HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101970.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
AUGUST 23, 2010
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, August 23, 2010, 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 Douglas Rademacher, Chair
Commissioner Barbara Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Sean P. Conway
Commissioner William F. Garcia
Commissioner David E. Long
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Elizabeth Strong
Director of Finance and Administration, Monica Mika
MINUTES: Commissioner Long moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of August 18, 2010, as printed. Commissioner Conway seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
CERTIFICATION OF HEARINGS: Commissioner Long moved to approve the Certification of Hearings
conducted on August 18, 2010, as follows: 1) USR #1742 — Yia and Ying Lo; 2) USR #1850 — Bob
White, c/o Viaero Wireless; and 3) USR #1747 — Marcum Midstream 1995-2 Business Trust, dba
Conquest Oil. Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT: No public input was given.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the Consent Agenda as printed.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CR 21 BETWEEN CR 32.5 AND SH 66: Janet Carter,
Department of Public Works, stated said closure commenced August 13, 2010, due to a collapsed
culvert, and it will end today, August 23, 2010. She stated the detour route is entirely paved; therefore,
no dust abatement measures were necessary, and the average daily traffic count for County Road 21 is
982 vehicles, according to a traffic count conducted in the year 2010. She stated road signs and
Cam'
dQ ' Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 1 BC0016
barricades were utilized during the closure. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said temporary
closure. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURES OF CR 57 BETWEEN CRS 44 AND 46, AND CR 46
BETWEEN CRS 57 AND 59: Ms. Carter stated said closures commenced August 17, 2010, and the
roads are expected to remain closed until August 25, 2010, due to a collapsed culvert. She stated this
is a four (4) way intersection, and the detour route will be treated with water for dust abatement. She
stated the average daily traffic count on County Road 57 is 286 vehicles, according to a traffic count
conducted in the year 2009. She stated road signs and barricades are being utilized to notify drivers of
the closure. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said temporary closure. Seconded by
Commissioner Long, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURES OF CR 87 BETWEEN CRS 120.75 AND 122, AND CR 122
BETWEEN CRS 87 AND 390: Ms. Carter stated said closures are scheduled to commence today,
August 23, 2010, and to end September 10, 2010, for road construction near the Town of Grover. She
stated water will be utilized for dust abatement on the detour route, and the average daily traffic count
for this portion of County Road 87 is 518 vehicles, according to a traffic count conducted this year. She
stated road signs and barricades will be utilized to notify drivers of the closure. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer moved to approve said temporary closures. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF CR 62 BETWEEN CR 43 AND NORTH 1ST AVENUE:
Ms. Carter stated said closure will commence August 24, 2010, through September 10, 2010, for the
second phase of the main sewer line replacement project for JBS USA, LLC. She stated SEBI will be
completing the sewer line construction project for JBS USA, LLC. She stated the average daily traffic
count for County Road 62 is 226 vehicles, according to a traffic count conducted this year. Ms. Carter
stated all the local residents and businesses were notified of the closure in advance. Commissioner
Conway moved to approve said temporary closure. Seconded by Commissioner Long, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT CONCERNING RELOCATION OF
UNDERGROUND SANITARY SEWER FORCE MAIN LINE ON COUNTY ROAD 62, AUTHORIZE
CHAIR TO SIGN, AND ACCEPT COLLATERAL - JBS USA, LLC, FKA SWIFT AND COMPANY:
Ms. Carter stated this is an agreement for JBS USA, LLC, to use County right-of-way for the same
project as was described when discussing the last item of business. She stated a bond has been
submitted as collateral for the roadway construction, and the County Attorney, Bruce Barker, and
Assistant County Attorney, Stephanie Arries, have reviewed the agreement. Commissioner Conway
moved to approve said agreement, authorize the Chair to sign, and accept said collateral. Seconded
by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER SEISMIC MINERAL PERMIT AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN -
GEOKINETICS USA, INC.: Mr. Barker indicated Geokinetics USA, Inc., has agreed to pay $1,210.00,
in order to obtain a seismic mineral permit. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said agreement
and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried
unanimously.
CONSIDER INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT TO SHARE ZONE CONTROLLER
MAINTENANCE COSTS AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Captain Mike Savage, Weld County
Regional Communications Center, stated this is an intergovernmental agreement among several
counties to provide maintenance to the Zone 3 Network Controller. He stated the device supports the
public safety radio system and it is part of the State network. He stated this is the first year an
agreement has been created, and the 911 Emergency Telephone Service Authority Board will provide
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 2 BC0016
the funding for the agreement, which will be approximately $16,000.00. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
inquired as to whether the County Attorney's Office has reviewed the agreement. Mr. Barker stated
Cyndy Giauque, Assistant County Attorney, drafted the agreement. Responding to Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, Mr. Savage stated every agency will cycle through the three (3) Zone Network Controllers.
In response to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Savage stated the City of Broomfield may participate in
another zone control network. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve said agreement and
authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER DECLARING CERTAIN EQUIPMENT AS SURPLUS PROPERTY AND APPROVE SALE
OF SAME AT AUCTION WITH ROLLER AND ASSOCIATES: Barb Connolly, Controller, stated she
has provided a list of equipment to be sold at an auction with Roller and Associates on September 15,
2010. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to declare said equipment as surplus property and approve
sale of same at auction with Roller and Associates. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN - ROO
JUMP: Mr. Barker stated he drafted this agreement in the same fashion as the Fair agreements. He
stated the Roo Jump will be used at a picnic for the District Attorney's Office, and he has obtained a
certificate of insurance which includes the employees of the District Attorney's Office as additional
named insured.
In response to Chair Rademacher, Jennifer Finch, District Attorney's Office, indicated the Roo Jump is
a castle-shaped toy filled with air, which people can jump upon. Commissioner Garcia moved to
approve said agreement and authorize Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the motion
carried unanimously.
PLANNING:
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:
Commissioner Garcia moved to read Ordinance #2010 by title only. Seconded by Commissioner
Conway, the motion carried unanimously. Mr. Barker read the Ordinance into the record by title.
Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, stated this is the third and final reading of
Ordinance#2010-1 for the proposed Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area (RUA), and she will give a
brief overview of the related events which have transpired to date. She stated in August, 2009, Todd
Creek Village Metropolitan District (TCVMD) submitted an application to amend the Weld County Code
by designating a specific area as an RUA. She stated the location of the proposed RUA is envisioned
as an extension of the Denver Metropolitan area, located essentially in the middle of the 1-25 and
U.S. Highway 85 Corridors, and north of the County line. Ms. Martin stated the applicants are
proposing a policy area of 2,095 acres in size, which equates to approximately 1,500 acres of
potentially urban scale uses, and it is approximately the same size as the Town of Eaton, approximately
1.5 times larger than the Town of Platteville, and approximately one-third the size of the Town of Fort
Lupton. She stated the proposal is for a range of 2,200 to 6,600 dwelling units, which equates to a
population of 6,500 to 19,700 people. She stated the commercial proposal for this site is very limited,
with a maximum allowance of 187,000 square feet, and there will be very limited employment at this
site, consisting mostly of neighborhood mixed use centers that would allow for a combination of
commercial and higher density residential uses. Ms. Martin stated the applicant has indicated there are
numerous retail and employment centers in the area, such as the Vestas manufacturing plant;
therefore, there is not a need for additional employment opportunities within the RUA. She stated traffic
and access are important considerations for any application of this nature and the applicants provided a
traffic study indicating there would be approximately 50,700 vehicle trips per weekday, and future
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 3 BC0016
applications will require a Master Transportation Plan and a Drainage Report. She stated TCVMD has
indicated it has the ability to provide water to this area, and TCVMD and the City of Fort Lupton have an
intergovernmental agreement which indicates Fort Lupton will provide sewer service for this area.
Ms. Martin stated emergency services will be provided by the Fort Lupton and the Greater Brighton Fire
Protection Districts, and part of the proposal is for a potential law enforcement authority, which could be
served with a seven (7) mill levy increase. She stated the school sites would be supported by the RE-8
and RE-27J School Districts, and staff's analysis is that five (5) K-8 schools and one (1) high school
would be appropriate for the proposed development. She reiterated that at full build-out up to 6,600
dwelling units and a population of up to 19,700 people are possible, which would occur over 30 years.
Ms. Martin stated the majority of the proposed area lies between County Roads 4 and 6, and County
Roads 17 and 23, and the area is primarily being utilized for A (Agricultural) uses. She stated analysis
suggests there are existing zoned and/or platted lots with a five mile area of up to 22,000 dwelling units.
She stated an analysis of future residential growth in the Seven (7) County Denver Region that was
conducted in June, 2006, indicated Adams County had as many as 69,500 residential units ready to be
constructed, which suggests the existing supply accommodates the immediate future need. She stated
36 referrals were sent out and 20 agencies responded, and some of the referral agencies provided
testimony at the first and/or second readings of the Ordinance.
Ms. Martin stated that Don Warden, Director of Budget and Management Analysis, indicated at the first
reading that the core municipal financing in the State of Colorado is sales tax; however, as proposed,
the development will be similar to the Town of Windsor in size, with no opportunity for sales tax
revenue. She stated Mr. Warden also indicated that the National economic situation has continued to
decline and the housing slump is projected to continue, with one (1) out of seven (7) living units being
vacant, and the assessed property values for the year 2011 are anticipated to decline by 15 percent.
She stated Mr. Warden further indicated the proposed development is primarily residential and without
a mix of assessed value classes, such as commercial and industrial, and the mechanism for funding
the project will be reduced by approximately 15 percent, consistent with the decline in assessed
residential values.
Ms. Martin stated the City of Brighton passed a Resolution on May 4, 2010, citing its concerns about
the feasibility of the proposed RUA, as well as concerns regarding transportation-related issues, utility
services, parks, and schools. She stated the City of Thornton indicated in a letter dated October 30,
2009, it had entered into an intergovernmental agreement with Todd Creek Farms Metropolitan
District I, and Todd Creek Village, LLC, and the agreement indicates that with respect to territory
located within the City's Development Area, the District will not expand its Service Area to include any
area within the City's Development Area, and the District will not provide utility service to users that are
outside the District Service Area and within the City's Development Area without written notice to and
approval by the City. Ms. Martin stated the applicant is in conflict with its intergovernmental agreement
with the City of Thornton, as well as with two (2) intergovernmental agreements the County has with the
Cities of Fort Lupton and Dacono, which indicate urban scale development should not be supported for
this area. She stated based on the responses from the referral agencies and the criteria outlined in the
Weld County Code, the Department of Planning Services initially recommended denial; however, the
Weld County Planning Commission recommended approval of the RUA. She stated the Planning
Commission indicated the applicant has satisfied the requirements of the Weld County Code, and
Planning Commissioner Robert Grand indicated it is important to note the rights of property owners, to
proceed in a course that will satisfy some of the long term goals, and he indicated that we need to be
sensitive to respond to the competitive environment to help our Weld County and regional area and
meet the needs of our citizens. Ms. Martin stated if the Board chooses to approve the proposed
Ordinance, three (3) elements of the Code will need to be modified or added; the Urban Growth
Boundary Map will need to be modified, new language will need to be adopted in Chapter 26, and the
proposed Structural Land Use Map will become a part of the Code.
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 4 BC0016
Heidi Hansen, Department of Public Works, stated the applicant's Conceptual Traffic Impact Analysis
identified major road and intersection improvements which will be required for a development of this
size, and the applicant indicated the Metropolitan District and the developer will fully fund the extensive
onsite and offsite upgrades. She stated the Conceptual Drainage Report is acceptable for this stage in
the process, and the applicant is aware a full Master Drainage Plan will be required and a study of the
Dry Creek will need to be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), if the
project moves forward. She stated she has two (2) proposed revisions to language in the Weld County
Code, and the applicant has agreed to the proposed revised language. Ms. Hansen stated the first
proposed change is to Section 24-4-50.F.1.j, which currently indicates confirmation of flood plains will
be submitted to FEMA concurrently with the Final Plat. She stated the new language will state,
"Confirmation of Floodplains: While general locations of floodplains have been shown in Appendix 26-S
Dry Creek RUA Map, prior to submitting a Change of Zone application, the Applicant must define
floodplain source of the data, accuracy, modeling methodology, assumptions, etcetera. Numerous
factors can change floodplain limits. The applicant shall apply to FEMA to modify the defined floodplain
boundary to take into account the proposed floodplain changes." She stated the other proposed
change is to Section 24-4-150.B.2, which currently states, "The County will require the developer to pay
a proportionate share of the costs of said improvements through an improvements agreement."
Ms. Hansen stated the proposed language will add the following language after the previous statement:
"The Developer will be responsible for all pertinent road improvements. This may include
improvements required outside the Dry Creek RUA due to development within its boundary."
Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired about the ongoing maintenance costs. Ms. Hansen stated staff will
have to determine the offsite road maintenance responsibilities during the Change of Zone process,
and an agreement will need to be drafted. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Hansen stated
County Road 17 is recommended by the applicant for a future six (5) lane arterial, County Road 6 is
recommended for a future four (4) lane arterial, and County Roads 19, 21, and 2 are recommended for
future two (2) lane arterials.
Lauren Light, Department of Public Health and Environment, stated water service will be provided to
the proposed RUA by TCVMD; however, she does not have any information on the physical availability
of the water at this time, and the State Engineer's Office indicated it could not verify a viable water
supply, based on the information submitted. She stated sewer service will be provided to the proposed
RUA by the City of Fort Lupton, which has expanded its 208 boundary, and the applicant has entered
into an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Fort Lupton; however, she is unsure whether the
area above County Road 6 has been addressed in an amendment to the agreement. Ms. Light stated
there will not be any mass transit available; therefore, staff has recommended that a park and ride area
be included in the RUA, since the majority of the residents will be driving to their jobs. She stated the
Department will be considering whether the RUA will provide an active community lifestyle when the
sketch plans are submitted, which will include parks, walking and biking trails, and recreational facilities.
She stated the Department will also consider how children will travel to and from school when the
sketch plan is submitted.
George Hanlon, representative for the Applicants and President of TCVMD, indicated he needed a few
minutes to set up his presentation. Chair Rademacher called for a five (5) minute intermission.
Upon reconvening, Mr. Hanlon stated he will explain what is influencing this area and why the
application for a RUA has been submitted. He clarified TCVMD is not the sole applicant for the RUA;
however, it has been a centerpiece in the first two (2) readings of the proposed Ordinance; therefore,
he will discuss the District, its Service Area, how it operates, and its intergovernmental agreement with
the City of Fort Lupton. He stated he will also explain how adequate provisions have been made to
ensure the area is provided for and how the RUA requirements have been satisfied. He stated he will
also discuss planning for growth, and the Board will have many opportunities to analyze and review the
project. Mr. Hanlon stated this Ordinance includes a proposed amendment to the Weld County
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 5 BC0016
Comprehensive Plan, which begins the process of refining the review of potential projects in the area.
He stated he will discuss the standards of approval and the reasons the Dry Creek RUA should be
approved by the County and recognized under the RUA regulations. He stated Metropolitan Districts
were discussed a great deal in the last meeting, and he wants to make sure Metropolitan Districts are
fully understood; therefore, he will have a representative from White, Bear, and Ankele explain how
Metropolitan Districts are regulated. Mr. Hanlon stated he will discuss economic analysis, growth
trends, employment opportunities, and the actual inventory of available housing. He stated the
financing presentation will be given by Nanci Kerr, Sky to Ground, LLC, and he will discuss the planning
for water and sewer infrastructure, including detailed discussion about the intergovernmental
agreement with the City of Fort Lupton. He stated he will also discuss water resources and House
Bill 08-1141, which address the availability of water resources and development permits. Mr. Hanlon
stated he will also discuss the acquisition of water resources; the water resources will not be secured
before the applicants know whether the proposed RUA will be approved.
He stated the first item he wants to discuss is the regional influences; TCVMD is bordered by the City of
Brighton to the east, and the City of Thornton is expanding into TCVMD and it will eventually expand
into Weld County. He stated making County Road 17 a six (6) lane arterial is a provision the traffic
engineers determined, based on what the City of Thornton currently requires. Mr. Hanlon stated the
Dry Creek RUA is not within any Urban Growth Boundary Areas, and the City of Brighton has provided
testimony it does not plan to provide service to the proposed RUA; however, the City of Thornton may
provide services at some point to the western portion of the proposed RUA. He stated the one (1) area
in the proposed RUA that is a conflict with the City of Thornton's extended Growth Boundary was
included due to the Howard family indicating it would prefer to be represented by Weld County, as
opposed to the City of Thornton, and the Howards requested inclusion of their property in the proposed
RUA.
