The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20060955.tiff February 28, 2006 — County Commissioners: David Long Glenn Vaad Rob Madsen Bill Jerke Mike Geile 1 am enclosing a copy of this week's Lost Creek Guide. Two articles of interest. The first on page two deals with the Citizen's Academy that The Sheriff's Department put on. High marks for a good program. The second is about the Planning Commission meeting on the Pioneer Communities Request for a change to the County . (Pictures on page 7 and stories on page 10). ' Bob Grand — Keenesburg Concerned Citizen ;!k Mr.Robert Grand Fy PO Box 351 �i., Keenesburg,CO 80643 = EXHIBIT I L. 2006-0955 c72[� # x y Lost Creek Guide March 1,2006 Citizen's Academy The second point that stood out was that we 7 1 c must assist our young people in getting on Week 12 - Graduation a path in life that does not end up in trouble. This is not to say that we should take over as We successfully Citizen's parents but it does say that we as citizens and AWe have v. Corporal Kevin completed Halt the of C the n'st. towns should provide an environment that pro- Lupton Police Department, and Weld County thinkvides we varty heading e fo s ifnrourydirecpeople.I Deputy Les Weimers were our hosts for the think are in that direction in a strong way as we have done in the past. New graduation ceremony.Sheriff Cooke could not be in attendance but thanked us for partici- facilities like the Fair Grounds and the ball pating. The Acting Chief of the Ft. Lupton fields will provide our ur FFA organized sports ffforty Police Department thanked us also. the Little u Rebels'and our her their kr new work. Commander Ed Heffner reinforced the impor- Bopportunities to help further good work. sys- tance of community participation in helping tern sand anaourviros witht goadencourl e protecting our areas.There was a large contin- and a an lioenn we all c [hat encourages gent of Weld County Deputies representing healthy participation we all can hope to support all those who had participated in the program as the efforts of good parenting to prepare kids for well as a few others. Each civilian participant the notfut become e. We need t our kids criminalo b ljustice , was given a certificate of completion from the and not statistics in the justice Sheriffs Office and a nice plaque from the Ft. system' The last point we gleaned from the course was • Lupton Police Department. that police work is not easy and not cheap to In reflecting on the Citizen's Academy we both can say that the program was very well put we have.haveA our towns grow the c keeps e c of should together.It touched on all the major aspects of T ecos oufr own program gs fuste loocomingaclose- se- law enforcement. Not an an easy The cost of a sy must equipmentbe looked o tsoare job. Quite ly. The direct salary and costs are frankly a lot is involved.We as normal citizens significant but the hidden costs may be higher. usually see only a small piece of the pie.A cou- ple of times during the course we have heard ongoing training p involved fors police a is a qual- "everyone m - loves a firemen.". The perception is expense.This makes for a higher[hat firemen do well all the time and are there ity officer. If you do it right you have a better to protect us. There is a lot of truth in that. Police department.For a small community this creates another problem. Smaller communities Many on the other hand view our police as necessary evil. They do not show up when we can be a good training ground for bigger F think we need them and when they are here munities. Since we have taken the courseat.Ft. they often do not solve the issues that we want Lupton has lost a Chief to the City of Greeley and an experienced sergeant to Commerce City. solved. Worse when they around more they You say that's the American way but there is a stop us and give warnings or a ticket. Seems hidden danger in all of that and that is the legal like they should have better things to do. Not fair is it? implications of having a police force of less than highest standards. The potential for law- Coming away from the Citizen's Academy suits in our society never seems to go down.If there are three main points that stand out. The first is that we must be prepared to help our you have officers that are not fully and hoe- . neighbors and ourselves. This does not mean pletely trained the liability txknowe can be armed vigilantes, but rather an extension of the overwhelming. You may not know that the Sheriffs Office is moving its location in Ft. eyes and ears of the police. If bad folks know and understand that our towns intend to protect Lupton out to the fire of via off County Road t themselves they will find someplace more 52. think it would be of vall ue for our town[o attractive to go.They must understand that we havediscussions with Sheriffs Office in terms of developing a plan of where do we want to be are serious about keeping our towns the way we in terms of police services in the next ten years. want them.To assist us in this effort our new Growth is coming and