HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101778.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
AUGUST 4, 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 4, 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 - EXCUSED
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Jennifer VanEgdom
Controller, Barb Connolly
MINUTES: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County
Commissioners meeting of August 2, 2010, as printed. Commissioner Kirkmeyer seconded the motion,
and it carried unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT: Thomas Castaneda, Weld County resident, questioned why there is a reduced speed
limit at every major intersection on U.S. Highway 85, between the cities of Commerce City and Greeley,
except at County Road 6. Chair Rademacher explained the Colorado Department of Transportation
sets the speed limit along U.S Highway 85, because the road is under their jurisdiction; however,
County Road 6 is under the jurisdiction of Weld County, and the speed limit is set by the County.
Responding to Commissioner Conway, Mr. Castaneda expressed his concerns regarding the need for
reduced speed at the intersection of U.S. Highway 85 and County Road 6, and he confirmed the
cameras monitoring the waiting traffic do not detect vehicles in a timely manner to prompt the light to
change. Commissioner Conway indicated the Board is willing to forward the concerns to CDOT, and
Commissioner Garcia indicated Weld County's Traffic Engineer, Janet Carter, will also research the
matter.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Conway moved to approve the Consent Agenda as printed.
Commissioner Garcia seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATOR REPORTS: There were no Commissioner Coordinator Reports.
(OU -
�� -j Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
O Page 1 BC0016
BIDS:
APPROVE BID #61000100, REMODELING OF WELD COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
(FORMERLY THE SYKES BUILDING) - DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS: Monica
stated the bid was presented on July 21, 2010, and since that date, there has been an extensive review
of the bids to ensure that each bid met the required specifications. She recommended acceptance of
the low bid from Growling Bear Company, Inc., which was the low bid. She confirmed the County has
worked with this company in the past and has been pleased with the results. At the request of Chair
Rademacher, Ms. Mika submitted a document explaining the break-down of the construction costs,
marked as Exhibit A. In response to Chair Rademacher, Toby Taylor, Department of Buildings and
Grounds, confirmed there was a large spread in the figures provided by the various companies, and the
comparisons were reviewed on a level basis. Chair Rademacher indicated he is pleased that many
local vendors submitted a bid for this project, and Commissioner Conway indicated he is pleased that
the County was able to select a local vendor during this tough economic time. Commissioner Garcia
moved to approve said low bid, based upon staff's recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER NONEXCLUSIVE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR UPGRADE AND MAINTENANCE OF
BROADWAY AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN — REJOICE LUTHERAN CHURCH: Clay Kimmi,
Department of Public Works, stated this agreement is required through Use by Special Review (USR)
Permit#1630 for Rejoice Lutheran Church. He stated the site is located one-half mile north of State
Highway 7, and east of County Road 7, within the Ranch Eggs Subdivision. Responding to Chair
Rademacher, Mr. Kimmi confirmed the site is south of State Highway 52 and County Road 4. He
clarified the church will utilize the existing driveway for access to the site, and an access permit has
been applied for, and approved. He explained the County does not maintain the right-of-way, as it is
located within the platted subdivision, and the church will provide the necessary gravel and
maintenance of the access road. In response to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Kimmi confirmed there was
previously discussion with the City of Broomfield regarding the road, at which time it was discovered
that the City had not annexed this portion of the road, as originally thought. He clarified a main arterial
road was developed south of this site, which is utilized by the alternative energy company Sundrop.
Further responding to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Kimmi confirmed there will be no new accesses
created, and in response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Kimmi clarified a cattle guard will not be required at
the access. Commissioner Conway moved to approve said agreement and authorize the Chair to sign.
Seconded by Commissioner Garcia, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ENTRY UPON VARIOUS LANDS BY WELD COUNTY VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
SPECIALIST: Tina Booton, Department of Public Works, stated through the provisions of the Colorado
Weed Management Act and the Weld County Code, she must seek right of entry from the Board to
enter onto private lands to carry out necessary weed control measures. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Ms. Booton confirmed this request is fairly late in the season, and several of the
properties have already been mowed but have a significant amount of re-growth. She confirmed staff
has received numerous complaints regarding three of the properties, and multiple attempts to contact
the property owners have been made. Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said entry. Seconded
by Commissioner Kirkmeyer, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER INSTALLATION OF VARIOUS TEMPORARY TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES ON CR 132:
Janet Carter, Department of Public Works, stated the Department is requesting approval for the
installation of temporary traffic control signs on County Road 132, between State Highway 71 and
County Road 135. She confirmed this is an unusual request, since there is no road closure involved
with this request; however, Board approval is required for the installation of any regulatory signs on
County right-of-ways. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Carter confirmed all roads without a
posted speed limit are considered to be 55 miles per hour; however, the Department is posting a
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 2 BC0016
temporary reduction of the speed on this road to 35 miles per hour, due to the large amount of
construction traffic in the immediate area. She explained the road is graveled, it is part of the haul route
for the new wind energy facility, and the road will be treated with magnesium chloride for dust
suppression; however, the reduced speed limit should significantly decrease the amount of dust
created. Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Carter clarified the 85th percentile of traffic
speed is 50 miles per hour, and if the Board desires, the speed could be reduced to 45 miles per hour,
with a reduction to 35 miles per hour in closer proximity to the facility. Chair Rademacher confirmed he
prefers for the speed limit to only be reduced to 45 miles per hour, and in response, Commissioner
Garcia clarified this temporary reduction in speed will only be in effect until December 31, 2010.
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve said installation. Seconded by Commissioner Conway, the
motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ASSIGNMENT OF TAX LIEN SALE CERTIFICATE TO MARCELA FERMAN FOR
PURCHASE ON JULY 27, 2010 AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN NECESSARY DOCUMENTS:
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated the tax lien sale certificate is for one property, in the amount of
$104.00, and he recommended approval the assignment. Commissioner Kirkmeyer moved to approve
said assignment and authorize the Chair to sign any necessary documents. Seconded by
Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously.
(Chair Rademacher issued a shod recess, to allow adequate time for staff to prepare the visual
presentation components.)
PLANNING:
SECOND 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 Conway moved to read said Ordinance by title only. Seconded by Commissioner
Garcia, the motion carried unanimously, and Mr. Barker read said title for the record. Upon introduction
by Michelle Martin, Department of Planning Services, Jim Johnson, Attorney, represented the applicant
and stated he understands the second reading of the Ordinance is a legislative action, and he
requested a continuance of the matter until a date when all five Commissioners will be present. He
confirmed the Ordinance amendment process has been in progress for a long time, and he believes it
is important for a full quorum of the Board to hear all of the information provided during the three
Ordinance readings. In response to Chair Rademacher, Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated the matter
regarding a continuance request will need to be opened for comment by those in attendance at today's
meeting, and she confirmed she does not support the continuance request. She clarified there are
many people in attendance who made accommodations in their schedules to be here, and
Commissioner Long will hear any additional testimony provided during the third reading of the
Ordinance. Commissioner Garcia indicated if the Board wishes to entertain the request for a
continuance, the members of the audience should still be allowed to provide any comments they wish
to express today. He clarified this is the first instance of a continuance request for this type of matter
that he is aware of. Responding to Commissioner Garcia, Mr. Barker clarified the third reading of the
Ordinance will only occur if the second reading is approved by three affirmative votes, and if the second
reading is not approved by a majority, the matter will not move forward to the third reading.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer expressed her concerns regarding the fact that Commissioner Long is not
present to hear any testimony provided by the public today, and she believes it will be difficult for him to
experience the emotions presented, especially because he will not have the ability to ask questions.
She clarified if the matter is continued to a later date, all of the people who are planning to provide
testimony today will also have to attend an additional meeting, which is not fair to the public who made
arrangements to be present today. Chair Rademacher clarified Commissioner Long had a grievance in
the family, and that is why he could not be present today.
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 3 BC0016
Commissioner Conway expressed his concern regarding a delay for the people in attendance who are
ready to provide their testimony today. He indicated Commissioner Long does have the opportunity to
review the comments provided today before the next reading is held, as has been done in past matters,
and his main concern is that the members of the public who made the commitment to be here today be
allowed an adequate chance to provide their testimony. Commissioner Garcia explained
Commissioner Long will most likely review the record to hear today's testimony before the next reading
is scheduled, regardless of whether the matter is continued to a later date on second reading.
Mr. Barker clarified the Board does have the option of opening up the matter for the purpose of
obtaining public testimony, and then the matter could be continued to a later date for consideration by a
full Board. Upon clarification from the Acting Clerk to the Board, regarding a potential continuance
date, Commissioner Garcia made a motion to continue the second reading of Ordinance #2010-1 to
August 30, 2010. There was no second of the motion, therefore, the motion failed, and Chair
Rademacher confirmed discussion of the matter will proceed today.