Mr. Hanlon stated the RUA process began in the year 2004, when Gene Osborne, Developer of
TCVMD, approached Weld County regarding expanding into the proposed area for the RUA, and staff
directed Mr. Osborne to make provisions for water and sewer services, and to communicate with the
surrounding communities. He stated that Mr. Osborne met with the Cities of Dacono and Fort Lupton in
the year 2005, to discuss water and sewer services for the proposed RUA, and at that time, the City of
Dacono was conducting sewer expansion and it was considering utilizing Saint Vrain or the City of Fort
Lupton to provide its sewer service. He stated Fort Lupton's water treatment facility is identified by the
State as a regional water treatment facility, based on its location on the South Platte River; therefore, in
the early discussions with the City of Dacono, it indicated it planned on crossing State Highway 52 to
connect with Fort Lupton's sewer lines and utilizing the Dry Creek drainage for a trunk line. He stated
this was the basis for the Memorandum of Understanding, and then more detailed planning began;
however, when the applicant began working on an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Fort
Lupton, the City of Dacono indicated it had entered into an agreement with Saint Vrain and it was no
longer interested in the intergovernmental agreement with the City of Fort Lupton. He stated both the
applicants and the City of Fort Lupton decided they wanted to move forward with the intergovernmental
agreement and over one (1) year was spent negotiating the agreement. Mr. Hanlon stated after the
intergovernmental agreement was adopted and approved, the City of Fort Lupton approached the North
Front Range Water Quality Authority, to expand its 208 Boundary, and there were no objections
expressed by the Cities of Thornton, Brighton, or Dacono, nor the Denver Regional Council of
Governments (DRCOG), and the 208 Boundary was successfully expanded up to County Road 2. He
stated TCVMD then submitted its application to expand its Service Area, to overlay the Growth Area
defined in the intergovernmental agreement with Fort Lupton. He stated there were two considerations
for inclusion within the Growth Area; mutual consent by the City of Fort Lupton and TCVMD, and
reasonable proximity. Mr. Hanlon stated it was always the intent of the intergovernmental agreement
that the properties located west of the South Platte River would either connect to TCVMD's main line
and annex to the City of Fort Lupton, or be included in the RUA. He stated TCVMD submitted its
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 6 BC0016
application to expand its Service Area to Adams County, since it is located there, and it also made
Weld County aware of its intent to expand its Service Area. He stated that in the year 2008, the
applicants were approached by property owners to begin the Mixed Use Development (MUD)
application process, and staff informed the applicants the RUA process was being developed;
therefore, the applicants delayed commencing the application process for approximately six (6) months,
until the RUA application process was established by Weld County. Mr. Hanlon stated the applicants
conducted several open house meetings and Weld County staff recommended the RUA application be
submitted, based on the Service Area, and for the purpose of comprehensive planning. He stated
Commissioner Kirkmeyer suggested there may be property owners who do not want to be involved in
the RUA; therefore, it was determined the application should be signed by property owners who want to
participate in the process, and the initial application was submitted in the year 2009, with eight (8)
property owners' signatures. He stated the applicants then met with the Planning Commission, which
unanimously approved the RUA application, and then the applicants worked to resolve some issues
with Xcel Energy.
Mr. Hanlon stated Xcel Energy wants oil and gas to be identified as a constraint item in Chapter 26 and
the applicants have no objections; therefore, the applicants request that the Board consider approving
the change. He stated the reason Xcel Energy has requested the change is to provide a buffer zone
between its operations and potential development. He stated the reason the RUA was not proposed to
the Board earlier is due to the time the applicants invested into developing language to address Xcel
Energy's concerns.
Mr. Hanlon stated TCVMD was formed in the year 1996 and it became operational in the year 1998,
and it utilizes a two (2) pipe water system, offering both potable and non-potable water to its residents,
and the potable water is treated by a reverse osmosis plant. He stated the Smith Reservoir provides
most of the non-potable irrigation water for TCVMD, and the water in the Smith Reservoir travels from
several sources, including Todd Creek. He stated the water in Todd Creek travels from the Signal
Ditch, and TCVMD owns some Farmers High Line water shares and it leases additional water shares
from Coors. Mr. Hanlon stated TCVMD also purchased two (2) Signal Ditch Reservoirs from the City of
Westminster, and water can be transported south or north from those reservoirs. He stated the plan for
purchasing the reservoirs is to ultimately be able to provide non-potable irrigation water for the area
within Weld County. He stated TCVMD also has the Baseline Lakes Reservoir, which receives tail
waters from the Signal Ditch in the early irrigation season, as well as storm water. Mr. Hanlon stated
water can be diverted from the Guthrie Pump Station and the Brantner Ditch provides the ability for
water to be pumped to the Baseline Lakes Reservoir, then to the alluvial line, and then to the Signal
Ditch and the Marcus Reservoirs, which supply the Smith Reservoir. He stated TCVMD has alluvial
wells located along the South Platte River, which are utilized to fill the reservoirs and to provide water to
the reverse osmosis facility, where the potable water is treated. He stated Commissioner Kirkmeyer
previously indicated she had heard the reverse osmosis facility is only capable of serving 1,200 units;
however, 1,300 units are currently being served from the facility and it is only operating eight (8) to nine
(9) hours per day. He stated the facility could serve approximately 4,000 units by operating 24 hours
per day and adding a pond; therefore, there is expansion capability for potable water within the existing
facility. Mr. Hanlon stated the alluvial wells drop into the reverse osmosis plant, where the surface
water is treated, and the reverse osmosis water is blended with the Laramie Foxhill well. He stated
approximately 95 percent of both the potable and non-potable water TCVMD utilizes is surface water,
since the groundwater in the area is not very reliable and it would cost approximately $200,000.00 to
drill a well, which would only provide between 20 and 30 gallons of water a minute, and it would not be
able to support a development. He stated TCVMD made an early decision to invest in the infrastructure
necessary to store and plan for water consumption, and it is at a strategic location with close proximity
to the Signal and Brantner Ditches and the South Platte River.
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 7 BC0016
Mr. Hanlon stated he will next address the intent of the RUA application and plan for growth. He stated
this Ordinance will amend the Weld County Code and the Comprehensive Plan; however, it is not an
application for a development. He stated homes are not being constructed as a result of the
Ordinance; no lots are being platted and it is not even being decided how many lots will be platted at
this point in time. He stated a range of lots was provided; however, it is up to the Board and
development in the area to determine how many lots will be platted, based on marketability and the
demand for housing. Mr. Hanlon stated the area is in the path of development; however, he does not
know when the growth will occur. He stated the County has established goals and policies for future
development and the applicants have attempted to address each of those goals and policies, and they
feel they have met the standards of approval to begin the RUA process for this area. He stated the
Board adopted the regulations in order to facilitate opportunities which may not have otherwise been
provided, and this area will not be developed by the Cities of Thornton or Brighton; therefore, the logical
expansion is to include it in TCVMD's development infrastructure. Mr. Hanlon stated the County and its
citizens will be able to be involved with future development, and the Board will define the texture of
development in the RUA. He stated the applicants believe all the criteria have been met, and when
there is an intent to develop, the developer will submit a sketch plan to staff and address staff's
concerns, prior to any Change of Zone applications being submitted. He stated at that point, an
engineering evaluation of the feasibility of the plans for water and sewer service will occur, and TCVMD
will address any concerns about the provision of water and sewer services. Mr. Hanlon stated after the
concerns about engineering and environmental issues have been addressed, the Final Plan will be
submitted, at which time the lots will be platted and the schools, fire districts, and transportation issues
will be decided. He stated the standards of approval for the RUA amendment state that the RUA
amendment must include a diversity of land uses and specify how the proposed RUA will address the
impact on existing or planned services' capabilities, including, but not limited to, all utilities,
infrastructure, storm water infrastructure, and transportation systems. He stated there has been a lot of
discussion on these matters and concerns have been raised, and the purpose of the process is to
identify areas of concern; however, the applicants cannot provide all the answers until there is a
proposal for a specific development. Mr. Hanlon stated the next standard of approval is that the
proposed amendment will address impacts on the natural environment, which the applicants have
completed, and the following standard of approval is that the proposed land use is compatible with the
existing and surrounding land uses. He stated the applicants have demonstrated what is happening
around the area; the City of Thornton intends to expand into Weld County and the City of Brighton is
expanding to County Road 6 with its development. He stated the City of Fort Lupton understood that
the only way TCVMD was going to be able to provide water and sewer services on the other side of the
river would be with urban development in an extra-territorial area and the intergovernmental agreement
was entered into in the year 2006. Mr. Hanlon stated the next standard of approval is that the proposed
number of residents will be adequately served by the social amenities, such as schools and parks, of
the community, and the goals and policies have been set up; therefore, it will be up to the developer to
ensure the goals and policies are met when the development is presented for approval of a Change of
Zone. He stated the next standard of approval is that local accessible employment opportunities exist
and there is an integrated balance of housing and employment, and the applicants feel the requirement
has been met since there is a great deal of employment in the area. He stated this is a residential area;
therefore, it would not make sense to construct a factory in the middle of the homes, and the types of
job opportunities which will be available within the residential area will be at schools and neighborhood
commercial establishments. Mr. Hanlon stated he hopes there will be a great deal of job opportunities
along the 1-25, E-470, 1-76, and U.S. Highway 85 Corridors. He stated the next standard of approval is
that referral agency responses have been received and considered, which the applicants feel has been
completed. He stated the proposed amendments to the Weld County Code should be approved since,
based on the trends for growth in the Denver Metropolitan area and the proposed RUA's proximity to
1-25, E-470, and 1-76, this area is destined for the strongest growth in the North Front Range area.
Mr. Hanlon stated there will be a major demand for housing in this area, since it is located on the edge
of the Denver Metropolitan area. He stated the majority of the proposed RUA is outside of any
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 8 BC0016
municipal jurisdiction or growth boundaries, and there has been testimony supporting that. Mr. Hanlon
stated there are proactive long range planning efforts, on behalf of Weld County, to ensure future
development occurs in an attractive and functional manner, which is what this RUA process is about,
and it will allow for TCVMD and the City of Fort Lupton to better plan and provide for future
infrastructure in the area. He stated another reason the Board should approve the proposed Ordinance
is the RUA will retain water rights for the Brantner Ditch in Weld County, since the City of Aurora plans
to take over the Brantner Ditch and install alluvial wells along the South Platte River. He stated
TCVMD approached Adams County with its concern about the City of Aurora assuming control of the
Brantner Ditch, and an intergovernmental agreement resulted between TCVMD and the City of Aurora.
Mr. Hanlon stated the last standard of approval is that the RUA will increase Weld County's tax base
and prevent deterioration of tax values and provide for regional services. He stated if this area is not
allowed to develop into an area for a higher and better use, than it will end up dried up farmland. He
stated the Zehnder family sold its water rights to the City of Aurora and entered into an agreement to
dry out the land. He stated the Zehnder property is being farmed now; however, it no longer will be
when the City of Aurora creates its reservoir between State Highway 7 and County Road 2, when the
Brantner Ditch water will enter the reservoir and be directed to the City of Aurora. Mr. Hanlon stated
TCVMD will have the ability to extend its intergovernmental agreement with the City of Aurora for
five (5) more years after this term expires; therefore, it will be able to compete evenly with the City of
Aurora for a maximum of eight (8) more years. He stated the City of Aurora will have the ability to
pump water to other municipalities, through the facilities being constructed.
Kristen Bear, White, Bear, and Ankele, stated the Board is not considering the approval of anything in
relationship to TCVMD, or any potential Metropolitan Districts in the RUA; however, she is present to
explain how and why Metropolitan Districts are formed, and what the impacts can be on the property
owners within a Metropolitan District's legal boundaries or Service Area. She stated the purpose of a
Metropolitan District within the State of Colorado is generally to provide infrastructure which the
counties and cities cannot otherwise provide, and a Metropolitan District can provide a component of
financing for new or existing development; however, it is not the only source of financing for a
development. She stated Metropolitan Districts are formed for new developments for purposes such as
fire protection, for example, the Brighton Fire Protection District is an existing District. Ms. Bear stated
Districts are governed by State statute and cannot act outside of those provisions. She stated in order
to create a District, a Service Plan must first be prepared, which is the operative document for a District,
and the Service Plan can be consistent with Title 32, or it can be more limiting. She stated the Service
Plan operates as a governing document, similar to a City Charter or Articles of Incorporation for a
private corporation, and the Service Plan establishes the authorizations and limitations the District will
have regarding items such as bonding, mill levy limits, and debt limits. Ms. Bear stated the Service
Plan is submitted to the governing jurisdiction for approval, and it can be conditionally approved or
denied. She stated items which are required to be within a Service Plan by State statute include
financial authorization; what the District is entitled to regarding bonding, imposition of property taxes,
fees, and charges. She stated items such as mill levy limitations, debt limits, and limits on the term of
debt which can be imposed by the District are included in the Service Plan. Ms. Bear stated there are
also provisions in Service Plans relative to the types of improvements which may be constructed,
operated, and/or maintained by the District, on a temporary or a permanent basis. She stated the legal
boundaries of a District are also established in the Service Plan, and the legal boundaries are different
from the Service Area. She stated once a District is established, it is a governmental entity and it must
conduct public meetings with public notice, it must maintain public records for purposes of public
inspections, it has to adopt annual balanced budgets, and it must submit to annual financial audits
prepared by independent consultants. Ms. Bear stated the revenue sources which are available to
Districts are also governed by State statutes; the Districts can impose property taxes, which are levied
only within the legal boundaries of the Service Plan. She stated fees and charges may be imposed
only for services provided within the legal boundaries or within the Service Area. She stated other
revenues are available to Districts through a contractual process with entities providing streams of
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 9 BC0016
revenue to the District, which may include sales tax revenue or public improvement fees. Ms. Bear
reiterated the legal boundaries are initially established through the Service Plan, and the legal
boundaries are the area in which the District may assess property taxes. She stated the legal
boundaries can be expanded through a statutory process which requires notice to the property owners
and a public hearing, and there may be additional requirements for expanding a District's legal
boundaries in its Service Plan. She stated the Service Area is also established by the Service Plan,
and it is the area in which the District is authorized to provide services; it can be concurrent with legal
boundaries or different from the legal boundaries.
Ms. Bear stated in order to expand a District's Service Area, it must comply with the processes in the
Service Plan, and in the case of TCVMD, the Service Plan required that a 45-day notice be given to the
governing jurisdiction, which is Adams County, and the District provided the required notice to Adams
County, as well as providing notice to Weld County. She reiterated a District cannot assess property
taxes for properties which are within its Service Area, yet outside of its legal boundaries. She stated in
the case of TCVMD, property owners which are outside the established Service Area can request to
become a part of the Service Area; however, the District still must follow the process in its Service Plan
in order to expand its Service Area. Ms. Bear stated the Service Area provides the District with the
authorization to provide services within its boundaries; however, there is not an obligation for the
property owners to utilize the District's services. She stated use of the District's services is subject to
the District's rules and regulations. She stated fees and charges which are imposed by TCVMD are
applied uniformly, and the fees and charges are considered on an annual basis by the District
Treasurer; an independent consultant; and a Customer Advisory Board, which determine the fair
market rates. Commissioner Conway inquired as to how the Customer Advisory Board is established.
Ms. Bear indicated she will defer to Mr. Hanlon to answer that question. She stated it is critical for any
water service provider to provide water at market rates, in order to secure development within the area.
Ms. Bear stated there were some questions previously asked regarding budgets, and she reiterated
that budgets are an annual requirement and are typically determined by the District's Board at the end
of the year. She stated the budget requirement coincides with the ability of the District to certify a mill
levy; however, in the case of TCVMD, there are no property taxes or mill levies; it has fees and
charges. Ms. Bear stated TCVMD undertakes the consideration on an annual basis, parallel to
consideration of its budget, while considering the information provided by the Customer Advisory Board
and the independent consultant.
Ms. Bear stated that at the last hearing, a member of the public mentioned TCVMD has an operating
deficit, which is not uncommon with Districts in the early years of a District's development and
operations, and it is likely a developer will need to make up for deficiencies in the operating budget.
She stated the fees and rates TCVMD established were not increased from the inception of TCVMD
until the year 2007, when the Customer Advisory Board and the independent consultant were engaged
by the District, and the developer provided funding to TCVMD to cover the deficit. Ms. Bear stated
there were also previous questions about the audits for the years 2008 and 2009 for TCVMD, which
had not been filed yet. She stated a District must file an audit by July of the succeeding year, unless an
extension is obtained, and TCVMD has requested an extension for the year 2009. She stated the filing
of the audit for TCVMD for the year 2008 has been delayed due to several reasons. Ms. Bear stated
since TCVMD does not operate on property taxes, it funds its infrastructures through fees and charges,
which are imposed on the developer through an agreement, in order to obtain the tap fee revenues that
fund the bond requirements. She stated in the year 2008, one (1) of the home builders defaulted on an
agreement; therefore, there was a loss of tap fee revenues and the bonds were not being paid. She
stated TCVMD negotiated a resolution with the home builder and the bond holder; therefore, the 2008
audit is being finalized. Ms. Bear stated since TCVMD relies on tap fees and charges, it is not the
customers who are impacted when a situation like this occurs; TCVMD has a process to resolve the
situation with the home builders and bond holders.
