A. Each application will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis in accordance with
these guidelines.
B. Verify if location of well is within a water service area.
C. Economic or associated costs with connecting to a water supplier's system
cannot be considered by this office as a basis for granting an exempt well permit.
Additionally, we cannot issue any exempt permits because of water quality
issues of a water supplier's system. However, the water supplier may decide to
allow an applicant to drill a well based on cost or water quality issues.
D. The operational condition of a water system or augmentation plan will not be
• considered in determining whether to grant an exempt well permit. However, the
water supplier may decide to allow an applicant to drill a well on this basis.
EXHIBIT
' 1
•
E. If a proposed well will be in a known water service area that is served by a
central system, we will not issue an exempt well permit unless accompanied by a
letter from the supplier stating that they cannot provide water to the applicant or
they do not object to the applicant obtaining a well permit within the water service
area.
F. If an augmentation plan decree specifically states that all water or well uses must
be covered by the augmentation plan, no exempt well permits should be issued
until the decree is modified or vacated.
G. If an augmentation plan decree does not specifically state that all water or well
uses will be covered by the augmentation plan, no exempt well permits should be
issued unless the augmentation plan operator provides in writing that they have
no objection to the issuance of exempt well permits (if they qualify) within the
augmentation plan area. If they provide a letter of objection, we will abide by
their request.
H. If an augmentation plan decree specifically allows for exempt wells, these should •
be evaluated on their own merits.
I. If the well is in a subdivision approved on or after June 1, 1972, the water supply
must be per recommendations stated in our response letter to the county's
referral request.
J. Water Conservancy Districts do not qualify as water suppliers under these
guidelines. As such, exempt well permits may be issued within such district's
boundaries without regard to Section 37-92-602(6).
K. A request to late register a well pursuant to section 37-92-602(5) or 37-90-105(4)
will be evaluated on its own merits. It is the interpretation of this office that such
wells are not subject to the provisions of section 37-92-602(6).
L. A request for a replacement well permit will not be subject to the provisions of
section 37-92-602(6), unless the replacement well will be completed in a different
source than the well being replaced, or for a change or expansion of use.
M. A request to permit a well pursuant to Article 90 will be evaluated on its own
merits and shall not be subject to the provisions of section 37-92-602(6).
•
Comments on Dry Creek RUA Application
• Weld County Colorado - Board of County Commissioners
February 23, 2011
COMMENTS RELATE TO SECTION 22-1-150.B.12.e.1 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RUA
APPROVAL STANDARDS (Service Capabilities)
APPLICANT - Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District ("District") representing
eight property owners. The District was formed in 1996 by the primary Todd
Creek land developer and is not a new entity. Despite public comment that the
District is simply in the business of selling water taps and water - IT CANNOT BE
DISASSOCIATED FROM ITS FORMING DEVELOPER BECAUSE OF RELATED PARTY
CONTROL AS FOLLOWS:
• BOARD CONSISTS OF MEMBERS OR EMPLOYEES OF DEVELOPER
• COMPOSITION OF BOARD CAN BE CONTROLLED FOREVER BY DEVELOPER
BECAUSE OF DISTRICT'S STRUCTURE
• $660,000 MANAGEMENT FEE TO VILLAGE WATER MANAGEMENT, LLC -
FORMED BY PRINCIPAL (OR FORMER PRINCIPAL) OF DEVELOPER
(MR. GENE OSBORNE)
• • THREE DIRECTORS ARE PART OF VILLAGE WATER MANAGEMENT
• MR. OSBORNE AND RELATED ENTITY GUARANTEE DISTRICT'S
PERFORMANCE UNDER SERIES 2004 BONDS
• MR. OSBORNE IS ON THE BOARD OF NEW BRANTNER DITCH AND
DIRECTLY REPRESENTS THE DISTRICTS DITCH SHARES
ACCORDINGLY, HISTORY OF DISTRICT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN RELATION
TO THE DISTRICTS CAPABILITY TO FUND AND DELIVER SERVICE and COULD
MEAN THAT"RELATED PARTY" RATHER THAN PUBLIC INTERESTS WILL
CONTROL THE DISTRICT.
OVERVIEW
• CURRENTLY 1,300 ADAMS COUNTY CUSTOMERS - POTENTIAL 3,800
CUSTOMERS AT ADAMS COUNTYBUILDOUT (Substantially less than
proposed RUA customers)
• $49,500,000 OF OPERATING SYSTEM AND STORAGE ASSETS (2007)
(Additional assets necessary for Adams County build-out)
• $27,785,000 OF BOND AND COPS DEBT (END OF 2007)
• EXkIB�IT
:343 Jar/ivtS
DISTRICT'S FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE
• • HISTORY OF LOSSES (Before Capital Contributions):
2005 $ (2,035,000)
2006 (2,184,000)
2007 (2,923,000)
2008 (1,500,000) or more *
2009 (1,500,000) or more*
2010 (1,500,000) or more *
* Estimate - audited amounts not available
• MANAGEMENT STATED DISTRICT CURRENTLY OPERATING IN THE BLACK
ONLY POSSIBLE IF NOT CONSIDERING INTEREST AND DEPRECIATION
• $811,000 OPERATING FUND DEFICIT ESTIMATED AT 12/31/2010
• DEPENDENCY ON TAP FEES WHICH HAVE BEEN DECLINING :
2005 $ 4,218,000
2006 4,027,000
2007 3,663,000
2008 268,000
• 2009 67,000
2010 40,000 (estimated)
• OPERATING REVENUES - "FAILURE TO CONNECT FEES" ESTIMATED TO BE
$708,000 FOR 2010
• IS THIS REVENUE SOURCE SUSTAINABLE WITHOUT MAJOR COST?