Ms. Martin indicated she would like to provide a brief overview of the proposed RUA, and then turn her
focus on to which modifications will need to occur within the Weld County Code in order to create a new
RUA. She stated the applicants are requesting to designate an area within Weld County as an RUA,
which is a geographic policy area, and currently there are two designated RUA areas within Weld
County, including the 1-25 RUA and the Southeast RUA, also known as Pioneer. She further stated
there are three elements in the creation of a new RUA: the designation on the Urban Development
Map, the adoption of the goals and policies of Chapter 26 of the Weld County Code, and the adoption
of a new RUA structural land use map. She clarified all of the inter-related elements require a change
to the Weld County Code before the RUA is codified, and she clarified this matter does not modify any
zone districts and does not provide any vesting rights. She further clarified this process does not allow
for the subdivision of land, it does not create the ability to implement commercial uses, it does not result
in the creation of any lot lines, and does not allow for the release of any building permits, rather, the
RUA process will create a comprehensive visionary document. Ms. Martin indicated the location of the
proposed RUA is envisioned as an extension of the Denver metropolitan area, and is located north of
County Road 2, between the Interstate 25 and U.S. Highway 85 corridors. She explained the RUA
area is 2,095 acres in size, which equates to approximately 1,500 acres of potentially urban-scale uses,
and the RUA area is equivalent to the size of the Town of Eaton, 1.5 times larger than the Town of
Platteville, or 1/3 of the size of the City of Fort Lupton. She indicated the RUA proposes to contain
between 2,200 to 6,600 dwelling units, which equates to a population of approximately 6,500 to 19,700
residents, and the commercial development within the RUA is limited, with a maximum allowance of
187,000 square feet. She explained the RUA is expected to contain limited employment opportunities,
which will consist mostly of neighborhood mixed use centers, allowing for a combination of commercial
and residential uses. She stated the applicant has indicated that the surrounding area contains
numerous retail and employment centers, including Vestas, therefore, the need for additional
employment opportunities does not exist within the RUA. Ms. Martin stated the applicants did provide a
traffic study which indicated approximately 50,700 vehicle trips per day, and a master transportation
plan and drainage report will be required in future applications. She clarified the water is proposed to
be provided to the site from the Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District (TCVMD), which is located
within Adams County, and the water will be provided through a contractual basis. She stated the Town
of Fort Lupton and the TCVMD entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) in 2006 for the
purposes of providing sewer service to the proposed RUA, and emergency services will be provided by
the existing Fort Lupton and Greater Brighton Fire Protection Districts. She further stated it is expected
that a Law Enforcement Authority (LEA) will be created, which will be served with an increased mill levy
of seven mills. She indicated the necessary schools sites will be supported by School Districts RE-8
and RE-27J, and the application indicates that a total of three schools for grades K-8 and one high
school will be sufficient; however, staff's analysis is that five schools for grades K-8 and one high
school will be required. She clarified the potential buildout of 6,600 residential units will create a
population of approximately 20,000 residents, which will be built out in a period of approximately 30
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 4 BC0016
years. She indicated the majority of the proposed area lies between County Roads 4 and 6, and
County Roads 17 and 23, and is currently being utilized for agricultural purposes.
Ms. Martin stated if the RUA is approved, three elements of the Weld County Code will need to be
modified, including the Urban Development Map, the goals and policies of Chapter 26, and the
adoption of the RUA structural land use map. She clarified the Urban Growth Boundary will need to be
modified to reflect the boundary of the Dry Creek RUA, the proposed goals and policies to be included
within Chapter 26 have been provided by the applicant, which was submitted as Exhibit J, and the
structural land use map will be added as an appendix within Chapter 26. She indicated the proposed
map has evolved over time, and as a Condition of Approval, the applicant was required to amend the
map to include two additional schools, a future transit parking site, a library, a community park, a
cultural facility, a recreational center, a fire station, sheriff's office, additional buffers, and an
employment center. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Martin referenced the map and
indicated the portions which contain the open space buffering areas. She explained the employment
center has been removed as it is intended to be included with the mixed use neighborhood area, and
there is not a designated library or sheriff's office site. She clarified the placement of the schools,
public facilities, and parks, which were required by the Planning Commission. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Ms. Martin clarified there are portions of the RUA which are intended to fulfill an estate
feel, rather than a suburban feel. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Martin reiterated the
applicant is requesting that the commercial employment area be removed and incorporated into the
neighborhood mixed use areas. She confirmed the Department has received six letters of opposition
from surrounding property owners, and she clarified Planning staff did originally recommend denial.
She stated the Planning Commission recommended approval, and the final reading for this matter is
scheduled for August 23, 2010. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Martin indicated she is
unaware of the exact acreage included within the 1-25 and Pioneer RUA's; however, she will research
the matter. Responding to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Martin clarified six surrounding property owners
outside of the proposed RUA boundaries have expressed opposition to the application.
Janet Carter, Department of Public Works, confirmed the Department focused on the conceptual review
of the Traffic Study and Drainage Report, and if the RUA project is approved to move forward, the
applicant will be required to submit more detailed studies and analysis to proceed with the Sketch Plan
and Change of Zone. She clarified the applicant's traffic study recommends a three-mile segment of
County Road 17 become a six-lane arterial, an eight-mile segment of County Road 6 become a
four-lane arterial, and that County Roads 19, 21, and 2 become two-lane minor arterials, which
amounts to a total of approximately 15 miles of improved roadways. She further clarified twelve
intersections will be controlled by traffic signals or roundabouts, and the applicant is recognizing the
study prepared by the Department regarding the alignment of County Roads 17, 23.5, and 19, with the
intersection of County Road 2. She confirmed the developer shall expect to fully fund all upgrades
necessary for the development of the proposed RUA, and most of the improvements will be triggered
through the platting process. Ms. Carter stated the expected population buildout of this project is
comparable to the City of Windsor; however, a limited amount of employment and commercial
opportunities will be provided, therefore, future studies must indicate where residents will shop, seek
entertainment, and work. She clarified the proposal creates traffic patterns which are not currently
forseen in the surrounding area, and the impact of the proposed development on County Roads 2 and
6, as they intersect with U.S. Highway 85, is unclear. She confirmed the applicant has acknowledged
the need for extensive road improvements and has indicated the intention to fully fund the necessary
improvements. She indicated the conceptual drainage report has been deemed acceptable by staff,
and as the developer moves forward, master plans and maps to extend the floodplain will be required
to be submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). She confirmed the applicant
has acknowledged that further studies will be necessary. In response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Carter
confirmed the approval process of the RUA will be the same as the process completed by Pioneer;
however, many of the triggered improvements associated with the development of the site may differ
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 5 BC0016
significantly. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Carter confirmed the referral provided by
CDOT indicates the necessary improvements for the intersections of County Roads 2 and 6 with U.S.
Highway 85 have been acknowledged by the applicant; however, there has been no commitment
regarding the financial contributions necessary to achieve these improvements, since it is too early to
identify the necessary costs. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Carter confirmed the
applicant will be required to help fund the necessary construction costs, as well as provide for the
maintenance of the roads once they are constructed.
Lauren Light, Department of Public Health and Environment, reiterated the TCVMD will provide water to
the site; however, no information regarding the availability of water was provided, and the State
Engineer's Office provided a referral response indicating it is unknown whether the area contains a
sufficient water supply. She clarified the applicant must verify the quality, quantity, and dependability of
water at the Sketch Plan phase, and the sewer service will be provided by the Town of Fort Lupton,
through the expanded 208 boundaries. She stated this RUA is proposed for urban scale development,
which is not typically seen within Weld County, and the Department promoted an active community
lifestyle, therefore the Department requested parks, walking and biking trails, detached sidewalks, and
a recreation district. She clarified the RUA will essentially become a bedroom community, where kids
will be walking to school, and the concerns regarding safety will need to be addressed during the
Sketch Plan phase. She clarified the area is most likely expected to contain neighborhood stores,
which need to be accessible, and the Department has requested an area for a Park-N-Ride to promote
carpooling since there will not be any mass transit within the surrounding area. She confirmed she was
not on staff at the Department when the Pioneer development was approved; however, the Department
did request safe access to schools, trails, and parks, etcetera, similar to the uses requested within this
RUA. Chair Rademacher concurred these types of requests are appropriate within an RUA, and he
wants to ensure staff is maintaining consistency in the requirements. He confirmed the 1-25 and
Pioneer RUA do not contain a recreation district located within the unincorporated portions of Weld
County. In response, Ms. Light confirmed these amenities were suggested based upon the active
community lifestyle which is promoted within urban scale developments. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Ms. Martin confirmed the Pioneer RUA contains 5,917 acres, and the 1-25 RUA contains
15,000 acres.
George Hanlon, President of TCVMD, indicated he is representing the landowners of the properties
included within the RUA application, and at the request of the Board, he agreed to provide a short
overview of the application request for the benefit of the members of the audience. (Chair Rademacher
issued a short recess to allow adequate time for Mr. Hanlon to set up his presentation equipment.)
Upon reconvening, Mr. Hanlon confirmed the TCVMD has been working with the property owners for
the past two years, and the initial stages of this project began in 2004. He reviewed his PowerPoint
presentation, marked Exhibit I, and he clarified this process is only for the amendment to the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan, which was created by the County for areas which contain the potential
infrastructure necessary for development. He confirmed development within the Denver area is moving
north, since growth is limited to the west by the Rocky Mountains, Douglas County has created an
extensive amount of open space to the south, and there are water issues and other expansion issues to
the east. He further confirmed, within the next twenty years, the most logical area for growth will be the
northern corridors between Interstates 25 and 76. Mr. Hanlon reviewed the regional influences, and
confirmed the District took an interest in this area because the site is located outside the major areas of
influence of the surrounding municipalities. He clarified the TCVMD is a water district, as well as a
revenue district, and he has previously explained the misunderstandings associated with the creation of
a service area. He further confirmed the district is not a taxing district, and the TCVMD only receives
revenues through the sale of water taps and the sale of water service. He stated southern Weld
County provides an opportunity to grow, and acquisitions have been made by the district to
accommodate the long-range growth plans, including the Smith Reservoir and Signal Reservoir, and
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 6 BC0016
shares in several ditch companies. He clarified TCVMD provides 95 percent of its water from
renewable resources, and approximately five percent comes from deep wells in the Laramie Fox Hills
aquifer. He confirmed the decision to proceed with this RUA was made with the understanding of the
costs associated with drilling the necessary wells. He reviewed a map of the general service area
created as a result of the negotiations with the Cities of Dacono and Fort Lupton. He clarified a
Memorandum of Understanding was created with both cities, regarding the overall sewer plan, and then
an IGA was drafted with the City of Fort Lupton once the City of Dacono stepped out of the process to
continue forward with the St. Vrain District. He further clarified the City of Fort Lupton will provide the
necessary sewer service to this area, through the expanded 208 boundary, and the TCVMD will provide
the necessary water service. He clarified TCVMD is a district which was created in Adams County, and
the process was initialized within Adams County; however, the proper referrals were provided regarding
the request of the expansion of the TCVMD service area to overlay with the 208 boundary established
by the City of Fort Lupton. He explained the district initially sought to apply through the Mixed Use
Development (MUD) process; however, at the request of the County, the decision was made to wait to
make application through the newly adopted RUA process. He clarified staff previously recommended
the RUA boundary be based upon the overall service area of the district and 208 boundary; however,
during public meetings with surrounding property owners, it became clear that some of the property
owners had not been notified of the inclusion of their property. He indicated during a subsequent work
session, it was recommended that each of the property owners be contacted regarding this proposal,
and those in agreement could form the RUA application. He confirmed the application was approved
by the Planning Commission in Fall, 2009, after addressing the concerns and questions presented
during the hearing.