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 10 BC0016
Ms. Bear stated the formation of new Metropolitan Districts is anticipated for the proposed RUA and the
legal boundaries will be over the entirety of the RUA; therefore, it is anticipated the new Districts will
assess property taxes on the developments within the RUA. She stated the Service Plan must be
approved by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners and the Districts will provide the
financing for the development required within the RUA, as well as funding for operations and
maintenance, as determined to be necessary. Ms. Bear stated taxes, fees, and charges will only be
applied to the property owners within the legal boundaries of the new Metropolitan Districts, within the
RUA.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated Ms. Bear discussed how the adoption of competitive rates occurs;
however, she did not address how the tap fee is determined. Ms. Bear stated TCVMD's independent
consultant provides information to the District Board on what the infrastructure requirements are, how
the requirements can be funded, and what the fair market rates are in other areas. In response to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Bear confirmed the final rates and taps fees are determined by the
District Board.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether the residents within a Service Area pay the deficits if a
District is defunct, and she inquired as to what happened in the case of the Castle Pines Metropolitan
District. Ms. Bear reiterated if TCVMD defaults on a bond, the customers are not impacted since the
TCVMD has not pledged user based fees and charges for its services. She stated TCVMD has
pledged tap fee revenues, which developers and home builders pay; therefore, the risk is to the parties
involved in the bond and not the residents within the Service Area. She further stated Castle Pines
Metropolitan District was a mill levy based district and development did not occur as it needed to, and
there were no mill levy limitations in the Service Plan; therefore, the bond holder asserted there was an
unlimited mill levy pledge from the District and it required the District to impose as much property tax as
was necessary to pay the debt service. She stated the situation is completely different from the
situation with TCVMD.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated Ms. Bear discussed the formation of new and overlapping Districts and
TCVMD will be providing water service to the RUA, and she inquired as to whether a new District being
created within the RUA will constitute an overlapping District. Ms. Bear stated in a way it would be an
overlapping District; however, the related statute refers to overlapping Districts which provide the same
or similar services. She stated TCVMD will be providing water service to the area and it is conceivable
that the new Districts will be authorized to provide infrastructure for the purpose of water service;
however, those Districts will not be providers of water service. She stated the Districts will have to
come to an agreement over which District is providing which services, since the intent of the statute is
to avoid conflicting services and infrastructure. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Bear
confirmed the statute also indicates a proliferation of Special Districts and Metropolitan Districts is not
desired, and that is why it is important for separate Districts and entities to be designated to provide
specific services.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to what the process was regarding property owners when the
Service Area for TCVMD was modified by Adams County. Ms. Bear stated the property owners are not
required to utilize the service provided by TCVMD and there is no impact on the property owners, in
terms of property taxes; therefore, the only requirement was the 45-day notice to Adams County. In
response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Bear stated the notification was published in the Brighton
Standard Blade. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Bear clarified new Districts will serve within
the RUA. Chair Rademacher stated one (1) of the maps indicates that new Districts may be outside of
the proposed RUA to the north of the boundary. Ms. Bear clarified the map indicates the boundaries of
the Service Area; however, new Districts will be within the proposed RUA. She stated there is a small
amount of overlapping, as Commissioner Kirkmeyer pointed out; however, the overlapping Districts will
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 11 BC0016
be providing different services. She stated TCVMD will provide water service to the RUA, and new
Metropolitan Districts will be established to provide funding for the required infrastructure, such as
roads. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Bear confirmed residents who are not within the new
Districts will not pay any property taxes or fees to those Districts.
Mr. Hanlon stated Commissioner Conway inquired earlier as to how the Customer Advisory Board is
established. He stated there was a public hearing conducted in the year 2007, when TCVMD began
considering revising its rates, and approximately 100 customers attended the hearing. He stated
TCVMD requested that attendees at the meeting submit resumes for the Customer Advisory Board,
and five (5) members were selected from the home owners within TCVMD's Service Area who
submitted resumes, and the selected members participated in approximately six (6) or seven (7)
meetings with the TCVMD Treasurer and the independent consultant. He stated the Customer
Advisory Board reviewed various forms of rate structures for water and sewer services and then made
a recommendation to the District Board for the establishment of annual rate increases over the
following five (5) years, beginning in the year 2008. Mr. Hanlon stated TCVMD did not increase its
rates since the year 2008, even though it was authorized to increase the rates in the years 2009 and
2010; however, there will probably be a slight rate increase for the upcoming year. He stated in the
year 2009, the District was dealing with litigation over the tap fees with National Homebuilders;
however, TCVMD has not increased the rate for two (2) years. Mr. Hanlon stated the District Board
meets with the Customer Advisory Board and the independent consultant on an annual basis, to
compare the projections for rate adjustments against the actual results, in order to determine whether
the rates need to be modified.
Mr. Hanlon stated Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to what the tap fees are for TCVMD's Service
Area, and the tap fees for both potable and non-potable water taps are $15,000.00, which is
$10,000.00 for the potable water tap and $5,000.00 for the non-potable water tap. He stated the tap
fee for the City of Brighton is approximately $16,000.00, and the City of Thornton's tap fee is
approximately $22,000.00. Mr. Hanlon stated TCVMD constructed a sewer lift station on Yosemite and
Todd Creek, in order to accommodate Heritage Todd Creek, and the lift station will process drainage
from the west as the City of Thornton expands, and it pumps the drainage under E-470 and over a hill
to 136th Street, and it travels through a gravity line to 128th Street, where the lift station for the City of
Thornton pumps the drainage to the City of Denver. He stated at some point the lift station will
probably be removed and a gravity line will be installed within TCVMD, in order to tie into the new
Metropolitan station. He stated it cost approximately $5,000,000.00 to construct the lift station, and the
tap fee for sewer in the City of Thornton is approximately $3,200.00, and there is an additional fee in
the amount of $2,000.00, which is paid by the Developer of Heritage Todd Creek as reimbursement to
TCVMD for the infrastructure. Mr. Hanlon stated it is estimated it will cost between $3,000,000.00 and
$5,000,000.00 to provide a gravity line which will travel to the City of Fort Lupton; therefore, it is
estimated the sewer tap fee will be approximately $5,000.00. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Mr. Hanlon stated the average monthly cost for water service from TCVMD is $93.00; which breaks
down to $53.00 for potable water and $40.00 for non-potable water. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired
as to what the average cost for sewer service is from TCVMD. Mr. Hanlon stated TCVMD does not
provide sewer service at this time, and when it does provide sewer service, it will be paying the City of
Fort Lupton, similar to how the City of Thornton pays Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation District.
Ms. Kerr stated she wants to provide some information in response to inquiries at the last reading of the
Ordinance. She stated she will discuss growth patterns, employment analysis, housing demands in the
immediate area, transportation, and the overall financial benefits. She stated Weld County has
experienced a growth rate of three (3) to 4.6 percent for the last 20 years, which is slightly higher than
the overall Denver Metropolitan area. Ms. Kerr stated the housing demand for the area within a five (5)
mile radius of the proposed RUA will be between 12,000 and 16,000 new units over the next 30 years.
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 12 BC0016
Ms. Kerr stated in addition to the Vestas facility in the City of Brighton, Vestas has also opened a new
facility in the Town of Louisville with 300 new jobs, and Abound Solar has opened a new facility within
the City of Longmont with 300 new jobs. She stated the center point of the five (5) mile radius are
County Roads 4 and 21, and the proposed RUA. Ms. Kerr stated there are 85 employers with more
than 20 employees within the five (5) mile radius, and Vestas is not included.
Ms. Kerr stated local shopping centers include Larkridge, which is located at State Highway 7 and 1-25;
the Orchard in the City of Westminster; the Pavillions in the City of Brighton; and the Prairie Center in
the City of Brighton. She stated there are 40 retailers at Larkridge, including Office Max, Pet Smart,
Pier 1 Imports, Sears Grand, and Daveco Liquors. She stated the Orchard is more of a traditional mall
format and it has 70 retailers, including Super Target, and the Prairie Center has Kohl's, Lowes, Home
Depot, and Super Target. Ms. Kerr stated most shopping can be completed within a short driving
distance of the proposed RUA.
Ms. Kerr stated according to data from Metrostudy, which completes primary research on a quarterly
basis to identify how many new single family detached homes are starting in market areas, there were
approximately 14,800 new homes started in the Denver Metropolitan area at the peak of the market, in
the first quarter of the year 2006. She stated at the lowest point, in the third quarter of the year 2009,
there were approximately 2,200 homes started, and there has been an upswing, with approximately
3,100 homes being started by the second quarter of this year. Ms. Kerr stated she completed a trend
analysis, based on the assumption the market will require five (5) years to recover to a point where
10,000 homes are started per year. She stated there are currently 76 new homes in inventory within
the Brighton area, and there were 367 at the peak. She stated the new homes inventory includes
model homes, specification homes, and homes under construction which have not closed. Ms. Kerr
stated the ideal equilibrium is considered to be approximately a six (6) month supply of new homes,
and the monthly supply is a dynamic function of inventory and supply; how quickly new homes are
introduced to the market and how quickly the homes are sold. She stated the Thornton area has
147 new homes in inventory, and it is slightly above equilibrium; it is at approximately an eight (8)
month supply of new homes. She stated the Tri-Town area (which consists of Frederick, Firestone, and
Dacono) has 90 new homes in inventory, which is slightly above equilibrium, and the Broomfield/Erie
submarket has 226 homes in inventory, which is about a ten (10) month supply of new homes. She
stated the Fort Lupton area has one (1) new home in inventory. Ms. Kerr stated at the peak, Weld
County had approximately 2,000 new homes in inventory, and now it has approximately 376. She
stated the five (5) subareas make up approximately 25 percent of the Denver Metropolitan market area.
She stated Weld County has approximately 10,000 platted lots in inventory, and the overall Denver
Metropolitan area has approximately 37,000. Ms. Kerr stated at the previous readings of the proposed
Ordinance, it was asserted there are 69,500 units available in Adams County; therefore, she totaled the
numbers of new homes, platted lots, vacant developed lots, and resales for the entire Denver
Metropolitan area, which totaled 86,000 for the eight (8) counties; therefore it seems unlikely Adams
County has 69,500 units. She stated Weld County has fewer than 2,000 homes available for resale,
including foreclosures; therefore, it seems as though the data previously presented does not support
the current levels of inventory.
Ms. Kerr stated the Regional Transportation District (RTD) has provided a drawing of its light rail and
commuter corridors, and the North Metro Corridor is extremely close to the proposed RUA. She stated
the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) indicated on 1-25, north of State Highway 7, there
are currently 90 vehicle trips per day, and in 20 years, it is projected there will be 170 vehicle trips per
day. She stated on U.S. Highway 85, north of County Road 2, there are 27,000 vehicle trips per day,
and it is projected there will be 42,000 trips per day in 20 years. Ms. Kerr stated on State Highway 7,
east of York, there are currently 15,000 trips per day, and in 20 years, it is projected there will be
26,000 trips per day. She stated the applicants' traffic engineer indicated County Road 2, east of Holly,
currently has approximately 2,700 vehicle trips per day, and in 20 years it is projected it will have
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 13 BC0016
approximately 4,000 trips per day, excluding the proposed RUA. She stated County Road 6, east of
Count Road 15, has 1,200 vehicle trips per day, and is estimated to have 1,700 vehicle trips in 20
years. Ms. Kerr stated 1-25, U.S. Highway 85, and State Highway 7 are major corridors which will be
better served for commercial and employment purposes, since the County Roads are at a competitive
disadvantage. She stated the proposed RUA is well placed between E-470, 1-25, U.S. Highway 85, and
1-26, which are all fantastic transportation corridors, particularly for employment and retail purposes.
Ms. Kerr stated Weld County's residential assessed valuation for the year 2010 equals
$1,258,374,790.00, and if you divide that number by the population, there is $4,965.00 worth of value in
residential homes per resident. She stated the proposed Dry Creek RUA Residential Assessed
Valuation will be approximately $97,434,553.00, to $141,076,064.00, with 4,500 homes, which will be
approximately $7,290.00, to $10,556.00, in value per resident. She stated the homes will be assessed
at a higher value within the RUA and the homes will collect more mills, which will generate revenue to
provide higher levels of service and amenities to the area. Ms. Kerr stated the proposed RUA tax base
will be significantly higher than the existing tax base for agriculture, and it is anticipated the property
values within the proposed RUA boundaries may diminish as a result of some of the farms selling the
water rights.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to what the projected housing rebound is based on. Ms. Kerr
stated the projection was based on the assumptions that it will take five (5) years to recover from the
bottom of the market, and that the market may not reach its previous height. In response to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Kerr confirmed she is operating under the assumption that the bottom of
the market has already been reached, since there has already been some improvement in the second
quarter of this year. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Kerr confirmed there are
approximately 4,000 platted lots in the Brighton area, and there will be between 12,000 and 16,000
units needed over the next 30 years. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to where the inventory of
platted lots was obtained. Ms. Kerr stated the inventory was obtained from Metrostudy, which travels to
each municipality and subdivision on a quarterly basis, to provide primary research data.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to when the funding will be in place for the North Metropolitan
Corridor, and when the anticipated construction will be completed. Ms. Kerr stated the information
which is available to the public is that the North Metropolitan Corridor is planned and the voters within
the Denver Metropolitan area voted in favor of it; however, RTD is experiencing a financial shortfall,
which will need to be resolved before the project moves forward. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the
North Metropolitan Corridor is not in the Denver Regional Council of Government's (DRCOG) long
range plans.
She inquired as to whether Ms. Kerr considered the Gallagher and Tabor Amendments and the Weld
County Home Rule Charter's five (5) percent limitation when calculating the property taxes which Weld
will benefit from. Ms. Kerr stated she is aware of both amendments and the Charter's limitation, which
is why she only utilized the assessed valuation, in order to compare apples to apples, since Weld
County has different operating practices and collects fewer mills than the proposed RUA will. In
response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Kerr stated the projected Assessed Valuation for the
proposed RUA was determined by home sales varying from $205,000.00, to $348,000.00, absorbed
over a 30-year schedule.
Commissioner Conway inquired as to whether there is documentation to support the claim there are
69,500 units available in Adams County. Ms. Martin stated the information was provided by the Adams
County Planning Department, which conducted a study on available housing. In response to
Mr. Hanlon, Ms. Martin indicated she will provide Mr. Hanlon with a copy of the information submitted
by Adams County, and she stated the information simply lists a lump sum, it does not specify the
number of each type of housing. Mr. Hanlon stated Metrostudy does not include projects in its data
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 14 BC0016
until the projects have been approved, and then the projects are tracked in the field on a quarterly
basis. He stated the consultants from Metrostudy visit each project site in the database, and they
document the number of lots being developed once construction has commenced. He stated he is not
sure what Adams County utilized to determine its data; however, Metrostudy's data is updated
quarterly, and most banks and financial institutions rely on Metrostudy's data. Mr. Hanlon stated there
are not many new homes in inventory and there are not many new homes being constructed, and when
the economy improves, the area will not be prepared.
Mr. Hanlon stated one of the criteria for approval of the proposed RUA is that water and sewer can be
provided to the area; therefore, he will address the intergovernmental agreement with the City of Fort
Lupton. He stated he will also discuss the water system, how infrastructure is financed, and how
additional water resources will be obtained when the resources are needed. He submitted a copy of a
Resolution between Todd Creek Farms Metropolitan District (TCFMD) No. 1, dba Todd Creek Village
North, and the City of Fort Lupton regarding use of the Fort Lupton Wastewater Treatment Plant, a
copy of which can be found as the third page of Exhibit GG. He stated the Resolution was approved in
September, 2006, and the staff report acknowledges discussions occurred for over one (1) year before
the intergovernmental agreement was approved. Mr. Hanlon stated staff also pointed out the
intergovernmental agreement is a long term commitment, with a 40-year timeframe to develop the
necessary infrastructure and begin delivering waste management service, and the responsibility of Fort
Lupton to receive and treat wastewater from Todd Creek Village North will continue in perpetuity. He
stated TCFMD No. 1 paid $200,000.00 to partly fund the initial development and expansion of the Fort
Lupton Wastewater Treatment Plant, and shortly after the payment was made, Fort Lupton began its
initial studies for expansion of the plant. He submitted a copy of the intergovernmental agreement into
the record, marked Exhibit HH. Mr. Hanlon stated on Page 1 of the agreement, under Recitals and
Purpose, the first item describes the authority the parties have to enter into the agreement, and Item D
discusses the intent of the Growth Area being urban, with approximately 14,000 residential dwelling
units and approximately 1,000,000 square feet of retail and commercial development. He stated Item E
indicates the sewer treatment services will be extra-territorial, and he realizes the Fort Lupton Planning
Commission subsequently recommended a pre-annexation agreement to staff; however, under this
agreement, there was not any intent for that area to be annexed. He stated subsequent to this
intergovernmental agreement, the Cities of Fort Lupton and Brighton entered into an intergovernmental
agreement, which identified County Road 6 as the boundary for annexation; however, property within
the Growth Area was identified to be extra-territorial. Mr. Hanlon stated the reason Fort Lupton wanted
to enter into the intergovernmental agreement with TCFMD No. 1 was in order to secure a sewer line
on the west side of the South Platte River, and to begin establishing the expansion of Fort Lupton's
208 boundary west of the South Platte River. He stated TCFMD No. 1 explained the only way it could
afford to construct the District Sewer Main was to have urban scale density, and Item J of
intergovernmental agreement states, "The District's ability to fund and to perform its obligations
hereunder is substantially dependent on achieving and sustaining certain sources of revenue for the
District from within the Growth Area through, among other means, development of property within the
Growth Area consistent with the conceptual development plan for Todd Creek Village North." He stated
he would also like to point out on Page 4 of the agreement, under Item 9, it again refers to the Growth
Area consisting of approximately 14,000 residential units. Mr. Hanlon stated on Page 7 of the
agreement, under Item E, it states, "At all times Fort Lupton and the District will each, so far as it may
be authorized by law (including without limitation executing the power of eminent domain), pass, make,
do, execute, acknowledge, and deliver any and every such further resolution or ordinance, approval,
acts, deeds, conveyances, assignments, transfers, and assurances as may be necessary or desirable
for the better assuring, conveying, granting, assigning, and confirming all rights, revenues and other
obligations set forth herein, or which Fort Lupton or the District may heretofore or hereafter become
bound to pledge or to assign, or as may be reasonable and required to carry out the purposes stated
herein. Fort Lupton will fulfill the obligations contracted herein by reasonable and appropriate
governmental action." He stated the City of Fort Lupton was essentially expressing its support for what
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 15 BC0016
TCFMD No. 1 intends to do in the Growth Area, and he wants to clearly make the point, since he
understands there has been an attempt to influence the current Fort Lupton City Council to not support
the agreement. He stated there are also a number of details about how the infrastructure will be funded
in the agreement; however, the Board needs to simply determine whether adequate provisions for
water and sewer services have been determined, and a great deal of planning and thought went into
ensuring adequate water and sewer services will be provided. He stated after entering into the
intergovernmental agreement with Fort Lupton, the North Front Range Water Quality Authority was
approached, Fort Lupton's 208 boundary was expanded, and the Service Area boundary for Todd
Creek Village Metropolitan District was expanded. Mr. Hanlon stated when the intergovernmental
agreement was created, it was understood the boundaries could change, and it was identified in the
agreement, as well as two (2) requirements for inclusion into the Growth Area for sewer and water. He
stated one is mutual consent, and the other is reasonable proximity. He stated there are some areas
which are included in the Service Area yet not covered in the intergovernmental agreement, and there
are areas which are not covered in the expanded 208 boundary; therefore, he has prepared some
maps to show those areas, marked Exhibits 11.1, through 11.5. He stated the first map shows the
expansion area Fort Lupton proposed to the North Front Range Water Quality Authority for its 208
boundary, which includes TCVMD's Growth Area as it was defined in the intergovernmental agreement.
