HomeMy WebLinkAbout20091564.tiff1
1
2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
3 COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
4
5
6
7 TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
8
9
10
11 IN RE: CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN OF BEEBE DRAW FARMS
12 METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1 AND BEEBE DRAW FARMS
13 METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 2
14
15
16
17 PURSUANT TO NOTICE to all parties in interest, the
18 above -entitled matter came for public hearing before the Weld
19 County Board of County Commissioners on July 21, 1999, at 915
20 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, before Esther Gesick, Deputy
21 Clerk to the Board and Notary Public within and for the State of
22 Colorado, and TRANSCRIBED by Esther Gesick.
23
24
25
26 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the attached transcript is a
27 complete and accurate account of the above -mentioned public
28 hearing as recorded on Tapes #99-25 and #99-26.
29
30 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
31 WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
32 33 C4n
34 6:27elia ZI7 •-41,
35 Esther E. Gesick
36 Deputy Clerk to the Board
37
2009-1564
OcinVAA.u3 to In.:,7:J
7 -t5 -0(i
5AoaCI
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2
3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
4
5 Dale K. Hall, Chairman
6 Barbara J. Kirkmeyer, Pro-Tem
7 George E. Baxter, Commissioner
8 M. J. Geile, Commissioner
9 Glenn Vaad, Commissioner
10
11 WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
12
13 Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney
14
15 APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY:
16
17 Paul Cockrell, Collins and Cockrel, P.C.
18
19 ALSO PRESENT:
20
21 Julie Chester, Planning Department representative
22 Don Carroll, Public Works representative
23 Don Warden, Director of Finance and Administration
24 Esther Gesick, Acting Clerk to the Board
25
26
3
1 PROCEEDINGS
2
3 CHAIR HALL: Next item is, uh, considering Consolidated
4 Service Plan for Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1
5 and No. 2. Mr. Morrison?
6 LEE MORRISON: Mr. Chairman, this is Docket #99-44.
7 This is the application for consideration of Service Plan
8 Metropolitan District No. 1 and No. 2 for Beebe Draw Farms.
9 This is pursuant to the statutory process, which is set forth in
10 Title 32. The - I won't read the exhibit, which is the legal,
11 which is extensive Under the statute, the Board is
12 authorized, in addition to considering whether or not to grant
13 the approval of the Service Plans, to consider requests of any
14 property owners who have been included within the Metropolitan
15 District and are seeking exclusion. You're required to consider
16 that if there is a noticed published ten days before, or uh,
17 notice is given to you in writing ten days before, then you have
18 discretion to consider if it's a shorter time frame. There have
19 been no formal written requests; there is one property owner
20 where there was some [inaudible] required from the Assessor, um,
21 where notice was given, and it appears that they were improperly
22 included in the notice list, and I believe the applicant will
23 address that. There is, in addition for your review, a draft
24 Resolution for approval, and it does contain the necessary
25 findings, should you concur with the Planning Commission's
26 recommendation for approval. Notice of this was published in
4
1 accordance with the statute, July 30th - - June 30th, July 7th,
2 and July 14th, in the Fort Lupton Press.
3 CHAIR HALL: Ok. Julie, do you have any comments?
4
JULIE CHESTER: Actually, Planning staff -- Julie
5 Chester, Department of Planning Services. We only just wanted
6 to reiterate that Planning Commission did approve, unanimously,
7 the Metro District. Um, there wasn't any public comment at the
8 Planning Commission, other than from the applicant, and we also
9 are recommending approval.
10
11
12
CHAIR HALL: Any other comments from staff?
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I guess just some questions.
CHAIR HALL: Questions for staff.
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So the Metro District No. 2
14 is just organizing right now?
15 LEE MORRISON: That's right. There's currently an
16 existing Beebe Draw Metropolitan District. They are organizing
17 a second district, and it's a tiered approach. I think the
18 applicant can, can go into it, but for -- there's essentially
19 going to be an Operating District and a Financing District. The
20 Operating District will remain under the control of the
21 developers, and will downsize. The Financing District will
22 remain, um, the boundaries will remain the full extent of the
23 development throughout this process. That is one way that is
24 being proposed to ensure that the financing capacity of the
25 District is applied toward the public improvements that are
5
1 pledged in the zoning PUD process, and not that the financing
2 powers will be directed in another way that wasn't approved by
3 the Board of County Commissioners in your land use process.
4 Just to remind the Board, um, there was a zone change in 1985, I
5 believe, and there has been a First Filing, and that -- work is
6 underway on that. There is a Second Filing that is in Sketch
7 Plan phase for the majority of the rest of the development.
8
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And um, so do we have
9 evidence that the District will have the financial ability to
10 discharge the imposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis?
11 LEE MORRISON: Well, I think --
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Are we going to get that?
13
LEE MORRISON: You're going to get that. I believe
14 that staff has also reviewed it and, uh, has made comments on
15 that, including Mr. Warden, on some of those issues. But, I
16 think the applicant has the burden of presenting information to
17 show that, among the other listed items, can be satisfied.
18
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And, my last question --
19 District No. 2, it's the same boundaries as the original
20 District No. 1? Have they expanded the boundaries?
21
LEE MORRISON: No, they haven't expanded. They
22 actually will be smaller, so that the Financing District is the
23 same boundary as the original District. The Operating District
24 will actually get smaller in size as the area is platted and
6
1 sold. But, in terms of those property owners who are subject
2 to, uh, taxation or assessments, that hasn't changed.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And if they wish to expand
4 the boundaries, they don't have to come back before this Board?
5 They can just expand their boundaries, or do they have to go to
6 a vote or anything of that nature?
7 LEE MORRISON: They have to give us notice, and given
8 that this development -- I mean this District is tied to this
9 development. The Special District law has been amended to
10 require that if they're expanding boundaries, that they give
11 notice to effected entities, including the County. The County
12 can then raise issues and ask -- request that the Service Plan
13 actually be amended to reflect that.
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: So, but they wouldn't have to
15 go to a vote of the people that they're trying to expand into
16 the boundary?
17
LEE MORRISON: They still have to go through the
18 statutory process to do an inclusion. So, they can't just add
19 property without -- without following statutory process to do
20 that. It's similar to annexation.
21
CHAIR HALL: Would the applicant come to the
22 microphone please? State your name and address for the record,
23 and any comments.
24 PAUL COCKREL: Thank you Mr. Chairman, Commissioners.
25 My name is Paul Cockrel. I'm with the law firm of Collins and
7
I Cockrel, and I'm the attorney for the District. Let me begin,
2 if I may, by introducing three people who we have here to answer
3 any questions, uh, that come up. Jim Fell, who is the Chairman
4 of the Board of Directors of the existing District; Aaron
5 Thompson, who is our consulting engineer with Mile Stone
6 Engineering; and my able assistant, Mikki Wadhams, who is a
7 paralegal and assisted in providing notices and writing the
8 Service Plan. Um, by way of just some housekeeping, the County
9 Attorney has advised you that all the publication required by
l0 statute have occurred. We also have a certification to
11 introduce into the record, indicating that proper notices were
12 mailed in accordance with the statutory requirements of the
13 various governmental entities and property owners within the
14 District. Um, I'm going to hand that to your secretary, if I
15 may ask her to include that in the record. I would note that,
16 um, all of these proceedings are controlled by statute, and I'm
17 not sure how familiar you are with the organizational
18 proceedings for Special Districts. But, I think you know that
19 before we can organize the District, or before we can amend the
20 Service Plan of an existing District, we have to come to you and
21 get your approval. And, there is a procedure to accomplish
22 that, which involves notice, uh, both publication and direct
23 notice to affected property owners, and then this hearing. Uh,
24 there's also a further step, which is a court proceeding, and
25 basically many elements of this proceeding are kind of retraced
8
1 there. And that all culminates then, in the entry of an order
2 by the District Court, filing these various orders and papers
3 with the State Auditor's Office, the Division of Local
4 Government, and then the District is created. Um, part of the
5 procedure is to send out notices to those people who are listed
6 by the County Assessor as being property owners within the
7 District. In our case, there was one error in the Assessor's
8 information. We actually get a print out of property owners
9 from your County Assessor and the property, um, for -- let me
10 see, I have it here somewhere -- for a Mrs. Evans, I believe is
11 the name of the property owner, was included on that list, and
12 in accordance with statutory requirements, Jane Evans Cornelius
13 is the name of the property owner, in accordance with the
14 statute, we provided notice. In fact, that property is not
15 included in the District boundaries. That has been confirmed
16 with the County Assessor's Office; we have a letter here; I'd
17 like to introduce that into the record, and we have advised the
18 property owner that received this notice that she, indeed, is
19 not included within District boundaries.
20 Ok, having said that, if I may, I'd like to spend
21 about, hopefully, five minutes with you explaining what we're
22 doing here and answering any questions you might have. The
23 purpose, as you know, -- Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District
24 is an existing District. It was approved by the County
25 Commissioners in 1986, and it, basically, was created to
9
I provide, uh, various services to that development. The
2 development that is just east of Platteville, um, the map is
3 attached to the Service Plan, which you all have, and I think if
4 you would refer to Exhibit B, or Exhibit A - Figure 2, you can
5 see the boundary of the District there. There are other maps in
6 the file, and there are legal descriptions, and I believe there
7 is a vicinity map.
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Sure, it's right, um, before
9 Exhibit B in your, uh, plan.
10 PAUL COCKREL: Thank you. Yah, it's just before
11 Exhibit B, and that shows the relation of the District
12 boundaries to the County, uh, just south of County Road 38,
13 north of County Road 32, and just east of County Road 39. Um,
14 the District provides roads, water, recreation services, and a
15 few related services - mosquito control, etcetera, to the
16 residents -- the proposed residents of the District. The
17 District Boundary map shows the original boundary configuration
18 of the District and includes the perimeter boundaries of the
19 District. Now, we are -- we are now restructuring the District
20 for two primary reasons. The first reason is because the
21 existing Service Plan, uh, is outdated and does not adequately
22 address the present development and construction schedules for
23 the District. So, we are moving forward to update that, uh, to
24 make it more realistic and more current with the current
25 construction activity. And secondly, we are organizing the
to
1 second district, which I'll describe to you, and the second
2 district is being implemented so that we can assure that all of
3 the various facilities to be provided by the District can be
4 built out over time, in accordance with our Financial Plan. And
5 I will explain that, because the Financial Plan differs
6 materially from the original plan, and we believe is much better
7 and much safer, and uh, must more conservative than the original
8 Financial Plan for the District. Now, just so -- if you think
9 like I do, it helps me to look at something graphically. And,
10 if you look at this map, you'll see the District boundaries are
11 on the perimeter here, and then the boundaries of District No.
12 1, the original District which will be the taxing district, will
13 have a uniform mill levy over the entire area. District No. 2
14 will essentially be the development property -- property that
15 hasn't been opened up for sale through property owners. And, it
16 is the area, uh, it is all of the District, except the cross -
17 hatched area, and that is the development area. Now, as the
18 development occurs, and the properties are sold off, those areas
19 will be excluded from District No. 2, so essentially end up with
20 one District at the very end of this process. And, District No.
21 2 will be dissolved, and/or consolidated with District No. 1,
22 and then there will be only one district. In this fashion, the
23 development then will be responsible for the installation of
24 facilities within the development area, and can be assured that
25 those facilities are provided, and you can be assured that those
11
I facilities are constructed as the development occurs. That's
2 kinda how -- how the areas, or the two districts are configured,
3 and the purpose for the two districts. Again, um, the level of
4 service is not increased, the services are essentially
5 identical. Um, the boundaries are not expanded, in fact,
6 District boundaries cannot be unilaterally expanded by the
7 District. The District can't reach out and grab territory.
8 That can only happen if property owners include, by petition,
9 their property into the District, and then you have to go
10 through a public hearing process that the County Attorney has
11 described to you with notice and all those things. So, there is
12 no ability to just unilaterally expand and grab properties; that
13 would not occur.
14
I would like to tell you why this is a better plan
15 than the original plan, because I think that's what's material
16 in making the statutory findings, and why this is a better
17 approach to developing this district than the original approach.