Mr. Hanlon stated there has been a lot of confusion among those interested in this process, and he
reiterated this process does not address any of the issues directly related to development of the site,
rather, this process simply establishes the goals and policies for the future development of the area, to
ensure compliance with the Weld County Code. He confirmed this process creates an orderly process
for long-range planning with Weld County and sets some ground rules for how development should
take place in the future. He stated Weld County has recognized that there are some areas within the
County which are not within physical proximity to an urban center; however, options are needed so that
property may develop within an orderly process. He confirmed several modifications have been
implemented to the framework plan, primarily because of the request for the recreation center by staff.
He explained the RUA boundary contains six separate property owners, and it is not currently known
which piece of property will be developed first, therefore, the intent is that whenever the first property
begins the development stages, the recreation center will have to be addressed. He confirmed he has
tried to identify areas where the facilities or other opportunities could be located within the overall RUA
boundary. He indicated several comments in opposition to approval were provided during the first
reading, and he believes the concerns have been addressed, as identified within the new handout,
marked Exhibit S.
Nanci Kerr, Sky to Ground, explained she is a consultant to the applicant, and she has worked on the
economic feasibility of the proposed project. She referenced Exhibit S, which contains memorandums
in response to the comments previously received regarding this proposal, and page four indicates the
Sheriff's Office will be able to service the area with the creation of a Law Enforcement Authority (LEA).
She clarified the Sheriffs Office currently receives an allocation of approximately 2.6 mills of the
General Fund, and the LEA will provide an additional seven mills, which is a funding of approximately
270 percent above what the Sheriff's Office is funded for the rest of the areas serviced throughout the
County. She indicated the intent of this additional mill levy is to make up the gap between rural level
and urban level services, and the Sheriff's Office has not yet requested a land dedication; however, it is
understood the possibility may arise in the future. Ms. Kerr clarified Weld County School District RE-8
has indicated there is currently excess capacity within the district, and the Superintendent clarified that
no new schools will be built until the current capacity is absorbed. She indicated concerns were
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 7 BC0016
previously presented regarding the capacity of existing homes, especially vacant homes and lots in the
marketplace, and she clarified this RUA process is the advanced planning of anticipating future
economic conditions, as opposed to waiting until the current market is absorbed before moving forward
with the planning, and through this process, the County is able to shape and direct the type of growth
and development instead of waiting upon market demand. She confirmed this area is experiencing
social and economic changes, including the addition of the Vestas manufacturing plant, and this area
has easy access to major road corridors, therefore, it is an ideal location for future development.
Ms. Kerr indicated there has been confusion regarding the creation of jobs, and she clarified primary
jobs are the type of jobs which provide goods and services in excess of what the local market may
absorb. She further indicated TCVMD is a water provider which services the local market, therefore, it
cannot produce primary jobs, and this proposed site is not the appropriate location to be seeking
high-level employment since there are better sites within the metropolitan area. She stated the
specialization of services should occur within an inter-regional context, and high levels of employment
are found within several miles of the proposed RUA area. She further stated the amenities proposed to
be provided by this RUA are not currently available within the surrounding area, and a significant
funding source of up to eight mills will be provided for recreation uses, and up to one mill for culture.
She confirmed these additional mills are a substantial amount, and will serve as one of the reasons why
residents will choose to live in this RUA. She confirmed the improvements within the community will be
public facilities and will be available to the entire community, which creates a win-win for other residents
within the area.
Ms. Kerr explained models currently show that approximately $60 million worth of public improvements
will be built by the metro district, which is a sizable investment within the community within the 30-year
buildout. She further explained the models also do not reflect the collection of a sales tax, and the
model indicated it will be financially feasible to create these improvements without a sales tax; however,
if the Board determines this is a necessary component, a Public Improvement Fund (PIF) could be
created between the developers and the retailers as another source of revenue. She explained the
applicant believes commercial availability, especially retail, is already over-supplied within the
surrounding area, and she named several shopping areas, all of which are within a 15-minute drive of
this location, and she clarified the community is already fairly well serviced with retail services. She
further explained if it is determined that a need for employment on the site exists, the RUA will be glad
to meet the need, most likely through neighborhood retail uses, and she confirmed the applicant wants
to be realistic about what is likely to occur in the future. Ms. Kerr indicated the assessed valuations
within Weld County have dropped an average of nine percent; however, the oil and gas valuations have
remained steady. She stated it is fair to recognize that there is a current economic downturn; however,
markets are cyclical, and historically the market has followed the trend of moving upwards. She
clarified the District will maintain reserve funds to protect the homeowners through solid management
practices, and the total increase of 58 mills is expected to adequately provide all necessary services.
She further clarified metro districts, on average, collect between 31.7 and 63 mills, with the overall tax
burden of these districts averaging between 137.6 and 280 mills, and it is expected that this district will
average between 120 to 136 mills. She explained the district will be competitive within the residential
market, and an undue tax burden will not be created for the homeowners. Ms. Kerr stated it was
implied at the previous hearing that metro districts are risky, and it was confirmed that growth must pay
its own way and not directly burden the County; however, within recent years, a new policy has been
adopted by the Department of Public Works, which indicates that all new local streets which are
constructed must be maintained by someone other than the County. She explained metro districts are
the best financing tool to effectively maintain new roads and developments. She indicated concerns
regarding metro district bonds being risky were also expressed at the previous hearing, and she
clarified the bonds are purchased by high net-worth individuals, and many times when the bonds are
issued, they are done in a minimum denomination of one-half million. She confirmed the buyers of
these bonds will be sophisticated buyers, and the bonds are typically a negotiated process regarding
the level of interest rate. She stated state statute caps the amount of debt the homeowners would be
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 8 BC0016
responsible to repay, generally 50 mills, and once the debt service reserve is exhausted, the
homeowners have no further obligations to repay bondholders.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer referenced the IGA study, and read a portion of the study into the record,
indicating job growth drives the need for housing, and she questioned how many jobs would be needed
to drive a development of 6,600 residential units. In response, Ms. Kerr indicated a primary job will
typically create between one and six secondary jobs, and this development is looking at the general
context of the Denver metro area, as it moves north, therefore, employment within the Cities of
Brighton, Thornton, Erie, and Broomfield, as well as Denver International Airport (DIA), will influence
this area. Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified the study references a trade area of five miles, which
creates the demand for a total of 325 new homes, per year, for a period of five years, within the entire
trade area. She expressed her concerns regarding the need for 6,600 residential units within the
district's service area, and that the applicant will rely on bonding for the necessary improvements.
Ms. Kerr clarified the TCVMD is currently acting as the applicant; however, it is the intention that
additional metro districts will be formed through the proposed development of the RUA, and she
confirmed the districts will rely on bonds for funding. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Kerr
explained if proposed Amendments 60 and 61 are approved within the November, 2010 election, the
plans for every local government will change significantly, and it may be necessary to re-evaluate plans
at that time. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Kerr confirmed growth will pay its
own way within the RUA, and the use of metro districts and special districts is the best way for growth
to pay its own way. Commissioner Kirkmeyer questioned how growth pays its own way when
residential property taxes have decreased, yet, the population has increased. She confirmed it does
not appear for growth to be able to pay its own way unless there are mixed uses involved within the
growth pattern. Ms. Kerr clarified it is anticipated that the assessed valuation will eventually increase in
the future, and this RUA is not in response to an immediate market demand, but is based upon longer-
term trends. She further clarified the long-term trends project a pent-up demand, especially since more
people are living within fewer homes, and more people will seek new residences once job security
stabilizes.
Commissioner Conway questioned how many vacant homes are currently within Weld County, and how
long it is expected for the current inventory to be absorbed. In response, Ms. Kerr indicated a
supplemental study was provided, and it indentifies the trade area and the number of vacant lots,
identified as lots with some improvements, or lots which are completely finished with utilities. She
clarified the study projected that 75 percent of the vacant lot inventory will be absorbed within the next
five years. She further clarified the study does not indicate a time frame for other lots without
improvements to be absorbed, since not all of the lots are created equal due to challenges regarding
transportation and access to utilities. Commissioner Conway indicated he assumes that a significantly
less amount of these types of unimproved lots will be able to be absorbed, since there is currently such
a large inventory. Commissioner Kirkmeyer reiterated the study results indicate a need of only 325 new
residences per year within this trade area, for the next five years.
Mr. Hanlon reiterated that growth does pay its own way because the concept of such was adopted by
the County; however, currently, there is no new growth. He clarified the properties which specifically
benefit from new road and infrastructure projects are responsible to contribute financial resources for
these projects so that the tax burden is not levied upon the entire population of the County. He clarified
the Denver metro area has created between 40,000 and 50,000 jobs per year, within the past 40 years,
which prompted a need for approximately 20,000 new homes per year. He further clarified the current
economic situation is not congruent with the historical trend; however, the supply of 6,600 units within
the next thirty years will require approximately 18,000 to 20,000 jobs within the influence area. He
confirmed most of the buyers of these properties will seek employment within the surrounding area. He
clarified the study conducted by Metro Study indicated a need for 325 new homes each year, and he
clarified the study does take into consideration currently platted lots, and finished lots within
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 9 BC0016
developments; however, the study does not project in which areas the absorption will happen.