we think we need to start Weld County Sheriffs Department Community planning on what we need in the future. We Resource Officer for District 3, need to do that in terms of the most effective Deputy Michelle Moore, has been invited to and efficient way. attend our Chamber of Commerce meeting We both would like to thank Sheriff Cooke, on March 1st at the Fire House in Keenesburg Commander Ed Heffner, and Corporal Kevin and Watch ve a presentation of the Neighborhood Halloran of the Ft. Lupton Police, and Weld program.Since 9/11 a national Citizen's County Deputy Les Wiermer for putting togeth- Corps has been established under which the er and running a good program. Neighborhood Watch Program Falls. The new We strongly suggest that as many of our Citizen's Corps has been up and running for neighbors who can participate in the next about a year and is being Coordinated by the Citizen's Academy. Weld County Health Department. We have invited Deputy Moore to help guide us on how we can jump start the effort and she has agreed to come. We look.forward to Bob Grand&Leonard Roskop working with her and the Sheriffs Office to' get this kicked off again. March 1, 2006 Lost Creek Guide Weld Planning Commission Meeting A meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission was held recently to review the Pioneer Community request to amend the Weld County Comprehensive Plan.The meeting was well attended by opposing view pointsand many attendees voiced their opinions. For more on this matter,see the articles on page 10. Attendence was good for this very important meeting of Linda Shoneman of Roggen voices the Weld County Planning Commision as they reiewed her opinion the Pioneer Communities proposal to build a new com- munity on 5400 acres at Road 49 and Road 22. Weld County Planning Commisioners voted unani- Chris Paulson testified for Pioneer mously to deny the Pioneer Communities proposal. 10 Lost Guide Mat..- 1,2006 Weld Planning Board Votes to Deny Pioneer Communities Project- Two Views Pioneer Communities Request to Change County Master Plan at Planning Commission dwelling units per acre in the Pioneer project.For the last four years the Town of Keeneburg has Hearing-One Man's Opinion negatively commented on all exemptions within the town three mile area of influences as per the By Bob Grand,Keenesburg Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with county expressing concern over the issue of further The Weld County Planning Commission met this past week to review the Pioneer Community draw down of the Fox-Hill aquifer. Most houses are on 5 to 7 acre parcels. If you have not been request to amend the Weld County Comprehensive Plan to proceed on the development of the out to southeast weld county over the last few years you would be amazed how many houses have 5400 acres at County Roads 22 and 49, leaving approximately 1400 acres of that in agricultural gone up. I understand that the Lost Creek water export issue has been adjudicated and is not an use as it is currently used. There was a turn out of local folks as well as Dr. Marvin Wade, issue that should impact the project. Superintendent of the RE-3J School District,Mayor Mark Gray of the Town of Keenesburg,Jim This person believes the County Planning Department took a position to deny the Pioneer Landeck,Town Administrator from Hudson. Community proposed changes to the plan and set out to prove it.I think they did that based on the Chris Paulson , President of Pioneer Community, represented the development along with existing plan.Pioneer Community took a position in stating that it was not appropriate to get into Assorted planning and other staff support. Brad Mueller was the prime county planner for the detail on some issues that are near and dear to our local citizens, like education. Pioneer project and had a full power point presentation.The meeting began at 1:30 PM and ran well after Community is not Calpine but the reality of that issue is real in the minds of our folks.Southeast 6 PM that night. There was ample time to present and answer questions.Any one that wanted to Weld County is changing. Growth is coming our way. Growth means change and that is always speak was given an opportunity. difficult.Keenesburg has just finished ifs revised Comprehensive Plan. It is the first update since The result of the meeting was a 7 to 0 vote by the Planning Commission to recommend to the 1972.Mayor Mark Gray, the Planning Board and the Town Board of Keenesburg dealt with some Weld County Commissioners the denial of the request by Pioneer Community for the requested tough issues q q ug but the reality is you have to plan ahead to make sure the infrastructure is in place to change to the Weld County Master Plan. provide the high level of service of members of our communities expect and quite frankly deserve. I attended the meeting and have done some research.It was clear that Pioneer Community and New development should pay its way.Getting agreement on that is not always easy but everyone the County Planning Staff Were not in agreement