Mr. Hanlon stated the North Front Range Water Quality Authority notified the parties that a portion of
the area that the City of Fort Lupton wanted to expand its 208 boundary to include is within the City of
Northglenn's 208 boundary. He stated he made a statement earlier about a conflict with the City of
Thornton's Extended Growth Boundary; however, he wants to clarify there is no conflict with it, and
TCVMD's intergovernmental agreement with Thornton only addresses the area west of Quebec Street.
He stated the City of Northglenn already expanded its 208 boundary to include Sections 25, 30, 36, and
31, bounded by County Road 6 to the north, by County Road 11 to the west, County Road 2 to the
south, and County Road 15 to the east. Mr. Hanlon stated Northglenn had also expanded its 208
boundary to include portions of Sections 29, 32, and 33; therefore, TCVMD decided to not include the
area in its Service Area, and Fort Lupton modified its 208 boundary to extend to the boundaries of
Northglenn and Dacono's Service Areas. He stated the City of Fort Lupton modified its Service Area to
include part of Sections 29, 28, and 33. He stated at this point, in the year 2007, TCVMD had
negotiated with the Zehnder family to purchase its water rights; however, the Zehnders sold the water
rights to the City of Aurora. Mr. Hanlon stated the only difference between the TCVMD growth
boundary and the Service Area is one (1) half section which lies north of County Road 6, and part of the
reason for it not being included is the western growth boundary was moved to include Sections 29, 32,
and a portion of Section 33.
Mr. Hanlon stated TCVMD owns a significant amount of water rights, and it operates water treatment
storage and reservoirs. He stated TCVMD's renewable water sources are approximately 2,900 acre
feet per year, and TCVMD has the ability to adjudicate an additional 1,370 acre feet of water per year.
He stated TCVMD has an obligation, through tap purchase agreements, for approximately 2,000 acre
feet, and TCVMD has the ability through the adjudication of the additional water, to serve approximately
4,000 additional units. He stated TCVMD has one (1) acre lots which have a great deal of landscaping
and consume a great deal of water per dwelling unit; however, TCVMD will be able to serve more
dwelling units with urban level density. Mr. Hanlon reiterated TCVMD has an intergovernmental
agreement with the City of Aurora regarding purchasing shares of Brantner Ditch water, and TCVMD
has continued to work with Aurora as water shares have become available for purchase. He stated
there are 23,000 acre feet of water produced by the Brantner Ditch, which can support a lot of growth,
and it is heavily utilized for agriculture. He stated if TCVMD is prevented from expanding, the City of
Aurora will obtain the rest of the Brantner Ditch shares. Mr. Hanlon stated the Cities of Thornton and
Arvada, Coors, and a few other corporations control the Farmers High Line Canal. He stated the City
of Aurora is constructing the infrastructure with the intent of controlling the Brantner Ditch, and he wants
the opportunity to secure some of the Brantner Ditch water for Weld County. He stated $67,000,000.00
is needed for infrastructure financing for the proposed RUA, and $32,000,000.00 will be funded by
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 16 BC0016
developer contributions and $35,000,000.00 will be financed by TCVMD. Mr. Hanlon stated the
developer will create a Metropolitan District for a specific area and the developer will construct
infrastructure to connect with TCVMD, and the developer will meet the regulations of TCVMD and
approve all of the developer's construction drawings before the construction commences. He stated
when general obligation bonds are obtained to construct infrastructure for a neighborhood, the bond
holders benefit from it; however, when the bond is for a revenue District such as TCVMD's Water
District, which is an operating enterprise, the bond holders want assurance there is contiguity of
management and that the District is being professionally operated, in accordance with State laws. He
stated TCVMD has modeled its organization from the way Highland's Ranch is organized. Mr. Hanlon
stated TCVMD has repaid $8,000,000.00 of its financing; therefore, there is $27,000,000.00
outstanding. He stated there has been discussion about TCVMD needing to prove it has adequate
water and sewer service, and he believes that requirement is based on House Bill 08-1141; however,
the Bill only applies to development permits; it does not apply to the proposed Ordinance. He
submitted a copy of House Bill 08-1141 into the record, marked Exhibit JJ. He stated the requirement
to provide adequate water and sewer is the responsibility of the applicant, and the County can require a
water or sewer provider to provide an engineering report, which TCVMD will be happy to provide at the
point in time when development permits are ready to be issued by Weld County. Mr. Hanlon stated the
timing of the water acquisition is dependent upon the timing of the development, and when a
development is proposed, a conditional "will serve" letter will be provided by TCVMD to the developer,
which indicates what infrastructure will be constructed and what the rules and regulations will be. He
stated typically any water rights the developer has need to be transferred to the Metropolitan District,
free and clear of all liens, and if the developer does not have sufficient water rights, TCVMD will
purchase additional water rights, through an agreement for the developer to purchase taps from the
District, and it is through this agreement, TCVMD typically finances the construction of the necessary
infrastructure. He stated TCVMD is in a strategic location and it is a renewable water provider, and it
has constructed its entire system based on renewable water. He stated TCVMD is located at the
confluence of the Brantner Ditch, the Brighton Ditch, and the Platte River. Chair Rademacher called a
recess until 1:00 p.m.
Upon reconvening, Mr. Hanlon stated there are two (2) items that are not a part of the drafted
Resolution, which he requests be included in the Resolution, if the Board approves the Ordinance. He
stated the first item is a statement from the Southwest Weld RUA amendment, and it states there are
2,000 acres of property, and it has not been determined what the best locations will be for a community
facility, park amenities, and transit sites. He stated those determinations will be made based on the
trail designs and how the neighborhoods are developed; however, the applicants want to provide a
general statement. Mr. Hanlon stated a map has been provided which identifies a specific location for a
regional neighborhood center; however, it may not be the best location for it, and the proposed
Resolution states a property owned by one (1) of the eight (8) applicants has been identified for this
use, yet it has not been decided if this is the best use for this property. He stated the designations will
be subject to Board review and approval during the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning process.
He suggested a statement be added on the map where the symbols are identified for parks, trails,
public facilities, park amenities, et cetera, to indicate the items are shown where the applicants
imagined the items will be best located; however, it is subject to change. He stated the applicants want
general language, which is not too rigid for the framework plan, as was included in the Southwest Weld
RUA. Mr. Hanlon stated the second item is a modification to Chapter 26. He stated Xcel Energy is one
of the applicants, and after the Planning Commissioner hearing, Xcel Energy expressed concern about
being included on the map as a limiting sight factor, along with the Dry Creek and two (2) ponds;
therefore, Chapter 26 and the map have been modified to designate Xcel Energy as a separate type of
limiting sight factor, since it is not an environmental factor. He stated Xcel Energy is operating a gas
facility with transmission lines at the location, along with a mixing facility; therefore, improved language
is proposed for better defining the uses around and within the area.
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 17 BC0016
Mr. Hanlon stated the proposed RUA is beneficial because it protects property rights for Weld County
residents; it is consistent with long term planning goals and policies; the area is in the path of growth;
there is an availability of infrastructure and services; its proximity to employment and retail services; its
proximity to transportation corridors and mass transit services; it provides the highest and best use for
Weld County land resources; and it keeps the water resources within Weld County. He stated Adams
County is relocating its campus within five miles of the proposed RUA, north of 120th Street and south
of E-470, and it will be a major employer in the area which was not previously mentioned. He stated
another potential major employer in the area which was not previously mentioned is the proposed
Denver Technical Center North, which will be located south of State Highway 7. Mr. Hanlon stated
most of the property in the proposed RUA was farmed at one time, and when the Seltzer family sold
most of the water utilized for irrigating the area, it was the beginning of the end of farming for the area.
He stated most of the farming in the area is now dry land farming and there is a feedlot operation;
however, he believes developing the area is the highest and best use for it.
Commissioner Conway inquired as to what the other options are for the Brantner Ditch, in Mr. Hanlon's
opinion, if the proposed RUA is not approved. Mr. Hanlon stated he was going to address this matter in
his final comments; however, he will address it now, since Commissioner Conway inquired about it. He
stated TCVMD would not have had a seat at the table if it had not been pro-active with Adams County.
He stated the City of Aurora is permitting 48 alluvial wells through the State, and the wells within Weld
County begin at County Road 2. He stated the 48 wells will be able to draw approximately 50,000
gallons of water per minute from the Brantner Ditch. Mr. Hanlon stated the wells have been drilled and
the infrastructure is in place to bring the water to County Road 7, where the facility will be located. He
stated there is a 60-inch pipe which has been installed along E-470, and the City of Aurora plans to
bring water to its facility to treat it and store it in its well area, which are two (2) concrete structures at
County Road 7. Mr. Hanlon stated the City of Aurora is working with South Adams, Denver, and
Douglas Counties on the Water, Infrastructure, and Supply Efficiency (WISE) Project; therefore, the 48
alluvial wells will not only be utilized for Aurora's effluent. He stated the City of Aurora needs to
construct the planned reservoir between State Highway 7 and County Road 2, in order to complete its
Brantner Ditch Project. He stated the property the reservoir will be constructed on is owned by
Aggregate Industries, and the reservoir will be excavated, then a liner will be placed in the reservoir and
it will be filled with sand, to prevent evaporation, similar to the Beebe Draw Aquifer structure.
Mr. Hanlon stated then the Brantner Ditch water will be directed into the reservoir, the water will be
treated, and it will travel through the alluvial wells. He stated this is the City of Aurora's long term plan
and it has involved other municipalities in order to be able to finance it. He stated when the
intergovernmental agreement with Aurora has expired, TCVMD may be able to compete with Aurora for
Brantner Ditch water rights; however, at the time the City of Aurora made its initial play for control of the
Brantner Ditch, Brantner Ditch shares were selling for $90,000.00 per share and TCVMD had offered
$95,000 per share. Mr. Hanlon stated at that point, the City of Aurora offered $165,000 per share and
TCVMD became unable to compete. He stated the City of Aurora does not intend to purchase any
land, it wants to enter into dry up agreements, in order to acquire the water with the most consumptive
rights. He stated TCVMD does not require as many consumptive rights since it has the two (2) pipe
system and it is able to utilize non-potable irrigation water, which partly returns to the South Platte River
through its normal migration route; therefore, TCVMD is able to benefit slightly more from the Brantner
Ditch water than the City of Aurora. Mr. Hanlon stated the consumptive portion of the water utilized by
the City of Aurora is traveling south, and the non-consumptive portion of the water will be stored in
recharge pits for winter draws and the non-consumptive water will travel directly to the river in the
summer. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired about the agreements TCVMD has in place for water
storage with gravel pits along the South Platte River. Mr. Hanlon clarified he has been working with
Aggregate Industries on an agreement to store water at its Stage Coach Pit; however, there are not any
agreements in place with any gravel pits within Weld County, since a pit within Weld County would not
meet TCVMD's needs. He stated TCVMD needs to discharge water at the point in the South Platte
River from which it is drawing. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon stated Aggregate
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 18 BC0016
Industries has pits along the South Platte River, and it is presently developing the areas between
County Road 2 and E-470 and between County Roads 2 and 6.
Joe Reider, Weld County resident within the proposed RUA, stated since his property is within the path
of growth, he would simply prefer to be involved with a RUA, rather than be annexed by the Cities of
Brighton, Fort Lupton, or Dacono. He stated he would rather the Board of County Commissioners
regulate the land use for the area than the surrounding municipalities. He stated the RUA will provide
the property owners with additional land use options, since the land can currently only be utilized for
agricultural purposes and there is not a lot of value for agriculture in this economy. Mr. Reider stated
he understands the property owners currently have the right to apply for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD); however, it is not a simple process for an individual to pursue and finance. He stated most
people have suffered losses in this economy and this RUA will provide the property owners with
opportunities to recover some of those losses, which will help the economy in Weld County by providing
the residents with money which they will be likely to spend locally. He stated this RUA process is a
win-win situation and if people do not want to see growth, they should move to the middle of the State
of Wyoming or somewhere else out of growth's path. Mr. Reider stated the residents may not like it;
however, growth is a fact of life, and this RUA will provide the residents with some input on who will
govern the area.
Dick McLean, Mayor of the City of Brighton, stated the City of Brighton is opposed to the proposed RUA
until TCVMD enters into an intergovernmental agreement with it. He stated the reason for the
discrepancy on the number of available lots in Adams County may be because Brighton does not report
its unplatted lots, and there are between 4,000 and 5,000 unplatted lots within the City of Brighton. In
response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. McLean confirmed there are between 4,000 and 5,000
unplatted lots, in addition to the 4,000 platted lots within the City of Brighton. In response to
Commissioner Conway, Mayor McLean stated the lists provided by Metrostudy are extremely accurate;
however, Metrostudy is approximately 90 days behind; therefore, there may be a gap related to the
delay. Further responding to Commissioner Conway, Mayor McLean stated he can only speak for the
City of Brighton, and he is unaware of whether the other municipalities within Adams County report the
number of unplatted lots.
Hazel Frank, surrounding property owner, submitted a map into the record, marked Exhibit OO. She
stated the map is a visual tool to be able to see the number of property owners in the area who are
opposed to the proposed RUA and the associated Service Area. She stated the area shaded green are
the properties owned by the applicants within the proposed RUA, the area shaded red are opposed
property owners, and the black line is the Service Area outline. She stated as the result of attending
the Planning Commission hearing in the month of January, and the second reading of the Ordinance on
August 4, 2010, she realized how much she does not understand about the proposed RUA. Ms. Frank
stated she has learned her property is within the City of Northglenn's 208 boundary, and her property is
not within the proposed RUA or the Service Area boundaries and it seems unlikely the property ever
will be located within those boundaries. She stated if the proposed RUA is approved, the view located
to the east of her home, which currently contains two (2) miles of farmland, will be changed to a view of
rooftops, there will be greatly increased traffic in the area, and there may be a longer response time
from the Weld County Sheriff's Office; however, she is most concerned about the best plan for the area.
She stated the Weld County Comprehensive Plan is designed to respond to land uses through the year
2030, and Section 22-2-130 of the Weld County Comprehensive Plan states that municipalities are best
suited for most types of urban development and other County policies encourage urban development
within existing municipalities. Ms. Frank stated TCVMD has indicated the RUA and Service Areas are
not covered by other municipalities' plans; however, the City of Thornton indicated in its referral,
"Approval of the proposed Dry Creek RUA in Weld County will create a conflict with the City of
Thornton's existing 105 Plan, as the westernmost one and one-half sections of the proposed RUA are
within Thornton's Future Growth Area as it appears on the City's Future Land Use Map." She stated
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 19 BC0016
Mr. Hanlon has stated the area needs to be planned now due the pressure for development in the area;
however, she contends the reason the area has not been included in surrounding municipalities' growth
plans, other than the City of Thornton, is because there is no need for development in this area in the
near future. She stated staff from the Weld County Department of Planning Services indicated the
need for additional urban scale development does not exist, and it will not exist, for the standard
20-year planning horizon. Ms. Frank stated staff from the Weld County Department of Planning
Services also indicated there is existing zoning, or platted lots, within a five (5) mile area of up to
22,000 dwelling units. She submitted a copy of the Draft Consensus Plan for the City of Dacono into
the record, marked Exhibit PP, which shows 7,422 dwelling units were approved at the time the Draft
Consensus Plan was created. She stated she drove around the four (4) subdivisions which have
experienced some development in the past six (6) years. Ms. Frank stated Sharpe is located off State
Highway 52 and it has had approximately 160 to 170 dwelling units constructed, Sweetgrass has
constructed 180 dwelling units, Autumn Valley has constructed 22 dwelling units, and Eagle Meadows
has constructed seven (7) houses; therefore, approximately 380 out of the 7,422 approved dwelling
units have been constructed. She stated on the lower right side of the Draft Consensus Plan, it states,
"The Consensus Plan preserves the agriculture operations in the eastern portion of the planning
boundary, incorporates a Town Center, provides job producing land uses in the business retail and
industrial areas, encourages extensive trail connections, and allocates schools and parks to
accommodate an eventual population of approximately 50,000 people." She stated she would argue
the City of Dacono can provide for the growth in the area for some time; however, if the Board believes
there is the need for additional urban scale growth in the area, the proposed RUA is a poor plan.