Mr. Hanlon confirmed there have been new residences starting the process within the existing TCVMD,
and there was a period of three years where no lots were sold. He clarified, within the entire Denver
metro area, there were a total of 18,500 unfinished lots at the end of 2009, which sounds like a lot;
however, the current absorption rates indicate this inventory is only a 3.5 year supply, and back in the
year 2006, it would have been considered a one-year supply. Mr. Hanlon clarified the TCVMD is
seeking to complete long-range planning, and it is apparent that growth is coming north, therefore, the
opportunities for growth need to be planned in advance. He stated Weld County should be involved in
the decision of where growth will occur, instead of delegating to the surrounding municipalities.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated it is her recollection that there are three areas within the existing
TCVMD which have completed the platting process within Adams County, and she questioned how
many open lots are available within the entire district. In response, Mr. Hanlon confirmed there are a
total of 360 lots which have completed the platting process within one phase, and a total of 180 lots
have been constructed. He further confirmed another phase is platted for 32 lots, and the third phase
has not completed the final platting process. He stated, within the Eagle Shadow subdivision,
approximately 60 lots have been finished, but not built. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Mr. Hanlon confirmed if Amendments 60 and 61 are approved within the November election, the District
will seek private financing to provide the necessary infrastructure, which has previously been done by
the district. He clarified the project may not be able to be as large as expected and may have to be
completed in more phases, and the price of the home may rise because the costs associated with the
infrastructure will need to be paid up front. He stated the vacancy rate for apartments is the lowest rate
it has been in a long time within the Denver metro area because people are not able to secure the
appropriate financing to purchase a home; however, there is certainly a demand for homes. He
confirmed financing opportunities may change within the near future, and infrastructure has been
provided through private financing for many years.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon confirmed the Todd Creek Village and Todd Creek
Farms Metropolitan Districts are the same district, and the name was changed from Todd Creek Farms
to Todd Creek Village. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon confirmed the
district is a revenue district, containing a director's parcel and a service area. He clarified the director's
parcel is two acres in size, and the Board of Directors are elected from this parcel, and the intent of the
parcel is so that the district may retain a perpetual Board. He further clarified road and bridge districts
are created for a specific purpose, to build infrastructure, and these types of districts may have a bond
which is paid off, and there is no further need to continue the district. He indicated the developer is one
of the initial Directors on the Board, and within four years of the first resident moving into the district,
control of the district will be passed on. He further indicated this district is an enterprise district,
therefore, it is formed with a director's parcel and a service area, and only the property owners of the
director's parcel may serve on the Board of Directors. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr.
Hanlon clarified there are currently five Board members, each owning 20 percent of the director's
parcel, and there is currently one at-large, one homeowner, and three people who represent
development within that area. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Hanlon clarified the director's
parcel will not expand in the future, and during the early stages of the existing district, the parcel was
primarily controlled by the original founder and the people who worked for him. He confirmed the intent
is to now reach outside of the development community for additional people to be on the Board.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon clarified the service area boundary was not
extended into Weld County until approximately 1.5 years after the IGA with the City of Fort Lupton was
approved. He further clarified referral letters were provided to surrounding municipalities and the
proper posting was provided before the service boundaries were expanded; however, individual notices
were not provided to property owners. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon
confirmed the district is bound by the rules and regulations, and the office building within the district
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 10 BC0016
does have a commercial tap and pays for water service. Commissioner Kirkmeyer indicated
Regulation 3.3 states that a property owner must file a formal application to be included within the
service area, and she questioned why property owners were not required to do so to be included within
the service area for this RUA. In response, Mr. Hanlon clarified if a property is located within the
service area, an application must be submitted if the property desires service; however, the property
owners within the service area are not required to obtain service. He explained if an application is
submitted, and the proper rules and regulations are met, then service will be provided to the property.
He clarified the City of Fort Lupton is the most logical option for the handling of the sewer service, due
to the ability to provide sewer to most locations without a lift station, which is the desirable method. He
explained the district has the ability to provide water into Weld County; however, a property owner does
have the ability to obtain water in their desired fashion. He further explained this service area was
created to indicate that water service is intended to be provided if a property owner makes a request for
water service. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon reiterated if a property owner lives
inside of the limits of the service area, and desires to be included, an application must be filed, and it
will be evaluated by the district. He clarified it might be possible that the district informs a property
owner that the service may not be able to be provided since the proper infrastructure has not yet been
completed. Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified the County informed the district that it could not make
application on behalf of other property owners without their consent, and she questioned how many
property owners indicated they would like to be included within the RUA. In response, Mr. Hanlon
clarified there were four other property owners who desired to be included. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
explained the sewer boundaries do not go north of County Road 6, and the IGA boundaries do not go
north of County Road 6, therefore, the IGA does not allow for the provision of sewer in any area north
of County Road 6. Mr. Hanlon explained the boundaries did change before the approval, and the City
of Fort Lupton is working to update the IGA to comply with the 208 boundaries. He stated the City of
Northglenn had expanded into an area within the IGA, and he was not aware the City had a 208 service
boundary, therefore, the boundary of the service area and the City of Fort Lupton's 208 service area
were amended to confirm to Northglenn's boundary. Commissioner Kirkmeyer expressed her concern
regarding the IGA not being amended prior to the submittal of the RUA application. In response,
Mr. Hanlon confirmed it has not been a major issue, since both the 208 service boundary and service
area have already been adopted, and the minor adjustment just needs to be referenced within the IGA.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Hanlon explained Weld County was originally a member
of the initial draft of the IGA with the City of Fort Lupton; however, the County decided it did not need to
be a recognized party within the IGA. He confirmed the removal of Weld County from the IGA is one of
the modifications which will be implemented through the amendment to the IGA, and he clarified the
IGA amendment has been drafted and is being reviewed by the City of Fort Lupton. Responding to
Chair Rademacher, Mr. Hanlon clarified the district provides non-potable water, and the entire area of
the existing TCVMD is irrigated with non-potable water. He confirmed the same plan exists for the
expansion into Weld County, and the ditch shares will be utilized for the non-potable water.
Commissioner Garcia expressed his concerns regarding the water quality issues with the Big Dry
Creek, and he questioned what the RUA will do to improve the situation. In response, Mr. Hanlon
confirmed a non-profit is currently focusing on this area, and as the development occurs, the
stormwater will be detained on the site, and will not contribute to the problems associated with the Big
Dry Creek caused by agricultural uses. He stated the overall water quality will improve, especially with
the removal of agricultural components flowing into the creek. Chair Rademacher issued a short
recess of the matter.
Upon reconvening, Stan Everitt, Weld County resident, indicated he was the Chairman of the
committee who reviewed the latest Comprehensive Plan update within the past year. He clarified there
was a large amount of discussion regarding the proposed RUA process within the Committee's
deliberations, and it is his opinion that this application to the Comprehensive Plan is exactly what the
committee intended. He confirmed the development is intended to have a 30-year buildout, and within
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 11 BC0016
the next 30 years, the economic conditions will be changing. He further confirmed new legislation may
also be approved; however, the land use being contemplated will not be undermined, and the
development will be required to adapt. He indicated this application fulfills the intent of the RUA
process. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Everitt indicated the Comprehensive Plan does
contain goals which suggest urban densities should be directed towards municipalities, and the RUA
section affirms the intent of the development becoming a part of a municipality; however, if the property
owners within that area believe the area can be adequately served, the RUA is intended to fulfill that
need. Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified the Comprehensive Plan contains a section referring to IGA's,
which shall refer urban-scale development to municipalities.
Richard McLean, Mayor, City of Brighton, read a portion of a Resolution into the record, indicating the
City of Brighton is opposed to the RUA request because it is not appropriate for the County. He stated
the City of Brighton desires for an IGA to be created to protect the City's interests, and the current IGA
with the City of Fort Lupton ends at County Road 6. He indicated the City of Brighton's preference is
for less density and the City has not been able to pass a school bond in District 27-J for the past six
years. In response to Commissioner Conway, Mayor McLean confirmed the City of Brighton has been
in discussions with the applicant regarding an IGA, and there is another meeting scheduled for
tomorrow. He further confirmed the satisfactory completion of an IGA will address the concerns of the
City of Brighton.
In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mary Falconburg, City of Brighton, confirmed the RUA area is
located within the Comprehensive Plan area for the City of Brighton; however, it is not currently shown
for urban level development. He clarified it is designated as a future reserve area, which could
potentially be added to the City of Brighton, and it is shown as an influence area. Further responding to
Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Falconburg confirmed an IGA was completed with the TCVMD when
development occurred within Adams County, and it was completed once the district was established.
He explained it was not realistic for the City of Brighton to be able to purchase the land associated with
the existing district, and the parties came to the conclusion that a lower density would provide an
adequate buffer. He confirmed it is the desire of the City to not let the Cities of Brighton and Thornton
become indistinguishable, therefore, the development will create one acre lots as a buffer. In response
to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Falconburg agreed the proposed RUA area is a slow-growing area of
growth because it is a rural area, and he confirmed there are higher growth rates within other areas.
Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mayor McLean indicated growth does now seem to
pay its own way with the implementation of TIF's and PIF's. Responding to Commissioner Garcia,
Mayor McLean confirmed the City of Brighton is not able to provide services to this proposed area. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Mayor McLean indicated the City of Brighton has formed a
preservation of agriculture committee, and the desire is to identify and attempt to preserve agricultural
areas around the City. He explained the property owner does have to the right to do with their land as
they please, therefore, if a property owner wants to dedicate some of their property as an agricultural
conservancy, the City is in favor of that process. He clarified the City of Brighton is committed to
purchasing land to dedicate as a conservancy area, and the City does not desire to be a part of the
overall urban sprawl.
Brian Zehnder, Arvada resident, stated his family owns approximately 500 acres within close proximity
to the proposed RUA, between County Roads 17 and 23, north of County Road 6. He expressed his
concerns regarding the expansion of the County Road 6 forcing a portion of his property to be
condemned, and the crossing of a new sewer line across his property. He confirmed the family will
most likely sell the property to some type of development in the future unless they are able to obtain a
conservation easement. He further expressed his concerns regarding the potential for various
developers within the area producing a conflict of interest, and it appears to him that the applicant is
requesting the approval to move forward with a "city" without the safeguards of a city which are created
through an election process. He indicated the narrow control of the Board of Directors of the district is
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 12 BC0016
concerning, and he does not believe any recourse will be available if he does not agree with the
findings of the Board of Directors. He clarified the problems may be able to be worked out at some
point in the future; however, the Board of Commissioners needs to give great scrutiny to this
application. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Zehnder confirmed he was not asked if he
would like to be included within the service area; however, he was asked if he would like to be included
within the RUA, and he declined.