on this effort.It was an adversarial relationship. has a responsibility to work at it in good faith. I think that looking at the how the Weld County Comprehensive Plan is written and what it calls Our County Planners claim that there is enough existing zoning already in the County to accom- for the Planning Staff made an argument that what was being requested did '' modate the anticipated growth as proposed by Pioneer Community.In terms of raw numbers they not meet the plan. Probably true. The reality is the plan is due for a five-year review this year. are probably right.What is missed is that the folks at Pioneer Community will be marketing to is Much has occurred in the county in the last five years. not a group that for the most part would be interested in the areas that are there in the Northern Let us examine our county tax base. Per the Weld County Assessor's office on the County Web and Western area of the County. If you do not believe that,come to Main Street and Woodward site (which by the way is very informative) the county assessed tax base for 2005 is Avenue in Keenesburg about six in the morning and watch the traffic heading out of town to 1-76 $3,608,909,740(yes that is over 3 'A billion dollars)or an increase of$618,466,410 over the 2004 and going west. tax year.Of that increase a little over 50%comes from Oil and Gas valuation increase I think our communities deserve a better look at what the world today looks like and what it ($309,827,480).State assessed property accounted for over 17%of the increase($108,193,500). holds for southeast Weld County. Unfortunately that does not always meet the timetables we all Of the state assessed valuation the Rocky Mountain Energy Center (The Calpine Plant) repre- would like to have.One thing I have learned since coming to our farming community is that our sented a little under$98 trillion or 90%of the increase. The net result of the increases in valua- farmers adapt to what it takes today to make it work,a lesson that might be learned by the well tion yielded a 10.3%reduction in the Weld County mill levy year over year.I am sure all of Weld educated planners on both sides of this issue.I believe our County Commissioners should formu- County was very appreciative for the contribution that Southern Weld County made towards the late a solution that permits the Pioneer Community project to proceed with conditions of approval mill levy reductions.The County Budget for 2006 is$ 174,164,568.Yes that is almost$200 mil- that require some specifics relative to issues like education and road/traffic.Our towns,and the lion dollars! RE-3J school district, our County Departments all should be working together with Pioneer To put it in perspective the Town of Keenesburg assessed property valuation for 2006 is approx- Community to solve these issues.No is too easy an answer and does not reflect the level of lead- imately $ 7.7 million. The Town of Hudson assessed valuation is approximately $10.5 million. ership required to prepare Southeast Weld County as a place where our kids can grow up and have The S98 million assessed valuation for the Rocky Mountain Energy Center is spread over the an opportunity to be contributing members their community. entire county, and although both communities receive some benefit in the reduced county mill rate,I would assume it would be significantly hirer if either of the Towns annexed the power plant. Meld County Planners review request by Pioneer The pointof tax information is to say that the Southern part of county contributes to supporting County government. Listening to the Planning staff review I was not convinced that our entire Communities area had gotten a fair shake. Some of us have felt for a long time that the focus of the County has been in the rapidly developing areas of the county.A large portion of the increase in the county by Sharon Croghan assessed tax base for 2005 does not come from that developing area. We all know that roof tops Weld County Planners held a meeting February 21, 2006 to review a request by Pioneer do not pay all the bills for government. Communities, a 10,000 home proposed development located on —5600 acres at Weld County We are looking at the Community Pioneer development project that over time will increase Roads 49 and 22,to restructure the Weld County Master Plan Land Use Maps and Categories to business and job opportunities in the area. We do not know what those are yet but you have to allow Pioneer Communities to proceed with their development plans. Presently the area proposed have supportable commercial opportunities either in terms of growing existing businesses or cre- for this development is not designated to be a mixed use,high dwelling unit density area,thus the ating new ones.The decision on how to address that is up to the individuals,as it should be in the need for the change. American way of opportunity. The first to present was Brad Mueller, Weld County Planning Department. He presented the THAT DOES NOT APPLY IN TERMS OF OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM. Dr. Wade, following