Ms. Frank stated she has learned from attending the public meetings in the City of Dacono and
listening to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, that residential units alone will not pay for the cost of
a development, and there is very little commercial space included within the proposed RUA in relation
to the number of housing units. She stated outside of the limited commercial space, the only
employment within the proposed RUA will be in the schools, assuming the schools can obtain bond
approval from the voters in order to be constructed; therefore, the RUA will not open the door for more
regional business opportunities. Ms. Frank stated the former Weld County Director of Finance and
Administration, Don Warden, indicated a high mill levy is not the optimal financial mechanism for a
project of this type and he recommended denial of the proposed RUA. She stated she recalls previous
testimony indicating an annual revenue shortfall in the amount of $5,800,000.00 will be made up from
mill levies and Metropolitan Districts layered upon Metropolitan Districts, and it seems the tax payers of
the area, and possibly all of Weld County, will be paying for TCVMD's debt and large annual operating
losses. She stated the RUA is not the best plan for the area and the Comprehensive Plan contends the
area should remain agricultural; however, if the Board no longer feels the area should remain
agricultural, it should vote against the proposed Ordinance and RUA, and direct the Department of
Planning Services to conduct public meetings and seek involvement from all the citizens in the area in
making the necessary changes to the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Frank requested that the Board
protect the property rights of the property owners who do not want to be in the Service Area or the
proposed RUA.
Tom Pettit, Weld County resident, stated this is a property rights situation, and the people who live in
the area surrounding the proposed RUA will have their property rights infringed on. He stated the
proposed RUA may end up costing all of Weld County's tax payers in the future. He stated the best
case scenario is being presented and these projects never go according to the best case scenarios.
Mr. Pettit stated there have been situations within the Town of Kersey with Metropolitan Districts and
subdivisions which made promises that were not delivered. He stated there are two (2) subdivisions
within the Town of Kersey which have the entire infrastructure in place; however, no homes are being
constructed within the subdivisions. He stated every town and city in Weld County has empty houses
and subdivisions which have yet to be constructed; therefore, this RUA is placing the cart ahead of the
horse and he recommends the Board vote against the proposed Ordinance and RUA.
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 20 BC0016
John Dent, Weld County resident and representative for the Fort Lupton Development Corporation,
stated he is unsure of what the term "shovel ready" means exactly; however, he is sure sewer service is
one of the components to it. He stated extension of water and sewer service are important for
economic development and the Fort Lupton Development Corporation is actively working with the City
of Fort Lupton to extend water and sewer services south toward the Vestas facility and the Haliburton
property. Mr. Dent stated the proposed RUA is important and it presents an opportunity for economic
development, and he recommends the Board support the proposed Ordinance and RUA. He stated if
the Board chooses not to support the proposed RUA, it will give up the opportunity for control and input
regarding the development of this property. He stated the market wants this property to be developed,
as has been demonstrated by the existing Todd Creek development, and the area will probably be
developed.
Jim Johnson, resident of the State of Texas, stated he grew up in Weld County and he lived here over
30 years before moving to Grand County. He indicated he then lived in Grand County for over 30 years
and there was a problem there with not allowing growth, as is occurring within Weld County. He
submitted an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) document into the record, titled Voluntary
National Guidelines for Management of Onsite and Clustered (Decentralized) Wastewater Treatment
Systems, marked Exhibit QQ. Mr. Johnson read a section of the document into the record, which
states, "Unfortunately, although some management programs are effective, many existing state, tribal,
and local rules that regulate onsite systems are not adequate to ensure proper performance." He
stated part of the problem is people install a leech field and a septic tank, and then people fail to
properly maintain the systems, either because it is distasteful task to the homeowner, or because the
homeowners are ignorant about the necessary maintenance. He read another section from Exhibit QQ
into the record, stating, "1995 U.S. Census data report that over 10 percent of all systems back up into
homes or have wastewater emerging on the ground surface, and that more than half the systems in the
United States were installed more than 30 years ago when onsite rules were nonexistent or poorly
enforced. Few Systems receive proper maintenance because homeowners are either unaware of the
need for maintenance or find it a distasteful task. In addition, most regulatory programs do not require
homeowner accountability for system performance after installation. Although it is difficult to measure
and document specific cause-and-effect relationships between onsite wastewater treatment systems
and the quality of our water resources, it is widely accepted that improperly managed systems
contribute to major water quality problems. The National Water Quality Inventory 1996 Report to
Congress states that `improperly constructed and poorly maintained septic systems are believed to
cause substantial and widespread nutrient and microbial contamination to ground water.' Ultimately it
is the absence of a comprehensive management program addressing each of these issues that
prevents onsite and clustered (decentralized) systems from being considered as an effective and
reliable wastewater treatment strategy. Consequently, the potential for health and water quality
problems from poorly managed systems is increasing." Mr. Johnson stated the Board has to chance to
fix this problem with the proposed RUA. He stated this situation equates to the Rural Electrification
Program, and the Board will be seeing more Utility Districts taking over sewer and water services. He
stated if the Rural Electrification Program had not been allowed, many people in rural areas would still
be without electricity.
Marla Howard, Town of Estes Park resident and owner of property within the proposed RUA, stated she
grew up within the proposed RUA. She stated she drilled a well for her home near the Town of Estes
Park two (2) years ago, which cost $19,000.00 for Ingram Drilling, Inc., to drill the well; it cost $3,900 for
the well pump; and it cost another $4,500.00 for the labor, pumping casing, and the pressure tank;
therefore, it cost approximately $27,400.00 to provide water to her home. Ms. Howard stated the RUA
and TCVMD seem to provide a great alternative for those within the Service Area. She stated the
residents are not obligated to use TCVMD; however, it may cost people approximately $27,400.00 to
install a well and an additional $7,500.00 to install a septic system if people choose not to utilize
TCVMD, as opposed to $5,000.00 to purchase the tap through TCVMD. She stated at the last hearing
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 21 BC0016
she heard about a proposed agricultural buffer in the RUA; however, most of the people within the
proposed RUA do not farm any longer and it may be difficult to find a farmer to tend the buffer area.
Ms. Howard stated the proposed RUA is not an agricultural area any longer and most people are
travelling to surrounding municipalities to work, and it is time for the zoning to be changed. She stated
the alternative to the proposed RUA is to sell smaller lots, each of which will have a septic system and
water well, and it will lower the water table by utilizing the ground water. She stated the proposed RUA
plan makes a great deal of good points regarding utilizing surface water and sustainable resources, and
the proposed RUA will be very good for Weld County. Ms. Howard stated Adams County seems to
have worked well with TCVMD and she encourages Weld County to do the same.
Gary Howard stated he lives within Section 28, within the proposed RUA, and he was unaware his
property is a part of the City of Thornton, and he does not believe it actually is a part of the City of
Thornton. He stated the proposed RUA will provide good sources of water and sewer service, and
without those services, each person will install water wells and septic systems. He stated he continues
to farm a tract of land he owns, which is near a tract of land he sold on a hilltop, and the current
property owner experienced a septic system failure and he placed a berm around the area to prevent it
from traveling downhill; however, there is loose sewage floating in a small lake, which smells badly and
attracts insects. Mr. Howard stated the proposed RUA will prevent situations similar to this one, and it
will prevent sewage from seeping into the ground water, which is a problem that needs to be
addressed. He stated he sells hay and some customers from TCVMD indicated to him they are very
pleased with the two (2) pipe water system and they are paying approximately $200.00 per month for
water service this summer, including providing water for all the animals, providing water to a duck pond,
and irrigating approximately one (1) acre. He stated the two (2) pipe water system is ideal, and there is
a great deal more he could say; however, most of it has already been said.
John Howard, Weld County resident, submitted three (3) letters into the record, marked Exhibit RR,
from surrounding land owners who he indicated are in favor of the RUA because they feel development
is good for the neighborhood. He stated a significant number of people in southern Weld County are
not farmers and this has already urbanized the area. Mr. Howard stated many of the small acreages
intend to complete six (6) acre Recorded Exemptions, which is a tool Weld County provides; however
the RUA is also a tool with merit, and the proposed RUA should be considered for approval. He stated
he is the Director of Mountain View Water, which serves 128 members in the area, and he is the
President of the German Ditch, which irrigates eight (8) farms in the area. He stated Oak, Mountain
View Water, and the German Ditch are being crossed by a railroad track which is intended for Fast
Tracks development. He stated he has attended two (2) Fast Tracks meetings, and it is known the
financing is not available yet, and the housing does not exist yet; however, the future is being planned
for by Fast Tracks, and Weld County needs to plan for the future as well. Mr. Howard stated the
proposed RUA is a good tool for Weld County to utilize for future planning. He stated as the Director of
Mountain View Water he has a good relationship with the Todd Creek Water Company, and Mr. Hanlon
has attended two (2) Mountain View Water meetings to discuss the proposed RUA. He stated
Mr. Hanlon is approachable and the Superintendant of Todd Creek Water Company has extended an
open invitation to visit Todd Creek's reverse osmosis plant, which he intends to accept. Mr. Howard
stated the TCVMD group is a good group to work with and he hopes the Board sees the bright side of
the proposed RUA and supports it.
Carol Howard, property owner within the proposed RUA, stated she is the mother of the last three (3)
people who spoke. She stated she, her husband, and his family settled in Weld County in the
year 1934. She stated as a teenager, her husband and his father drove cattle on horseback from a
farm located near the City of Boulder to Weld County. She stated Weld County was truly agricultural at
that time, and almost every farmer in the area had their own dairy farm, whether the property was
60 acres or 200 acres, and each farmer grew feed and grain for the cows. Ms. Howard stated as time
went on, there were fewer dairies and fewer farmers, and new people moved in, many of which
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 22 BC0016
constructed new homes. She stated the farmers welcomed the new neighbors and the growth has
continued to the point where very few of the people in the area farm any longer. She stated the
proposed RUA is no longer primarily agricultural, and the southwest portion of Weld County is in a
transition period, whether people like it or not. She stated there is a demand for new homes; not
immediately, due to the economy, yet it is time for Weld County to plan for the demand, and it has an
opportunity to do so by approving the proposed Ordinance and RUA.
Brian Howard, property owner within the proposed RUA, stated he grew up on the Howard family farm
and he continues to farm there. He stated an advantage of the proposed RUA is it will bring new
people to the area, which will provide the opportunity to farm new crops. He stated instead of just being
able to farm wheat and hay, farmers will be able to farm pumpkins and sweet corn, which gives the
farmers the opportunity to continue farming by growing alternative crops which may be sold to residents
in the area. He stated the new people will also provide opportunities for alternative businesses, such
as landscaping, and he is in favor of the proposed Ordinance and RUA.
Sharlene Krantz, Weld County resident, indicated she owns a property on the eastern edge of the
proposed RUA, within the boundaries. She stated she and her husband purchased her house 33 years
ago and the property was subdivided before they purchased it. She stated she and her husband both
grew up on small farms and they enjoy country living, which is why they chose to purchase the
property. Ms. Krantz stated she and her husband never complained about the smell from the nearby
feedlot and she does not mind the tractors in the nearby fields. She stated she and her husband were
never asked to be a part of the proposed RUA and although she was provided notice of the public open
house meetings, nobody asked her opinion about future development. She stated the proposed RUA is
a clear violation of her property rights and after the first open house conducted on March 24, 2009, she
was bewildered as to why she was not contacted by Mr. Hanlon after attending the meeting.
Ms. Krantz stated she surmised that other property owners must have agreed to sell their properties to
TCVMD and she asked a representative of TCVMD about it, who would not comment on the matter,
which she found strange. She stated at another meeting on April 14, 2009, a representative from
EDAW indicated TCVMD had been directed by Weld County to begin development, which shocked her;
however, Brad Mueller, former employee of the Weld County Department of Planning Services, was in
attendance at the meeting and he clarified the proposed RUA had not been approved by Weld County.
She stated the representative from EDAW then admitted he had misstated the facts. Ms. Krantz stated
Mr. Hanlon indicated he had attempted to contact all property owners within the proposed RUA;
however, she has never been contacted by him even though she submitted all her contact information.
She stated Mr. Hanlon indicated at the second reading of the proposed Ordinance he had made a
mistake by not contacting the property owners prior to commencing the RUA process and he indicated
he had made efforts to contact her; however, he has only communicated with her through e-mails.
Ms. Krantz stated she is concerned about the effect the proposed development will have on County
services, since there is already clearly a staff shortage. She stated she received a call at her office that
her home alarm system had been triggered and she traveled to her home, which took approximately
20 minutes and she waited for 35 minutes for the Sheriff's Office to arrive, and the response time will
lengthen with more homes.
Ms. Krantz stated she is also concerned about the number of schools which will be needed for the
proposed RUA. Ms. Krantz stated 80 percent of the proposed RUA is within the Fort Lupton RE-8
School District and 20 percent of the proposed RUA is within the Brighton 27-J School District, and a
referral letter response from Fort Lupton RE-8 School District stated it is, "concerned about the fiscal
impact on the School District and that this proposed development and land use change will 'pay its own
way' when it comes to school construction as to not increase the tax burden on our constituents." She
stated she has worked for the Brighton 27-J School District for 37 years and one (1) of the K-8 schools
within the proposed RUA is proposed to be in the Brighton 27-J School District, which will educate
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 23 BC0016
approximately 490 students; however, the District is no longer constructing K-8 schools. She stated the
District is only constructing K-5 schools, and the District has not passed a bond to construct any new
schools in the last few elections and there is not a bond issue on the upcoming ballot for the election in
November, 2010. She stated Brighton 27-J School District is the largest growing School District in the
State of Colorado, and it is growing by between 750 and 1,000 students per year. Ms. Krantz stated
even if a bond was approved, there is not enough money available to staff and equip another school,
since the District had 6.8 million cut from its budget and it is facing more cuts in the upcoming year.
She stated the Brighton 27-J School District has the lowest funding per pupil in the Denver Metropolitan
area and it is also the fastest growing District.
Ms. Krantz stated she is concerned about property rights being taken away without the land owners'
consent and TCVMD will be able to force property owners into utilizing its sewer service if a septic
system fails, and property owners may have to connect to TCVMD water if a well runs dry or is
inadequate. She stated her property is not as large as the other land owners' properties; however, she
and her husband hope to remain on the property for the rest of their lives. She stated she knows how
to maintain her septic system and she does not know of any surrounding property owners who do not
know how to maintain a septic system. Ms. Krantz stated there should be better planning regarding the
proposed RUA, and Commissioner Kirkmeyer did not recruit any of the opposed property owners to
attend the Board meetings. She stated after attending the open house meetings in the year 2009, she
had grave concerns and she approached Commissioner Kirkmeyer with questions, which she
graciously answered. She thinks there should be a task force for the proposed RUA and all the
property owners should be involved, and she requested the Board vote against the proposed
Ordinance and RUA. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Krantz confirmed she gave testimony at
the Planning Commission hearing on January 19, 2010. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, she
stated she does not recall whether the Planning Commission asked her any questions at the hearing.
William Grant, surrounding property owner, stated he respects the Howard family and he was
welcomed by them when he moved to Weld County, and the Howards have the right to sell their
property to the highest bidder; however, he hopes it is not TCVMD. He stated he has issues with
TCVMD because it has mismanaged its existing developments, which is his only problem with the
proposed RUA. He stated he believes development is on the way for this area; however, he does not
know whether it will be ten (10), 20, or 30 years from now. Mr. Grant stated Mr. Hanlon indicated the
average monthly water bill for TCVMD customers is $98.00 per month, which is impossible according to
the rates posted on the website. He stated the website indicates the minimum service charge for
potable water is $49.00 per month for up to 4,000 gallons, and the minimum service charge for the
non-potable water is $32.00 per month for up to 10,000 gallons. He stated the average home utilizes
between 10,000 to 15,000 gallons of potable water per month, and TCVMD charges $10.00 for every
thousand gallons of water on the tiered rate system. Mr. Grant stated if a household utilizes more than
16,000 gallons of potable water, it will cost $20.00 per thousand gallons on the tiered rate system. He
stated the City of Brighton charges $3.56 per thousand gallons of water, for up to 25,000 gallons of
water. He stated Central Weld obtains its water from Windy Gap and Big Thompson, which are two (2)
of the best water resources within the State, and it charges $1.65 per thousand gallons. He stated
Central Weld has a tiered system also; however, the rates decrease with higher water usage, as
opposed to increase, with the cheapest rate being $1.10 per thousand gallons. He stated TCVMD does
not have competitive pricing, and he is also concerned about the $28,000,000.00 in debt TCVMD has
accrued. Mr. Grant stated he toured the reverse osmosis plant after being invited during a public
meeting and it is the size of his barn; there is no room for expansion. He stated if the plant could
operate 24 hours per day, which it is currently not capable of, it could produce .5 million gallons per
day, which could provide water for about 500 additional homes. He stated the potable water TCVMD
has access to is provided by two (2) deep wells and two (2) alluvial wells along the South Platte River,
and its reverse osmosis system cannot produce consumptive water. Mr. Grant stated he does not
believe Weld County needs TCVMD's water, since Central Weld is capable of producing 38 million
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 24 BC0016
gallons of water per day between its two (2) plants. He stated Central Weld has a central water line on
County Roads 19 and 10, which is just as close to the proposed RUA as TCVMD is, and there is no
reason to pay up to ten (10) times as much for TCVMD's water. He stated he regularly maintains his
septic tank, which he completes for a number of reasons, including preventing the major cost of
rebuilding or repairing it.