• OVER 400 TAPS NOT PAID/IN LITIGATION - RULING DENYING
DISTRICT TAP FEES FOR $5,600,000 ON FORECLOSED LOTS
• BUDGET AMENDMENTS - 2011 BOARD APPROVAL TO AMEND 2008, 2009
AND 2010 BUDGETS
• DEBT AND DEFAULTS
• SERIES 2004 BONDS ($19,125,000 AT 12/31/2007)
• $5,350,000 DEFAULT ON PRINCIPAL PAYMENT DUE 12/1/2009
• DEFAULT BY GUARANTOR ( MR. OSBORNE AND RELATED ENTITY)
REFUSING TO PAY ABOVE SHORTFALL
• • 2011 BANKRUPTCY FILING OF GUARANTOR (MR OSBORNE AND
RELATED ENTITY) (CASE 2011-CV6248)
• • 2011 BOARD DISCUSSION RE INADEQUATE RECORDKEEPING FOR
MAJOR SYSTEM ASSETS CONTRIBUTED BY MR OSBORNE:
• ASSETS CONTRIBUTED OR TO BE COMPENSATED?
• IF COMPENSATED, COULD MEAN MILLIONS OF DEBT NOT
REFELCTED IN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
• ACTION TO "CORRECT DISTRICT'S BOOKS"
• ACTION TO NOT PURSUE DEMAND ON OSBORNE'S BOND
GUARANTEE DEFAULT IF HE AGREES TO:
• PERFECT /CLAIRFY DISTRICT'S OWNERSHIP OF ASSETS
• WAIVE CLAIMS MIGHT ASSERT RE ASSET CONVEYANCE
• FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT DATED 12/1/2009
• $5,350,00 + DUE BY JUNE 1, 2009
• NUMEROUS RESTRICTIONS INCLUDING
NO NEW DEBT
• • DISTRICT IS IN DEFAULT ON FORBEARANCE AGREEEMENT
• DEBT UNDER CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION ($8,660,000) IN
DEFAULT WITH NO FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT IN PLACE
• $1,400,000 LINE OF CREDIT SECURED BY WATER RIGHTS AND
STORAGE FACILITIES - DEFAULT COULD IMPAIR SERVICE
• DELINQUENT AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR 2008 AND 2009
• GOING CONCERN AUDITOR'S REPORT FOR 2008 AND 2009
• NOT A GOOD THING
• MEANS THERE IS MATERIAL UNCERTAINTY THAT MAY CAST
SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT ON ENTITY'S ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO
FUNCTION AS A BUSINESS ENTITY
•
CONCLUSION
• • HOPE YOU RECOGNIZE I HAVE PRESENTED MOSTLY FACTS AND NOT
"OPINION"TODAY. I HAVE ONLY PRESENTED SELECTED EXAMPLES OF
MATERIAL UNCERTAINTIES AND SUBSTANTIAL DOUBT RE DISTRICTS
ABILITY TO PROVIDE SERVICES
• I AND OTHERS HAVE NO ISSUE WITH OWNER'S RIGHT TO SELL OR DEVELOP
PROPERTY IN ACCORD WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING AND
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
• NO NEGATIVE COMMENTS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL LAND OWNERS - JUST
NEGATIVE COMMENTS RELATED TO THE DISTRICT, HISTORY OF
CONTROLLING DEVELOPER, AND PROPOSED DENSITY
• APPLICATION IS NOTHING MORE THAN DEVELOPER USING EXISTING
SEVERELY FINANCIALLY STRESSED METRO DISTRICT TO GAIN
EXCLUSIVE FRANCHISE FOR DEVELOPMENT
• LIKELY THAT MANY LAND OWNERS WOULD NOT BE IN APPLICATION
HAD THEY BEEN FULLY INFORMED OF FUTURE POTENTIAL
CONSEQUENCES -TO THEM AND THEIR NEIGHBORS
IN ANY EVENT, BECAUSE OF THE DISTRICT'S:
• • RELATED PARTY (DEVELOPER) CONTROL
• HISTORY OF LOSSES, DECLINING TAP SALES, ASSET ISSUES
• DEBT DEFAULTS, BOND GUARANTOR'S (MR. OSBORNE) BANKRUPTCY
• FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT DEFAULT AND LACK OF FORBEARANCE
• NEW DEBT PROHIBITED AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS BY FORBEARANCE
• GOING CONCERN REPORT FORTHCOMING FROM AUDITOR
• DISTRICT ADAMS COUNTY ISSUES THAT WILL COME TO WELD COUNTY
BECAUSE DISTRICT IS NOT A SEPARATE ENTITY
• OTHER ISSUES RAISED WITH APPLICANTS LACK OF COMPLIANCE WITH
WELD COUNTY RUA APPROVAL STANDARDS
I and a number of other people believe you have an OBLIGATION AS
REPRESENTATIVES OF WELD COUNTY CITIZENS TO DENY THE APPLICATION
AS IT NEITHER COMPLIES WITH THE APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS NOR DOES
IT COMPLY WITH THE WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
S
•
BBA
BIS HOP - BaoC; r) EN ,455O ( / /111 $ , INC
ENGINEERING REPORT
SUMMARY OF WATER SUPPLY
• SYSTEM
Prepared for
Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District
JANUARY 2011
EXHIBIT
•
AA k yNy� e .
333\\ist Hampden Avenue,Suite 1050 Engles+'ood,Colorado 80110 phone 303 806 8952 fa\ 303 806 8953
• TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Paoe
SECTION 1 -INTRODUCTION 1
SECTION 2- WATER SUPPLY SOURCES 2
2.1 Surface Water Supplies 2
2.2 Consolidated Mutual Contract 2
2.3 Farmers High Line Canal 2
2.4 Surface Water Rights for Future Use 3
2.5 Brantner Ditch 3
2.6 Fulton Ditch 4
2.7 Ground Water Rights 5
2.8 Total Potential Ground Water Rights 6
2.9 Existing Deep Wells 6
• 2.10 Total Available Water Supplies 7
SECTION 3—WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM FACILITIES 8
3.1 Overview 8
3.2 Raw Water System 9
3.2.1 Sources 9
3.2.2 Reservoirs 9
3.2.3 Marcus Reservoir 10
3.2.4 J B Smith Reservoir 10
3.2.5 Baseline Lakes 10
3.2.6 Signal Reservoirs 11
3.2.7 Pipelines 11
3.2.8 Irrigation System 11
3.3 Potable System 12
3.3.1 Sources 12
3.3.2 Reservoirs 12
•
' 1.www.bbawatet.coin Bishop RI okdcn .Asst c'itcs,Inc.