general information about the project: 10,000- 12,000 dwellings to be build on 4200 Superintendent of the RE3J School District,within which Pioneer Community development falls, acres, 1400 acres to remain agricultural,projected population increase of 25,000,vehicles/week- did not support the amendment change to the plan because although there have been discussions day increase of 92,500 with Pioneer Community nothing has been committed to.he school district has had two success- Concerns presented for this kind of growth in this location included: $5 million deficit/year to ful bond issues over the past four years which has resulted in new or renovated grade schools in the County for services provided, increased cost for road maintenance,new roads and the addi- • Lochbuie,Hudson and Keenesburg and the new high school and renovatedjuniorhlgh to be corn- tion of lanes to existing roads to accommodate the increase in traffic,over crowding of existing pleted next year.. The citizen's committees of the RE3J School worked very hard on both bond schools and costs of construction of new schools not being covered by the current mil levy,over issues to gain voter approval.For the near term the School District is on a positive course for pro- extension of existing volunteer emergency services,water,local law enforcement is non-existent, viding the bricks and mortar that is needed. The citizen's and voters of the school district will not economic impact on local townships not studied, loss of rural atmosphere to area,sprawl, nega- react favorably to a project that adversely affects all the work that has been put in so far.I am sure tive impact on local farmers. that the Pioneer Community people understand something needs to be done.A great school dis- Next,Chris Paulsen and Jack Reutzel,from Pioneer Communities presented a different view of trict is a valuable marketing tool for any developer.This group has a lot of experience and under- the project: rather than a net loss to the County,Pioneer predicts a net gain of$8 million,create stands that.The School Board has the responsibility to insure that it provides an outstanding edu- a community,not just another development,intend to meet deficit for school growth and new road cation for all our students. Seems that should be able to be worked out. development, feel existing emergency services are adequate for the next 10 years, will enhance Unfortunately our communities have had and are going through and unpleasant experience with Weld agriculture by leaving 1400 acres for vegetable crops with the help of a local farmer and will the Rocky Mountain Energy Center Project of the Calpine Corporation.Several years ago a large keep Weld water in Weld, partner with Keenesburg and Hudson for commercial development number of citizens protested the building of that plant. Many of us saw the tax benefits to the within their visions for their towns rather than in the development itself,development is consis- School district and additional electrical power generation and supported the plant. The County tent with the area, community will grow within the existing area, 1-76 corridor prime for devel- Commissioner's held hearing and promises and commitments were made.Time passes and thing opment,demand is high for this type of development change.The end result is that in the aggregate the Town of Hudson,The I Athletic Complex At the end of Pioneer's presentation they requested a modification to the Weld County Land Use in Keenesburg.and the Southeast Weld Fair Board will be out over$I million.We arc not big com- Map to show Pioneer Urban Land Use designations as "Urban Residential"and"Agricultural". munities and that has financial shortfall has left a very bad taste dealing with big companies and After taking public comment about the project and a final response from the Pioneer presenters. big promises. Weld County Planning Department recommended denial of the project. Future meetings will be The Pioneer Community folks have come to our local governments'and our chambers of com- scheduled with the Weld County Commissioners concerning this project. merce meetings and have supported our local events. Mayor Gray of Keenesburg has had a lot of What to you think? Ilow do you feel about this development going in? Your opinion matters: discussion with the principles regarding the Keenesburg water projects with them as well as com- contact your local officials, Weld County Commissioners or write an editorial to the paper. mercial issues. The Mayor has kept the Town Board well informed. The Pioneer Community Express your concerns or support for this project. The commissioners can be reached on line at group seems to be responsive and have a genuine interest to make the project work. Our local http://www.co.weld.co.us/or send correspondence to Weld County Commissioners 915 Tenth St. folks still wonder. Greeley.CO 80632. Phone 970-336-7204 Fax 970-352-0242 Our County planning group talked about inefficient water use due to low density of 1.7 to 2.9 Carol