Larry Frank, surrounding property owner, stated he served on the Water Board with the Howards and
they are great neighbors. He stated he has been a licensed plumber since the year 1974, and a two (2)
pipe water system can be good; however, people must be careful to not allow kids to drink from the
non-potable water. He stated during the summer, when the kids are filling the pool, it is difficult to
prevent small children from drinking from the water hose. Mr. Frank stated there also may be cross
connections between pipes which can be missed by inspectors; accidents happen. He stated he and
his wife own approximately 18 acres, they purchased the property in the year 1980, and they
constructed their home in the year 1994. He stated he applied for the septic permit through the
Department of Public Health and Environment, he hired a licensed company from the City of Brighton to
conduct percolation tests and install the septic system, and he installed the plumbing for the property.
He stated he has never experienced a septic system back up, and he purchased a reverse osmosis
system from Home Depot which he installed under the kitchen sink. Mr. Frank stated he has a
neighbor to the north who dry land farms approximately 350 acres every other year, as well as
numerous other neighbors who dry land farm. He stated that he paid Duane Kirkmeyer, surrounding
property owner, to plant dry land crops on his property after Mr. Kirkmeyer advised him about what
crops to plant. He stated he seeds every other year and when it rains he yields a decent crop; he
yielded 600 bales last year and 450 bales this year. He stated he strives to keep up with maintaining
his small acreage and to plant the correct crops, and he spoke to the surrounding property owners to
determine which crops would grow best.
Bill Wycoff, surrounding property owner, stated his family resides on this property and engages in
agricultural endeavors, including dry land farming. He stated he has harvested approximately 150 tons
of grass, and most of it has been utilized by surrounding property owners to feed their horses and
cattle. Mr. Wycoff stated he was drawn to the property almost 30 years ago, when it was one (1) of the
few available licensed kennel properties; however, he has since bonded with the area, the culture, and
the surrounding property owners. He stated his family is indebted to the Board for enforcing the Weld
County Code when residents have attempted to implement changes which violated the Weld County
Code, for example, a neighbor once decided to open a rock hauling business with approximately
five (5) 18-wheel semi-trucks. He stated the surrounding property owners were subjected to heavy
traffic, early morning engine warm-up routines, and asbestos brake changes. Mr. Wycoff stated the
position of the people operating the rock hauling business was that they could do anything they wanted
to on the property since they owned it; however, the Board enforced the Weld County Code and
brought an end to the activity. He stated his family views agriculture as a welcome, natural fact of life,
and there is nothing like the heralding of spring with the sounds of cows preparing to calf, rooster calls
announcing the daybreak, and quiet mornings where neighbors can chat with each other from one-third
of a mile away in a normal voice. Mr. Wycoff stated it is a great life style and a society many people
appreciate, and he moved into the area to enjoy Weld County and raise his family. He stated the
neighbors who operated the rock hauling business told him, as they were moving from the area, that
they knew they might not enjoy living next to the Wycoff's, due to their kenneling operation; however,
they were confident they could get the kennel operation closed if it suited them. He stated those
neighbors had started a petition to have his business closed, and they threatened to beat up John
Howard for not signing the petition; however, the Board dismissed the matter due to Weld County's
right to farm position, and he is indebted to the Board for it. Mr. Wycoff stated he explained this
background to demonstrate that his position against the proposed RUA has no bearing on his
appreciation for the Howard family, who he has met with socially and worked with for decades, and the
Howards are great people, who are helpful, generous, honest, and hard working.
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 25 BC0016
Mr. Wycoff stated it is his conclusion the RUA proposal is a poor plan and it will not be financially
successful; however, he is not opposed to growth occurring, and when prospective buyers research an
area, they consider what exists in the area and what is planned for the area. He stated the existing
Weld County Comprehensive Plan requires low density for the area and the Thornton Plan requires
residential estates. He stated the proposed RUA is contrary to all the published plans for the area and
it contradicts what has been communicated to people who researched the area before moving to it. He
stated changing the Weld County Comprehensive Plan will disappoint many of the existing residents
who expect the Board to defend them, and the proposed RUA does not make sense, since there is an
abundance of high pressure gas lines on the east side of County Road 17, to the west of County Road
19, and along County Road 4, as well as a compression plant and a confluence of feeder pipes in the
area. He stated he is certain steps will be taken to ensure safety for the area; however, the area is
ideal for low density. Mr. Wycoff stated the plant at County Roads 19 and 4 injects the smell into the
gas; therefore, when you drive through the area, one can smell gas, although it is actually not gas, and
it is just the odor which is added to the gas which people are smelling. He stated once he woke up
around 2:30 a.m. due to an intense gas odor, and when he went outside the house, he noticed the
smell within the house was much stronger than the smell outside the house. He stated he woke his
family up and removed his family members and pets from the home, and then he called Xcel Energy to
report a possible gas leak. He stated the Xcel Energy crew quickly arrived and their equipment verified
there was not a gas problem within the house; there was a spill which occurred at the plant and due to
his house having its windows opened, the odor collected in the house and remained intense.
Mr. Wycoff stated there will be massive amounts of calls to Xcel Energy and 911 when this happens in
an urban density. He stated numerous agricultural related events have occurred, for example, some
cattle owned by the Howards escaped and pushed over several small trees when scratching their
bellies and everyone was just glad the cattle did not wander onto County Road 2. He stated on another
occasion, a bull escaped from a local slaughter house and it was cornered behind his house, and he
was relieved nobody was hurt. Mr. Wycoff stated these are examples of agricultural events and people
living in agricultural areas need to have a realistic view of the world and a sense of adventure.
Mr. Wycoff submitted a copy of a report titled Financing Residential Development with Special Districts
by Stephen Billings, marked Exhibit SS.6, and he read a portion into the record, which states, "Our
results indicate that house prices for homes located within development districts are lower than house
prices for similar homes located outside of development districts, but the amount of property tax
capitalization is significantly less than full." He stated this means when the homes are being valued for
property tax purposes, the houses are not being fully valued, since there is an underlying Special
District. Mr. Wycoff read another portion of the report into the record, which states, "The amount of
property tax capitalization is significantly less than full." He stated the study is based on data from the
Denver Metropolitan area, and it studied over 34,000 transactions. He stated the true cost of a home
can be obscured to a buyer by underlying bond obligations which are not included in the price.
Mr. Wycoff stated lower prices within development districts disadvantage outside developments, for
example, a similar home located within the Cities of Dacono or Fort Lupton, or within the Town of
Firestone, will probably have a lower price structure than a home within the proposed RUA. He
inquired as to whether Weld County should provide one development with a price advantage over
others in the county. He stated Weld County studies indicate the RUA proposal will cost more than
what will be generated by taxes, and the cost will be exasperated by the incomplete property values;
therefore, it is a bad plan.
Mr. Wycoff submitted a copy of Section 29-1-601, C.R.S., regarding the Annual Audit Requirement,
marked Exhibit SS.1, and he read a portion of it into the record, stating, "Special Districts must
complete and submit a copy of an audit" He stated TCVMD was organized in the year 1996, and he
has extracted information from the 2006 and 2007 audits. He submitted a copy of the Annual Audit
Extracts for TCVMD into the record, marked Exhibit SS.2. Mr. Wycoff stated TCVMD is a profit
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 26 BC0016
oriented district which is involved in providing water service; however, Page 3 of the audit indicates
TCVMD lost $2,034,734.00 in the year 2005 and it lost $2,183,638.00 in the year 2006, which is a
7.3 percent increase in its operating losses. He stated TCVMD lost $2,923,497.00 in the year 2007,
which is a 33.9 percent increase in operating losses from the previous year, and the audits for the year
2008 and 2009 are delinquent. He stated audits are historical documents and the accountants provide
notes about items which appear to be out of place; however, the audits for 2008 and 2009 have not
been provided, even though audits may be later revised. Mr. Wycoff stated he expects that TCVMD's
operating losses have continued to increase through 2008 and 2009. He stated capital contributions,
including tap fees, are not included in the audit figures because it offsets the capital which needs to be
repaid and does not reflect the profitability of the business. He stated this business is not profitable
even though the water rates are substantial, and he inquired as to what will occur when full build-out
has been achieved and there are no more tap fees to sell. Mr. Wycoff stated TCVMD's business model
is clearly not working and the Board needs to decide whether to allow TCVMD into Weld County. He
stated the existing debts are potential problems for Adams County, which will not transfer to Weld
County; however, Weld County should not allow the situation to extend to include it. He stated the cost
projections for the miles of main and feeder sewer lines, main water lines and distribution expansions,
and wastewater processing plants will be millions. Mr. Wycoff stated audits can be manipulative;
however, there are no audits provided for 2008 and 2009, and there is no way to verify whether the
information Mr. Hanlon presents is accurate concerning the financial state of TCVMD. He requested
the Board be financially responsible when making its determination about the proposed Ordinance and
vote against it, and a better plan will come along. Chair Rademacher called a brief recess.
(Clerk's Note: The Chair reconvened the meeting, and public testimony commenced, prior to a clerk
being present at the hearing to maintain a public record; therefore, approximately two (2) minutes of
testimony from Steve Zehnder, property owner within the proposed RUA, was not heard, nor recorded.)
Mr. Zehnder stated TCVMD indicated it has an intergovernmental agreement with the City of Aurora
regarding Brantner Ditch water, and he is concerned since he has two (2) options to lease his water
back from the City of Aurora for ten (10) years. He stated he also is concerned about the
intergovernmental agreement TCVMD has with the City of Fort Lupton to provide sewer service
because he may want to sell his property to a developer who would not be interested in purchasing
sewer taps from TCVMD. He stated he is opposed to the proposed RUA. In response to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Zehnder stated he was not notified by TCVMD or the City of Fort Lupton
that his property is within TCVMD's Service Area.
Judy Cavender, representative for the Marcus family, stated the Howard and Marcus families have a
long history together. She expressed her appreciation to Mr. Hanlon for explaining the RUA process.
She stated she is not opposed to change and her family has witnessed the growth of the area since the
year 1956; however, she wants to have a voice in the development of the area. Ms. Cavender stated
the more she hears Mr. Hanlon explain the proposed RUA, the more it seems to be about the Service
Area. She stated the property owners' rights will be taken away by TCVMD when the proposed RUA is
approved, and the residents will be governed by rules and regulations which they do not have a say in
creating, and the TCVMD Board is not accountable to anyone, unlike the County Commissioners. She
stated the Directors of the TCVMD Board are not elected by residents and the rules state the Directors
can amend any of the rules or regulations, as the Board of Directors deems appropriate, and prior
notice of the proposed amendments shall not be required to be provided by the District. Ms. Cavender
stated the Weld County Comprehensive Plan indicates private property rights are: "One (1) of the basic
principles upon which the United States was founded, which it continues to preserve, and Weld County
upholds, is the right of citizens to own and utilize their property." She stated under these rules, if the
land owners sell their property, it must be included in the Service Area, and it will not be voluntary as
TCVMD has indicated. She stated when any sale or transfer of real property from one (1) property
owner to another occurs, the property must join the Service Area. Ms. Cavender stated no privately
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 27 BC0016
owned well systems, or other water supply or storage systems, septic tanks, or other individual sewage
disposal systems or onsite drainage detention facilities shall be planned or construed within the
boundaries of the District's Service Area without the express consent of the District. She indicated she
is opposed to the proposed Ordinance and RUA.
Linda Zimmerman, Grand Junction resident and land owner within the proposed RUA, stated her father
was a farmer in Weld County and he farmed with the Howards for many years. She stated everyone
has seen the changes growth has brought to the 1-25 Corridor and beyond, and the change began for
the Johnson and Howard farms when Public Service condemned 160 acres along Section 27, which
was a prime portion of the Section, since it contained irrigation water. She stated the area is becoming
more urban and she believes the proposed RUA will be a beneficial addition to the inevitable growth,
and she indicated she previously sent the Board an e-mail on this matter. Ms. Zimmerman stated
neighboring small land owners do not feel the proposed RUA is compatible with the surrounding land
uses; however, when those land owners moved in, the development may not have been viewed as
compatible by the neighboring farmers. She stated it seems everyone wants to be the last person
allowed to move into a particular area, and the neighboring large land owners do not want to see the
proposed RUA because it will further impact their operations, which is true; however, many have been
negotiating similar land sales. She stated those who are opposed have indicated the proposed RUA
will have a negative impact on the water and groundwater resources; however, TCVMD will provide
water and water treatment. Ms. Zimmerman stated Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria is an issue within
surface water in areas where septic systems exist, and this development has an approved plan, which
will provide for potable water and wastewater treatment. She stated opponents claim there are already
too many approved lots within Weld County; however, it is apparent all people living within, or moving
to, Weld County do not want the same setting or services provided, and the proposed RUA will provide
services which many of the previously approved properties do not offer, such as water and sewer
services and recreational opportunities, and open space will be provided, along with some of the best
views of the Front Range. She stated opponents have stated the cost to the County will be increased,
as well as the demand for services; however, this has already been occurring and will continue.
Ms. Zimmerman stated the proposed RUA will increase the tax base of the County as agricultural land
is converted to urban, and the alternative to the proposed RUA is the development of small agricultural
units for residents, which is currently occurring, and it does not significantly raise the assessed value of
the area, while it vastly increases the demand for County services. She stated there has been, and will
continue to be, a high demand for quality residential areas in the southern part of Weld County. She
stated that as a land owner, she has tried to follow the rules and be a good neighbor and if she had not
followed the requirements as established by the County, the Planning Commission would not have
unanimously approved the proposed RUA.
Katee Kirkmeyer, Weld County resident, stated she has been a lifelong resident in the area and her son
is the fifth generation of Kirkmeyers to live in the area. She stated her family has lived in the area and
farmed it for over 100 years, and her grandparents verified there have never been any complaints
about the family's dairy farm. She stated Weld County is a right to farm community and she farms
alongside her dad and uncles, as Chair Rademacher farms alongside his daughters. She stated Chair
Rademacher indicated at the last reading of the proposed Ordinance that he lives in the 1-25 Mixed Use
Development (MUD) area, and growth is often unexpected; however, it took over 25 years for the MUD
to grow in a smart way. Ms. Kirkmeyer stated the 1-25 MUD is also different from the proposed RUA
because the property owners formed the 1-25 MUD and the surrounding property owners had the
opportunity to participate in the planning of the MUD. She stated the MUD is not a Metropolitan District;
it was built around a sewer district where the property owners control the District, as opposed to a
developer, and there is an election of the Board of Directors. She stated the MUD is not an
environment of taxation without representation, which will be the case within the proposed RUA.
Ms. Kirkmeyer stated the Pioneer RUA consisted of property owned by one person and it created a
Metropolitan District when the Comprehensive Plan was amended, and it did not include unsuspecting
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 28 BC0016
property owners in its Service Area. She stated private property rights cut both ways and this area is
zoned A (Agricultural) and a Change of Zone is necessary to construct up to 6,600 homes. She stated
her family is not opposed to private property owners developing their land in a way which is consistent
with the surrounding land uses; however, they are opposed to the proposed RUA because it is not
compatible with existing land uses. Ms. Kirkmeyer stated if the proposed RUA is approved, her family's
property rights will be severely impacted, including their right to farm, and she does not agree this is the
right time for this process or RUA proposal; however, it is the right time for proper planning. She stated
the Cities of Dacono, Fort Lupton, and Thornton notified the private property owners in the area by mail
and included them in planning sessions to amend the Comprehensive Land Plans, and she inquired as
to why the County did not do the same. She stated the Board amended the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan less than two (2) years ago and it seems prudent to include all the property
owners in the area in the planning of any amendments. Ms. Kirkmeyer stated property owners were
included in the North Greeley Rail Corridor Subarea Study, and it is unfair to not include the residents
of South Weld County in planning the proposed Amendment to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
She stated there are not any developers rushing to develop this area immediately, with 22,000
buildable lots in Weld County, nearly 5,000 in the City of Dacono, and another 69,000 in Adams
County. She stated there is plenty of time to complete a Subarea Plan with all the appropriate parties'
participation.