• Table of Contents—continued
3.3.3 Pipelines 12
3.4.4 Water Treatment Plant 12
3.3.5 Potable Water Storage 12
3.3.6 Delivery System 13
SECTION 4—WATER DEMANDS 13
4.1 Irrigation Demand 13
4.2 In-House Potable Demand 13
4.3 Total Demand 13
4.4 Total Current Available Supply Compared to Total Demands 14
4.5 TCVMD Future Water Demands 15
•
•
tivtvcv bbawater.Cout - Bishop hi Nth ii Associate\Int_
. 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, Weld County Road 2 (East 168th Avenue) on 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 will provide service to approximately 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 1,300 SFE's in the original Todd Creek
• development of approximately 10.5 square miles located in Adams County south of Baseline
Road(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 in the Brantner and Fulton Ditches, as well as the Fanners High Line Canal
• Water storage in several reservoirs within the service area
• South Platte River alluvial wells
❖ Denver Basin wells from the Lower Arapahoe and Laramie-Fox Hills formations
•
- 1 -
11'7' 4vew F+ ittier- Hlshop lkogdrn AS'All I's.Inc.
• SECTION 2 - WATER SUPPLY SOURCES
2.1 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 I below.
Table 1
TCVMD Surface Water Rights Currently In Use
Water Supply Yield(ac-ft/yr)
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
111 2.2 Consolidated Mutual Contract
The District entered into a contract with the Consolidated Mutual Water Company that provides
for the delivery of 5O0 ac-ft per year. The contract deliveries are made to the South Platte River
based on an agreed-upon schedule. All deliveries are hilly-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.
2.3 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.
-2 -
J4
liishopGm�dcn i:uc., Inc.
•
•
• 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
to the end of the Signal Ditch system, where TCVMD receives deliveries of the FHL shares.
2.4 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 most 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 18375 17
1.6 312
Fulton Ditch 7 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
2.5 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.
•
- 3 -
vt -k ww. pow4e eooi Hishop hi(Nil( .Associ.ucs,Inc.
t '
a a ,,
•
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
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.
2.6 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 at 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.
Of TCVMD's seven shares, 2.8 shares are currently dedicated as augmentation water for the
200.8 ac-ft total of not-nontributary Lower Arapahoe ground water decreed in Water Court Case
Nos. 95CW214 and 96CW242 (described below). The two augmentation plans allow for the
continued use of the shares for irrigation until such time as post-pumping depletions need to be
replaced. The shares have never been needed to replace post-pumping depletions because no
wells have been constructed into the Lower Arapahoe aquifer to access the 200.8 ac-ft yet. If it
is determined that these wells will not be required, the Lower Arapahoe portion of the decree
could be abandoned to unencumber the 2.8 shares of Fulton Ditch water.
•
- 4 -
Q.,#wiVV:b1,& .copd ' bishop hrowkiiAsso it es,Irk.
• 2.7 Ground Water Rights
The District owns various groundwater rights from what is known as the "Denver Basin"
formation. These include both nontributary and not-nontributary rights in the Lower Arapahoe
and Laramie-Fox Hills formations. Non-tributary water has been determined to not affect
streamflows in the South Platte River, whereas Not-nontributary water needs to be partially
augmented. The ground water rights currently owned by TCVMD are summarized in Table 3
below.
Table 3
TCVMD Groundwater Rights
Completed Laramie-Fox Hills Lower Arapahoe Lower Arapahoe Total Decreed Amount
Decree Wells (nontributary) (augmented) (not augmented) (ac-ft)
83CW 136 27 27
87CW258 Nos. 1-6 226 226
95CW214 177 177
96CW242 15 24 38
97CW 186 39 28 67
98CW396 38 27 66
• 98CW397 26 26
99CW124 Nos. 7&8 24 17 41
99CW l4l 38 29 67
99CW042 34 34
00CW 160 17 17
00C W254 254 134 42 175
02CW106 No. 10 178 112 290
04C W108 108 91 46 137
Total 843 201 343 1,387
Potential Future
Groundwater Rights 780 592 1,372
Total Potential
Groundwater Rights 1,623 201 935 2,759
Notes: 95CW214 and 96CW242 provide for augmentation water for the Lower Arapahoe wells from
2.8 shares of Fulton Ditch water.
99CW214 was reduced by half for TCV MD per an agreement with Wagner.
02CW106 is also referred to as the"Five Parcel Decree"
The Laramie-Fox Hills aquifer under the District's service area is considered nontributary;
therefore, it does not require an augmentation plan and replacement source for post-pumping
depletions. The Lower Arapahoe aquifer within the District's service area is considered to be
•
- 5 -
✓''
i�a7WtY ,z y_Pi9dhC0t' Rlshop-Rrogdcn Associates,Inc
• not-nontributary, meaning that in order to be utilized for supply within the District, an
augmentation plan to replace four percent of the ground water pumped and to replace post-
pumping depletions must be obtained in Water Court. Although several of the currently decreed
Water Court cases have quantified the Lower Arapahoe ground water available, only two of the
cases have been decreed to augment the not-nontributary post-pumping replacements. These two
cases are Case Nos. 95CW214 and 96CW242, which have dedicated a combined 2.8 shares of
Fulton Ditch Irrigation Co water for augmentation. As shown in Table 3, the total augmented
Lower Arapahoe ground water currently legally available to the District is 201 ac-ft/yr. The
District has decreed an additional 343 ac-ft/yr of not-nontributary ground water that is available
but requires an augmentation plan prior to being used.