Hazel Frank, surrounding property owner, indicated she lives approximately one mile west of the
proposed boundary of the RUA, and she submitted a petition of opposition signed by nine surrounding
property owners, marked Exhibit T, who were not able to be in attendance at today's hearing. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Ms. Frank confirmed the surrounding property owners are in
general proximity to the proposed RUA boundaries. She expressed her opposition to the RUA, and
confirmed the area is rural in nature, therefore, this is not the right entity to proceed with urban
development. She confirmed she understands the applicant desires to plan for the future; however, this
area is not ready for development. She explained all of the surrounding municipalities have plans for
development within the surrounding area, and those plans will continue to expand over time. She
confirmed she prefers for a municipality to complete annexations within the surrounding area so that
the proper amenities will be developed and brought to the area. Ms. Frank explained the existing
TCVMD in Adams County currently has several completed residences; however, there is no
commercial development within the district. She confirmed she understands the district is not yet
completely built out; however, it appears it will be a long time before any commercial development is
included. She indicated the houses essentially sit out in the open with no nearby services, and all of
the property owners are required to drive long distances to work and to shop. She expressed her
concerns regarding the need for more educators in the surrounding area; however, with pricey
developments, educators will not be able to afford to live in the areas where they work. She confirmed
it is her hope that Vestas will be able to offer employment to many residents who are not currently
employed; however, the pay scale for employees is not conducive to owning expensive homes. She
cautioned if the Board approves the proposed RUA, an established water district will essentially be
operating a municipality without elected officials, which greatly concerns her. She stated property
owners have the right to sell their land or do with it as they see fit; however, a group of properties
should not be allowed to be monopolized by a district.
Thomas Castaneda, surrounding property owner, expressed his concerns regarding the educators
within the City of Fort Lupton, since they are the lowest paid educators within the State of Colorado. He
indicated the school district has problems with high turnover, and the school district will not be able to
pay wages large enough for employees to purchase expensive homes. He stated the Fort Lupton City
Council is easily influenced by big business, and he expressed his concerns regarding an existing
mobile home park experiencing water and sewer problems. He indicated he does not believe this
proposed development will be able to pay its own way. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Mr. Castaneda confirmed he was not asked to be included within the service plan or the RUA
boundary, and he confirmed his property is located within Wattenburg. He further expressed his
concerns regarding the applicant confirming they are not a developer; however, he believes the
applicant will be strong-arming his neighbors for their water rights in the very near future.
Sharlene Krantz, surrounding property owner, submitted a petition signed by 36 property owners who
oppose the proposed RUA, marked Exhibit U, and confirmed she previously submitted an email of
concern, marked Exhibit H. She confirmed her residence and property are within the service
boundaries, and she has never been asked to be included within the RUA, and her opinion was never
obtained by the applicant. She indicated she has lived within the area for over 33 years, and she loves
being able to live within an agricultural area. She explained she chose to live outside of the city limits
for a reason, and she does not desire to have neighbors living in close proximity to her residence. She
expressed her concerns regarding her future property rights if this RUA is approved, as well as
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 13 BC0016
concerns regarding the future water supply in the area. She stated her property is serviced by a well
and a septic system, and she has concerns that she will be forced to connect to expensive sewer or
water service if it becomes available within 400 feet of her property. She confirmed she has choices on
her property right now; however, if she is forced to connect, she will have no control over the fees which
will be charged for her service. Ms. Krantz indicated she attended the Planning Commission hearing,
at which time the Planning Department made the recommendation to vote against the proposed RUA,
and it was mentioned that the Colorado Division of Water Resources indicated it was unknown whether
an adequate water supply could be provided for the proposed RUA. She further expressed her
concerns regarding the potential for increased taxes, the proposed population growth of up to 20,000
people, and the increase of traffic. She clarified the intersection of County Road 6 and U.S. Highway
85 is already very hard to navigate, and it will only get worse with the addition of more vehicles. She
explained a portion of the proposed RUA is located within the Brighton school district, and she
expressed her concerns regarding the addition of over 490 students to the district. She reiterated the
school district has not been able to pass a bond in several years, many of the schools have had to lay
off employees, and there will not be any available bond money to build the required new schools. She
expressed her concerns regarding the extra burden to transport students into other schools, especially
since several schools are already over capacity. She indicated she feels like she has been
misrepresented and misled by the applicant, and she plans to attend every meeting on this proposed
RUA to express her opposition. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Krantz confirmed she
has attended several meetings; however she has never been asked to be included within the service
boundaries. She further confirmed her property is 4.2 acres in size.
Anthony Espinosa, Wattenburg resident, submitted a petition for the record, marked Exhibit V, and
confirmed a majority of the residents of Wattenburg are opposed to the proposed RUA. He expressed
his concerns regarding the lack of revenues within the County and within the State, and the financial
situations for the Fort Lupton and Brighton school districts. He stated the applicant has been talking
about expanding the schools and the roads, as necessary; however, he does not understand where the
funds will come from. He confirmed he is opposed to the massive amount of future development of the
area, and after the area is built out, the development will have to continue to provide maintenance,
which could include a large list of fees. He expressed his concerns regarding the authority of the
district, the amount of debt to be amassed by the district, and the fad that the profit within the area will
then be privatized. He indicated the Sheriff's Office already experiences significantly delayed response
times within this portion of the County, and building a city out in the middle of nowhere will make the
problems worse. Mr. Espinosa indicated there are many empty buildings within municipalities where
businesses used to be located, and he has serious doubts that the applicant will be able to effectively
develop the area. He stated the RUA will create an entity of taxation without representation, and the
people living within the district will not have any say over who serves on the Board of Directors or over
what costs will be charged to provide services. He indicated the district charges a large amount of
money for a water tap, over $2,500.00, which does not include any of the other necessary costs. He
confirmed he does not believe this proposed development will provide any benefits to the taxpayers.
Chair Rademacher issued a recess for the purposes of a lunch break.
Upon reconvening, Larry Johnson, surrounding property owner, stated he has been an area resident for
over 49 years and he is opposed to the approval of the RUA. He expressed his concerns regarding the
proposed library and fire hall sites, especially on behalf of the owner of the property where the
proposed library will be located. He clarified he is an architectural engineer, and upon reviewing the
application materials, it appears that the plans are still wide open, and there are no safeguards of
control for the area residents or for the County. He further clarified the applicant is requesting to have
an exclusive right to do whatever is wished, and that should not be available. Mr. Johnson confirmed
most of the schools within the area are in financial trouble, and the public funds for schools are not
available right now. He further confirmed homeowners in the area stand to lose a portion of their
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 14 BC0016
property, in addition to experiencing diminished property values. He stated the existing TCVMD, south
of County Road 2, is a beautiful area with infrastructure in place; however, it is currently being utilized
as a place to dump trash, hold beer parties, and compete in drag racing. He clarified the development
has pretty much been abandoned, and he does not believe the right amount of serious contemplation
has been given to the specifics of this proposed RUA. He confirmed if he brought the same quality of
documentation to the big corporations he works with as a consultant, as was brought to the County
through this application, he would be laughed out of the building. Mr. Johnson questioned why the
applicant has not provided any competitive bidding figures, as he believes there are other entities which
may be interested in developing this area, and he further questioned why there are not any
performance contract stipulations in place. He confirmed the applicant needs to tie up the loose ends,
and have a full project plan in place. He indicated he is opposed to the RUA, as a surrounding property
owner, and because he does not want his property to be utilized as a future fire station site. He
confirmed the application presents too many unknowns for the Board to approve, and he clarified he
has never been asked to be included within the proposed RUA. He explained he learned of previous
meetings held by the applicant through conversation with another property owner, and Mr. Hanlon told
him at the meeting that he was not previously able to find him. He clarified he is not opposed to the
future development of the surrounding area; however, he believes the development needs to be well-
controlled, and if the development is not presented on a logical basis, the results will not be desirable.
He submitted signed petitions, marked Exhibit W, and reiterated the Board should not allow TCVMD to
drag their losses from Adams County into Weld County. He confirmed there is no reason a separate
district could be created, and the entire RUA application is not business-wise or professional.
William Grant, surrounding property owner, clarified he was not recruited by Commissioner Kirkmeyer
to speak today, as was previously mentioned by Mr. Hanlon, and confirmed he is here to speak today
because he has serious concerns regarding the lack of planning for this RUA. He stated the consultant
reviewed information which has been provided at previous meetings, and he believes it would be better
to hear the Weld County Sheriff and school district officials themselves, regarding the impact of future
revenues. He indicated he is surprised the application has gotten this far along in the process, because
based upon the information he has reviewed, it appears that an overwhelming majority of Weld County
residents are in opposition. Mr. Grant expressed his concerns regarding the proposed method of
development and indicated it makes more sense for a municipality to acquire the land and slowly
develop the overall area, as the need arises. He confirmed it will be necessary for this area to be
developed within the future, and the Board should wait for the municipalities already located within the
surrounding area to develop the area in a more organized fashion. He indicated he does not intend to
move away from his property, and he expressed his concerns regarding being forced to correspond
with some obscure Board of Directors for the district. He indicated he assumes the Board of Directors
will not reside in Weld County, and will not have the best interests of Weld County at heart; however,
the people already living within the area are the ones who have the best understanding. Mr. Grant
indicated he does not appreciate that the district is minimalizing what it is all about, and is claiming to
be a simple water district. He clarified he knows water districts have an incredible amount of power and
influence, and tends to force property owners into paying fees for services, which is not a fair practice.
He requested that the Board of Commissioners force Mr. Hanlon to present hard facts, and not
speculation, especially concerning the amount of well water to be utilized within this proposed RUA. He
clarified the charge for the water service will not be known in advance by the property owners, and he
understands the City of Fort Lupton cannot currently support additional customers, so he is left
wondering who will foot the bill for the additional residents. He confirmed the district needs to have a
solid plan in place, with a list of the associated costs, so that property owners can decide if a new tap is
feasible or not, and he submitted a petition of opposition, marked Exhibit X.