Caroline Kirkmeyer, Weld County resident, stated at the second reading of the proposed Ordinance,
there was testimony from people who served on the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee and they
indicated the proposal for the RUA meets the intent of the RUA goals; however, she disagrees with
that. She stated she agrees with Weld County staff who have indicated the proposed RUA does not
meet the RUA goals nor the goals within the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. She stated the
proposed RUA does not meet RUA.Policy 1.5, which addresses the needs to include a diversity of land
uses and an integrated balance of housing and employment within a proposed RUA. Ms. Kirkmeyer
stated the proposed RUA also does not meet RUA.Policy 2, which indicates the property owners,
municipalities, and other jurisdictions should coordinate the urban land using planning within the RUA.
She stated RUA.Policy 2.1 indicates the proposed RUA should, "Encourage joint planning between the
County, property owners, municipalities and other jurisdictions." She stated there has not been any
planning of the proposed RUA with property owners. Ms. Kirkmeyer stated RUA.Policy 2.2 states,
"Encourage communication between the County, property owners, municipalities and other
jurisdictions." She stated there has not been any communication with the property owners. She stated
Recommended Strategy RUA.2.2.a. states, "Establish regular meetings between the County, property
owners, municipalities and other jurisdictions to encourage an open dialog." She stated there have not
been any meetings scheduled. Ms. Kirkmeyer stated Recommended Strategy RUA.2.6.b. states,
"Consider developing a consolidated plan for infrastructure and services in conjunction with the area
municipalities, subdivisions and property owners for the larger regional area." She stated the proposed
RUA does not meet any of the RUA goals or strategies. She stated development within a RUA is
supposed to occur in a manner that results in an attractive and functional working and living
environment, according to RUA.Goal 3; however, there are essentially no jobs proposed within the
proposed RUA. Ms. Kirkmeyer stated RUA.Goal 4 indicates new development should pay its own way,
and the former Director of Finance and Administration for Weld County has pointed out the proposed
RUA will not pay its own way, and the applicants have not proved otherwise. She stated residential
growth does not pay its own pay and the proposed RUA consists of 6,600 homes and it is entirely
residential development. She stated the applicants also have yet to prove they have met goals 5 and 6.
She read RUA.Goal 5 into the record, which states: "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." Ms. Kirkmeyer indicated
RUA.Goal 6 states, "Ensure a well-integrated transportation system within the Regional Urbanization
Areas that considers all modes of transportation." She stated there are no trail or transit systems
proposed for the proposed RUA, and Weld County has voted three (3) times against being included in
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 29 BC0016
the RTD. She stated there are seven (7) goals within the RUA section of the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed RUA does not meet six (6) of those goals. Ms. Kirkmeyer
stated the RUA proposal is intended to be conceptual; however, the Board is to consider whether or not
the goals have been adequately met. She stated the provision of water, sewer, transit and
transportation systems, coordination with municipalities, communication with property owners, and joint
planning should be considered by the Board. She stated the proposed amendment must address the
impacts on the natural environment; be compatible with the existing and surrounding land uses;
demonstrate the proposed number of new residents will be adequately served by the social amenities,
such as schools and parks; demonstrate local, accessible employment opportunities exist, and there is
an integrated balance of housing and employment; demonstrate adequate services are currently
available or are reasonably obtainable; and demonstrate referral agency responses have been received
and considered. Ms. Kirkmeyer indicated the proposed amendment does not demonstrate those items
and detailed plans should be presented at this point in the RUA proposal. She stated the goal is to
develop a plan for the future which can be attained and includes communication and participation by
property owners in the larger regional area, according to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. She
stated the City of Fort Lupton indicated it cannot serve this area at this time and it cannot annex the
area, and the Cities of Dacono and Thornton can provide service to part of the area and have included
part of the proposed RUA in the Cities' Comprehensive Plans. Ms. Kirkmeyer stated the preamble of
the Weld County Charter indicates the intent is to provide uncomplicated, unburdensome government
responsive to the people.
Tom Holton, Mayor of the City of Fort Lupton, stated the City of Fort Lupton has an agreement with
TCVMD to provide sewer service for the proposed RUA and TCVMD will provide the City with four (4)
miles of sewer line on the west side of the South Platte River, which the City does not have to install or
maintain. He stated the amendment the City of Fort Lupton wants to add to the agreement is to specify
developers, who develop property along County Road 23 and want to connect to the sewer line, will
have to reimburse TCVMD. He stated typically the first development in an area pays for the project and
subsequent developers reimburse the initial development for its costs; however, to do this, the City of
Fort Lupton will require the developments to annex, in order to connect. Mayor Holton stated the City
of Fort Lupton intends to fulfill the obligations in the agreement, if the proposed RUA is approved. He
stated some of the Fort Lupton City Council members are not in favor of the proposed RUA; however,
he is unsure of the reasons for their opposition and has not discussed the matter with the opposed
Council members. He stated he has been a member of the Fort Lupton Planning Commission for
five (5) years and he was involved with planning the Pioneer and Carma Metropolitan Districts, and he
has determined that the proposed RUA meets the intent of the Weld County Code. Mr. Holton stated
this is just a starting place and there are numerous occasions the proposed RUA can be denied as it
progresses; however, it is not the correct action to not even give the proposed RUA a chance. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Mayor Holton clarified the City of Fort Lupton did not oppose the
proposed RUA in its referral response; it was neutral. He clarified he was out of the country when the
Planning Commission heard the matter, and he does not know exactly what the referral response
states. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the referral response indicates the Town of Fort Lupton's
Planning Commission has concerns about large urban scale growth beyond the Growth Area and that
the proposed RUA does not comply with the intergovernmental agreement Fort Lupton has in place
with Weld County. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mayor Holton confirmed the City of Fort
Lupton has an intergovernmental agreement in place with the City of Dacono, which prevents Fort
Lupton from annexing property on the east side of County Road 21 and north of County Road 6.
Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mayor Holton confirmed the City of Fort Lupton has
contracted to provide sewer service for TCVMD, and any property owners within TCVMD's Service
Area will have to pay a prorated share to connect to the sewer line, and they will have to annex into
Fort Lupton if they are located north of County Road 6 and east of County Road 21. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether a property owner in TCVMD's expanded Service Area who
approaches the City of Fort Lupton for sewer service will be referred to TCVMD. Mayor Holton stated
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 30 BC0016
the City of Fort Lupton will work with TCVMD to connect the property owner to Fort Lupton's sewer
service, and the amendments to the intergovernmental agreement will address this situation. He stated
it will be the same situation as if Haliburton paid for a sewer line expansion to connect to Fort Lupton's
sewer line and then another company wanted to connect to the extended sewer line; the property
owner would need to reimburse the prorated cost through the City, to reimburse Haliburton.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated it is not the same situation because the intergovernmental agreement
states the property owner will have to obtain sewer service through TCVMD, and the City must direct
people in TCVMD's Service Area to TCVMD for sewer service. She stated TCVMD could also choose
to deny sewer service to a resident and if the property is south of County Road 6, the property owner
will not even have the opportunity to annex into the City of Fort Lupton. Mayor Holton stated the
intergovernmental agreement needs to be clarified and it is in the process of being amended. He
stated the City of Fort Lupton's intergovernmental agreement with Weld County and the Fort Lupton
Comprehensive Plan also need updated. He stated there has to be some flexibility regarding
intergovernmental agreements and Comprehensive Plans, and Fort Lupton's Comprehensive Plan has
completely changed since Vestas was constructed south of the City of Fort Lupton; the area was slated
for housing and now it will be industrial. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mayor Holton stated
the City of Fort Lupton began working on amending the intergovernmental agreement with TCVMD
approximately one (1) and one-half months ago.
Arlan Marrs, surrounding property owner, stated this is an appropriate plan and its vision is looking
towards the future, and it is needed in the area as a way to provide water and sewer services. He
stated Commissioner Conway had a question about the Brantner Ditch and his farm is irrigated with
water from the Brantner Ditch. He stated TCVMD will keep Brantner Ditch water shares in Weld
County and he would rather deal with a local operation than the City of Aurora if he chooses to sell his
Brantner Ditch shares. Chair Rademacher called a brief recess.
Upon reconvening, Ms. Kerr stated she spoke with Mark Payler, Superintendent for School
District RE-8 before the lunch break and she has updated information to provide. She stated18 months
ago Mr. Payler indicated there were 200 available seats; however, there are now 815 available seats,
and the School District is working on acquiring another school site at County Roads 10 and 11. She
stated if the additional school site is acquired, Mr. Payler indicated the School District will gain the
capacity for 1,100 additional students, and Weld County School District RE-8 will service approximately
80 percent of the proposed RUA. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Kerr confirmed RE-8 is the
City of Fort Lupton's School District. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to whether Mr. Payler
indicated to Ms. Kerr what the voluntary contribution from the proposed RUA will be for RE-8. Ms. Kerr
indicated Mr. Payler did not provide an amount at the time she completed the model; therefore, she
made the assumption RE-8 would have the same impact fee as RE-27J, which is approximately
$1,000.00 per household. Mr. Hanlon clarified the impact fees will be paid by the actual developments;
not the proposed RUA.
Mr. Hanlon stated public testimony has been provided by residents in the area stating they were not
contacted or involved in the process; however, three (3) open houses were conducted and everyone
was invited to participate. He stated Commissioner Kirkmeyer attended and participated in at least
two (2) of the open houses, and the necessary public notification was provided for the proposed RUA.
Mr. Hanlon stated presentations were made at the open houses and he answered a great deal of
questions for Commissioner Kirkmeyer about the goals and policies of the proposed RUA at the open
houses. He stated that Ms. Krantz indicated he did not contact her; however, he sent her e-mails and
he spoke to her after two (2) of the open house meetings. He stated he knew from the beginning
Ms. Krantz was not supportive of the proposed RUA; therefore, he did not contact her regarding being
an applicant for the proposed RUA, yet he still took the time to try to schedule a meeting with
Ms. Krantz and she cancelled the scheduled meeting.
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 31 BC0016
Mr. Hanlon stated comments were made about TCVMD and its rates. He reiterated the average
monthly rate for potable water is $53.00, and the average monthly rate for non-potable water is $40.00,
which is a total average monthly rate of $93.00. He stated when the first rate study was conducted, it
was determined 95 percent of the customers utilized less than the minimum amount of water, and
TCVMD will be transitioning to an average rate for overall consumption, the same as the Cities of
Thornton and Brighton charge, regardless of whether the water utilized is potable or non-potable. He
stated people pay a basic rate for cellular phone service, which includes a certain number of minutes,
and then the phone company begins charging for additional minutes, which is the variable part of rate
structure. Mr. Hanlon stated TCVMD's fixed cost is a higher number since it is divided among
approximately 2,000 people; however, as TCVMD expands its Service Area and the cost is divided
among more service users, the fixed cost will be reduced. He stated most of TCVMD's customers
recognize they may have to pay higher fixed costs for certain services in order to live outside of a city
and they have still chosen to make that lifestyle choice.
Mr. Hanlon stated the comment was made that TCVMD is a "for profit" District, and TCVMD is not a "for
profit" entity; it is a Title 32 entity. He stated Mr. Wycoff submitted a copy of a study into the record,
which indicated homes within Districts cost less, and this is the reason Districts qualify for Title 32.
Mr. Hanlon stated if the cost for the infrastructure has to be included in the cost of a lot within two (2) to
three (3) years, the initial home cost will be higher. He stated in a Title 32 District, which provides road
and bridge improvements, the cost is divided over 20 to 30 years. He stated there is an obligation the
home buyer will still have to meet in order to pay for the improvements; however, more people will have
the opportunity to own a home when the cost is spread out over a longer period of time.
Mr. Hanlon stated there seems to be some confusion between TCVMD's legal boundary and its Service
Area. He stated Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated that a resident within the Service Area will have to
obtain sewer service through TCVMD; however, the statement is not correct and the residents do not
have to obtain their sewer service through TCVMD. He stated the resident could request service from
the Denver Metropolitan Wastewater Reclamation District and if it agrees to provide the service, the
property owner would then need to seek annexation to the City of Brighton. Mr. Hanlon reiterated the
Service Area provides authorization for TCVMD to provide water service; however, it does not obligate
residents to utilize TCVMD. He stated a number of people have stated if they sell their property, they
will be obligated to join TCVMD; however, that is not the case. He stated if someone wants to start a
new Metropolitan District, they will need to pursue the request through the Board of County
Commissioners, and if someone wants to install a water pipeline to support the area from another water
source, they can do it. Mr. Hanlon stated TCVMD simply established that it will provide water to the
area within the Service Area, and if there is an overlap, TCVMD will be concerned, just as the Board
will be concerned. Commissioner Kirkmeyer inquired as to how a property owner removes their
property from the Service Area. Mr. Hanlon stated a property owner cannot remove their property from
the Service Area; the Service Area has already been expanded through Adams County and State law.
He reiterated that being within the Service Area does not obligate a property owner to utilize TCVMD,
and the Service Area boundary is different from the legal boundary. In response to Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon confirmed there is no way for a property owner to be excluded from TCVMD's
Service Area at this point, just as a property owner within the City of Fort Lupton's 208 boundary cannot
be excluded. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon stated depending on the
property, the property owner may be able to be removed from TCVMD's Service Area by becoming
annexed by the City of Brighton. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Barker confirmed
Mr. Hanlon is correct about an annexation to the City of Brighton removing a property from TCVMD's
Service Area. He clarified what he had previously indicated is if a property owner wants to be served
by another District or create their own District, the District's consent is necessary, in order to prevent
overlapping Metropolitan Districts. He stated the Service Plan indicates TCVMD is the only provider of
water service in the Service Area; however, the statute allows for another provider, with the consent of
the District. Mr. Barker reiterated if a property is annexed, it will not need to go through the process of
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 32 BC0016
obtaining consent from TCVMD. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Barker stated if a
property is annexed by the City of Fort Lupton, there will presumably be an annexation agreement
indicating services will be provided by Fort Lupton, and then the City will need to work out how it will
provide the services to the property. Mr. Hanlon stated if a property owner is within TCVMD's Service
Area and they decide to subdivide five (5) acres from the property, the property owners who purchase
the land may still apply for a well and a septic system; they are not obligated to connect to TCVMD's
services. He stated there are large lots within the Todd Creek PUD which have their own wells and
septic systems, and there will not be a situation where connecting to TCVMD's services is demanded or
required. He stated the property owner decides whether they want to utilize TCVMD's water service,
and if they decide to utilize TCVMD, they must comply with TCVMD's rules and regulations and the
property owners will need to pay to extend the water line to their property. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
inquired as to whether there is a requirement indicating when a property is located within 400 feet of a
sewer line, it must connect to the sewer line. Ms. Light confirmed the property owner must connect to
the sewer line in cases where it is a new development or the septic system has failed, or a letter must
be obtained from the provider indicating it does not have the capacity. Mr. Hanlon stated the
intergovernmental agreement clearly indicates how TCVMD will secure the capacity for the Growth
Area.
Chair Rademacher inquired as to how TCVMD will be affected if Amendments 60 and 61 are passed.
Mr. Hanlon stated he wants to establish the District formation prior to Amendments 60 and 61 and
Proposition 101 being voted on, in case the measures pass. He stated two (2) of the Districts he is
involved with are paying less mill levy than was originally issued, and one (1) of those Districts is
amortizing its debt at a lower mill levy and it is approximately 50 percent developed, while the other
District has paid its debt. He stated he is trying to restructure debt for two (2) Districts which were
formed in the year 2008 and have not begun development; however, if the measures pass, it will
change everyone's world. Mr. Hanlon stated if the measures pass, the cost of homes will increase. He
stated in the first 15 years of his career in the State of Florida, there were no Metropolitan Districts, and
he would construct infrastructure with bank debt and private investments, which is added to the price of
the homes, and smaller construction phases were necessary. He stated he will not be voting for
Amendments 60 or 61, or Proposition 101, and if the measures pass, the tax payers and home buyers
will be hurt in the end.
Commissioner Long thanked everyone for attending the meeting and providing testimony, which has
been controversial and emotional for some of the people in attendance, and he stated it has been a
learning experience. He stated the three (3) reading process for Ordinances is to everyone's
advantage because it provides the opportunity to review the information, complete fact finding
measures, and alleviate confusion. He stated new information can create a great deal of confusion,
and three (3) readings allow time for people to understand the terms and interpret the information.
Commissioner Long stated he was not able to attend the second reading of the proposed Ordinance;
however, he attended the first reading, and the final reading today. He stated that he supported the
proposed Ordinance on the first reading and he will be supporting the proposed Ordinance on final
reading. He stated there has been a lot of angst created by not understanding what the proposed
Ordinance will mean to each property owner. He stated the Service Area provides the authorization for
TCVMD to serve the area; however, property owners will not be obligated to be served by TCVMD.
Commissioner Long stated whenever there is an opportunity to keep water within Weld County, he will
support it.
Commissioner Garcia thanked everyone for attending and missing work or other activities to be
present. He stated he will not restate the comments he made at the second reading of the proposed
Ordinance, and he will only comment on new information. He stated Mr. Reider spoke about the
property owners being provided options for their land to be utilized for the highest and best use.
Commissioner Garcia stated there are eight (8) property owners who are interested in being provided
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 33 BC0016
options for their land and they have consented to pursuing the opportunity to develop their properties.