There are additional sources of both nontributary and not-nontributary ground water supplies
available to the District that have not been decreed at this time. The total nontributary supply
and not-nontributary supply that can be filed for in the future are approximately 780 ac-ft/yr and
592 ac-ft/yr, respectively.
•
2.8 Total Potential Ground Water Rights
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 2,759 ac-ft/yr.
As shown on Table 3, this total includes 1,824 ac-ft/yr of nontributary and augmented not-
nontributary ground water, and 935 ac-ft-yr of unaugmented not-nontributary ground water.
2.9 Existing Deep Wells
Table 4 summarizes the existing wells currently owned and operational by the District.
•
- 6 -
y31 � " Bishop-Brog,tlrn AssoLiates,
C"
• 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,T1 S,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,TIS,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 99CW124 LFH Section 22,T1 S,R67W, 1400 ft FNL,300 ft FEL
87CW258 and
Well#9 55804-F 96CW242 LFH Section 15,T1 S,R67W, 100 ft FSL,450 ft FEL
Well#10 59157-F 02CW106 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 1,044 ac-
ft/yr. The existing wells tap into 427 ac-ft of the decreed available nontributary groundwater.
Therefore, with construction of additional wells, the District could access and deliver the
remaining presently decreed ground water rights of 617 ac-ft/year.
2.10 Total Available Water Supplies
The total available water rights with a minimum of 1,174 ac-ft of surface water and 1,387 ac-ft
of decreed groundwater, adds up to a minimum of 2,561 ac-ft/yr, as shown in Table 5, below.
Using the maximum available surface water rights, that sum increases to 4,207 ac-ft/yr. The
currently available water with the existing wells adds up to a minimum of 1,601.4 ac-ft, and a
maximum of 3,247.4 ac-ft/yr.
•
- 7 -
ttz
' 8ishop-8roti;den :Associate Inc.
• Table 5
TCVMD Total Currently Available Water Supplies
(ac-ft)
Sources Legally Available Currently Available
LFH(nontributary) 843 427
Lower Arap(augmented) 201 0
Lower Arap(not augmented) 343 0
Total Groundwater 1387 427
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 2547
Minimum Currently Available 1587
Maximum Legally Available 4187
Maximum Currently Available 3227
• SECTION 3 - WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM FACILITIES
3.1 Overview
TCVMD has a dual water system which provides potable and irrigation water through separate
delivery systems. The raw water system includes alluvial wells, raw water storage, various
ditches, pipelines and pumps. The raw water system can also be supplemented from the deep
groundwater wells if necessary. The raw water pipelines and pumps bring water into the system,
are able to redistribute the water among certain reservoirs and also deliver raw water for
irrigation to the service area.
The potable water system includes the same alluvial wells as the raw 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
could be treated at the R.O. plant with a different set of filter membranes.
•
- 8 -
":'.r r,�,y��tr�y .t.outi ,.,,.
=fV'y1R wate3 tout,' Bishop-Bro,gdcn \ss+ui ti. Inc
• 3.2 Raw Water System
The raw water system can use both the surface water and groundwater rights; however the
surface water rights are primarily used.
3.2.1 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.
3.2.2 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
•
_ y _
t., C;;M % t , �; Bishnp-Bro gdcn Associates.Inc.
• 3.2.3 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 I South, Range 67 West, shown on the attached map.
3.2.4 J B Smith Reservoir
TCVMD owns the structure and water rights associated with the J B 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 analyzed only for its storage capacity for other water rights.
3.2.5 Baseline Lakes
Baseline Lakes are also known as the Stouffer Reservoirs and 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
some irrigation of the Baseline Lakes (Tompkins) Development. These Lakes will be fully
•
- 10 -
11•5:::{ ti > � V s.k.
Bishop-f3Nth n Assnci.uc.,Inc.
c..1!S
• incorporated into the 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.
3.2.6 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. Each reservoir has a storage
capacity of approximately 300 ac-ft. 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.
3.2.7 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. The Guthrie Pump and Pipeline has a
capacity of 600 gpm to the Baseline Lakes and about 450 gpm to Marcus Reservoir, but these
capacities will be increased to upwards of 800 gpm to Baseline Lakes with the installation of a
new pump system.
3.2.8 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
•
- 11 -
K wa*er.conl. Bishop-Brot,dcn AssocIUt I nc
• from the raw water sources and other reservoirs and pumped from there through the raw water
irrigation line.
3.3 Potable System
3.3.1 Sources
The two existing alluvial wells and the LFH groundwater 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 yet. The third alluvial well will be able to
tie into the Seltzer Pipeline to provide both potable source water and raw water.
3.3.2 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.
• 3.3.3 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 groundwater wells that
delivers water directly to the plant.
3.3.4 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. It can
treat 450,000 gpd currently, with the ability to expand up to 675,000 gpd.
3.3.5 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 -
C '°i i*;v.'w\ .3W er Coos Bishop lbrogdcn rAssoc Lite,, Inc.
• 3.3.6 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 4-WATER DEMANDS
4.1 Irrigation Demand
A demand projection was completed in a BBA May 2002 Engineering Report. The projection
was based on TCVMD covenants that limit the irrigated lawn size to a maximum of 5,000 square
feet per 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.
4.2 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.
4.3 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 and is
•
- 13 -
v, I'
Bishop-RrOgden .\tisuciaCS,Inc
• 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 Water Demand per SFE
(ac-ft/SFE)
Demands Lawn Irrigation Potable Total
Projected 0.316 0.269 0.585
2010 0.41 0.154 0.564
The projected and actual demands in acre-feet have been summarized in Table 8 below.
Table 8
TCVMD 2010 Water Demand
(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.