Bill Wycoff, surrounding property owner, stated he has lived in the area since 1982, and he submitted a
petition of opposition, which was added to Exhibit X. He indicated that one of the notions presented by
the applicant is that the TCVMD is the only interest for development shown in this area, which is untrue,
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 15 BC0016
and he clarified, as a property owner, he continually receives mail and offers from other developers. He
indicated the water district may have a water source they intend to rely on; however, the water supplies
to provide buildout with the surrounding area will still have to be purchased, which does not make the
district significantly different from any other developer. He clarified, historically, there have been no
water resources piped into this area; however, there has recently been a pipe installed near the
intersection of County Roads 17 and 8 by Central Weld County Water District, as well as a water main
on County Road 13, near County Road 2. He further confirmed the City of Thornton has also recently
installed additional water lines, and there are many other water resources on the peripheral of this
proposed RUA area. He explained there have been recent plans to construct a water tower, and the
associated property has been set aside, therefore, the area is not being ignored by developers. He
indicated the exclusive arrangement and entitlement proposed by this RUA will raise the cost of service
for the property owners within the area, including a ten percent fee which must be collected from other
developers, before the development even begins. Mr. Wycoff explained the costs for the infrastructure
will be included with the costs to service the debt load, and if left alone, this area will eventually evolve
on its own. He stated the creation of the RUA will eliminate the necessary flexibility, and the financial
information of the TCVMD is not positive, including major operating losses in audit years 2006 and
2007. He submitted a disc of the financial audits of the TCVMD, marked Exhibit Y, and confirmed the
operating profit and costs of the district show that the district is solidly successful at creating yearly
losses since its organization in the year 1996. He explained the audits for years 2008 and 2009 are
delinquent, and have not been completed yet, therefore, the current status of the district is virtually
unknown. He confirmed that Weld County is being asked to buy into a development venture, without
the proper information, which is a risky request. He stated the total debt of the district grew to $30.7
million in the year 2006, and has grown even larger since that time. He clarified the property owners
within the proposed RUA will be the ones who are ultimately responsible for the massive amount of
debt, and moving forward with a RUA within Weld County is not the magic answer to turn around the
operations of the district. He indicated he believes the TCVMD intends to carry on its same business
practices within Weld County, and he would prefer for Adams County to keep the district's problems so
that it does not become the responsibility of Weld County residents. Responding to Commissioner
Conway, Mr. Wycoff confirmed development within the area is most likely inevitable; however, the
studies provided by the municipalities in the surrounding area indicate the best use of the area is the
development of large rural lots, to act as a buffer zone between the various communities, while still
providing adequate access to roads in the area. He further confirmed the development of infrastructure
has been tough in recent years; however, it is beginning to slowly grow again, and is consistent with the
population already living within the area. In response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Wycoff indicated
he believes development will begin to occur within the area within the next ten to fifteen years,
especially since there have been water sources already developed on the outskirts of this area, which
have only happened within the past five years. He clarified this RUA area is not primed for high density
development, and a plan for a lower density will promote the use of septic fields, while still allowing
water service to be provided, if requested.
Jonathan Kanon, surrounding property owner, expressed his opposition to the proposed RUA, due to
the lack of necessary planning, and he explained it appears the applicant has modified the alignment of
the boundaries and the area roads on several different occasions. He further explained it does not
appear that there is any access on County Road 21, which will create serious problems for residents
within the area if emergency services are needed. He confirmed he has never been contacted by the
TCVMD about any of the planned meetings, nor has he ever received a letter regarding being a part of
the RUA area. He further confirmed he visited the office of TCVMD, and left his name and number for
a contact to be made, and he has never received a call. Mr. Kanon stated he owns fifteen acres, and
he prefers for the area to remain as it currently is. He confirmed the district's development ideas are
very haphazard, and the current development in Adams County is essentially a lot of pavement and
power boxes, and not much else. He explained the TCVMD should be required to demonstrate a
successful completed development within Adams County before they are allowed to develop additional
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 16 BC0016
land within Weld County. He expressed his concern regarding the increase of property taxes, and
confirmed he has been involved with an RUA in the past where all of the property owners were
responsible to split the attorney fees of a legal matter caused by one property owner. He confirmed he
is opposed to the approval of the RUA because of the potential increased fees and costs, and because
the property owners will not have any control over the Board of Directors since there will be no election
of officers. He further expressed his concern regarding the alignment of the roads within the area and
the fact that the district does not have concrete plans for the future development of this area.
Florinda Mireles, surrounding property owner, expressed her concerns regarding the potential for the
widening of roads within the area, and she confirmed she was not informed of this RUA process by the
applicant. Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified it is not known what is proposed for the widening of roads.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Ms. Mireles confirmed she was not asked to be included
within the RUA boundaries.
Tommy Herrera, Wattenburg resident, explained the trains which currently travel through the area
already cause huge traffic concerns, since traffic becomes backed up on the County roads, waiting for
the trains to unload and continue to pass through. He confirmed there are several gravel pits within the
area, which create a large amount of traffic, and the plans for this RUA will add a significant amount of
traffic to the area. He explained property owners will be required to provide evidence of an adequate
water supply before a residence may be built, otherwise, the banks will not lend any money.
Katee Kirkmeyer, Weld County resident, submitted a petition of opposition from people owning more
than 500 acres within the area, and she confirmed she was not recruited to come speak at today's
hearing. She stated her grandparents are relatives of the Howards, and her entire family is opposed to
this potential development. She explained the entire area is agricultural in nature, and a large
subdivision of residences will not be compatible with the area. She questioned why the applicant has
not provided any photographs of the proposed residences or development, and she clarified the
residences will be surrounded by crops, since Weld County is a Right-to-Farm county. She indicated
the proposed development will not create any new jobs; however, it will take away jobs from the
agricultural industry and the many people who work in agricultural production. She expressed her
desire for property owners to be able to sell their acreages, as they see fit. She further expressed
concern regarding the IGA with the City of Fort Lupton, especially since it is not finalized, and the
district is already wanting to make additional amendments to the document. She confirmed the RUA
does not have an adequate master plan, and the district is trying to make too many amendments to
what plans they do already have so that the project many remain open-ended. She clarified the
property owners will have to answer to a Board of Directors in the future, there will not be a master plan
for this community, and this proposed development leaves too many open ends to be approved.
Judy Marcus-Cavendar stated she represents her parents, who are surrounding property owners, and
she confirmed the objections have been well presented. She explained the Right-to-Farm Statement is
a key element of her objection, and the property owners within the area should not be expected to
change their agricultural practices to accommodate the intrusion of urban uses into rural areas. She
expressed her concern regarding the metro district actually being larger in size that what is displayed
on the RUA map, and she questioned how much land is under the district's control.
Tom Holton, Mayor, City of Fort Lupton, confirmed he supports the proposed RUA. He clarified this
request is only for a modification of the Comprehensive Plan, and it does not mean that houses will be
built in this area immediately. He clarified he was a member of the committee which reviewed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan, and against the wishes of several municipalities, the
committee intentionally left the language regarding the RUA process within the Weld County Code, in
order to protect private property rights. He clarified that he personally is in favor of the RUA, and most
of the members of the City Council believe the idea is premature; however, the City has agreed to be
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 17 BC0016
the sewer provider as the plans for development move forward. He confirmed the proposed RUA will
provide a chance to build the necessary infrastructure to the southwest portion of the 208 boundary,
and the provision of sewer service will actually increase the value of the properties located along
County Road 23. He indicated the development of this RUA is a positive for the surrounding area, and
it will create more opportunities for other types of development in the future. In response to Chair
Rademacher, Mayor Holton indicated the committee which reviewed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan included representatives from the municipalities of Mead, Milliken, Greeley, and
Fort Lupton. He clarified he lives on a farm and now has 135 houses in his backyard, and he does not
understand why everyone at this meeting is trying to predict the housing market. He clarified the
applicant will not continue forward with the development of the RUA if the market indicates it is not
needed. Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mayor Holton clarified he is representing himself as
an individual property owner, and as an Elected Official of the City of Fort Lupton; however, he does not
represent the City Council, who has not taken a position of support regarding this matter. He further
confirmed an IGA is in place with the City of Brighton, which indicates no annexations will occur south
of County Road 6, this area was within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) area, as defined by the City
of Fort Lupton, and the IGA with the City of Brighton was enacted in response to the Vestas
development. Commissioner Kirkmeyer confirmed the record contains a letter of concern from the City
Council, and it does not appear that the Council has taken any further action regarding the RUA. In
response to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mayor Holton confirmed the capacity of the sewer plant is
currently being upgraded concurrently with the upgrade of the water treatment plant. He clarified the
necessary capacity exists within the IGA, and if that does not remain true within the future, the TCVMD
will help fund the necessary expansion. He explained the current capacity is for the treatment of 3.5
million gallons on a daily basis, the town currently treats about 2.5 million gallons on a daily basis, and
the population of the City is approximately 8,000. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Mayor Holton confirmed the capacity will have to be expanded, when necessary, and the City of
Brighton has confirmed they do not desire for the development to be done in conjunction with their City.
Responding to Commissioner Garcia, Mayor Holton confirmed the City of Fort Lupton does not have
the ability to provide the necessary sewer services to the Dry Creek RUA without the district's help. In
response to Commissioner Conway, Mayor Holton explained an engineering study will clarify all of the
necessary improvements, including improvements to the water treatment plant, and he confirmed the
City currently has an excess capacity of one million gallons per day. Responding to Commissioner
Kirkmeyer, Mayor Holton confirmed if this RUA is approved, the capacity will be required to be
expanded, and the study completed for the pipeline on County Road 27 was included within the master
infrastructure plan for the City.
Mr. Kanon stated he was previously assured that this RUA would not include any zoning changes, and
he believes any property owners within 30 feet must agree to any construction which is proposed to
take place, which creates another concern for him.