Harding From: Brad Mueller Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 12:17 PM To: Carol Harding Subject: FW: pioneer Attachments: 1664485774-Pioneer Review Response.doc; 162697111-Pioneer Fiscal Analysis -- Buildout.xls Pioneer Review Pioneer Fiscal Response.doc(2... Analysis-- Bui... Carol, This and two following messages relative to Monday's Pioneer hearing item came late. I will have hard copies available, should the Board want them, but I ' ll forward these in case you want to try to include them yet in the record prior to the hearing. I have told the applicant to expect to present them to the Board directly themselves. Brad Original Message From: Bill Cunningham [mailto:bjcicg@yahoo.com] Sent : Friday, April 07, 2006 8 :03 AM To: Brad Mueller Subject: pioneer Brad, Here' s what I sent to RCL -- I ' ll talk with them later this morning. EXHIBIT 1 p� � Y 1. Can we get a copy of the fiscal model to review that produced the results summarized on Page 5, Table 4? See Attached 2. Which version (year) of the Weld County budget did you use? We used 2005 budget numbers, the same as yours. 3. What assumptions were used to determine the gross "other revenues" figure to calculate per capita revenues? For the sake of comparison, we used the same figures as your analysis—we just used a different figure to calculate per capita revenues. What budget items were included or excluded (besides property tax revenue)? We included all other revenue sources (i.e., licenses and permits, charges for services, etc.). 4. Please verify that you used the 42,857 unincorporated population plus estimated employment of 12,000 to divide the gross "other revenues" figure in order to determine per capita revenues. Yes, although we adjusted this figure from 2004 to 2005 to be consistent. 5. What assumptions were used to determine the gross expenses figure to calculate per capita expenditures? What budget items were included or excluded if any)? Again, we tried to use the same expenditure figures as your analysis, but with a different calculator for per capita expenditures. 6. Did you use the same population/employment number to divide gross expenditures to determine per capita expenditures? Yes 7. Did you assume that each new person will generate revenues and expenditures on one-to-one basis? In other words, will a new resident to the county generate the same revenues and expenses similar to existing residents. Yes 8. What are your assumptions for a slow-growth scenario? 30 or 35 years? Are you assuming a straight average annual absorption over the sell-out period? As is indicated in our review memo, we tried to provide more of a reality check for the absorption forecast. We did not produce an annual forecast for the project. Based on projected growth in the County over the next 30 years, and competition from other portions of the County (Southwest Weld County, for example), we felt that a 20-year absorption period was aggressive. 9. What escalation rate are you using for revenues? All of our figures are in constant dollars. We feel that this shows a truer relationship between revenues and expenditures. Draft As Of 31 January 2006;Subject To Revision TABLE 3 PIONEER DEVELOPMENT FISCAL IMPACT ESTIMATES --WELD COUNTY OPERATING EXPENSE ESTIMATES JANUARY 2006 General Government Total @ Avg.HH Total Expense Per 30-Yr Bulldout Size Population Sq Ft/Capita Annual Land Use: Single Family Detached(Units) 8,000 3.0 24,000 $187.57 $4,501,756 Single Family Attached(Units) 1,000 2.5 2,500 $187.57 $468,933 Mult-Family(Units) 1,000 2.0 2,000 $187.57 $375,146 Retail(SF) 200,000 0.0 0 $1.66 $332,791 Annual Total: I 86,078,028 Public Safety Total @ Avg.HH Total Expense Per 30-Yr Buildout Size Population Sq Ft/Capita Annual Land Use: Single Family Detached(Units) 8,000 3.0 24,000 $252.18 $6,052,432 Single Family Attached(Units) 1,000 2.5 2.500 $252.18 $630,462 Multi-Family(Units) 1,000 2.0 2.000 $252.18 $504,369 Retail(SF) 200.000 0.0 0 $2.24 $447,424 Annual Total: I I'-$7,834,088': Public Works Total @ Avg.HH Total Expense Per 30-Yr Buildout Size Population Sq Ft/Capita Annual Land Use: Single Family Detached(Units) 8,000 3.0 24.000 $14.00 $335,935 Single Family Attached(Units) 1,000 2.5 2.500 $14.00 $34,993 Multi-Family(Units) 1,000 2.0 2,000 $14.00 $27,995 Retail(SF) 200,000 0.0 0 $0.12 $24,834 Annual Total: I $423;788' Culture and Recreation Total @ Avg.HH Total Expense Per 30-Yr Buildout Size Population Sq Ft/Capita Annual Land Use: Single Family Detached(Units) 8.000 3.0 24,000 $0.77 $18,407 Single Family Attached(Units) 1,000 2.5 2,500 $0.77 $1,917 Multi-Family(Units) 1,000 2.0 2,000 $0.77 $1,534 Retail(SF) 200,000 0.0 0 $0.03 $5,443 Annual Total: I $27,301'. Health and Welfare Total @ Avg.HH Total Expense Per 30-Yr Buildout Size Population Sq Ft/Capita Annual Land Use: Single Family Detached(Units) 8.000 3.0 24,000 $9.50 $228,007 Single Family Attached(Units) 1,000 2.5 2.500 $9.50 $23,751 Multi-Family(Units) 1,000 2.0 2,000 $9.50 $19,001 Retail(SF) 200,000 0.0 0 $0.34 $67,421 Annual Total: I' $338,179'-. Economic