18 And, if we look at both the Capital Plan, under the 1986 Service
19 Plan, and the Financing Plan here, I think that you will see
20 that. In fact, if you turn to Exhibit B, you will see a list of
21 the various facilities that the District will be constructed
22 over time. And you can see here that we're projecting total
23 capital expenses of about twenty million dollars for buildout of
24 the development. The original Capital Plan, and admittedly, its
25 ten years old, was estimated to be about ten million dollars,
12
I so, essentially about fifty percent of that. And, of that ten
2 million dollars, almost two million dollars was included --
3 included land acquisition from developers for various
4 facilities. All of that has been eliminated. All of those
5 facilities now are dedicated, without charge, to the District by
6 the developer. Further, um, the -- there was no provision in
7 the original Service Plan for the acquisition of water supply.
8 Water is not free, as you well know; water is expensive. We
9 have added four million dollars for water acquisition, uh, in
10 this Service Plan much more realistic in that respect. The
11 cost of roads and the water systems have all increased. The
12 cost of roads are now about eight and a half million dollars,
13 originally projected at three point three million dollars. Same
14 with the water system; we now show an estimated expense of four
15 million dollars; the original distribution system was estimated
16 to cost about one and a half million dollars. There, uh, --
17 this served the capital facilities that are provided here really
18 do emphasize compatibility with the land, multi -uses of the
19 land, and the aquatic resources that are available. The
20 original Service Plan kind of emphasized an equestrian center.
21 Although that's still is incorporated into the various services
22 that will be provided by the District, it's really minimized --
23 emphasis is given on more diverse type of uses. The primary
24 difference, if you were to examine the two Service Plans,
25 between construction phases, is simply that there were three
13
1 slugs of infrastructure development under the old plan, and
2 that's not realistic. You can't do that these days, and -- in
3 development activity, because you put too much money, you borrow
4 too money and put too much money into the ground and you've
5 capitalized all of these facilities. In fact, districts did
6 that, um, some districts did that in the mid eighty's and there
7 were problems. We have restructured that, so that they -- we
8 can basically fund, um, and build the infrastructure as the
9 market demands it. As we build out the development, as we open
10 new filings, then the District will be there to install
11 facilities. But, we won't go in and throw ten million dollars
12 into the ground just because the money's in the bank; it won't
13 be built that way.
14 In fact, and I'd like to get into the Financing Plan,
15 that's really the critical difference. Um, the emphasis in this
16 Financing Plan, which you will find back in Exhibit F, and it's
17 a two page document, it's basically a pro -forma which shows you
18 revenue and expenses for the various Districts. You'll see the
19 capital facilities are the same costs that we've had back on
20 Exhibit B, and then there are numerous other administrative
21 costs and operating expenses that are included in there. Um,
22 but, the emphasis is away from borrowing money and cash funding
23 the projects. And, we're cash funding it by charging the
24 developer fees, so that when homes are sold out there, the
25 developer has entered into an agreement, and the Developer Fee
14
1 Agreement is attached to the Service Plan as Exhibit E. It has
2 been recorded, and you will see that the developer is required
3 to spend -- to pay the District a fee of $15,500.00, and that
4 can be increased over time to fund these facilities. The
5 original Service Plan anticipated over twelve million dollars in
6 public debt would be incurred for this project, and essentially,
7 no more public debt is anticipated; no more long-term general
8 obligation (GO) debt. The District has about two million
9 dollars of outstanding GO debt right now, and that's all we
10 anticipate issuing. Um, there may be some short-term funding,
11 but those will be revenue -type bonds that are secured then, with
12 these developer fee collections. And, this way we don't get in
13 debt and we don't confront the possibility of economic problems.
14 If the development slows down for any reason, because of market
15 conditions, then we simply don't install the facilities for the
16 next phase of construction. Obviously, all those facilities
17 have to be installed as the plats are filed and the lots are
18 being sold in accordance with the County requirements. Um, mill
19 levies are relatively the same. What we have done in this Cost
20 Plan, or this Financing Plan, is to add an inflation factor too,
21 which was not done in the original Plan. So, we feel that this
22 is much more realistic, um, and I would like you to look at --
23 if you look at the -- about half -way down the table you will see
24 a, un, in fact, on Table page F.2, you will see a cash
25 available cumulative balance. Uh, in the final year projected,
15
1 now this is a twenty-year pro -forma of 5.8 million dollars.
2 Theoretically, if we were to build out in this fashion, that
3 means there'd be 5.8 million dollars in the bank after we met
4 all these expenses. So, we feel it's a very conservative, and a
5 reasonably safe cushion to assure that can accomplish everything
6 that we're telling you will be accomplished by the District.
7 That money is available, I mean, if the development goes as
8 anticipated in the pro -forma, then, uh, various things can
9 happen; mill levies can be reduced, uh, new facilities could be
10 built, um, and all of these things can occur over time as it
11 actually develops. But, we feel that this is a very safe and
12 conservative plan.
13 I would like to emphasis two or three other things
14 that have happened since the original Plan was presented to the
15 County Commissioners and approved over ten years ago, to show
16 that this really is a viable District and, indeed, we can meet
17 our -- the financial obligations which we're showing here. Uh,
18 the first is that we have entered into a water service agreement
19 with the Central Weld County Water District. Uh, unlike
20 initially where we simply bought, uh, basically wholesale water
21 from them, they now operate our system. It's a total service
22 arrangement; they include the billing. Essentially, the only
23 thing the Beebe Draw Metro District does is fund the cost of the
24 water distribution system; the other facilities that are needed
25 in the acquisition of the water rights. All of that is very
16
1 strictly controlled by the Water District, so we can't get out
2 in front of the development. We have to buy the water rights,
3 in advance, before the homeowner buys the property; it has to be
4 there, so there are those protections. Uh, further, we have
5 entered into -- we have included this property into the Northern
6 Colorado Water Conservancy District and municipal sub district.
7 So, that water is available, we uh, we are constantly in the
8 market to acquire, uh, CBT units when those become available so
9 that those can be reserved and set aside. In fact, when we buy
10 those, and we've already spent several hundred thousand dollars
11 on acquiring these water rights, they're immediately transferred
12 to the Water District. Um, we have also, and I think you know,
13 entered into an agreement with FRICO for recreational use on the
14 lake that is a tremendous amenity. In conjunction with that,
15 and also in conjunction with our inclusion into the Water
16 Conservancy District, we were required to go through a two-year
17 period of environmental impact studies
Uh, because, uh maybe,
18 I don't know if you're aware of this, and you've probably heard
19 about the Preble Meadow Jumping Mouse and all those things.
20 There are some wonderful resources around that lake; some
21 wonderful wildlife resources, and the inclusion process triggers
22 a federal review, because the Secretary of the Department of
23 Interior, or actually, it's the Secretary of Agriculture,
24 actually has to approve an amendment to the boundaries of the
25 Northern Water -- Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
17
1 Uh, that triggered a federal review and we had to do extensive
2 environmental studies and we actually entered into agreements
3 with the federal government, and we have wildlife corridors
4 established around the lake; we have trials; we have a number of
5 wonderful amenities which we feel will make this District
6 special and will really enhance the development as a whole. Uh,
7 finally, I would mention to you that there is a County LEA in
8 the area, uh, of the District, uh, it provides additional funds
9 to the County; it provides the services for that type of
10 development. Um, I believe that the Financial Plan is sound; we
11 have an engineer here who can answer any questions which you may
12 have regarding the engineering survey; uh, we feel that the
13 Service Plan -- that the information that you have before you
14 fully demonstrates that the District is financially feasible;
15 uh, that we can provide the services that are needed here; that
16 this is a much more efficient way of accomplishing that than the
17 original Service Plan. We would ask that you would approve the
18 Amendment of the Service Plan for the existing District, and
19 also approve the Service Plan -- the Consolidated Service Plan
20 for Beebe Draw Farms No. 2, and I'd be happy to answer your
21 questions.
22 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I had a couple, if I could, Mr.
23 Chairman. Um, has there been any bonds issued?
24 PAUL COCKREL: Yes. Uh, bonds were issued in 1998 for
25 two million dollars, and that's all we anticipate issued.
18
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I'm sorry?
2 PAUL COCKREL: That's -- those are all the long-term
3 bonds that we anticipate issuing.
4
COMMISSIONER GEILE: Ok, so that 200 percent
5 requirement, as far as when you can issue bonds has been
6 satisfied?
7 PAUL COCKREL: Yes.
8 COMMISSIONER GEILE: The other one, um, would be --
9 there's a limitation on the mill levy that you've imposed upon
10 the, um, the people [inaudible], could you kind of relate how
11 you're dealing with that?
12 PAUL COCKREL: Well, the --
13
COMMISSIONER GEILE: You can't go more than fifty
14 mills or something.
15 PAUL COCKREL: It, uh, it -- there actually is no
16 limitation on the existing bonds. Now, in terms of the --
17 COMMISSIONER GEILE: -- because they were issued --
18 PAUL COCKREL: It's because they were issued at a time
19 when we more than met the fifty percent debt to assessed
20 valuation ratio. Now, our projections are that we will never --
21 that we will not exceed forty mills. That is the current mill
22 levy of the District. If anything, our anticipation is that the
23 mill levy will decrease over time; certainly as assessed value
24 is added.
19
I COMMISSIONER GEILE: The other thing, the uh -- you're
2 going to go ahead and purchase the CTB water, if you can --
3
4
5
PAUL COCKREL: If we can.
COMMISSIONER GEILE: -- from Central Weld --
PAUL COCKREL: That's right.
6 COMMISSIONER GEILE: -- but you'll still have to pay
7 their tap fees?
8 PAUL COCKREL: Yes.
9 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Ok. Um, as far as the sewage is
10 concerned, could you kind of help me out with how that all fits
11 in?
12 PAUL COCKREL: I can, and I may ask Aaron to address
13 that. Essentially, it's all evaportransporation septic systems.
14 There is no central sewage.
15 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Is it there now?
16
PAUL COCKREL: Septic systems are there now;
17 individual septic systems that meet County Health Department
18 requirements.
19 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Part of this won't be to create
20 your own waste water treatment system?
21
22
23
24
PAUL COCKREL: No. No, uh, Aaron --
COMMISSIONER GEILE: -- I just wanted to make sure.
AARON THOMPSON: No, that's correct.
CHAIR HALL: You need to come to the microphone if
25 you're going to say something. We're taping this, so.
20
1
2
3
AARON THOMPSON: Oh, which one?
CHAIR HALL: There's a microphone up here, or there.
COMMISSIONER GEILE: Along that line, if maybe I could
4 with this question on septic systems that have all been approved
5 by the Health Department, again, what is the number that we're
6 talking about?
7 CHAIR HALL: Give me your name and --
8 AARON THOMPSON: Aaron Thompson, Milestone
9 Engineering, uh, the total number of lots for the full built out
10 development is 724, and uh, we've met the County Health
11 Department requirements as far as the population density, um, on
12 the project that, uh, the Health Department will accept for
13 individual septic systems. And, this option was a much
14 preferred option for the County Health Department, as opposed to
15 a micro -treatment plant or some other sewage treatment facility.
16 COMMISSIONER GEILE: So the total number would be 724.
17 Let's see, the project would subdivide approximately 3,500 acres
18 into 724 units.
19 AARON THOMPSON: That's correct.
20 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Excuse me -- that's [inaudible].
21 That answers my question.
22 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Just for my information, there's
23 some septic systems out there now?
24 AARON THOMPSON: Um, that's correct. Um, Phase One --
25 or, Filing One, excuse me the terminology gets kinda
21
1 confusion, but. Filing One of the project is 188 homes. Of
2 that, currently Phase One is being constructed, uh, which is
3 thirty -some lots. I'm not sure exactly how many of those lots
4 have been, probably in the neighborhood of ten to twelve, have
5 currently been, uh, developed and are being built right now.
6
COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Are you familiar with whether
7 these -- the soil conditions require engineered systems or
8 whether they can put conventional systems in.
9 AARON THOMPSON: Uh, no. I believe they're putting
10 conventional systems in; the soils are quite nice for these
fl types of systems.
12 CHAIR HALL: Glenn?
l3 COMMISSIONER VAAD: I now there are 3,500 acres, and
14 the number of units, but what's the smallest lot that would be
15 out there?