4.4 Total Current Available Supply Compared to Total Demands
The total current water supply available to TCVMD ranges between a minimum of 1,601 ac-ft/yr
and a maximum of 3,247 ac-ft/yr based on the minimum surface water amounts shown in Table
1 and the water available to the existing groundwater wells. The current water supply available
for potable purposes are between 787.4 ac-ft and 877.4 ac-ft. The raw water supply ranges
between a minimum of 814 ac-ft and a maximum of 2,370 ac-ft. These supplies, even at the
minimum level, more than satisfy the current level of demands shown in Table 8, with the
exception of irrigation demands for 2010 at the minimum raw water supply level. The 2010
• demands were 821 ac-ft compared to a minimum raw water supply of 814 ac-ft. This would
- 14 -
:01 +r^ e54.`":5; "
�,) +� BishopRm�;drn ASSOC Lt,Ine.
t^tkf�i r? rf r. e.Y::
•
• never have been an issue since this minimum assumes the potable supply was taking the
maximum; however, as shown in Table 8, there was plenty of excess water dedicated to potable
uses that could have been used if raw water sources were limited to minimums.
4.5 TCVMD Future Water Demands
Table 9, below, shows demands at total build-out of the TCVMD service area in Adams County
based on original projections and projections based on 2010 demands.
Table 9
TCVMD Adams County Build-out Water Demand
(ac-ft)
Demands Lawn Irrigation Golf Course Total Irrigation Potable Total Demand
Projected 1212.81 330 1542.81 1032.42 2575.23
Projected(2010) 1573.58 268 1841.58 591.052 2432.63
Notes: Demands based on 3,838 single family equivalents at buildout.
Projected demands are based on original 2002 projections
Projected(2010)demands are projections based on actual demands per SFE in 2010.
The current supplies would not be able to meet the full demands within Adams County when
looking at the minimum supplies available and the maximum demands shown in Table 9. By
adding in the future use of the Old and New Brantner shares and Fulton shares, the minimum
total supply increases by 585 ac-ft/yr to 2,186 ac-ft/yr, and the minimum raw water supply
increases to 1,399 ac-ft/yr. When adding in the remaining decreed groundwater rights that would
require additional wells, but no additional augmentation, the minimum total supply increases by
959.6 ac-ft/yr to 3,145.6 ac-ft/yr, and the minimum potable supply increases to 1,747 ac-ft/yr.
These supplies meet the projected Adams County build-out demands for total use and potable
use, with enough excess potable supply to more than meet the irrigation demands as well. The
excess supply at this level would range from 570 ac-ft/yr to 2,216 ac-ft/yr.
Additional potential sources include 343 ac-ft/yr of decreed Lower Arapahoe water that would
require an augmentation plan, and undecreed groundwater that is estimated to be approximately
1,371 ac-ft/yr, for a total of 1,714 ac-ft/yr.
•
- 15 -
01.44r![CF cd1p ' Bishop Rrugden Associates,Inc.
} y Y
• As development occurs in the TCVMD service area in Weld County to the north of the present
demand area, additional surface and ground water supplies will be needed. These future supplies
will either be developed through acquisition by the District or contributed by the developers
within the future service area.
•
•
- 16 -
' i5 '►V CW7U,�''@[11l1; ., Bishop-hrogdcn z\soc i;ucs,Inc.
. n
- r
o Q
ca � _ � - O
a
2 CU
;, tJ a ILI
U Q Ci
C J Q C C `-O a
Yp O � : oZ. aaz � Q Q L
fflfl5
G) J 0) - ° _' a n Si v z u� ^' r
0.
n y • o u
'O m s w o " •� �.
x I I I 1 .-
F. O O
is cc yy oC
o CO
H
�• Mle N
:• L i 1� a •
ry N
•
14
• t C O
R �: � _
•
0a a
II
•
CD hot ) . ,�•.,• ; tL —� i. _ -
•
F,i tie _ — 1•1'
S9"Q ' • 'N• , • -
••••
ve
•'
.... .,.•
• , .....•.1"•1' - to —
•
•
•
J .1S.
a g dl,,
. I s =
lei 7
o .
ar.
a 1
•
t V `.
J
•
L
V IL
•
C
i\--- ,irde 14 0
•
re
fpm
iiQ>/r �S
6 1/4
p %V•
L
^t
• Ie
L
j
O
L
`
I
— ...-. 0
tea
•
tD 2 ✓� li
Ce
o a
t K •
a ? X
a p'
N G
ir
.....
N
•
11
•
4.,
c.
} w
>- F u0
2 4
it
L
O •
�.
II CJ r
C: I {
N
C
J I Q
W O ,
Q
uy
•
'I ;.r I- -
•
•
i
i ' . , 4.4
f •
4
_ C
•
•
R
•
1
44.
• •
it
ii - . , ter..^ f �.. ' ‘..d-
, .. _l I� S - .. �. _ .
•
Oa
CC
.
• CO
it
X U
= W U�
>MU Sagnin
:
-+
F
is
. . . H
- ii
• .
•
a ■
rill,
Anisaie- I 711 4 .
as
;I ii C
r I . .
. _
0■ r:Tal all
.
_.
z
:X
r'• a gi . it II ';
Iiii. -. - ,. . ..
S 1
1. a C ••
0 .- I
- NI 6 set; Li
A - I. r . VI 47)1
...- L • r. - r apiYI u Ei
Y =�
i i tilis lit 1140 =''' , .. ,
n is
is,2614127
T l , M. 1
2 l:111 .
a :
.,
x �1
inet Ir a
• lilt . Ill N y
r��, ., R • � .. _ iimi f
•rs _ - is • _
.. 1 is dy
. . A ale ,I __ llitlik _
le
I .11:::, Jr"! r
r
O
s• �
U
O O c�rs 4 ro o cn _•
W E-+ O N lcQ O ,-Z
Q i
W C
O
A W U cn cal o ' 1)) 4)
`� I•-I N
�_
ri
O g ` N
o C) W C OCD CI) E Q o
o o ,v O O '-' c� di
w a o C:11 -I-) C/1 00 w
r4 ci
• a=A.