Assistance/Miscellaneous Total @ Avg.HH Total Expense Per 30-Yr Bulldout Size Population Sq Ft/Capita Annual Land Use: Single Family Detached(Units) 8,000 3.0 24,000 $31.91 $765,792 Single Family Attached(Units) 1,000 2.5 2.500 $31.91 $79,770 Multi-Family(Units) 1.000 2.0 2,000 $31.91 $63,816 Retail(SF) 200,000 0.0 0 $0.07 $14,153 Annual Total: I $923,531 Total Annual Expenses: !:7$18,020;081' Source: Weld County;Pioneer Communities,Inc.;and Leland Consulting Group. Page 1 of 2 Carol Harding From: Brad Mueller Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 12:18 PM To: Carol Harding Subject: FW: Pioneer Second forwarding. From: Marvin Wade [mailto:marvinwade@rebel-net.tec.co.us] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 12:27 PM To: Brad Mueller Subject: RE: Pioneer Brad, Pioneer and Re-3J met again this morning. We are making progress by discussing how we might work together in the future to provide schools, but nothing material has occurred that would lead 3J to change its basic position of opposing this development. The School District does not expect growth to "pay for itself" but we must remain opposed to any development (in this case Pioneer) until we have written assurances that extend beyond what we now have: land, specials, and establishment of a Capital Facility Fee Foundation that lacks a specific per unit voluntary contribution. I do believe that--with more time and continued external pressure-- Pioneer and 3J can creatively come up with ways to better meet both of our needs. My request to the Commissioners will be that IF the BOCC allows Pioneer to move forward that they at least incorporate language in the conditions of approval that would keep Pioneer coming to the table to resolve issues with the School District....anything you can do to facilitate this happening would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Marvin p.s. I plan to attend the 9:00 am hearing on Monday, but I will not be coming to my office first. If there is a need to contact me, please call at home (720-685-1366) or cell (970-590-0741). Also, I have a flight to catch at DIA early Monday afternoon so I may not stay for the entire hearing. From: Brad Mueller [mailto:bmueller@co.weld.co.us] Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 8:33 AM To: Marvin Wade Subject: FW: Pioneer Marvin, Attached is the latest update from the Pioneer folks about their interaction with you. Unfortunately, they're cutting it a bit close to the hearing, which is Monday morning. Has your basic position changed since we last spoke? If you could provide a quick update, that would be helpful in answering any questions that come up. Because of these last-minute items, there is a chance we may ask for a continuance on Monday, but unfortunately I won't know that until possibly the day of on Monday. This item requires three readings -- the 2nd Reading is tentatively planned for May 8, and 3rd Reading on May 31. A tentative workshop wit. .- :•_ . planned for April 19. All meetings are in Greeley. EXHIBIT 4/10/2006 1 (ry Page 2 of 2 I will be out of the office tomorrow for a management retreat, but please call today if you have questions or want to pass along info. Brad 970-353-6100 x3572 From: Joy McGee [mailto:joy@reutzelandassoc.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2006 3:36 PM To: Brad Mueller Cc: Jack Reutzet Subject: Pioneer Hi Brad, A quick status update from this end ... Contact with Lesser: We sent a list of questions to Bill (Thu 3/23/2006 8:39 AM). We have been nudging him but have yet to hear a response. Bill did email us yesterday Monday, (April 03, 2006 3:48 PM)with an acknowledgement that he would be getting back with us, it just hasn't happened yet. Lesser& Co prepared a fiscal analysis response which looks at the two methodologies and provides an explanation of the key differences. We feel it is necessary to confirm the assumptions with Bill before we share the assessment. Re-3J -We have been meeting with the school district on the Foundation and working through various assumptions with Denny Hill and representatives from the District, including Dr. Wade. We have submitted to them a summary status and will meet with them Friday morning to discuss. Code revision -A letter was sent to Bruce Barker, copy to Monica, from Jack Reutzel today on how we envision the Code revision taking place. We will make every effort to get information that we would want to enter into the record to you as soon as it's available. Questions for you... Is the presentation format with the Commissioners similar to the Planning Commission? Is timing about the same? Is anyone and everyone from the public to be heard at this meeting? How long have you scheduled for the meeting? Do you have a staff report?What are the Commissioners options at the end of the hearing? Do we anticipate an action or do they move it on to a study session or second reading for action? Is the equipment the same -do we need to bring a laptop or will the projector accept a disc? Let me know. Joy McGee Reutzel &Associates, LLC (303) 694-1982 x 135 Disclaimer: This transmission may be: (1)subject to the Attorney-Client Privilege.