16
AARON THOMPSON: Um, just under two acres; they're
17 quite sizable.
18 COMMISSIONER VAAD: And then, um, does this -- does
19 the Beebe Draw area fall under -- is it the Northern Colorado
20 Water Quality loop that you're on?
21 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: I think it goes out there. I
22 mean, yah, that's the Northern Colorado.
23 COMMISSIONER VAAD: What's the specific name of the
24 group? I'm sorry; I thought maybe you could --
22
1
2 what --
3
4
COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Uh, the 208 one; I don't know
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: The 208 Water Quality Board.
COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Well, they got a longer --
5 another name, but that --
6 COMMISSIONER VAAD: And so, Paul do you know if this
7 has been reviewed by that group?
8 PAUL COCKREL: Uh, Commissioner I do not know that.
9 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: May I ask a question? If
10 they're on septic systems, does it need to be reviewed by the
11 group?
12 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: It's in the area.
13 LEE MORRISON: It is within -- if it's in Weld County;
14 it's in the 208 planning area, as I understand it, for Larimer
15 and Weld County. Um, Mr. Fell, from the audience, is indicating
16 that -- he's indicating that the planning file has a letter.
17 I'm not familiar with it, but, generally, they look at
18 facilities, as opposed to septic systems, um, in terms of their
19 review process. But, yes, they would be covered within the 208
20 Plan. I don't know that the 208 Plan would address individual
21 septic systems.
22
PAUL COCKREL: That has been my experience, that
23 unless you have waste water treatment facilities, they don't
24 review, uh, individual system applications, but I can't tell you
25 that they have specifically reviewed this development proposal.
23
1
3
JIM FELL: {From the audience} They have reviewed this
development --
CHAIR HALL: Mr. Fell, we need to get you on the
4 record, if we could.
5
6 District.
7
PAUL COCKREL: Jim Fell is the Chairman for the
JIM FELL: Getting old. My name is Jim Fell, and I am
8 the president of the District, and I work as a consultant to the
9 developer. The Planning Department has sent out, for our Filing
10 2, has sent out notice to all of the interested different
11 departments, and the water department has replied as to the
12 suitability of the septic system, and it was a satisfactory
13 reply. In fact, I don't remember, there was -- we are required
14 to do some further drilling of property, as a result of one of
15 the departments; we're going to have to drill fifty more sites
16 in Filing 2 to determine water -- I mean determine the
17 suitability of all uses of the soil in this development. And
18 that, we're in the process of doing Horizon out of, I believe,
19 uh, LaSalle is doing that.
20 COMMISSIONER VAAD: If I may continue? Um, I, having
21 attended one of those meetings, I know that even though they
22 deal with, um, sewer systems, that one of their goals or mission
23 is to slow down the proliferation of septic systems. Um, just
24 information, then, as I understand, that the only general
25 obligation bonds are the two million dollars in bonds that you
24
I have. And, the financing beyond this will be another type of
2 bond indebtedness and not a general obligation.
3 PAUL COCKREL: We'll anticipate, Commissioner, that it
4 will be a short-term financing issuing revenue bonds until they
5 can be repaid from developer fees. Either that, or the
6 developer fees will be paid in advance and have a simply cash
7 funds project.
8
COMMISSIONER VAAD: Ok. Then the next question, I
9 guess, calls for a little bit more of a subjective answer.
10 Having read in the papers, some of the incidents out there
11 recently, and in reading in the summary here, that the first
12 house was projected to be finished in August, I think it said.
13 Was that the one that was burned?
l4 PAUL COCKREL: That's correct.
15 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Ok. And then, in the paper account
16 also, it talked about messages tagged on buildings. Can you
17 comment a little bit about that?
18
PAUL COCKREL: I can't, because I'm not personally
19 there, but I think Jim can if you'd like to ask him.
20 JIM FELL: The same house that was torched -- that was
21 burned, had a message on it that said, "Go back to Denver"
22 scrawled on the bricks with a piece of drywall, as near as it
23 can be determined. There had been some other vandalism that
24 occurred, um, we haven't had any since the fire. We have a
25 guard system now, since the fire. We had a misunderstanding, in
25
I that we had an agreement with the Sheriff's Department, and I
2 misunderstood what it meant, or I would have had a guard system
3 earlier. And, so, nobody's blaming anybody for anything, but,
4 uh, we do have a guard system; it's out of Fort Collins. The
5 name of it is Flemming Guard System, and they are there from
6 8:30 at night, until 5:30 in the morning. One of the guards
7 that's going to be assigned to it is a policeman in Platteville,
8 and another one is a fireman out of one of the other communities
9 around there.
10 COMMISSIONER VAAD: And my reason for even bringing
11 that up wasn't a specific concern on that, and I'm, as you
12 probably know, new on the Board, but uh, having read some of
13 what happened in Douglas County and the Castle Rock area general
14 obligation bonds that couldn't be supported by the people moving
15 in. I'm satisfied that we're not getting into that, because
16 there are no more general obligation bonds.
17 JIM FELL: If you'd like to hear the result of that
18 fire, I'll tell you real quickly. The house was sold to some
19 people before it was burned. They were to vacate on the 31st of
20 July and move in to a new house on the 28th of July, and so, we
21 were very concerned about their situation,
since they were in
22 that position. And we -- uh, our marketing man and the builder
23 contacted them, and they came back out to the site about two
24 days after the fire and told our marketing man they wanted to
25 sign another contract to rebuild the house on the same site;
26
1 moving it slightly, so that they had a little position they
2 thought would be a better view, and to have the same builder
3 build it, and to make the house just slightly larger, and they
4 made arrangements to rent a place [Switched to Tape #99-26.] --
5 are not as concerned, you know, as it might be. The
6 neighborhood has responded very strongly in their being upset
7 about this fire, so, we feel we have more support, even from the
8 neighborhood now. So people are living out there, there will be
9 some vandalism, we assume, cause there always is at any
10 construction site.
11 PAUL COCKREL: If I may Commissioner. Your perception
12 of this as a safer plan is correct, because the Douglas County
13 situation has resulted in bankruptcy of heavy general obligation
14 financing; unlimited taxes that could be applied to the
15 property, very few homes developed, and then massive amount debt
16 service. And, we've restructured so that that does not happen
17 here, and this is why this is a much sounder plan. If you look
18 at the total debt to debt savings that serve as savings between
19 the two, is over fourteen million dollars. Um, I'm not saying
20 that we couldn't have achieved the original plan, but certainly,
21 if that amount of money has been borrowed for that project at
22 that point in time there would have been problems - there's no
23 question.
24
COMMISSIONER GEILE: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if
25 this question should be for our Attorney or for the applicants.
27
1 When this District was created in August of 1986, um, you know a
2 lot of things have happened to the surrounding area. One of
3 them is a large dairy has been, uh, is in the process of being
4 constructed immediately to the south of, uh, your project.
5 Maybe this is just a question. What kind of -- I would assume
6 that back then we didn't have the Right to Farm documentation
7 included within the plat, um, but the fact of it is, if that's
8 not, I would hope that something could be done to ensure that as
9 people buy these properties, they have knowledge of this large
10 dairy as its constructed south of the project, as well as other
11 agriculture entities in the area which will cause things like
12 small, which will cause things like spraying, will cause other
13 things related to agriculture.
14
JIM FELL: Our guard measured the distance, because
15 our guard is also serving -- our guard service is servicing the
16 dairy for guard service in the evening, as well as us. I mean,
17 they're two different contracts, but the same guard service is
18 working both. It's four and a half miles from our place, and
19 um, I met with the gentleman who's building the dairy, and um,
20 he assured me that as far as their habit -- their procedure that
21 they have -- they have dairy cattle now, and they're procedures
22 of handling the waste material and other things that create
23 odors would be -- are superior to many other dairies. Now, I
24 don't know that much about dairies, but that was his position.
25 The -- everybody is informed of the fact that they're moving
28
1 into the country; into the rural area, and there is a law
2 protecting farms from law suits against odors and noise and the
3 various things that people used to bring actions for. Uh, there
4 are two other dairies between Platteville and our place that
5 have been established for a long time. Now, so they will also
6 have the possibility of odors, but everybody is informed both of
7 the law and of the fact that dairies are there. Of course they
8 can't get to our place if they come in from Platteville without
9 seeing two bid dairies.
10
LEE MORRISON: And that information, as far as the
11 Right to Farm Covenant, will undoubtedly be included in the
12 Second Filing, which is still at the Sketch Plan phase, so uh,
13 this proceeding today really doesn't address the land use
14 issues, but those remain to be addressed for the majority of the
15 area.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Thank you. So the, um,
17 original filing; how many home sites or residential sites are in
18 the original filing?
19 JIM FELL: Eight hundred.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Eight hundred?
21 JIM FELL: They were approved by the -- in the PUD for
22 eight hundred. As we started to plat the property, uh, we
23 couldn't find eight hundred desirable lots, and that's why it's
24 reduced to 724, or 725.
29
1
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok, I have a couple of
2 questions. First, in the Draft Resolution, under Section 2,
3 letter B. You used the word "inadequate", or whoever drafted
4 this Resolution used words "inadequate for present and projected
5 needs". And in the Planning Commission minutes they don't use
6 the word "inadequate", they use the word "adequate". Is
7 "inadequate" the correct wording for the Resolution?
8
LEE MORRISON: Yes. They need to show that the
9 existing services are not adequate or "inadequate".
10 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok. Cause in the Resolution
it to the Board of County Commissioners from the Planning
12 Commission, under two, "Be it recommended favorably to the Board
13 for the following reasons." Number two says that the existing
14 service is adequate for present and projected needs.
15
LEE MORRISON: That would be an error.
16 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok.
17 LEE MORRISON: And that was not the finding they made
18 at -- Mr. Cockrel recited the statutory requirements, and that
19 was not what they were asked to find, and that's not what they
20 found.
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Perhaps we should, um,
22 correct those -- that Resolution then, or something. I don't
23 know if it's needed, or not, but just wanted to make sure we had
24 the correct wording. Um, I understand about how to expand the
25 boundaries; give notice - property owners have to wish to be in
30
1 it, just like annexations. I'm vaguely aware of the Special
2 District law, but there really isn't any provision of the Board
3 to deny any expansion of the boundaries.
4
LEE MORRISON: Well, Mr. Cockrel can comment. My
5 understanding of that is that, um, expansion of a district does
6 not, per se, require an amendment to the Service Plan, but the
7 notice has to be given and a time runs during which parties can
8 raise that issue. Uh, and so, the Board could have the
9 opportunity to request an amendment to the Service Plan during
10 that time frame, if they expand outside these projected
11 boundaries.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And, just if I could follow
13 up on that before you answer, Mr. Cockrel. Um, by requesting an
14 amendment to the Service Plan, could we request that they
15 demonstrate financial, um, that they're financially feasible
16 before the expansion occurs; that they have to demonstrate that
17 to the Board?
18
LEE MORRISON: Well, I think any time you review a
19 Service Plan, whether it's the original or the amended, they
20 have to re -demonstrate all of the criteria -- statutory criteria
21 continue to be met. I think you look at it as a whole; you
22 don't necessarily look at it parcel by parcel, however.
23 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And if they can't meet that;
24 if they amend their Service Plan, is that reason that they would
25 not be able to expand their boundaries?
31
1 LEE MORRISON: If in amending the Service Plan they no
2 longer are financially viable, that's correct.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok. Um, the other question I
4 had -- did you want to add anything to that?
5
PAUL COCKREL: The statute does not require either
6 approval of the Commission or an amendment of the Service Plan
7 because it's a, uh, it involves too many procedural steps to
8 insert that requirement. We have to go through extensive
9 notice, uh; we have to file direct notice information with all
10 property owners within the district for any Service Plan
11 amendment. If you had 800 homeowners, that would discourage the
12 inclusion of maybe one adjacent property. Now, there is no --
13 we have no actual plan to include property, so we're talking
14 theoretically here. Uh, I don't think we would care one iota if
15 you put a limitation on inclusions, uh, we don't intend to
16 expand our boundaries and our facility plan is based upon that.