N<1 cs)
O it
c...,
ce p4
so
,.., c.
4 cc
• � �., Gil ,..i.
• 7-I o
w � CD
cir) CD Z = Z W
o
•
4) 4)
F-Ccd • 4)
O'4
N
O O
• r o"iii R4., cd 0
-4-) f 0 Si
Cn
IC "lel
c) 0 c� •
4 U
..) E., Rx) r.c.a) rca) ;c.a.) 2
H H Fn H Fn c.
a _ o
A � i
,w,,
I ,
•
Cl)
El
I-I
t it ri
C 0
l< • r-I
W ON
Z • -
0 Hi @
• O r
-I-) -.I- ÷DC13 C1/4.-• •
P4 cu 0
< 4.1
III
g n''' cr
W es
a t
H
•
• ,i
) CCS c� +' y
o -4-D
o O CO
.^. 0
'^ U O O z a)
O P O Ctit
• a
.C
IC
II PO O al 0Cid CZ 4.4
'� p :
< „....., : ,4 0 cn CD cp
El CC T—T -4-2 N4 � •� 'd Ce
a) Pfte
era
c @ M a Ps o
• 0
• a
0) k
48 O
T3 o)
a ae "O
It tt
a 2
I:#3) r31 : o) a o)
44 'y ri
a
•
CI) "04) b :
° L o,i. a
°
z.mw h t o)
itl E•••4 kt �a
c:4 lt co
hat
• "
rd
a O 0 m a)
4 a) o ,
rti a)
• v � r-0 O 4) Ct
g U)
a) al a)
O
CD a) C) 0 . ri
Z rti rri rd . '�.) cd c
0 +) • De 0 � II a
&I'l c..) P P.,
m
O c� CD � ~ o
c►.i a)
+, 0 '-{
r 0 k ,-O Cs ° 4 0 o
Pk Q di a) H E- Q H cn d' 4
S
•
ti
•
11 é
- • • -
•
h
le
' • Y �•-- 1AI
1• i 1
1 it-
_ + l�l�lT}T}T}
a rNik
a
t t t . i
. t• •1e `f.; a
It t„at•T _ �. •
1. it
lea
w It t :� ,f 1 it V - III a -
- - T 4 - iC-tkr1 rC1 1
. • r '' - . '
- tf,
h i it.' s!' ' ii ill. .
IN
,. ,... ,. 44..v.— ,_.
t—Ati.t .A. s . _.
_ 41
•
• - — i �, .
s - re
•
ltP
I4V:-. "Ilse J.,,,. . .
feirsaneller
Al.")‘: .. se-
4_,
ft s
4Ileit, 1 t- 1 Q•f 1 ,
fir" ' Y1� ` �r t - ,; ,- , -
. „fie I • I:-
a 'ia.. .,,,, . If
y i .
...:
30
^s 1 } • 1
• __ :?: a 4
} r • _ a
I., .. • .? arripa
gt
-.. U. : =la --jr. ' - 4 '...1
ft , •
• F 1 {
• t . - Ijos ,
•
faintiltrallerliall
el
dilitiallilliiilliallilli-H . 1 a II ...--•
a
-
'
, \l'i . ... • .
:I - I N%
.01y '
•
I .alb
; Ith f 41
•. Y J f4
I litill4144:%\ • r
h{ e.. .- . G..) * _ :
•
• zi ct
,.i • 0 O
p c� r-' U
Ov1 •-
0 CD
CD � O O +, m
Cd 4c "Ci ••I GOD- • r-i ci)
c) � �
d cd , . ., Ct EA- 0 O
o > o as
CD a' c °
ai E - O ft
< E o o 0EA.
p 2 0
. o e.„, ...., .._' Cld H
E-
7, E
o •
o CI)
mss, 4-1-'::,-,. t
;g
a k
rZxY si,:
�6gflwvu-qha
� vq� tr
•
File contains CD with digital
version of presentation
•
Please See Original File
•
EXHIBIT
c ,fit' t
• —
Katee Kirkmeyer
Property owner in area - show where you live
Lifelong resident, my son is the fifth generation of Kirkmeyer's to live in the area. Kirkmeyer's have lived
and farmed in the area for over 100 years. And in checking with my grandparents- not once have
neighbors, old or new, complained about the Kirkmeyer Dairy or farming operations. Not once. We are a
"right to farm" county. Commissioner Rademacher-just like your daughters, I work with my Dad and
Uncle's in our farming operations.
Commissioner Rademacher-you stated in your comments at the second reading you live in the 125
MUD area and growth is often unexpected and rapid - it took over 25 years and several planning
sessions for the MUD to grow in a smart way. Additionally - what is different about the 125 MUD and
this RUA is the property owners formed the MUD and all of the property owners in the area and
surrounding area had the opportunity to participate and be involved in the planning of the area. The
County on at least two occasions under took the task of planning the MUD area specifically.
This is not the case with this RUA.
011 The MUD is not a metro district. It was built around a sewer district- where the property owners, not a
developer, control the district and there is a legitimate election of directors. And there is not an
environment of"taxation without representation."
This is not the case with this RUA.
The Pioneer RUA had all one property owner and created a Metro District at the same time as the Comp
Plan amendment. And did not include unsuspecting property owners in their Service Area.
This is not the case with this RUA.
Private Property rights does cut both ways- I agree with you.This area is zoned Agriculture. Under the
"USES BY RIGHT" nowhere does it state you have a right to build 6,600 homes. In fact that requires a
change of zone. My family is not opposed to property owners developing their land in manner
consistent with the zone they own property in. We are however opposed to this development because it
is not compatible with existing land uses. Should this get approved my family's property rights "will be
severely impacted.There is property right to farm in the agricultural zone.
I disagree this is the right time for this process or for this proposal. I agree it is the right time for
planning. Question -the City of Dacono, Thornton and even Fort Lupton noticed property owners by
I • mail and included them in their planning process to amend their Comprehensive land use Plans -why
didn't the County? You just approved a Comp Plan less than two years ago- now you are amending it?