John Howard, surrounding property owner, confirmed he is one of the property owners within the
proposed RUA boundaries, and he supports approval of the RUA. He indicated he has been involved
with the Mountain View Water District, of which several of his neighbors own taps to draw water out, as
a Director and maintenance person for approximately 38 years, and as the President for approximately
18 years. He confirmed he receives a large amount of cooperation from the TVCMD, including help
with necessary repairs on parallel lines and the Secretary has been very helpful to provide information
regarding rate structures and billing information. He clarified the two districts share a hilltop for tanks,
and also share maintenance of the access road. He confirmed TCVMD has always treated him well, as
well as all of the members of the district, and in the rare chance of water failure, the TCVMD will be the
first entity he will request assistance from. Mr. Howard stated the Howard family purchased this land in
1953, and the first two years on the land was total crop failure, due to drought conditions. He confirmed
the property has been through condemnation proceedings, and after being told by the Judge that the
property would be lowly compensated as farm ground, the family began to look for other ways to earn
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 18 BC0016
money from the property. He confirmed he has dealt with various developers interested in the land,
and the proposed development through this RUA is the family's way of trying to obtain a fair price for
the land. He confirmed the family has owned the property for a long time and deserves the proper
financial reward for being good tenants of the land. He expressed his support for the RUA, since it is
the proper way to plan for future development.
Ron Richardson indicated he is a Realtor who has been hired by the Howard family, and he confirmed
he previously worked on a development named Vista Ridge several years ago as a Broker. He clarified
during that development process, there were many groups who spoke against the proposed
development, and the planned golf community previously considered by the City of Broomfield was
abandoned once the Vista Ridge development commenced. He explained the developers desired to
remain with the City of Erie, and the development was brought to completion, even though many
people were against it, and it became a wonderful master planned community. Mr. Richardson
indicated the growth in this area of Weld County will eventually come, and this RUA gives Weld County
the chance to master plan the coming development of the area. He confirmed Weld County will be able
to retain control of this RUA, which will be a master planned community not controlled by a municipality.
Responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer, Mr. Richardson confirmed the Vista Ridge development was
completed within the boundaries for the City of Erie, and the southwest portion of Weld County
currently has one of the highest foreclosure rates within the State; however, the Vista Ridge
development has not been significantly affected. Further responding to Commissioner Kirkmeyer,
Mr. Richardson confirmed the Vista Ridge development was started by three developers who created a
metro district together; however, by the time the development was completed, there were only two
developers.
Jim Johnson indicated he is one of the property owners included within the RUA boundaries, and he
supports approval of the Dry Creek RUA. He clarified he believes the affected property owners are
doing exactly what the County has requested by creating a long-range plan, and following the process
set forth by the County. He explained it is hard to be a property owner who supports the RUA and not
take the comments provided by all of the other surrounding property owners personally. He indicated
many of the people in opposition have talked about the trampling of their property rights; however, the
development of his property is his right as well. In response to Chair Rademacher, Mr. Johnson
confirmed he is a part owner of the property with the Howard family, and he used to be involved in the
physical farming of the property; however, he is now retired.
Gary Howard, property owner with the proposed RUA boundaries, confirmed he remembers there
being hardly any traffic in the surrounding area when he was a child; however, the traffic in the area has
increased greatly in recent years. He indicated there used to be a large amount of vacant land in the
area, and his family never once complained when people began moving into the area. He confirmed he
has enjoyed his neighbors, and he is not sure why his neighbors do not understand that he is simply
trying to better himself and his property situation. He indicated he has never been notified by any
municipality as to how the development of his property should be handled, and he believes in personal
property rights, with each owner being able to do as they please, within reason. Commissioner
Kirkmeyer clarified the IGA between the City of Fort Lupton and Weld County does not specify any
specific properties, including Mr. Howard's; however, the IGA between the TCVMD and the City of Fort
Lupton does contain specifics regarding his property. Mr. Howard confirmed he was notified of the
proposed RUA; however, he was not notified of the plans of the City of Dacono regarding the
amendments to its Comprehensive Plan.
Carol Howard, property owner within the proposed RUA boundary, confirmed she supports approval of
the RUA. She explained she graduated from Fort Lupton High School and has lived in the area since
her marriage to Dave Howard in 1945. She confirmed her husband passed away three years ago, and
her sons have carried on with the farming of the property; however, they are approaching retirement
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 19 BC0016
age. She confirmed her grandsons may continue farming the property unless the nearby municipalities
purchase all of the available water rights. She confirmed she has previously had discussion regarding
selling individual portions of the property, with the new property owners obtaining their own well permits
and septic systems; however, she believes this proposed RUA will be a big boost for this area. She
clarified Weld County is agricultural in nature; however, housing and other development is fast
approaching, and it is evident that the County needs to have a plan in place of what is expected in the
future.
Marla Howard, property owner within the RUA, concurred with the statements provided previously by
her mother, and she reiterated everyone knows that development is coming to this area. She explained
instead of having many large lots, each with their own individual septic systems and wells, it makes
more sense for everyone if there is a planned community. She indicated she understands the concerns
of the surrounding property owners who do not want more traffic and houses; however, the planned
community is better than spontaneous and uncontrolled growth.
Caroline Kirkmeyer, Weld County resident, stated most of the people who are involved with this
proposed project did not grow up in the surrounding area. She confirmed it is her desire to have a
family, in the future, and live on the same farmland she grew up on, and she prefers for her home to be
surrounded by the farmland of Weld County, not a large amount of houses. She indicated the people
who will purchase the homes in this development will not care about agriculture, which is important to
the people who grew up in the area. She confirmed it is hard to imagine a large amount of houses
within the area, and it makes her sad. There being no further testimony, the Chair closed the public
input portion.
Mr. Hanlon clarified Mayor McLean made a previous statement that the City of Fort Lupton was not
intending to provide infrastructure support to this area, which is part of the reason that the district took
the initiative. He further clarified he discussed the possibility of annexation with the City of Brighton,
and the City indicated it was not interested in annexing this area. He confirmed he continually met with
City officials, and the district has learned to act as a good neighbor; however, he is not sure all the
concerns regarding the IGA can be satisfied. He explained the RUA application involves eight property
owners, who are the petitioners of the application, and he does not have the power to negotiate the
terms of the IGA; however, he is hoping to work through the issues and find some middle ground. He
stated there still seems to be a lot of confusion regarding metropolitan districts, and the use of general
obligation districts which will pay the debt back through the issuance of a mill levy. He confirmed
metropolitan districts have strict rules and regulations which must be complied with, and the TCVMD
treats these very seriously and ensures that all laws and guidelines are followed. He further confirmed
the TCVMD does have posted rates and schedules for any individual within the service area, and the
price of a water tap is the same for all interested parties. He clarified the district constantly re-evaluates
the rate structure and tap structure. Mr. Hanlon explained Ms. Frank mistakenly made a comment that
the RUA will be run by the TCVMD; however, the intent of the district is to provide water. He clarified
Ms. Frank lives within the expanded growth boundary area for the City of Thornton, which will
eventually become urban in nature, since the City has let it be known that it intends to eventually
develop into Weld County. He explained Ms. Krantz indicated she was not previously contacted;
however, she was contacted on four occasions, and an appointment was scheduled, which she later
cancelled. He clarified the district is aware of her position of opposition, and he has known from the
beginning that Ms. Krantz would not want to be a part of the RUA. He further clarified he has held
several conversations with Mr. Johnson and he has also met with Mr. Grenemeyer.
Kristen Bear, Attorney, represented the TCVMD, and in response to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Bear
clarified metropolitan districts may continue to operate in perpetuity, depending on how the district is
organized and the service plan of the district. She indicated the service plan, in addition to providing
financial authorization, indicates whether the district is intended to be a perpetually operational district
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 20 BC0016
to operate and maintain improvements. Further responding to Chair Rademacher, Ms. Bear confirmed
it is possible for a Homeowners' Association (HOA) to absorb the duties once a metropolitan district
dissolves; however, districts are governmental entities which have statutory requirements and an
elected Board of Directors, with specified elections, while an HOA is a private corporate entity with
different reporting requirements.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer clarified most of the people who provided testimony today are not her
recruits, as alleged by Mr. Hanlon; rather, they are her neighbors, and discussion concerning this
matter has been on-going for quite some time. She indicated many of the property owners have
clarified that they have not been asked to be included within the boundaries of the RUA. She stated the
IGA form requires a municipality to demonstrate the necessary plant capacity to serve all areas with
water and sanitary sewer services; however, it appears this service district is not being held to the
same standard. She further stated there has been a large amount of discussion regarding proper
notice, and she understands the notices provided met the intent of the statute; however, there was not
any extensive public notice or outreach. She confirmed many of the people today were not present
during the first reading of the Ordinance because they did not know it was happening. She explained
she has read through every piece of information provided by the TCVMD, on behalf of all the
applicants, and the executive summary contained rationale which indicated the RUA will be located
within one of Denver's fastest growing corridors; however, within the IGA growth study submitted, page
17 indicates that this portion of the study area grows slower than the rest of the region. She clarified
this proposed RUA is not within the path of growth, and sewage plants have been installed on the west
side of the service area, and another plant will be constructed on the other side of the river; however,
the TCVMD is planning to be served by the plant in Fort Lupton, which is north of State Highway 52.
She indicated the applicant has not provided an adequately master-planned community, since they
have not adequately given thought to transportation issues, sewer and water systems, drainage, law
enforcement, and other public services necessary. She further indicated the district has indicated they
have agreements in place to provide the needed water and sewer services; however, nothing has been
provided that proves that an adequate supply of water even exists, and the wastewater services will be
provided through an IGA with the City of Fort Lupton, which has not been amended in over two years,
even though the need for amendment presented itself within one year of being approved. She clarified
the current IGA does not demonstrate the ability to provide sewer service north of County Road 6, and
the capacity necessary for this proposed project is not currently available.