17 The reason it's not done is that you can lock yourself into some
18 really restrictive procedures. One of the findings you have to
19 make on the Board level, and you have to certify with the
20 District Court before you include property, is that the District
21 has the capability to provide service to that property, and that
22 would include financial feasibility. So, um, it's unlikely that
23 one inclusion of an adjacent property would create a financial
24 problem, or do anything else. In fact, most districts require
25 that owner pay all the costs extending the facilities. You're
32
1 probably aware if it's extending a longer line, or whatever it
2 may be. Um, but that's again, theoretical discussion; we don't
3 anticipate this happening.
4
LEE MORRISON: The language the statute uses is "a
5 material departure from the Service Plan, as originally
6 approved, or as subsequently modified," allows the Board to
7 within 45 days of receiving notice to go to court to enjoin the
8 changes. So, that's not limited to expansions, in fact, it's
9 more likely to occur in other situations.
10 PAUL COCKREL: If I may expand on that. Now, that's
11 where you might trigger a Service Plan review. If we -- if this
12 District were ever to reach out and try to include an adjacent
13 development of a hundred units, let's just say, then that
14 clearly could be a material modification; you could require us
15 to come in here and get your approval. But, one property wants
16 to be on the water system, I don't think you'd be concerned
17 about that. So, you have discretion in that area.
18 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Um, the other question I have
19 is if they, um, the District wishes to expand the services that
20 are provided within the area, i.e. the waste water sewage
21 treatment facility, if something like that ever happened; does
22 something like that have to come back before the Board then?
23 LEE MORRISON: Again, well, it depends if it's a
24 material modification. Um, I don't recall whether this plan
33
1 the Plan broadly describes the powers of the Metropolitan
2 District, and so --
3
PAUL COCKREL: But it does not include sanitation. My
4 view is that would be a material modification; we'd have to come
5 back here to get your approval.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok.
7 LEE MORRISON: I would concur that an addition of an
8 additional power that's not called out in the Service Plan is a
9 material modification. Once again, we have to be alert because
10 we have, basically, 45 days after receiving formal notice that
11 that's occurring, uh, to push the issue.
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok. And, the last question I
13 have is in the memo from Don Warden, dated May 17th to you --
14 Don, you mentioned that you had some concerns about the
15 Financial Plan I guess originally, and I, um, I'd like to know
16 what those concerns were. I didn't see your memo in here
17 anywhere.
18 DON WARDEN: Yah, I've got those. I actually wrote a
19 memo April 2nd, and subsequently met with Mr. Cockrel and Lee
20 Morrison, I think on April 15th, and got those resolved. My
21 concerns had to deal with one, uh, the operating budget at that
22 time I thought was rather inadequate as far as spelling out some
23 of the expenditures, and that's been resolved. Uh, there was a
24 heavy reliance upon oil and gas wells, and uh, I was concerned
25 about the vulnerability of oil and gas values changing,
34
1 etcetera. Um, they did have a consultant that was engaged and
2 they provided that additional report to substantiate that. I
3 had a concern about the specific ownership tax was budgeted at
4 eight percent of property tax, and uh, that has been running
5 high because of high car sales the last few years because of the
6 economic boom. Historically, it's been about seven percent.
7 They did address that in the Plan. Also, that the development
8 fees were really the financial
or the foundation of the
9 Financial Plan. I had some concerns about projected sales, but
10 uh, Mr. Cockrel covered that by the fact that the enhancements,
11 or improvements, simply wouldn't be made if, in fact, the
12 development fees didn't come in, so resolved that. Uh, there
13 was some issues about the tax debt that were resolved. There
14 was a lease payment for Milton Reservoir that was not included,
15 um, that has been corrected. Um, I also had some concerns about
16 this being an enterprise -- or they referred to it being an
17 enterprise fund under TABOR. I had some issues there that I
18 wasn't totally in agreement with and they did, I think, satisfy
19 that issue. Uh, they also did not have the three percent
20 emergency reserve that TABOR has required, which they did
21 resolve. And uh, I also mentioned some issues about de-brucing,
22 which they're going to be doing in this District to take care of
23
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Or attempting to try to do.
35
1 DON WARDEN: -- attempt to do, which with the limited
2 number of voters that are associated with the development,
3 there's probably not a problem. So, after -- I think it was on
4 May 17th or 18th, I received all the information, and I did then
5 forward a copy indicating that they satisfied all those concerns
6 after the second review.
7 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok. Thank you.
8
CHAIR HALL: Any other questions? Ok. This is a
9 public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience wishing to
10 speak on this matter? Yes, if you'd state your name and address
11 for the record.
12 HAROLD EVANS: My name is Harold Evans, 1821 Frontier
13 Road, Greeley. Um, and I am not related to the previous
14 property owner that you mentioned that got an erroneous notice.
15 It just happened to be a coincidence; there's a same name there.
16 Um, I'm here representing the Beebe Draw Gun Club, which is to
17 the north and east of this property. Uh, my concern and the
18 questions I have are related to the reliance on septic systems
19 for this number of houses, and the lack of a central sewage
20 treatment facility. The Beebe Draw area runs for several miles.
21 I think it starts down about Barr Lake, if you actually look at
22 topographic maps. The eastern border of our property line, the
23 Beebe Draw Gun Club, is the low point of that whole area.
24 Everything from the east and from the west drains to that area.
25 Um, we're approximately half way between Latham Reservoir and
36
1 Milton Reservoir, and both Milton Reservoir and Latham Reservoir
2 collect water out of this area. The surrounding area is all
3 extremely sandy soils. The Beebe Draw Gun Club has been in
4 existence since 1921; we're primarily a wetland, and it's all
5 natural seep water that has accumulated in this area. Um, so
6 again, my question and concerns are; that whole area is
7 hydraulically connected out there, and even though individual
8 septic tanks may work, if they are not maintained, which there's
9 no provisions for, they're not being maintained until a problem
10 shows up somewhere. Um, we're going to be directly downstream
11 of potentially 724 houses that have septic tanks and septic
12 systems that may, or may not, work. And, we are a major
13 wildlife migration area, both in the Fall and in the Spring.
14 There are a significant number of not only ducks and Geese, but
15 other types of water birds, and uh, all other types of wildlife
16 that use that area. And uh, that's the reason I'm here today,
17 is primarily concern about the water quality issue and about the
18 potential long-term effects of that may be with this Metro
19 District relying on septic tanks for their domestic waste
20 treatment facilities. So, that's the concern that I would like
21 to raise; uh, it may be more appropriate at the -- for the
22 Second Filing Sketch Plan to address those issues. But, uh,
23 that's something I think that, as we continue to get more and
24 more development in the County, this is going to be a more and
25 more major issue. I know it was at the Seeley Lake area where a
37
1 couple of years ago there was a plan that was turned down
2 because of concern about septic tanks being above Seeley Lake.
3 And, we're in an identical situation. If you go out there and
4 look, uh, everything for many miles drains to the bottom part of
5 Beebe Draw, which happens to be the eastern part of our
6 boundary. We have approximately 300 acres, and of that 300
7 acres, there's probably at least half of it that are active
8 wetland that collect seep water from the surrounding area.
9 CHAIR HALL: Mr. Morrison, can you help me with the
10 potential answer to this. Is that part of the consideration
11 that we have here today; as to whether or not there's a septic
12 system for each home or a centralized sewer system?
13 LEE MORRISON: It's probably more appropriate in the
14 land use process, uh, it's -- I don't --
15 HAROLD EVANS: I mean this would significantly impact
16 the financial projections we've seen on the Metro District if
17 they had to have a central sewage collection facility.
18 LEE MORRISON: Yah, I would agree with that, as well
19 as they've not included that as a power, so the Service Plan, as
20 proposed before you today, does not contain that option. Um, so
21 I guess it's a matter of what's not in there, as opposed to what
22 is in it, and uh, and maybe is at least an item for
23 consideration. I think the land use process, and in fact, um, a
24 similar proposal starting today may not get the same opportunity
25 as this one has to proceed with septic systems. But, uh, it
38
1 doesn't fit directly on point; it's more directly on point in
2 the Filing, but uh, I don't think it's irrelevant either.
3 CHAIR HALL: Well, how does the approval back in 1986
4 dictate how that's handled?
5 LEE MORRISON: Um, because at the time the zone change
6 allowed for that scale of development not on sewer.
7 CHAIR HALL: I understand that, but if that approval
8 wasn't obtained at that point, to come back and change that
9 approval at this date - is that appropriate or not?
10 LEE MORRISON: I think that raises some difficulties
11 in terms of what the developer has relied upon since then, and
12 the rules have been place, and um, the process has been followed
13 since that time. So, I'm not saying that you're going to have
14 the opportunity to change that rule -- change that provision at
15 the Second Filing; I think there's some impediments to doing
16 that.
17 CHAIR HALL: That didn't answer anything.
18 LEE MORRISON: Well, that issue isn't before you; it's
19 not likely that you're going to have the power to delete the
20 septic systems.
21 CHAIR HALL: Ok, so the question that Mr. Evans has is
22 that he doesn't like the thought of having septic systems there.
23 My question is - is that a consideration we have in front of us
24 today?
39
1
LEE MORRISON: In the sense that that's not an
2 authority that's been proposed for the Service Plan - I think it
3 is. In that sewer is not something that's been included; it's
4 not been discussed within the Financial Plan, um, and I don't
5 know that you could proceed to finish the hearing today if it
6 was your view that this Service Plan is in adequate because it
7 doesn't address that issue, or the opportunity to do that.
8 PAUL COCKREL: Mr. Chairman, may I comment?
9 CHAIR HALL: Certainly.
10 PAUL COCKREL: I think it is -- I don't think it is
11 relevant. Um, we simply have to demonstrate that there is no
12 need for the service. Um, there is no need. There's no
13 requirement to have central sewer within this development, and
14 um, there's no need to provide this service at this point in
15 time. The Service Plan does not need to address what might be
16 possible, but not be required. Um, provision has been made; the
17 land use process for providing the individual systems. It
18 simply isn't required for the District to provide this level of
19 service. Now, I would comment that having the availability for
20 the District to do that is a benefit. Uh, you have an
21 institutional structure there; if it were ever determined, in
22 the future, that this were needed, then you have an institution
23 that's available to undertake that type of activity. Uh, so I
24 see it as a benefit, but I don't believe -- it certainly is not
25 required for us to now build a sewer system out there when that
40
1 hasn't been anticipated. We can also play, if necessary, a role
2 in monitoring existing septic systems. I think we can do that
3 within the broad authority of this Plan because it relates to
4 water quality. So um, to suggest that -- that because a
5 neighbor has a concern with wildlife, and legitimately so, that
6 we should plan for a central sewer system, it's just not
7 practical.
8 CHAIR HALL: Well, and if I'm recalling correctly, I
9 think if you were to propose the same PUD today, there would be
10 a requirement for a sewer system.
11 PAUL COCKREL: Well, but the District doesn't -- that
12 isn't the circumstance.
13 CHAIR HALL: I understand that. That's what I was
14 saying, but --
15 HAROLD EVANS: Commissioner, my concern on this is not
16 that an individual septic tank will not work for an individual
17 home in that area; I'm simply raising the question of the
18 cumulative effect, in that area, of this number of houses based
19 on my observation of the geology out there. And, has there been
20 adequate investigations done to say that this would not be a
21 problem; when you put almost 800 houses in that topography out
22 there, and also those slope conditions out there? Um, has there
23 been adequate investigations done to ensure those of us who
24 potentially may be affected, that uh, this will not be -- will
25 not be a problem. Thank you very much.
41
1 CHAIR HALL: Do you have any questions for Mr. Evans?
2 COMMISSIONER VAAD: No, but I think that, uh, it might
3 go to an answer to Mr. Evans. I believe it was Jim that had
4 mentioned some drilling requirements.