He thanked Mr. Frank for attending the meeting and speaking about the two (2) pipe system, as a
plumber. He stated Ms. Cavender asked about whether her property would be required to join the
Service Area if she sold her property; however, the Service Area has already been established, prior to
the proposed Ordinance being considered, and it was not established by the Board of County
Commissioners. Commissioner Garcia stated it is important to consider what Mayor Holton and
Mr. Marrs stated, both of whom have experience with Comprehensive Plans, and both of them find the
proposed Ordinance to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and he does as well. He stated the
most compelling testimony he heard was by Mr. Marrs regarding keeping water within Weld County;
therefore, he supports the proposed Ordinance.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she has voted twice in opposition to the proposed Ordinance and
RUA, and she does not feel it meets the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, which include encouraging
joint planning and communication, working with the property owners in the larger regional area,
developing a consolidated plan, and conducting meetings between the County and the larger regional
area's property owners. She stated the property owners who are opposed to the proposed Ordinance
are not against people selling their properties or development; they just want the proposed RUA
planned in a sound manner and they want to participate in the planning process. She stated she
attended a couple of the planning meetings, and the proposed RUA was already entirely planned out at
that point and the attendees were just being told what was going to happen. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
stated not one (1) property owner had input on how many homes are proposed for the proposed RUA,
and none of the property owners were notified by the City of Fort Lupton when it expanded its
208 boundary, or by TCVMD about any matters other than the three (3) public meetings. She stated
there are a great number of people who are opposed to the proposed Ordinance and RUA and those
people have requested the Board to develop a better plan and include the property owners in the larger
regional area. She stated there is no rush for development. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she has
served as a County Commissioner for ten (10) years and she has participated in the creation of several
Comprehensive Plans. She stated when the City of Dacono created its Comprehensive Plan, which
extends to County Roads 6 and 21, it invited the public to be part of the Comprehensive Plan
Committee, and many people from the area participated in the planning process. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated representatives from the City of Dacono attended a Country Circle Club meeting and
property owners had the opportunity to ask questions. She stated when the City of Fort Lupton was
creating its Comprehensive Plan, it sent out notices to invite people to participate in it; however, there
was no notice provided about expanding the 208 boundary or expanding TCVMD's Service Area, other
than the notice published in the Brighton Blade. She stated the City of Fort Lupton and TCVMD are
determining where the property owners are going to obtain sewer service and the only way out of the
Service Area is to annex, which is not an opportunity; it is a limitation. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated
Weld County failed to notify the property owners in the larger regional area about the proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, the City of Fort Lupton failed to provide notice to the property
owners in the larger regional area when it expanded its 208 boundary, and TCVMD failed to provide
notice to the property owners in the larger regional area when it expanded its Service Area. She stated
numerous families are still participating in irrigated farming in and around the proposed RUA, including
the Sakatas, the Stiebers, the Zehnders, the Wagners, the Kirkmeyers, and the Seltzers. She stated
the Weld County Department of Planning Services staff recommended against approving the proposed
RUA. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she heard Mr. Hanlon indicate TCVMD operates as a city;
therefore, it should be within a city, and the Comprehensive Plan does not indicate a city should be
created within unincorporated Weld County. She stated residential growth does not pay its own way,
as Mr. Warden explained, and the applicants do not seem to have an understanding of the TABOR or
Gallagher Amendments, or the five (5) percent property tax limitation in Weld County. She stated when
residential property increases, Weld County lowers its mill levy, due to TABOR. She stated the Board
needs to determine whether the Comprehensive Plan is in need of revision; it was recently revised and
it was a major process which took over one (1) year to complete, and there is no need to revise it again
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 34 BC0016
at this time. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated there are between 22,000 and 25,000 platted lots within
close proximity which are able to provide water and sewer services. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated
she agrees growth will occur in the area; however, this area is a slow growing area and there is no
need to revise the Comprehensive Plan. She stated the Board is also supposed to consider whether
the social, economic, or land use conditions within Weld County have changed to warrant amending the
Comprehensive Plan, and the economic conditions have changed, yet not in a way warranting a
Comprehensive Plan amendment. She stated the Board is also supposed to consider whether the
proposed amendment is consistent with existing and future goals and policies and needs of the County,
and she does not believe it meets the intent of the RUA goals, urban goals, intergovernmental goals, or
agriculture goals, which all indicate urban growth should occur within municipalities. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer stated the proposed amendment is supposed to provide for a diversity of land uses;
however, the proposed amendment is all residential development. She stated the proposed RUA is
supposed to be compatible with existing and surrounding land uses, which it clearly is not, since
farming is occurring throughout the area. She stated there is one of the largest sheep feedlots in the
nation located in the area and nobody complains about it, and nobody has complained about the
Kirkmeyer or Howard dairies, since the property owners understand it is an agricultural area.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the proposed RUA is supposed to provide schools and regardless of
what the superintendant indicated today, Weld County School District RE-8 sent three (3) letters
indicating concerns that future development will not pay for the entire cost associated with constructing
new schools and the School District wants to ensure the taxpayer is not burdened. She stated the
proposed RUA is not supposed to be conceptual at this point in the process; the applicants are
supposed to be able to demonstrate the proposed RUA will be able to provide the necessary services.
She stated there are approximately 45,000 people in unincorporated Weld County, and the Towns of
Hudson, Mead, and Lochbuie cannot provide law enforcement services themselves; therefore, the
municipalities have entered into agreements with Weld County for services to be provided by the Weld
County Sheriff's Office, and the Sheriff's budget is outrageous. She stated public safety is a
requirement and a responsibility of local government; however, it is a drain on the tax payers and the
County's budgets to provide law enforcement services, and the proposed RUA will potentially add up to
20,000 more citizens who require the County's law enforcement services. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
stated the Sheriff's Office has a response time of 25 to 35 minutes, even though the Sheriff has worked
to decrease the response time. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the RUA goals indicate a balance of
housing and employment should exist; however, there is no balance in the proposed RUA, since it
proposes up to 600 jobs and up to 6,600 houses. She stated the RUA goals indicate the proposed
RUA must demonstrate adequate services are currently available or reasonably obtainable, and she
does not believe it has demonstrated adequate access to water and sewer services, law enforcement
and ambulance services, or transportation services, including a transit system. She stated the area
north of County Road 6 was not included in the intergovernmental agreement between the City of Fort
Lupton and TCVMD; therefore, the proposed RUA cannot provide sewer service to property owners in
that area. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated TCVMD entered into an intergovernmental agreement with
the City of Thornton in the year 2003, which indicated TCVMD would not expand its services into the
City of Thornton's Planning Area, and the City of Thornton began planning this area in the year 1991.
She stated approximately seven (7) years ago the City of Thornton invited everyone in the area to
participate in updating its Comprehensive Plan; however, its Planning Area remained the same, and
she participated in creating the plan in 1991 and later updating the plan. She stated Sections 28 and
33 and the area to the west of there are located within Thornton's Planning Area and TCVMD cannot
provide services there without approval from the City, and the City of Thornton clearly outlined its
Planning Area in its referral response letter. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated there are approximately
1,000 acres in Section 28 which cannot be provided with sewer service. She stated TCVMD is only
capable of providing water for 4,000 dwelling units and a representative for TCVMD indicated, during a
meeting in the Town of Wattenberg, only one-third of the amount of water needed for the RUA has
been obtained. She stated TCVMD has indicated this is a long term plan; however, its agreement with
the City of Aurora regarding the Brantner Ditch will only be in effect for approximately eight (8) more
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 35 BC0016
years. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the Board is supposed to consider referral responses in its
decision, and Bruce Davis, Chair for the Fort Lupton Planning Commission, submitted a letter indicating
the Planning Commission has concerns about the proposed RUA and he inquired as to why Weld
County would allow large urban scale development outside of an Urban Growth Area; the City of
Thornton has conflicts and concerns with the proposed RUA; the City of Brighton is opposed to the
proposed RUA; there are conflicts with the County's intergovernmental agreement with the City of Fort
Lupton, and the City of Fort Lupton cannot annex property south of County Road 6; the proposed RUA
is in conflict with the City of Dacono's Planning Area; and both Fort Lupton and Brighton's School
Districts have indicated concerns about the proposed RUA. She stated the Board should create a
subarea plan; it is responsible for planning the area, and it has failed to do so. She stated the Board
should follow the goals in the Comprehensive Plan, the RUA goals, and the intergovernmental
agreement goals. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the property owners within the larger regional area
should be included; not just the property owners within the proposed RUA, and the Board should be
concerned about costs to current and future residents. She stated there are residents who did not even
know the Service Area was being expanded to include their properties.
Commissioner Conway thanked everyone for attending the meeting and he stated some of the
attendees participated in the first and second readings of the proposed Ordinance as well. He stated
he has learned a great deal through the three (3) readings of the proposed Ordinance. He thanked
TCVMD for its involvement with the Brantner Ditch and he does not want to begrudge any property
owners the right to sell their water rights; however, he also wants to consider the overall private
property rights, in regards to the proposed RUA. Commissioner Conway stated he voted in favor of the
proposed Ordinance and RUA on the first and second readings in order to move forward with the
process and find the answers to his questions; however, he finds there are too many questions
remaining on third reading to approve the proposed Ordinance. He stated he is concerned about the
land owners within the proposed RUA and the surrounding area who have expressed opposition to the
proposed Ordinance and RUA. He stated growth is inevitable in the proposed RUA; however, due to
the slowed economy, there is the time and opportunity to re-evaluate the proposed RUA and create a
better plan. Commissioner Conway stated the amount of testimony in support of, and opposition to, the
proposed Ordinance and RUA is fairly evenly divided. He stated he reread Mr. Warden's presentation
and he indicated the proposed RUA is a poorly designed project and he questioned the long term
viability of Metropolitan Districts in light of current financial conditions and the potential impacts of
Proposition 101. He stated he also has determined RUA goals 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 have not entirely been
met and there are numerous concerns expressed in the referral response letters. Commissioner
Conway stated he is also concerned about what the long term consequences may be for land owners
locked within the proposed RUA, as well as the potential costs. He stated the Board underwent an
arduous budget process last year and the Board is undertaking the process again in a few weeks. He
stated residential growth does not pay its own way within the State of Colorado, due to the Gallagher
Amendment, and the Board must be mindful of the potential costs which may impact the
44,000 residents in unincorporated Weld County.
Chair Rademacher thanked everyone for attending the final reading of the proposed Ordinance, and if
approved, this will be the third RUA in Weld County. He stated the first RUA was Southwest, which
was organized in the 1980s, and very few people contested it. He stated the Pioneer RUA was
approved approximately six (6) years ago and it did not receive a great deal of opposition, and it had
the support of the surrounding municipalities and land owners. Chair Rademacher stated he is very
confused about the City of Fort Lupton's position on the matter since the former Mayor sent a referral
response letter supporting the proposed Ordinance and RUA and then sent another referral response
letter opposing the proposed RUA. He stated there are pros and cons to the proposed Ordinance and
RUA, and he has determined the cons outweigh the pros. He stated TCVMD not having the space to
expand its reverse osmosis treatment plant is an issue, as well as not having enough water rights
secured to support the proposed RUA at full build-out, and water is expensive, scarce, and highly
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 36 BC0016
sought. He stated he is concerned about water rights leaving Weld County; however, it seems most of
the water rights in this area have already left Weld County. Chair Rademacher stated Mr. Warden's
testimony was compelling and he has worked for Weld County more than 35 years, and he has always
given the Board good advice. He stated he is also unsure whether the applicants have met the
Comprehensive Plan requirements, and he inquired as to how the other Commissioners would feel
about continuing the matter for six (6) months, in order to see whether Amendments 60 and 61 and
Proposition 101 are approved, since the entire situation will be changed if those measures pass. He
stated the applicants have invested a great deal of time and money and he would hate to see it all go to
waste based on his decision. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she is not in favor of continuing the
proposed Ordinance for six (6) months; however, the work the applicants have completed does not
have to go waste. She stated the County has some responsibility in planning the area and it can
coordinate a planning effort with the property owners, service providers, and surrounding municipalities,
and it may be able to utilize some of the information and ideas from the proposed RUA. Chair
Rademacher stated Commissioner Kirkmeyer previously indicated she wants a plan which works for
everyone; however, that will never happen, since people have different ambitions. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Mr. Barker stated if the proposed Ordinance is voted down, the applicants can propose
another plan; however, if it is largely similar, the result will likely be the same. He stated the applicants
can return with substantial changes at any point. Ms. Martin clarified the applicants will not be able to
submit another proposed RUA plan until February 1, 2011, or August 1, 2011. Commissioner Long
stated there is merit in continuing the matter, since there has been a great deal of effort invested into
the proposed Ordinance and RUA, and the details may be able to be worked out, and the election will
have occurred in November. He stated continuing the matter is a better option than denying the
proposed Ordinance and RUA. Chair Rademacher concurred. Commissioner Garcia stated a
continuance is not necessary; however, if Chair Rademacher and Commissioner Conway have
questions and concerns which they believe can be addressed in six (6) months, he will vote in favor of
the continuance. Commissioner Conway stated it was suggested that a task force be created with the
landowners to reach a consensus, and the City of Brighton indicated it is in favor of the proposed RUA
if an intergovernmental agreement is entered into, which are items that indicate there has not been
adequate communication. He stated he is not opposed to a continuance if there is value in it.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated if the proposed Ordinance is continued and more parties are involved,
the proposed RUA will likely change substantially in six (6) months; therefore, the applicants should
start over with a new plan and a clean proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. She stated
the applicants need to amend existing intergovernmental agreements and create new ones, and the
applicants need to include the larger regional area in the planning; therefore, a deadline should not be
placed on the process. She stated the applicants can resubmit a plan in February or August and the
work will not be wasted. Commissioner Conway inquired as to whether the transportation study and
the other work that has been completed can be utilized in a new plan. Ms. Martin indicated the
applicants can utilize the information they have already obtained. Commissioner Long stated if the
applicants are not further along in February, the Board can deny the proposal; therefore, the Board
seems to be in agreement to continue the matter for six (6) months. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated
she is not in agreement about continuing the matter, and there is a developer driving the plan, as
opposed to the County driving the plan, along with the property owners and municipalities. She
inquired as to whether a task force will be established as part of the motion. She stated nothing will
have changed if there is no County initiative to establish a task force. Chair Rademacher stated the
burden falls on the applicants, whether there is a task force or not, and the applicants know what will be
required. Commissioner Conway inquired as to how Commissioner Kirkmeyer would structure a task
force. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the task force structure would be similar to MUD task forces,
with applicants, property owners, municipalities, and service providers involved. She stated there
would be a technical group, a planning group, and a public group, and regular meetings would be
conducted for a period of more than six (6) months. She stated when working on a task force for a
MUD, and people living within the MUD and outside the MUD, school districts, water and sewer
districts, and all the municipalities participated in developing the plan. Commissioner Long stated this
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 37 BC0016
is different than a MUD, this is a RUA, which provides the opportunity for private developers to develop,
although it is a good idea for a task force to be developed by the applicants, in order to allow public
input. He stated the applicants followed the same notice requirements and statutory notice obligations
as the County follows, and although not everyone feels they received proper notice from the applicants,
not everyone feels they have received proper notice on County matters either. Chair Rademacher
indicated he does not see a disadvantage to continuing the matter. Commissioner Long moved to
continue the final reading of Ordinance #2010-1 to February 23, 2011. In response to Commissioner
Garcia, Commissioner Long indicated he does not want to include language about forming a task force
in the motion, and he believes the Board has given the applicants good direction regarding establishing
a task force; however, it is incumbent upon the applicants to establish a task force. Commissioner
Garcia seconded the motion, and he stated the property owners should establish the task force; not the
government. Mr. Barker suggested if it is determined the plan has significantly changed on the final
reading of the proposed Ordinance, the Board will need to refer the matter back to the Planning
Commission for review and comments. Ms. Martin inquired as to whether the referral agencies should
have the opportunity to review the updated plan and make comments again as well. Mr. Barker
confirmed the referral agencies need to be included. Commissioner Conway stated if there are
changes to the proposed plan and the applicants have entered into new intergovernmental agreements,
those will be entered into the record at the final reading. Ms. Martin stated those items will need to be
submitted prior to the third reading, with adequate time to provide the information to the referral
agencies and receive comments back, write a new staff report, and for the information to be reviewed
by the Planning Commission. Chair Rademacher stated the applicants would still need to go through
that process, if the matter was not continued. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the applicants would
begin at the beginning of the process if the Ordinance was denied; however, in this case, the Board is
requiring a new plan to be in place by approximately November, in order to allow the referral agencies
the opportunity to respond and the Planning Commission the chance to review the plan, all of which
must be completed prior to the final reading in February, 2011. She stated she does not want only the
property owners who are in favor of the proposed RUA to drive the task force, since it will defeat the
purpose of the process and it does not meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner
Long indicated he respectfully interprets the situation differently. Upon request for a roll call vote, the
motion carried four (4) to one (1), with Commissioner Kirkmeyer in opposition.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
Consent Agenda. No Ordinances were approved.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 38 BC0016
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY OLORADO
ATTEST: 'efi • O0 �
o I s Radema r, air
Weld County Clerk to the :(::r.
t i 1/42
.ter rbara Kirkmeyer, ro-Tem
BY: `/!,/�/L/ i� �`!.�r✓.; li.
Deputy Cler the Boa � r � c
....� ca(n�//P. n y
Wil am� ciia
aJ
David E. Long
Minutes, August 23, 2010 2010-1970
Page 39 BC0016
Hello