(2)an attorney work product,or(3)strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,you may not disclose,print,copy or disseminate this information. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify me by telephone(303-539-8135)and destroy this message. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might negatively affect any computer system into which it is received and opened.it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way in the event that such a virus or defect exists. Thank you. Joy. 4/10/2006 Page 1 of 1 Carol Harding From: Brad Mueller Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 12:18 PM To: Carol Harding Subject: FW: Pioneer Materials BOCC Attachments: 060405 Paulson_Water Supply_.pdf; Ltr to Wade re amend comp plan 4.4.06.pdf; Response to Leland Memo v 2 -2006-04-06.pdf Third forwarding. From: Joy McGee [mailto:joy@reutzelandassoc,com] Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 2:53 PM To: Brad Mueller Cc: Monica Mika; Bruce Barker; Jack Reutzel; Chris Paulson Subject: Pioneer Materials BOCC Brad, Attached are the following files that Pioneer would propose to incorporate into the record and presentation before the BOCC on Monday to address issues raised by staff: (1) RCLCo April 7, 2006 fiscal memo; (2) David Foster's April 4, 2006 letter to RE-3j School District just to keep you current in our discussions; (3) Brad Simons P.E. April 5, 2006 water availability memo. There is really no new information just the basis for our responses. There is also a RCLCo Fiscal Impact Analysis Response April 2006 which we have used as the basis of the memo. That file was to large to email as an attachment in this correspondence. Please contact me if you have any problems with the attachments or if additional information or clarification is needed. See you Monday morning. Joy S. McGee Project Director Reutzel 8t Associates, LLC 9145 E. Kenyon Avenue, Suite 301 Denver, CO 80237 (303) 694-1982 Telephone (303) 694-3831 Facsimile Disclaimer: This transmission may be: (1)subject to the Attorney-Client Privilege,(2)an attorney work product,or(3)strictly confidential. If you are not the intended recipient of this message,you may not disclose.print,copy or disseminate this information. Unauthorized interception of this e-mail is a violation of federal criminal law. If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify me by telephone(303-539-8135)and destroy this message. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect tnat might negatively affect any computer system into which it is received and opened,it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by the sender for any loss or damage arising in any way in the event tnat such a virus or defect exists. Thank you. UNMET • 4/10/2006 p_ DATE: April 07, 2006 ':• RCLCo TO: PIONEER COMMUNITIES, INC. 04-10463.00 FROM: Troy Palma and Amy Pan SUBJECT: Key Differences Between RCLCo's Fiscal Impact Analysis and Leland Consulting Group's Comments Regarding the Pioneer Development. The main difference between the two studies is the underlying assumptions used in calculating per capita expenditures and miscellaneous revenues ("Non-Property Tax Revenues". The Weld County General Fund Budget is broken out as follows (2005 Numbers): Total Expenditures $55.0 Million Total Revenues $55.0 Million Property Tax Revenues $39.5 From incorporated and unincorporated areas Million Miscellaneous Revenues "Non-Property Tax Revenues" (e.g., $15.5 Charges for Services, Licenses and Permits, etc.) Million General government expenditures are funded through two main revenue sources: property taxes and miscellaneous revenues. In a balanced budget, these revenues collected offset expenditures. In recent years, there has been a budget surplus indicating the County is collecting more revenues (namely property taxes) then it has been spending. Using the budget as a starting point, expenditures and miscellaneous revenues are divided by population estimates to determine these figures are on a per capita basis. These per capita calculations are then used to project potential expenditures and miscellaneous revenues generated from new Weld County residents. Property tax revenues are a separate calculation based on established assessment and millage' rates. Both studies are generally similar regarding methodology to determine property tax revenues. The County collects property tax revenues from residents who reside in both incorporated areas and unincorporated areas. To determine per capita expenditures, Leland assumed that most County expenditures should only be allocated to population residing in unincorporated areas of Weld County, or approximately 42,900 persons. In other words, only residents in unincorporated areas utilize, and therefore should pay for, services provided by the County, an assumption we believe to be overstated. 