5 JIM FELL: This is, um, this is merely to be sure that
6 the systems will work and that also support a foundation, and it
7 will support certain road proposals and everything; is the
8 reason for the fifty new drillings in Filing 2. I might add
9 that this was addressed, I don't know if everybody had a copy of
10 it, or not, but this was addressed in the environmental
11 assessment -- the drainage in the whole area and where it was
12 going to go and what it would do. And, as we mentioned, it was
13 a two-year study, and it was -- wildlife was very much involved
14 in it, in fact, they were the principal who addressed changes
15 that we had to make, and that we had to set, uh, we had to set
16 up certain drainage systems. And um, I think the environmental
17 assessment for the -- that was made addressed this, and I'd
18 certainly be willing to furnish anyone a copy of it if they want
19 it, because it's public record. But, this was part of the
20 things they addressed.
21 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Thank you.
22 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Mr. Chair, just to follow up on
23 that, what's referred to is in a letter from Celia Greenman,
24 from the Colorado Geological Survey, on the -- to Monica on May
25 25th, in our packet -- does talk about several of these things.
42
1 I was going to bring that up if Glenn hadn't, but, the one
2 paragraph it talked about -- well, I'll just read one or a
3 couple of sentences. "At the least, a preliminary subsurface
4 investigation should be performed that includes drilling a
5 minimum of fifty bore holes and encompasses sampling a
6 geotechnical testing depth to bedrock and depth to groundwater,
7 should be indicated where rises are encountered." And I assume
8 that's what you're doing with these bore holes.
9
JIM FELL: That's the 50 holes we're drilling, yes.
10 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Now, you are getting your data
11 about depth to groundwater and bedrock and all that in each one
12 of these --
13 JIM FELL: Yes.
14 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: -- because that certainly
15 affects the septics.
16 JIM FELL: Yah. Horizon has been commissioned to
17 study this and make a study of it. We have other -- there are
18 other geological studies that have been made. One of the
19 things, and this might be important from his standpoint too, is
20 that in certain areas we will add clay to reduce the drainage of
21 the septic system - to slow it down. The ground is perfect for
22 percolation in almost every instance, but there will be some
23 areas that before the engineer will approve the septic system
24 application, certain things will have to be done. We also have
25 -- you know, we're directing drainage, and this man does the
43
I drainage study, so he should probably speak to it, but we're
2 directing drainage to areas that will absorb it. Is that right?
3 AARON THOMPSON: Yes.
4 HAROLD EVANS: And that's exactly my point -- is all
5 that subsurface drainage ends up into our property - in our
6 wetlands sooner, or later. It's all hydraulically connected out
7 there.
8 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And, I guess I would just
9 ask. I don't have -- I don't know what page you're on, but none
10 of the studies -- I mean the soil surveys are for reasons, but
11 they're not for to, uh, survey our study with the cumulative
12 effect is of 724 septic systems. And, yes, they do talk about
13 drainage, but where exactly it's going to drain to -- I mean,
14 the wetlands is probably a fairly natural area for, um, to drain
15 to, so, none of those do that study.
16
COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Well, that was my reason for
17 asking the question, because subsurface water -- distance to
18 subsurface water and bedrock definitely effect that, and it will
19 not drain; only through certain conditions. In fact, in this
20 County, most septic systems do not drain anywhere - they stay
21 right where they are. So, if you get some conditions, they can
22 move, but in our area, particularly, they stay they never move
23 - they stay right where they are. They finally saturate and you
24 move over and put another one in. But, groundwater and bedrock
25 are the two big problems.
44
1
CHAIR HALL: But in that same memo that you cited
2 there, the next paragraph talks about the Geological Survey
3 folks suggesting that there would be a waste water treatment
4 facility, versus individual septic tanks.
5
COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Yah, I read that. That that was
6 their surveyor said just accumulation of that many -- they
7 didn't give much information other than that they just feel that
8 it shouldn't be with that many.
9 CHAIR HALL: Any other questions for Mr. Evans?
10
11
HAROLD EVANS: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, thank you.
CHAIR HALL: Thank you. Is there anyone else in the
12 audience wishing to speak on this matter?
13
JANE EVANS-CORNELIUS: I am Jane Evans -Cornelius. I
14 am the land owner to the east and north. Um, as a Weld County -
15 - I am the person that was inadvertently included and then
16 excluded. That's how I came to know about this, otherwise I
17 would not have been aware of this hearing, uh, and would not
18 have had an opportunity to do research. Uh, I have not read as
19 much about this as I would have liked to, so I don't have lots
20 of answers. I'm extremely concerned, as a Weld County resident,
21 about the financial feasibility of this District and the
22 potential exposure, both financial and legal, to Weld County and
23 its citizens. We are all aware that mitigation against Colorado
24 governmental units, including municipalities, has increased
25 dramatically over the last few years, and that this is a nation-
45
1 wide trend. In trying to understand the reasons for why another
2 Metropolitan District, when they had one Metropolitan District,
3 and in asking questions of attorneys and the staff of the
4 Planning Department, no one could completely answer all of my
5 questions. Uh, the financial history of this project is messy,
6 as I am sure you are well aware, tracing back fifteen or more
7 years, with perhaps bankruptcies, foreclosures, lawsuits, um.
8 And, it seems, based on that history, that this entire
9 Metropolitan District is absolutely fraught with peril. Um, I
10 am concerned that the developer controls District 2, rather than
11 the homeowners who will ultimately pay for this. It seems like
12 we may be asking the fox to guard the hen house. Um, I just
13 have lots of unanswered questions. My very cursory review of
14 the financial projections, um, has lots of holes. For instance,
15 they are projecting about 1,800 residents, ultimately, or 2.6
16 per household. But, making some phone calls and talking to some
17 various governmental agencies, it seems that a more realistic
18 number would be 4.2, not 2.6, per household, which means we have
19 got 4,000 residents, not 1,800 residents. And does the
20 financial projection include that? Um, the marketing plan may
21 be overly optimistic; it has certainly been overly optimistic in
22 the past. And, if that is the fact, if it is overly optimistic,
23 what are we looking at in terms of financial exposure? Um,
24 Phase 2 is not even approved. Um, what happens if it is not
25 approved? Do the existing homes -- I mean, Mr. Cockrel
46
1 attempted to answer some of those questions, uh, saying that
2 well, we won't expand the facilities if we don't have the money
3 to do so, and that's a good answer. Um, one of the things Mr.
4 Cockrel mentioned is that the water recreational facilities are
5 their main -- one of their main resources; however, in talking
6 to the office manager of FRICO, indirectly through FRICO
7 stockholders, um, I was told that the lease on the Milton
8 Reservoir that they are depending so heavily on, has to be
9 renewed every five years, and that if, uh, they lose the lease
10 on the recreational facilities of the Milton Reservoir, that
I1 this whole project may be infeasible. Based on the fact that
12 there are so many unanswered questions on the septic systems,
13 all of those things, I would ask the Commissioners simply to
14 postpone making a decision on this until you can do a little bit
15 more in-depth fact finding. I know you have really good
16 experts; uh, they have answered some of the questions. I would
17 like to do a little more fact finding, and in the few days I
18 have had, I have not been able to get a copy of the Milton
19 Reservoir Recreational Lease. It's supposed to be being sent to
20 me as we speak. Uh, I just think that it's too big a deal;
21 there're just too many risks to just make a decision without
22 looking a little bit further, particularly based on the history.
23 So, I would simply request that you postpone this decision for
24 as many days as is reasonable to be fair to everyone, including
25 the developer, who has statutory notice requirements I
47
1 understand. And, see if we can't get a few more facts; that
2 doesn't hurt anyone. Thanks.
3 CHAIR HALL: Any questions? Ok, thank you. Is there
4 anyone else in the audience wishing to speak? Seeing no one
5 else, I will close public testimony and, uh, open it back up to
6 the applicant for any comments or rebuttal to the items brought
7 up.
8 PAUL COCKREL: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Uh, with
9 respect to the remarks made by Mr. Evans, once again, at this
10 point there is simply no demonstrated need for a central
11 sanitation system, um, and it would have been inappropriate for
12 us to propose that. But, again, I would state that if -- if the
13 existing District structure is needed to provide services in the
14 future, you have already created the District - those powers can
15 be expanded simply by coming back here and doing Service Plan
16 amendments. Of course, other issues have to be addressed at
17 that time, including financial feasibility and all those things.
18 But, that's an issue that you deal with separately in the land
19 use process. Um, with respect to the remarks by Ms. Cornelius,
20 um, most of those are simply, you know, broad accusations of --
21 that are not founded in fact, specifically, that -- with respect
22 to the population projections, we used a number, you can use any
23 number you like. I don't think that would affect the size of
24 the facilities; the streets would be the same width, the water
25 lines would be the same size, the water requirements per unit
48
1 are all satisfied in the same manner, whether there are three
2 people living in the house, or 2.3, or whatever the number is.
3 Uh, I don't -- I am not aware of any governmental unit or agency
4 that uses population projections per household in the
5 neighborhood of four, or more, but that's extremely high. I'm
6 not sure where she develops those numbers. Um, the financial
7 feasibility questions - the allusion to the fact that this
8 District is financially troubled, um; the development itself may
9 have undergone a period of time when they weren't financially
10 stable. I can't address that; I'm not aware of that. But, I
11 can tell you this District did not, throughout that period of
12 time -- the District is managed in a very sound fiscal basis and
13 will continue to be, and that is the reason we came to you this
14 morning for this Service Plan and this new Financial Plan. It
15 is a much sounder plan; it's in accord with what are modern ways
16 of financing district activity, and it precludes the type of
17 troubles that could occur if we were to rely upon what are
18 already approved County -approved methods of financing the
19 infrastructure out there. So, I think this, if anything,
20 addresses an issue that needs to be addressed, and we look at it
21 much more constructively than that. I see no purpose in
22 delaying the hearing. I think there was one other item which I
23 would mention, and that's the recreational lease on Milton
24 Reservoir with FRICO. That has a term. I do not recall the
25 term date. It is not -- it does not terminate each five years.
49
1 There are many complex provisions in that agreement, but it does
2 not terminate each five years.
3 CHAIR HALL: Questions for the applicant?
4 COMMISSIONER GEILE: You talk about when you get down,
5 or you get down to a point where you think the existing
6 structure.; and I have to use the words "you think", that the
7 existing structure -- I'm talking about the septic system -- is
8 not adequate, or something, that that would dictate you to go in
9 and put in a waste water treatment facility. I guess my
10 question is what dictates that? In other words, is it your
II
analysis that would dictate that, or is it the County's analysis
12 that would dictate that, or do we have any authority to dictate
13 that? Um, it's one thing to say that there's situations that
14 occur or exist that would dictate you to do that. I guess I'd
15 like to have a little more definition of what we're talking
16 about.
17 PAUL COCKREL: Well, my understanding it's a County
18 and State Health Department requirement that's also affected by
19 your decision, but, uh, it's not a district determination. I
20 mean, we don't make the determination to issue the septic
21 permits or to approve that type of facility. Uh, Aaron, you
22 want to sharpen that a little more specifically?
23 AARON THOMPSON: Sure. Um, obviously, I wasn't
24 involved in the original PUD, but I have been involved in the
25 construction of Filing One, as well as the planning for Filing
50
1 Two, um, and when the engineering for Filing One was
2 accomplished, we did review what had happened in the 1980's
3 under the original PUD. Um, State and County officials from the
4 Department of Health reviewed the project with the engineer at
5 that time, and County staff, and concluded, uh, unilaterally,
6 that the individual septic systems would be the best alternative
7 for the project. On a micro -scale, waste water treatment was
8 looked at as an option, and it was decided that that would not
9 be the best option. And, quite frankly, that's usually the
10 case. Um, unless properties are in such a vicinity that they
11 can access a major waste water treatment facility, uh, State of
12 Colorado really does not like to see micro -scale treatment
13 systems that cause more problems than individual septics do.
14 And, the individual septics are also evaluated on an individual
15 permit basis for each home. So, each individual site is looked
16 at individually by the State and County Health Department. It's
17 not just a blanket permit, you know, put a septic in for each
18 home as you please. Um, again, the biggest deal was the micro -
19 scale systems are just -- they're not good systems. They cause
20 a lot more problems than septic do.
21
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Is there anybody, though,
22 that looks at the accumulative impacts of 724 septic systems,
23 versus a facility?