Commissioner Kirkmeyer confirmed she was requested to attend a community meeting held in
Wattenburg, and at that meeting, Mr. Hanlon confirmed that only one-third of the necessary water
supply for this proposed RUA has been obtained. She indicated the record contains a letter from the
New Brantner Extension Ditch Company, indicating there is no agreement in place for public access to
the prescriptive easement, and the ditch company believes this will impede their ability to operate and
maintain the ditch. She further indicated the letter also states that area ditches have been significantly
impacted by storm flow runoff within the past few years, which limits the ability of the company to
maintain the integrity of the ditch, and the RUA has not demonstrated any planning in this regard. She
indicated the Sheriff suggested the creation of an LEA; however, he does not currently have the
resources necessary to provide services to this area. She explained the Beebe Draw Metropolitan
District, which has been in existence since 1986, collects approximately $30,000.00 per year from LEA
funds, which does not even come close to covering the necessary services provided by law
enforcement officers. She further explained Don Warden, Director of Budget and Management
Analysis, previously gave a financial analysis, and he understands the financial impacts of these types
of districts. She reiterated some of Mr. Warden's previous comments for the record, indicating the
TCVMD does not understand the issue of sales tax, and due to the lack of assessed value, the district
will have difficulty obtaining bond financing. She clarified the finances are simply not there, especially
since the existing portion of the district is already in debt by over $30 million. Commissioner Kirkmeyer
clarified Mr. Warden put together a TIF analysis, which demonstrated that it costs the County $3.00 for
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 21 BC0016
every $2.00 paid by residential property owners. She explained residential development does not pay
its own way, this proposed RUA is very large in nature and does not contain any mixed uses, and the
existing development within Adams County does not contain any commercial uses or assessed value.
She confirmed the assessed valuation for residential property has declined for the past five years, and
the study provided by the applicant is based upon figures from years previous to 2007. She explained
Weld County is currently at an unemployment rate of ten percent, the assessed value for residential
property dropped approximately 20 percent, and will drop another 15 percent. She confirmed
residential growth does not pay its own way, and actually puts a burden on all of the property owners
paying taxes within the County. Commissioner Kirkmeyer reiterated this is not the fastest growing area,
as previously mentioned, and the development of this area is really more than 30 years away. She
confirmed none of the surrounding municipalities included this area within their UGB areas because this
area is essentially in a hole since it is not logical or practical to develop this area. She stated the
County should not lock into a RUA which has not been properly planned and cannot provide all of the
necessary services. She explained the tax base will not be increased by this proposed development,
especially since there is not commercial uses associated with the project. She clarified the Beebe
Draw development was able to secure oil and gas development, which is the only reason funds are
derived from this district on a yearly basis. She confirmed within the next ten or twenty years, the Big
Dry Creek will not be better protected, as alleged, and the district has not demonstrated that it is
committed to a good working relationship with the property owners and municipalities. She further
confirmed an IGA with the City of Brighton does not exist, and the IGA with the City of Fort Lupton is
flawed, especially since the IGA states that the obligations will not be effective until the district enters
into an IGA with the County and the owners of the properties within the growth area secure vested
development rights. She explained the agreement also states that TCVMD will be developed in
substantial conformity with the density set forth within the IGA, which is 14,000 units and one million
square feet of commercial; however, the proposal is for 6,600 units, and 187,000 square feet of
commercial uses.
(Esther Gesick now the attending Clerk.)
Commissioner Kirkmeyer continued by stating the applicant's study indicates the development would
have to reach 50 percent buildout before any commercial or retail would commence, in
approximately 18 years. She stated the IGA indicates, "...the owners of the property within the growth
area secure vested rights.", which she stated causes concern since the growth area in the IGA is
between County Roads 2 on the south, County Road 15 on the west, County Road 6 on the north, and
the River to the east. She stated the testimony from her neighbors indicated they are not part of the
RUA, and they are not securing any further vested development rights, so essentially this IGA is
ineffective. She asserted the applicant should have been amending the IGA prior to this hearing and
they did not. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated the Mayor of the City of Fort Lupton stated as a resident
he supports the proposal; however, the City Council does not support the request. She also expressed
concern with the creation of a Metropolitan District which is comprised of five members with ownership
in a two-acre Director's Parcel, who voted for themselves and voted to expand a service area through
the IGA, which is a taking of the property rights in the area, while the property owners were not noticed
or allowed to vote. She stated the District Board disregarded its own rules, and although none of the
property owners have petitioned for inclusion, they are now subject to 149 pages of rules. She stated,
essentially, this Director's Board is similar to a private company that is operating under the guise of a
Title 32 Metropolitan District and the five members have the power of eminent domain and get to set
the rates at what they want, above and beyond the Fort Lupton fees. She expressed concern for those
who have not sold to Todd Creek because she believes their property values are decreased because
future developers will not want to go to Todd Creek as a competing developer who is able to set rates.
She stated this is actually a major subdivision that does not meet all of the Goals of the Comprehensive
Plan and it is in the wrong place at the wrong time. She stated the applicant did not bring all of the
parties in, rather, they dictated what would happen to those who did decide to participate. She stated
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 22 BC0016
the idea of progress is being defined by others who do not live in the County and they are encouraging
debt in Weld County. Commissioner Kirkmeyer stated she is opposed to the proposal for the reasons
previously cited, in summary, the applicant has not demonstrated a need, the proposal will not create
jobs, there are thousands of homes still available in Weld County and the surrounding area, and the
request does not meet the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Garcia thanked all who are in attendance for providing informative presentations, and
good ideas, thoughts, and questions. He acknowledged the comments made by Stan Everett, who
served on the Comprehensive Plan TAC Committee, and participated in all of their spirited discussions
concerning property rights, etcetera. He stated the City of Brighton has indicated it cannot provide
services to the site at this time, although they have a plan for that part of the County as open space.
Commissioner Garcia indicated the topic of a Directors Board, versus property owners making
decisions concerning development in the area needs to be discussed further, and he stated it is
important to remember this process is just discussing the conceptual plan and generalities. He
expressed concern with hearing detailed testimony concerning potential future development, such as
issues regarding water and sewer, when the RUA process is intended to be conceptual. He stated the
goal is to develop a plan for the future, rather than being left with haphazard development with minimal
communication. He further stated although there has been debate over whether this is the right place
or not, the owners have submitted an application and map indicating future growth is inevitable, yet the
existing surrounding entities are unable to serve at this time. Commissioner Garcia stated he is still
willing to hear more discussion; however, he would support a continuance to allow Commissioner Long,
who was called out to attend a family emergency, to review the audio and paper evidence received
today and make a final decision on Second Reading at a future date.
Commissioner Conway thanked all in attendance for their testimony and for participating in this
process. He stated the Board is able to acquire more information at each reading; this meeting was
significantly different from the first reading because more members of the public were made aware of
the proceedings scheduled to take place; and Commissioner Kirkmeyer has raised a lot of legitimate
issues. He also indicated he had a good conversation with Bob Sakata, who is a key member of the
agricultural community in Weld County and the state, who called last night to express his opposition
and concern over water issues related to this proposal. Commissioner Conway stated he highly
respects Mr. Sakata's knowledge of water issues, and although he is not opposed to development, he
still had legitimate concerns. Commissioner Conway indicated he also received a number of e-mails
and phone messages from individual neighbors and property owners in the area that also brought up
legitimate concerns. He referred to the "Our Town" presentation hosted by Bill Jerke, who was
Commissioner at the time, and stated those in attendances were given the opportunity to review where
Weld County is anticipated to be in 2035. He stated growth is inevitable in this area; the Cities of
Brighton and Fort Lupton have both indicated they are unable to service the area today; and there is a
recognized corridor and anticipated growth between Interstate 25 and U.S. Highway 85 which needs to
be accommodated. Commissioner Conway stated he will vote in favor of this Ordinance on Second
Reading, because this is an important matter that deserves all five votes of the Board. He stated
Commissioner Long is dealing with a family situation and he respects that; however, he wants his
involvement. He stated he does have some very serious questions about the proposal and he intends
to go back and review the points made by Commissioner Kirkmeyer. Commissioner Conway referred
to the petitions containing more than 125 signatures of property owners residing in and around the
subject area that are concerned with, or opposed to, the proposal, and he takes that very seriously. He
further stated if this matter goes to a Third Reading, he will want more answers because this is an
important matter and the entire process should be completed. He stated he will vote to approve this
Ordinance on Second Reading; however, that does not commit him to an affirmative vote at the next
reading.
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 23 BC0016
Chair Rademacher stated he resides in the Southwest Weld (1-25) Mixed Use Development (MUD)
Area, which is now an RUA, and he commented that growth is often unexpected and rapid, and years
ago he would have been skeptical that his property would be developed. He stated the Comprehensive
Plan TAC Committee held many discussions and the RUA is a recognized process in the
Comprehensive Plan; however, private property rights is a knife that cuts both ways since many want to
develop their land and then are opposed to others doing the same in their area. He stated if this
proposal fails, many of the property owners in the area will be forced to consider the option of selling
their water rights to supplement their income and retirement, which will substantially reduce property
values in the area. Chair Rademacher stated the applicant has the ability to address the Planning
Commission's concerns and there are still some concerns that may yet be resolved before the Third
Reading. He commented he believes this is the right time to consider this part of the process, rather
than waiting until development is at its highest and rushing to take advantage. He stated the City of
Greeley is the only self contained municipality in Weld County; the remaining municipalities rely on
extra amenities and special districts for their services. He further stated it does not appear that this
proposal will impact mineral interests, and the RUA he lives in has only served to escalate property
values since development was proposed. Chair Rademacher stated he farms in the center of three
municipalities and his operations are protected by Weld County's Right to Farm Statement. He also
concurred this is an important issue; it is only the third RUA in the County; and it needs a full and
thorough review.
Commissioner Garcia moved to approve the second reading of Ordinance #2010-1. Seconded by
Commissioner Conway, the motion carried unanimously. Upon a call for the vote, the motion carried
three to one, with Commissioner Kirkmeyer opposed.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
Consent Agenda. Ordinance #2010-1 was approved on second reading.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted
by the Acting Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY COLORADO
ATTEST: :`;%.`: '�`
Dou s Radema her, Ch i
Weld County Clerk to t B..` ' =�
r IcL
166
D
ar irk 9.29y -Tem
t�--
BY: ,./ o . � � ha.� ,�
Deputy Clerk to the Bo Sean
/QP. a
Wiliam F. Garcia
EXCUSED
David E. Long
Minutes, August 4, 2010 2010-1778
Page 24 BC0016
Hello