Don't you think it would have been prudent to include all property owners in the area, in a planning 111process? You included property owners in the North Greeley sub-area plan. Why not in south west
Weld?That doesn't appear to be fair or equitable to the residents and property owners in south Weld.
You gave the RUA applicant six months to work out issues and engage the residents in the area.
The RUA applicant did NOT involve surrounding property owners in the planning of this RUA.
Not in the last three years and NOT in the last six months.
The Comp Plan states in Sec. 22-2-130. Regional Urbanization Areas (RUAs).
A. Municipalities are best suited for most types of urban development, and other County policies
encourage urban development within existing municipalities. As a land use tool, the RUA enables the
County and its citizens to make decisions regarding future development within specified areas. Key
factors in their creation are wise use of natural resources, development of quality communities, provision
for regional services, employment opportunities and maintaining fiscal integrity.
This is not the case with this RUA or this planning process.
With regard to the Sheriff's office providing law enforcement and adequate service in this area of the
county: Recently, in the last couple of months our truck was stolen - it was parked right by my house. It
took the Sheriffs deputy over an hour to show up. Just last month someone attempted to break into
my farm shop -it took about an hour for the Sheriff's deputy to show up. Because of the in adequate
law enforcement service and poor response time in the area I have had to install an alarm system in my
home.
No one is rushing to develop now and with 22, 000 buildable lots in Weld, close to 5000 in Dacono
alone and another 69,000 in Adams county I doubt seriously anyone will be rushing to develop in the
next 5 to 10 years. Plenty of time for the County to do a sub-area plan with all of the appropriate
parties, Weld county citizens and property owners in attendance.
There is absolutely no reason for you to vote in favor of this proposal.
•
Caroline Kirkmeyer
I live at 6100 WCR 4. My family-both sides farm all around this proposed RUA.
This is a RUA Comp Plan Amendment-with specific Standards of Approval and determinations the
Board of County Commissioners must find. It's not your ordinary Comp Plan amendment.
I am handing you a copy of my comments from six months ago. Since nothing with this application has
changed in the last six months they are all still relevant.
I am just going to recap what we have all heard here today - and I will be quick.
The IGA with Fort Lupton does require everyone within the Growth Area to obtain sewer service from
Todd Creek Metro District. The Growth area is from CR 15 to the River and Cr 2 to Cr 6. The IGA on
page 10 states " Fort Lupton and the District will retain full power and authority to provide sewer service
to all of the inhabitants of the Growth Area..." and on page 5 " the District will impose and collect the
District fees from all development within the Growth Area that utilizes the District Main, the rates of
which will be established by the District at its sole discretion". So if you go to develop your property
and you are in the Growth Area the property owner not only has an obligation but a requirement to get
sewer service should they wish to develop their land. One developer has to buy sewer service from
M essentially another developer. How many developers do we guess will want to get into that kind of
mess? Plus we have already established per Weld County rules if you live within 400 ft of the sewer
lines and your septic fails you have to hook up onto the sewer.
There are still flaws in the FTL/Todd Creek IGA. It still overlaps with the Northglenn 208 boundary. You
gave them an additional six months to fix and Todd Creek did not. Also, the Growth Area's north
boundary is Rd 6 so anything north of Rd 6 - no sewer service.
Todd Creek Metro District is in Forbearance. They cannot go into any further debt; therefore they
cannot finance any sewer infrastructure; so they cannot provide sewer service to the Growth Area.
No Audits from 2008 and 2009 -they are still delinquent on the Annual Audit requirement in CRS 29-1-
601.
"TAKINGS" - because of the law and the State Engineer's rules property owners will not be able to get
water well permits The RUA will impact our existing water service capabilities. (e.1. Standard of
Approval)
CRS 37-92-602 (6) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state of Colorado that the exemptions set
forth in this section are intended to allow citizens to obtain a water supply in less densely populated
areas for in-house and domestic animal uses where other water supplies are not available.
' • The RUA is not compatible with existing and surrounding land uses. Standard of Approval - e.3.
doesn't state future land uses -the Standard is existing.
�E (HIBIT
,mac,
• Taxpayers and new residents will pay for this development;for the RUA. The applicant stated at public
open houses they are not paying to build any schools or fire stations. That cost is on those of us who
live in the county in those districts. (e.4 Standard of Approval -The proposed number of new residents
will be adequately served by the social amenities, such as schools and parks of the community)
There is NO balance of housing and employment. (e.5 Standard of Approval) Remember? 6,600 homes
and only 187,000 square feet of commercial. The only employment will be at the schools we will be
paying for.
They have NOT demonstrated adequate services are CURRENTLY available or reasonably obtained.
(e.6 Standard of Approval) They have publicly stated they only have one-third of the water they need;
and they are not able to provide sewer service to the entire RUA or the Growth Area. The IGA with
Thornton is still in place which means they cannot provide sewer service in more areas of the RUA.
Planning Staff recommended denial.
Don warden recommended denial.
4 members of the Fort Lupton Council have expressed their opposition .
There are still issues with the FTL and Thornton IGA's.
The proposal is still in conflict with the Dacono-Weld IGA and the Fort Lupton-Weld IGA.
The cities of Brighton and Firestone are not supportive.
And you only have to look at the map to see how the surrounding property owners feel.
The RUA does not meet the Weld County Comp Plan Goals and policies; it does not meet the RUA goals
and Standard of Approvals; and it will cost County taxpayers. The applicant has done nothing in the last
six months to change these issues.
Again - In closing I would just ask that you consider the intent of the preamble of the Weld
County Charter "to provide uncomplicated, unburdensome government, responsive to
the people,"
Please vote "no".
I .
•
Caroline Kirkmeyer
6100 WCR 4
At the 2nd hearing we heard from a couple of people who were on your Comp Plan Advisory
Committee. Although they do not live in this area or own property in the area the stated this is
just the proposal for a RUA and it meets the intent of the RUA goals.