24 AARON THOMPSON: Oh, absolutely, absolutely. I mean,
25 again, from engineer, to County staff, to Department of Health,
51
1 State of Colorado, uh, you better believe that they were looking
2 at the overall impact of 700 -- at that time, 800 individual
3 septic systems. But, the expanse of land and, uh, the
4 separation of those systems, it was determined that, uh, that
5 there was adequate -- more than adequate conditions to put these
6 individual septic systems in.
7 CHAIR HALL: You're making some assumptions, correct?
8 Do you have any idea of what the real investigative concerns
9 were during that period of time? Uh, you said that you weren't
10 here during the 80's, so you're --
11 AARRON THOMPSON: No, but we did -- well, I'm not
12 assuming a lot of things. I mean, we've been -- we've rehashed
13 a lot of these issues, and again, the County Department of
14 Health and the State of Colorado have been on this, through the
15 referral processes of, not only the engineering plans for Filing
16 One, but also all the documentation under Filing Two. And, uh,
17 again, nobody has reiterated any concern, other than today is
18 the first that we've heard, again, the possibility of a
19 centralized sewer system. So, uh, all of the original PUD
20 documents lean towards the selection of individual septic for
21 the homes out there, as opposed to a centralized sewer system.
22 CHAIR HALL: Well, the reason why I asked that is I
23 have asked the Health Department of Weld County the very same
24 question as to whether or not there is any studies that have
25 looked at the accumulation concerns of a large amount of septic
52
1 systems in one area, and they said that there hasn't really been
2 any study as to that effect -- that they've been able to find.
3
JIM FELL: All I know is when we were going in for the
4 first approval of this project. I wasn't directly concerned,
5 although I served as a consultant to Morris Burke who was doing
6 that, and we attended the meeting -- I attended the meeting when
7 the Health Department made its presentation to the Board -- to
8 the County Commissioners that they didn't want a micro -system;
9 that they wanted to use the, uh, individual septics. And, one
10 of the reasons was that they had control, just as he alluded to.
11 There's a licensing process, obviously, before you can get a
12 septic system approved for a home, and each one of those would
13 be studied by the County Health Department, and they have to be
14 certified by an engineer who is certified by the Health
15 Department. In addition to that, the State -- you're talking
16 now -- I'm talking about the past, not the most recent request,
17 but this then. I am sure, someplace, these things are all on
18 record; I don't have them, but the State Health Department did
19 exactly the same thing. They preferred to have individual
20 septics. Now, as you're probably aware, in this licensing
21 process to have a septic system in your home, you have to have,
22 again, the property has to be drilled to determine the uh, the
23 uh, what's the word --
24 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: The percolation?
53
1 JIM FELL: The percolation, that's the word I'm trying
2 to think of -- to determine the percolation of the system and to
3 be able to retain it in a kind of an isolated area. Uh, this is
4 done on every lot. Every builder that's building a home has to
5 have that certification by the, uh, licensing bureau in Weld
6 County that this property will serve as a thing. Now, has
7 anybody -- and the question you're asking, and I don't have an
8 answer to, is what happens to the accumulative effect of this?
9 Uh, I'm sure we could probably get an engineer to work on that,
10 but we've never -- the question has never been brought up
11 because they felt the individual controls, and having the size
12 lots that we do, satisfied that problem. That's what I went
13 through.
14 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Before you -- uh, close off other
15 discussion, I'd like to ask Counsel, in fact, could the, uh,
16 existing homeowners say we're reaching close to build out, and
17 then evolving technology determines how to measure the
18 accumulative affect of all of these, and then the judgment is
19 that there should be a centralized sewer system put in, can
20 then, all the people who have been building up to that point be
21 compelled, then, to join or to support the District in the
22 development of a central sewer system? Or, is it, then, the
23 obligation of whoever wants to come next to cover the whole
24 cost?
54
1 LEE MORRISON: The Weld County provisions only compel
2 hookup to a public water, uh, public sewer system if there's a
3 failing or new system. So, the answer is, those that are not
4 functioning properly that need repair, could be compelled, but
5 those that existed, and so long as service is nearby, those that
6 are not functioning improperly and don't need repair couldn't be
7 compelled. Um, and, just so the Board knows -- I apologize, Mr.
8 Jiricek asked if I thought he needed at this hearing, and I told
9 him I didn't anticipate this discussion, so his presence is not
10 his responsibility. He conferred with me and I told him I
11 didn't think he needed to be here, so. I guess the other thing
12 to recall is that when the Board of Health -- or the Health
13 Department did report to you on septic systems, they basically
14 had a one and two and a half acre parameter, and so, as far as
15 lots, that two and a half acres with a well was something that
16 was workable to allow for his site and a replacement site and
17 sufficient soil treatment, uh, before there's the opportunity
18 for the septage to leave the property. So, I know that that's
19 one of the guidelines that they have provided you in the past,
20 uh, on the viability of septic systems.
21
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: If I may ask, um, does the
22 Board have the authority, at any point, either in this process
23 or in the land use process, to require a waste water treatment
24 facility?
55
1 LEE MORRISON: Well, probably, as far as this one, I
2 don't think that you can require it that it be part of the
3 Service Plan.
4
5
6
7 process?
8
COMMISSIONER GEILE: As far as this one what?
LEE MORRISON: Today.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok, but during the land use
LEE MORRISON: Well, I -- you know, I haven't re -
9 reviewed all of that; it's not likely. I guess there could be
10 facts, if there were an indication that the information
11 available at the zone change was inaccurate, or information that
12 would change some of that, but it's pretty unlikely that there
13 could be a basis for changing that provision.
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok, and then here's my next
15 question. Um, in your draft Resolution, the Board's being asked
16 to find that the, uh, Consolidated Service Plan is in
17 substantial compliance with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.
18 And, there are some Goals, specifically under the Natural
19 Resources and the Wildlife Goals and Policies, that could be
20 interpreted that they aren't -- the Service Plan, because it's
21 septic systems and they aren't -- possibly could not have been
22 designed to preserve these critical ecosystem components,
23 including wetlands, and significant wildlife habitat. We could
24 find that it's not in substantial compliance. I mean, you could
25 make the argument, here, both ways.
56
1
LEE MORRISON: Well, I think, you know -- you're
2 charged with balancing the evidence. There's also -- included
3 in your record is also the summary of the agreement regarding
4 the wildlife, um, coming from the Environmental Assessment that
5 discusses that, as well. And, before you would conclude along
6 that basis, you probably should review that to make sure that
7 all the evidence is taken into account. I think you can -- you
8 can't require them to put a new component in the Plan. I guess
9 you could find that -- you could deny it, and that would be a
10 remedy, not force or compel an amendment to the Plan.
11 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok, `cause that's where I was
12 headed. My next question is, even if we denied this, there is
13 still the, um, Beebe Draw Metro District Number One that's still
14 out there that doesn't have it in there either. It doesn't have
15 a waste treatment facility.
16 LEE MORRISON: Well, I think that's the other factor
17 that hasn't been highlight, is, you really need to look at this
18 in relation to what exists, uh, and not if we're -- if the whole
19 process were starting over. There is a Metropolitan District
20 that exists, and I think that you have to consider the
21 Amendment, uh, as to how that relates to the financial viability
22 and the services to be provided under the Amended Plan and
23 creation of the second District. So, I think that's part of
24 your finding. I mean, it's not simply -- you're not operating
25 in a vacuum with respect to that existing District.
57
1 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I guess my point is, and if
2 it's wrong let me know -- that if we did deny this, we could
3 almost be like in worse shape, if we had to rely only on the
4 original Service Plan for the District.
5 LEE MORRISON: That's for you to judge, but I think
6 that is a possible conclusion you could reach - Yes.
7 DONALD WARDEN: Mr. Chairman?
8 CHAIR HALL: Yes?
9 DONALD WARDEN: Could I get Mrs. Cornelius, I believe.
10 Uh, she made a couple comments about the, uh, financial risk, I
11 guess, to the County. I just wanted to, I guess, set the record
12 that the risk here is really to bond holders and property owners
13 of the District, and uh, I do think -- I'd be happy to share
14 with her -- I've also shared with the Board, a memorandum from
15 Gary White who is an attorney that specializes in these
16 districts that he sent to us on April 16th, which compares the
17 old laws and the new laws, as far as the changes, and uh, the
18 safeguards that they put in to minimize those financial risks
19 that caused all the defaults in the 1980's. And, uh, I do
20 believe that, uh, with the new laws, as far as the assessed
21 value -- 200 percent assessed value is the mill limit, or 50
22 mills, um, the fact that these bonds, if they don't meet certain
23 criteria, have to be purchased by sophisticated investors or
24 institution investors so that it isn't someone that may not be
25 as sophisticated that got into trouble, again, in the 1980's.
58
1 But, I'd be happy to share this memo with her, because I think
2 it may answer some of her questions and concerns. I think her
3 comment that it was a financial risk to the taxpayers and
4 citizens of Weld County is not the case, and is limited to just
5 potential property owners of this District and, uh, any bond
6 holders which have to scrutinize this bond.
7
COMMISSIONER BAXTER: A quick follow-up to what was
8 already mentioned, because I was thinking the same thing a while
9 ago. If you've got a -- basically, a fall back. You've got a
10 plan there now that's there, and it's got some problems, but
11 also financially. The financial answer to it is that has some
12 problems too that new one can correct.
13
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Last question for the
14 attorney. Um, you said that if they did amend their Service
15 Plan, that the Board could request a hearing to look at that,
16 correct? I mean the 45 days.
17
LEE MORRISON: If -- no, if they change -- if they
18 made a material -- in their operation there was a material
19 deviation from the Service Plan, as you have approved the
20 Amended Service Plan, the process -- basically, there's a 45 -day
21 from notice. To be safe, the District will send out notices of
22 a number of things they do to be -- to start the clock running
23 to be sure after 45 days that what they've done won't be later
24 challenged. So, the issue is whether what they're doing is a
25 material deviation from the current approved Service Plan. They
59
1 can't change the Service Plan, but if they vary from it too
2 much, your Board has the opportunity to seek an injunction, if
3 filed within 45 days, uh, to compel an amended Service Plan.
4 And, to preclude them deviating until they've gotten that
5 Service Plan approved.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok, well, I guess my question
7 was, is -- I don't think we've ever missed a 45 -day period, but
8 I'd like to make sure that we don't. And, is there any way
9 that we could require that they are compelled, or whatever, to
10 amend the Service Plan and come back in front of the Board for
11 that hearing, within this Resolution? I mean, I know it's
12 probably not necessary, but it's -- I don't think it's ever
13 happened in Weld County. I don't know. But, I'm sure it's
14 happened someplace where somebody has missed the 45 days.
15
PAUL COCKREL: May I comment Mr. Chairman?
16 CHAIR HALL: Sure.
17 PAUL COCKREL: The statute requires that we come here
18 for a public hearing and your approval if we modify the Service
19 Plan. And, if we proceed without taking that action, making
20 application to you and notifying you that we're taking this
21 action, then you can shut us down at any time, in respect to
22 provision of any service or the undertaking of any activity.
23 Um, so there are time frames. The only time frame -- the 45 -day
24 time frame relates to giving you specific notice that we're
25 undertaking some activity, which we deem to be in compliance,
60
1 and then you have an affirmative obligation to respond,
2 otherwise, we're at risk, not you. And, it would be our
3 standard procedure to make application for an amendment of the
4 Service Plan, just as we've done here.
5
LEE MORRISON: I think -- you know, I think if you had
6 -- if there was a specific concern, um, of what they might, you
7 know -- you might define something right now that you view that
8 a material deviation. Maybe you could include that, but with
9 just sort of a general, "You need to amend your Service Plan if
10 there's a material deviation," that's true. It's just those
it areas where there's not agreement.
12
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Yah, and I guess my concern
13 was, if it did end up going from septics to a waste water
14 treatment facility, that would be a material deviation, but it
15 sounds like we're covered.
16 PAUL COCKREL: We have no objections to you making
17 that a specific condition.
18 LEE MORRISON: Yah, I think we could do that, and --
19 Adding a function, I don't think many parties would dispute as a
20 material deviation. Uh, you know, that that wouldn't require an
21 amendment. If the issue is expansion, um, which is the other
22 one you raised, I would concur with Mr. Cockrel. If it's a
23 matter of one or two properties on the perimeter availing
24 themselves of the services, that's one thing. If it's another
61
1 development, and it's one requiring County approval, you'll know
2 -- you'll have notice in that fashion.
3
PAUL COCKREL: And, once again, if I may. You're more
4 than welcome to make that a condition today. You'll have to put
5 an acreage [inaudible] on it, we have no objection.
6 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok.
7
DON WARDEN: They could just provide that service
8 totally independently and create a sanitation district, which
9 has nothing to do --
10 LEE MORRISON: They could contract with someone, as
I1 long as -- right, they could contract and provide services, um,
12 well, they --
13 DON WARDEN: Could they create a whole new -- I mean,
14 sanitation not's covered by this District. Couldn't you create
15 a sanitation district -- not you, but another group of people?
16 PAUL COCKREL: If it were subsequently determined that
17 public sanitation services were needed for this area, and uh,
18 then you could do one of two things. You could expand the
19 powers of this District, which would be the most logical, or you
20 could create another district. In either event you have to go
21 through these service plan hearings here before the Commission.
22 And, you're going to have to get another approval to finance
23 those costs. And so, the voters are going to have to approve
24 that, but you could use either the existing District structure,
25 or you could create a new one. I don't know why you would
62
1 create a new one; I think would be, uh, you just end up with the
2 same cold facts.
3 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Except for in the case of a
4 sanitation district, you could exclude certain properties that
5 were already on septic and then -- going back to Commissioner
6 Vaad's question about compelling people to have to require to
7 centrally hookup, you could get around that.
8 PAUL COCKREL: In fact we've seen that in some areas
9 where -- how did you describe them? The macro -- that micro -
10 scale waste water might be required for areas where there's
11 greater density. In that case -- in general, in those cases,
12 multi -unit facilities, whereas, single families who have larger,
13 you know, densities don't require that. I've seen those systems
14 operate, you know, within the same development, and you might
15 want to do that. I will tell you that you could also address
16 that with the same District, just theoretically, because there's
17 a provision in this Special District Act that allows the
18 [inaudible] of tax levies, for example, based upon the level of
19 service provided. It's more of a benefit concept -- more of the
20 special assessment concept than the, uh, typical uniform tax
21 rate. But, it still is a tax that can be used to fund those
22 facilities, for financing those facilities. So, you could still
23 use the existing metro district, but you might also create a
24 separate sanitation district.
63
DON WARDEN: Well, especially if you wanted to get
2 around your borrowing limit.
3 PAUL COCKREL: That's where you folks come in. You
4 get to review those things. Uh, what we feel is a -- we feel
5 this financing plan doesn't hurt the property owners, whether
6 these additional costs would -- You know, you've still got
7 whether you have one district charging you 40 mills and the
8 second district charging 20; it's still an aggregate 60 mill
9 levy, whether you do it through one or two. You know, to me
10 it's the impact on the property. Yah, you could do that. I
11 think you'd want to look carefully. In either event, that type
12 of -- that type of issue has to come back before this Board;
13 there's no way around it.
14 CHAIR HALL: Any other questions?
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I guess I would like to hear
16 some -- Do you have any kind of proposed language, um, more
17 regarding to the boundary thing? I think I'm fairly well
18 satisfied about the material deviation, that it would, um, if
19 they added another service or something, that that would have to
20 come back in front of the Board. At some point, we'd catch it,
21 or whatever, but um, it's more the expansion of the boundary
22 issue that -- if they're willing to go with that.
23 LEE MORRISON: Yah, I think you might indicate, that
24 um, that some percentage of land area, or something -- that if
25 the boundary of District One were to expand -- That's the one
64
1 complication, because District Two, being the service provider,
2 is going to actually shrink, um, but District One will stay
3 constant. I think you would probably tie it to District One;
4 that an increase in land area covered by the District of more
5 than ten percent, uh, would require amendment to the Service
6 Plan.
7
PAUL COCKREL: If I might suggest, Lee. Could we
8 simply state that it would require notice to the County and the
9 option of the County to view that as a, uh, material
10 modification requiring compliance material modification
11 provisions? You might -- we might add, I mean, I don't
12 anticipate this. I don't really care how you right it, but I
13 think that would give a little more flexibility and still give
14 you perfect control.
l5 LEE MORRISON: But, the difference in the two things
16 is one, you wouldn't have -- the language I used, they'd require
17 an amendment even if the Board thought that well that's a good
18 idea, you know, why are we going through this process? Mr.
19 Cockrel's language would just trigger the process -- the notice
20 process.
21
22
23
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Requiring a notice.
LEE MORRISON: Uh, huh.
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And that would be an increase
24 of more than ten percent of the District One.
25 LEE MORRISON: District One land area.
65
1
2 be under?
3
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And, what section would that
LEE MORRISON: It's probably a new one. Um, --
4 PAUL COCKREL: I think you could, if I may, um, you
5 could attach that as a special condition.
6 LEE MORRISON: Actually attach it as an amendment to
7 the other requirements?
8 PAUL COCKREL: Other requirements, Lee, under Section
9 8, on page 39.
10 LEE MORRISON: Yah, that's probably the best thing, is
11 to actually incorporate it.
12 PAUL COCKREL: You could do that by addendum, and just
13 include it in that section of the Service Plan.
14 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok, I guess I was looking at
15 the Draft Resolution. Does it need to be included in the Draft
16 Resolution?
17 LEE MORRISON: We can say that as well. That's, uh,
18 Section 8 -- Subparagraph 3, under Section 8, be added to read
19 as follows.
20 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Ok, and we would add that to
21 our Draft Resolution, um --
22 LEE MORRISON: Yes - as a Condition of Approval. That
23 the approval is conditioned --
24 COMMISSIONER GEILE: What's the basis for ten percent?
66
LEE MORRISON: I just threw that out as a number. I
2 mean, you might -- this is a fairly substantial sized District,
3 and so ten percent --
4 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: Ten percent would be huge.
5
LEE MORRISON: -- would be a fairly large land area
6 that would be included.
7
COMMISSIONER GEILE: That answers my question. Is
8 there something that says ten percent, or do we flexibility as
9 far as that percentage?
10 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: No, that's completely open.
11 LEE MORRISON: I just threw that number out as
12 something to discuss.
13 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And, I assume since, um, the
14 applicant or his representative didn't disagree with that, and
15 also changing it to just requiring notice, I think that gives
16 you a lot of flexibility.
17
PAUL COCKREL: As long as it doesn't automatically
18 trigger the Service Plan modification procedure, put whatever
19 number you like on it [inaudible].
20 LEE MORRISON: That would be included in Section 3.
21 "The Consolidated Service Plan of the District shall be, and
22 hereby is, approved, conditioned upon the following." The
23 addition of language to, um, Section 8 --
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Subparagraph 3.
67
1 LEE MORRISON: Subparagraph 3, to provide, uh, maybe
2 the easiest way is to reference the statutory provision, that an
3 increase in the size of District One, in excess of - and you can
4 throw in the number - shall trigger the notice requirements,
5 pursuant to C.R.S., Section 32-1-207(3)(b).
6 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: I would only suggest that, as
7 huge as -- what is it, 4,000 acres -- ten percent is still 400
8 acres. That seems -- that might be a bit high. It might be
9 better to go with a smaller percentage if you're going to talk
10 percentage.
11
12 One?
13
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: How many acres is District
COMMISSIONER BAXTER: It's 4,100, or something like
14 that, isn't it? I saw it in here.
15
16
17 acres.
18
19
LEE MORRISON: 3,400, at the least.
COMIMSSIONER KIRKMEYER: I believe he said 3,500
PAUL COCKREL: No, it's 3,600 acres.
COMMISSIONER BAXTER: 3,600 -- whatever; it's in that
20 neighborhood.
21 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: A section. Wow, maybe five
22 percent.
23 LEE MORRISON: Five percent.
24 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Of course, I think the
25 representative said twenty acres.
68
1
PAUL COCKREL: Pick 20 acres or 100 acres, whatever
2 you feel comfortable with. I mean, most -- I don't know the
3 size of most individual parcels, non -platted parcels in that
4 area. Uh, and if someone across the street wanted to connect
5 into the water system, what would you tell me? Is that
6 generally less than 35 -acre parcels?
7 JIM FELL: They're going to have to talk to us anyway,
8 you know, to do that through the Northern Water Conservancy and
9 the Water District.
10 PAUL COCKREL: But they may want to [inaudible], or
11 something, so I would think a hundred acres, or less, is --
12 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Maybe we could just go with
13 the 80 acres, which is pretty, um, common throughout the County.
14 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Yah that makes sense.
15 COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: And plus, it still would just
16 be a requirement to notice the County, and then, like Mr.
17 Morrison said, if the Board doesn't think it's necessary, or
18 whatever, because it is only one property owner, or something,
19 they wouldn't have to necessarily go forward with the hearing.
20 Ok, with that Mr. Chairman, I don't know if there's any more
21 questions?
22 COMMISSIONER VAAD: I just -- reflecting on an earlier
23 part of the conversation, didn't we say that outside of
24 modifying the District, the District could contract to provide
25 services to an 80 acre, 20 acre, 100 acre parcel?
69
1 LEE MORRISON: They -- you know they probably can.
2 Um, I mean, I guess if you wanted to include that -- that either
3 by inclusion, or by contract --
4 COMMISSIONER VAAD: But, that wasn't my -- that wasn't
5 where I was going. I understand -- I think I understand the
6 concerns that we're trying to get at. I'm not all comfortable
7 that I understand the ramifications of this action. Um, it
8 looks to be to give us more control, but what that sets up in
9 future cases, I don't know. Um, it might be fine, but I'm not
10 comfortable doing that here at this table, and saying well,
11 let's make decisions on percentages, or acres, or when we have
12 to be notified. It sounds like, uh, they have an obligation to
13 come before us in a hearing to make modifications, and there
14 certainly has to be a notice requirement of everybody that we're
15 going to have a public hearing, so --
16
LEE MORRISON: Well, but there's a clear changes that
17 they would make that would require an amendment to the Service
18 Plan.
19 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Ok.
20 LEE MORRISON: There are functions that clearly no one
21 would view as effecting the Service Plan, or a material
22 modification or departure, and then there's a range of things
23 that -- the reason, well, people may differ. And, I think we're
24 just trying to find -- use the stator process to call to the
25 Board's attention that one of those things that your Board
70
I thinks could be an issue. You know, I don't think it compels
2 you to do anything other than get a notice, and make a decision
3 at that point as to how important that change is in service.
4
COMMISSIONER BAXTER: I mean, if mind that makes a
5 difference. If it triggered it automatically, and they had to
6 do it -- but if it just gives us notice, that's a little less
7 onerous than the other way.
8
LEE MORRISON: And uh, in a lot of cases where
9 District One wants to be sure what they're doing is not going to
10 be viewed by the County as a material deviation, they'll send
11 the notice. I think Mr. Cockrel and I have corresponded on some
12 of these in the past, where there's been a minor change, but the
13 bond reasons, or whatever, they just want to make sure that the
14 issue doesn't come up later, then they send the notice. We run
15 it around the review process and make sure that there's not
16 reason to ask for a Service Plan amendment.
17
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: Mr. Chairman, I would move
18 approval of the, uh, resolution that's before us, um, to approve
19 the Consolidated Service Plan of Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan
20 District One, and Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District Two,
21 with the amendment to the Resolution under Section 3, to add
22 additional language that would condition it upon language that
23 would be found Section 8 point, uh, Section 8, subparagraph 3,
24 um, dealing with and regarding -- and I don't have the exact
25 language, but I'm pretty sure the Attorney can come up with
71
1 exact language, that if there's an increase of more than 80
2 acres to District One's land area, that that would require a
3 notice to the County.
4 COMMISSIONER BAXTER: I would second it.
5
CHAIR HALL: Upon motion by Barbara, and second by
6 George, to approve, with uh, the Resolution with amendments.
7 Any discussion on the motion?
8
COMMISSIONER KIRKMEYER: I would just like to
9 reiterate our point that there is already a District out there,
10 and none of were on the Board when any of this was approved, and
11 it might be a different story. And, I think that was the
12 appropriate time to look at waste water treatment, versus septic
13 systems. I guess I'd rather see the District in better
14 financial shape by approving this, then not approving it.