I am sure you could guess- I disagree with them and agree with your staff it does not meet the
RUA goals or several goals within the Comp Plan. My sister already pointed out some of those
and your staff and others have pointed then out as well.
The Dry Creek RUA does not meet RUA.Policy 1.5. The following elements should be present
in the expansion of existing RUAs or the formation of a new RUA:
• A diversity of land uses.
• An integrated balance of housing and employment
In RUA.Goal 2. it states "The County, property owners, municipalities and other jurisdictions
should coordinate urban land use planning within the Regional Urbanization Areas, concerning
but not limited to development policies and standards, zoning, street and highway construction,
open space and trails, public infrastructure and other matters associated with urban
development."
RUA.Policy 2.1. Encourage joint planning between the County, property owners, municipalities
and other jurisdictions. Such joint planning could include, but is not limited to, the use of mutual
studies, sub-area plans or shared data.
2. RUA.Policy 2.2. Encourage communication between the County, property owners,
municipalities and other jurisdictions.
a. Recommended Strategy RUA.2.2.a. Establish regular meetings between the County, property
owners, municipalities and other jurisdictions to encourage an open dialog.
3. RUA.Policy 2.3. Encourage Intergovernmental Agreements between the County, municipalities
and other jurisdictions, following the elements outlined in UD.Goal 2.
4. RUA.Policy 2.4. Encourage cooperation or consolidation of urban services among counties,
municipalities, special districts and companies, when appropriate, in order to avoid duplication and
overlapping costs and to establish safe and adequate levels of quality, quantity and dependability of
those services.
Recommended Strategy RUA.2.6.b. Consider developing a consolidated plan for infrastructure and
services in conjunction with the area municipalities, subdivisions and property owners for the larger
regional area.
The Dry Creek RUA does not meet this goal or any of these policies. And I think the Recommended
Strategy would be a good idea. Note: it does recommend including property owners in the larger regional
area.
• EXHIBIT
I
• Development within the RUA is supposed to occur in a manner that results in an attractive and
functional working and living environment. - RUA.Goal 3. as previously stated by the applicant -
essientially no jobs are within this RUA or really even proposed within this RUA.
RUA.Goal 4. New development within Regional Urbanization Areas should pay its own way.
Your finance director has pointed out it will NOT pay its own way. And the applicant has yet to
prove otherwise. As stated at the last hearing by Commissioner Conway and Kirkmeyer-
residential growth does not pay its own way. This RUA is 6,600 homes, all residential
development.
Additionally, the Dry Creek RUA - the applicant have yet to prove they meet goal: 5 and 6
RUA.Goal 5. Ensure the efficient and cost-effective delivery of adequate public facilities and
services within a Regional Urbanization Area that provides for the health, safety and welfare of
the present and future residents of the County.
I. RUA.Policy 5.1. Ensure adequate facilities such as schools and satellite stations for police, fire
and ambulance, and encourage the siting of co-located facilities and equipment.
2. RUA.Policy 5.2. Provide land for public facilities and public services. .
4. RUA.Policy 5.4. New development should consider compatibility with existing surrounding land
uses in terms of general use, building height, scale, density, traffic, dust and noise.
F. RUA.Goal 6. Ensure a well-integrated transportation system within the Regional Urbanization
Areas that considers all modes of transportation.
I. RUA.Policy 6.1. Plan and maintain a transportation system
b. Recommended Strategy RUA.6.1.b. Develop a revenue mechanism for funding costs
associated with the transportation impacts, including subsequent maintenance, due to growth
and development in the Regional Urbanization Areas.
3. RUA.Policy 6.3. Consider a trail system (or systems) to support adequate multi-modal
passageways to service transportation and recreation purposes within the RUAs.
4. RUA.Policy 6.4. Consider connections to existing or planned trails systems adjacent to, or in the
vicinity of, the RUA.
5. RUA.Policy 6.5. Consider the feasibility of a public transit system within all or part of the RUA.
There is no trail system to support adequate multi modal transportation and no transit system within
the RUA. Weld County has voted three times in the past to not be included in the RTD district.
There are only 7 Goals within the RUA section of the Comp Plan. The Dry Creek RUA does not meet
6 of the 7 goals. The RUA process may be intended to be conceptual but in approving a new RUA the
Board is supposed to consider the whether or not these goals have been adequately met. Provision of
water, sewer, a transit and transportation system, coordination with municipalities, communication
with property owners and joint planning should all be considered by the Board.
This is straight out of the County's Comp Plan:'
• e. In the case of any proposed new Regional Urbanization Area:
• I)The proposed amendment includes a diversity of land uses and will address the impact
on existing or planned service capabilities, including but not limited to all utilities,
infrastructure, stormwater infrastructure and transportation systems.
2) The proposed amendment will address impacts on the natural environment.
3)The proposed land use is compatible with the existing and surrounding land uses.
4) The proposed number of new residents will be adequately served by the social
amenities, such as schools and parks of the community.
5) Local, accessible employment opportunities exist, and there is an integrated balance of
housing and employment.
6) The proposed amendment has demonstrated that adequate services are currently
available or reasonably obtainable.
7) Referral agency responses have been received and considered
So you are supposed to be hearing pretty extensive detailed plans. The Goal is to develop a
"plan for the future" that can actually be attained and includes communication and participation
by property owners in the "larger regional area," as stated in your Comp Plan.
And Fort Lupton stated they are not able to serve this area at this time and can't annex the
area. Fort Lupton went and included the area in their 208 area so Brighton would be
encroaching on Fort Lupton's area - they have chosen not to. But Dacono and Thornton could
provide services to part of the RUA and have actually included parts of the RUA in their Comp
Plans. Doesn't sound like much communication or coordination has been occuring.
In closing I would just ask that you consider the intent of the preamble of the Weld County
Charter "to provide uncomplicated, unburdensome government, responsive to the people,"
r
Hello