15 CHAIR HALL: Any other discussion? All in favor say
16 Aye.
17 BOARD UNISON: Aye.
18
CHAIR HALL: Opposed? Motion carries. Having no
19 other business, we are adjourned.
20 PAUL COCKREL: Thank you for your consideration.
21
22 [End of discussion/action on Hearing to Consider Consolidated
23 Service Plan of Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1 and
24 Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 2.]
25
72
1 CERTIFICATE
2
3 STATE OF COLORADO)
4 ) ss
5 COUNTY OF WELD )
6
7 I, Esther E. Gesick, Deputy Clerk to the Board and
8 notary public within and for the State of Colorado, certify the
9 foregoing transcript of the tape recorded proceedings, In Re:
10 discussion/action on Hearing to Consider Consolidated Service
11 Plan of Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1 and Beebe
12 Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 2, before the Weld County
13 Board of County Commissioners, July 21, 1999, and as further set
14 forth on page one. The transcription, dependent upon recording
15 clarity, is true/accurate with special exceptions(s) of any or
16 all precise identification of speakers, and/or correct spelling
17 or any given/spoken proper name or acronym.
18 Dated this 1st day of July, 2009.
19
20
21 Esther E. Gesick, Notary
22
ORIGINAL (X)
23 My f, mmssmnE�WesSeW 11 2(109 CERTIFIED COPY ( )
24
73
1 INVOICE
2 (Recording/Transcribing)
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
WELD COUNTY CLERK TO THE BOARD
c/o Esther Gesick, Deputy Clerk to the Board
915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970)356-4000 X4226 (970)352-0240 (fax)
egesick@co.weld.Co.us
Date: July 1, 2009
11
12 To: McGeady Sisneros, P.C.
13 450 East 17th Avenue, Suite 400
14 Denver, Colorado 80203-1214
15
16 RE: Transcript of 07/21/1999 Hearing to Consider
17 Consolidated Service Plan of Beebe Draw Farms
18 Metropolitan District No. 1 and Beebe Draw Farms
19 Metropolitan District No. 2
20
21 11.25 hours staff time @ $60.00 per hour $675.00
22 72 pgs. @4.00 + $288.00
23 Subtotal $963.00
24 Deposit - $(360.00)
25 TOTAL, due on receipt, please $603.00
Transcript Time Log
Esther E. Gesick, Deputy Clerk to the Board
915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970) 356-4000 X4226 / egesickgu,co.weld.co.us
July 21, 1999 Hearing
06/24/09 4:00 - 5:00 = 1.00 hrs
06/25/09 9:00 - 10:30 = 1.50 hrs
10:45 - 12:00 = 1.25 hrs
1:30 - 3:30 = 2.00 hrs
3:45 - 5:00 = 1.25 hrs
06/26/09 4:30 - 5:00 = 0.50 hrs
06/30/09 2:45 - 3:45 = 1.00 hrs
4:15 - 5:00 = 0.75 hrs
07/01/09 9:30 - 11:00 = 1.50 hrs
12:30 - 1:00 = 0.50 hrs
11.25 hrs X $60.00 = $675.00
+ 72 pages X $4.00 = $288.00
$963.00
Case File Copies
06/24/09 3:00 - 3:45 0.75 hrs
07/01/09 1:15 - 5:00 = 3.75 hrs
4.5 hrs X $20.00 = $ 90.00
+3,167 pages X $0.10 = $ 316.70
= $406.70
TOTAL BILL:
Deposit
BALANCE DUE:
O
"S
• x N
U - < M
J O CO CO
O
O Ca Co
U LLd N
>- 0 O
I- CO O
°
=o -
O
cc a)
V
CI
J C7
W U
$1,369.70
- 360.00
$ 1,009.70
RECEIPT f DATE O7-O/-� NO 190782
RECEIVED FROM nub -D- 0“-) lta
ADDRESS
(D. ,-1c04 d -n i„ Vico $ IAA. '70
FOR
dlociAatlApfr 1L cep.; (-SC) - i1�114ti L.il.�,, )
ACCOUNT HOW PAID
AMT. OF
ACCOUNT
CASH
AMT.
PAID
CHECK
n
1. l
-I
`to
BALANCE
DUE
MONEY
ORDER
BYJp�/ X10 �
O2881 REDIFeam 81888
McGEADY SISNEROS
June 19, 2009
Esther E. Gesick
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Weld County
915 10t1i Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 2
Dear Esther:
Per your recent email, enclosed is our check in the amount
transcription of the July 21, 1999 hearing regarding Beebe
No. 2.
C)
I`1NOTES
McGeady Sisneros P.C.
450 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80203-1214
303.592.4380 tel 303.592.4385 fax
www.mcgeadysisneros.com
ti
c
e c =:ri
I; N ; n = 7
N ;do
>
l,•o` -I -4
of $360.00 as a deposit for tl}E, cn'<
Draw Farms Metropolitan Di trict
Very truly yours,
MCGEADY SISNEROS, P.C.
Julia Dybdahl
Legal Assistant to MaryAnn M. McGeady
RECEIPT `� DATE %/619nA
RECEIVED FROM _ 1 Or eLy Si 0nvt40oJ, P8
ADC
.IAJM��
NO.
190755
Nleacc1&.El /��/J of /� $ o.`.2
,,/
FOR inn d clipoaiL`&LJ £taa 7-a1-gq)
ACCOUNT HOW PAID
AMT. OF
ACCOUNT
CASH
AMT.
PAID
CHECK
T Jli
Ce
BALANCE
DUE
MONEY
ORDER
14039,2
BY ( L
tt2001 RECIFCMI R 8L808
Esther Gesick
From: Esther Gesick
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:12 PM
To: Julia Dybdahl; MaryAnn McGeady
Cc: Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick
Subject: FW: BEEBE DRAW FARMS - aka PELICAN LAKES RANCH
Attachments: TRLOG072199BEEBE.doc
Hi Julia,
I'm happy to report I have a complete transcript of the hearing held on July 21, 1999, and a CD with all the various stages
of the land use process that were requested for Beebe Draw Farms. I've attached my Time Log/Bill for you to work from
next week. Upon receipt of payment I will e-mail the Word document of the transcript digitally and follow-up with the
signed original and CD containing case file copies, via overnight mail.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, and I hope you enjoy a wonderful July 4th holiday!
Esther E. Gesick
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Weld County, Colorado
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
(970)356-4000 X4226
(970)352-0242 (fax)
From: Esther Gesick
Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 4:02 PM
To: Julia Dybdahl; MaryAnn McGeady
Cc: Esther Gesick
Subject: RE: BEEBE DRAW FARMS - aka PELICAN LAKES RANCH
Hi Julia,
Based on the listed case numbers attached to the previous e-mail, there is a total of approximately 3,095 pages X .10
cents per page = $309.40 + $5.00 for CD and postage + $20.00 per hour of staff time required to research/locate/save to
CD. Once the project is complete, a final bill will be prepared and CD would be mailed upon receipt of payment.
Please advise whether you wish to proceed. Thanks!
Esther E. Gesick
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Weld County, Colorado
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
(970)356-4000 X4226
(970)352-0242 (fax)
From: Julia Dybdahl [mailto:JDybdahl@mcgeadysisneros.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 4:32 PM
To: Esther Gesick
Subject: RE: BEEBE DRAW FARMS - aka PELICAN LAKES RANCH
1
Hi Esther. We are requesting everything you mentioned in your email below. I will mail you a check in the amount of
$360 tomorrow. Do I make the check payable to "Weld County"? If we could get the transcript in the next two weeks, we
would really appreciate it. Let me know if you need anything else from me. Thanks.
Julia Dybdahl
McGeady Sisneros, P.C.
Legal Assistant to
MaryAnn M. McGeady
Darlene Sisneros and
Angela N. Rathbun
450 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80203-1214
303-592-4380
303-592-4385 — fax
jdvbdahl mcaeadvsisneros.com
From: Esther Gesick [mailto:egesick@co.weld.co.us]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:13 AM
To: MaryAnn McGeady; Julia Dybdahl
Cc: Kim Ogle; Monica Mika; Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick
Subject: FW: BEEBE DRAW FARMS - aka PELICAN LAKES RANCH
Good Morning MaryAnn and Julia,
I received the attached e-mail from Monica Mika and would like to get some clarification from you regarding
exactly what it is that you are requesting. If you're looking at the entire case file for these cases I can export
scanned images to a CD at the following rate:
Copying of records
(via CD)
$ .10 per digital image, plus
$20.00/hour for staff time (pro -rated to half hour segments)
and $5.00/CD and postage.
I also received the attached e-mail from Julia requesting a transcript of the hearing on July 21, 1999, regarding
the Beebe Draw Farms Metro District No. 2 Consolidated Service Plan. Transcripts are completed as my times
allows, so I was wondering if you have a general deadline in mind. I have located the tapes for that date and
estimate the length of the hearing to be 1-2 hours so the required deposit is calculated as follows:
Transcripts from CD/Tapes
(In-house transcripts)
(When estimating, plan on
3 times the length of
hearing as time required
to transcribe. Tapes are
approximately 3 hrs long.)
$60.00/hour for time spent plus
$4.00/page. (Provides two certified
copies of transcript.) Minimum
charge of $60.00, with a deposit of
three times the clock time of tape,
paid in advance, with balance
payable prior to receipt of transcript.
(Transcripts will be completed as staff time is available.
Fee non-refundable. No deadline will be assured.)
Estimating conservatively that the hearing lasted about 2 hours (times 3 hours for my time to transcribe), the
required deposit amount is $360.00. I will log my time and provide a final receipt once the work is completed
with the final number of pages and time spent indicating any balance due, or issue a refund, if necessary.
In summary, please advise as to how you wish for me to proceed regarding the copies of various case files, and
whether you agree to the quoted deposit amount. Once the check is received I will begin with the transcript.
Thanks!
2
Esther E Gesick
Deputy Clerk to the Board
Weld County, Colorado
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
(970)356-4000 X4226
(970)352-0242 (fax)
The information contained in this communication is confidential, may constitute inside information, is intended only for the use of the addressee, and is the property
of McGeady Sisneros PC. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all
attachments.
3
Esther Gesick
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Monica Mika
Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:37 PM
Esther Gesick
FW: BEEBE DRAW FARMS - aka PELICAN LAKES RANCH
From: Kim Ogle
Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 3:19 PM
To: Monica Mika
Cc: Kim Ogle
Subject: BEEBE DRAW FARMS - aka PELICAN LAKES RANCH
Z-412 CHANGE OF ZONE AGRICULTURAL TO PUD
S -247 PUD FINAL PLAN ( HL1 ha
Z- 247 AMENDED PUD FINAL PLAN ( ?
SZ 412 A AMENDED PUD DISTRICT
T Z-412 B AMENDED PUD DISTRICT
FIRST FILING FINAL PLAT: S-299 - RECEPTION NUMBER B1251 REC 02200074 12-13-1989 (MORRIS BURKE) (I?7p_.,w_
(i� K
SECOND FILING FINAL PLAT PF-1021 DENIED AT BCC ' Zoo ; -o
' - 0 8',0 (,
1 ,��� (f)
Esther Gesick
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Julia Dybdahl [JDybdahl@mcgeadysisneros.com]
Monday, June 15, 2009 5:30 PM
Esther Gesick
Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 2
Hi Esther. I am hoping you can help me with getting another hearing transcript. I need the transcript from the July 21,
1999 hearing of the Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 2 Consolidated Service Plan. I know it is 10 years old,
but hopefully it won't be too much of a pain to get it to me. Let me know if you can help me.
I hope you are doing well. Thanks so much.
Julia Dybdahl
McGeady Sisneros, P.C.
Legal Assistant to
MaryAnn M. McGeady
Darlene Sisneros and
Angela N. Rathbun
450 E. 17th Avenue, Suite 400
Denver, CO 80203-1214
303-592-4380
303-592-4385 — fax
jdvbdahl(cilmcgeadvsisneros. com
The information contained in this communication is confidential, may constitute inside information, is intended only for the use of the addressee, and is the property
of McGeady Sisneros PC. Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all
attachments.
1
Hello