'A property tax rate stated in terms of tenths of cents in tax per dollar of property value. ROBERT CHARLES LESSER&CO.,LIC ILL.:o n: fart;S,;,.. While there are municipalities that are essentially self-sufficient and rely minimally on • RCLCo Weld County for services, such as Greeley, Evans, Fort Lupton and Windsor, there are many incorporated areas that rely on Weld County to provide a significant level of their services including public safety (e.g. sheriff), public works (roads), etc. For example, RCLCo confirmed that many of these jurisdictions rely on the County in part, or in total, for public safety services. The Weld County Sheriff Department also concurred that they service many incorporated areas, and even provide additional support to some which provide their own public safety. Under Leland's assumptions, if carried to finality, their analysis indicates that if all the new growth in the future occurs only in incorporated areas, then the County would not incur corresponding increases in expenditures since it will not be providing services to these new residents. We do not believe this to be the case since we confirmed there are many incorporated areas that rely on services provided by the County. RCLCo adjusted the number to determine per capita expenditures to 97,300, which includes population from selected municipalities and towns to account for the fact that many County services are being utilized by residents of incorporated areas. We believe this number more accurately reflects how the cost of services is spread among the residents of the County. Per capita miscellaneous revenues for both studies were calculated using similar corresponding population estimates. As discussed, property taxes collected from households in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas make up most of the revenues collected by the County. Unlike miscellaneous revenues, property taxes are not calculated on a per capita basis. When comparing expenditures to miscellaneous revenues only, there is a gap, which in the RCLCo analysis, is offset by property tax revenues resulting in a break even, if not slightly positive, fiscal situation. This is consistent with our assertion that the Pioneer development will pay its own way, and in line with the balanced budget Weld County maintains. Since Leland used a smaller population number, the higher per capita assumptions result in a significantly wider gap between expenditures and miscellaneous revenues. This is gap is covered in part by the property tax revenues (similar methodology in both studies) but the shortfall results in a budget deficit, which Leland estimates to be approximately $5.3 million annually at buildout. Plainly stated, the Leland analysis overestimates the County costs of supporting the Pioneer development. Since RCLCo assumes a fairer allocation of expenditures, property taxes and miscellaneous revenues are sufficient to cover services provided by the County. Upon further review, RCLCo determined that the miscellaneous revenues stated in the budget are mostly attributable to unincorporated residents, so the unincorporated population of 42,900 (not adjusted similar to expenditure calculations) should be used to determine per capita miscellaneous revenues. This is a favorable change in Pioneer's favor, but has somewhat minimal impact in the overall conclusions. When updating the fiscal impact analysis to include the most current assessed values and millage rates, the answer is still only slightly positive despite the increase in miscellaneous revenues. ROBERT CHARLES LESSER&CO.,LtC L(Ni W�YP] A1t•�,e,]' f , KFi!F I ' LID OFy l ba.301 v0=66.0} .> 2 The Leland analysis also asserts that a slower sellout of the Pioneer development would RCICoresult in further negative impacts. This is only true if assuming an annual fiscal deficit (as Leland asserts), which, if occurring over a longer period, will further exacerbate the problem. However, our analysis has determined a break even to slight fiscal benefit per year, which is not affected by slower sales, and no detriment to the County. ROBERT CHARLES LESSER&CO.,(IC `IOWrccan�nV�.. - 7I , Rnn NFL M1 )'NSI} 1i ;.) Lo ',ono Pn.. )) Ir.)i. ` FAIL\L(.. L„AI, ,N11-\‘‘ II r, 1)( 3 ','`' .1 FOSTER GRAHAM MILSTEIN CALISHER LLP dr. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Daniel S.Foster r • R g David Wm.Foster 6 " ' E ib Robert G.Graham �aiy'k�te+C=t r r +,,rte'.. Michael G.Milstein Daniel K.Calisher April 4,2006 Shari L.Ulery Susan B.Schneider Randall M.Chin Jennifer G.Feingold Dr.Marvin Wade Cynthia Treadwell-Miller Brian C.Proffitt Superintendent Weld County School District Re-3 (J) 99 West Broadway Keenesburg, CO 80643 RE: Pioneer Communities,Inc. (the"Developer");Proposed Amendment(the "Amendment")to Comprehensive Plan Dear Dr. Wade: Thank you for working with us over the past months in order to help us establish a framework within which the Developer can move forward with the proposed Amendment. At this point,we would like to summarize the items the Developer will offer in order to ensure the support of District RE-3(J)(the"District")for the Amendment: 1. A separate capital facilities fee foundation(the"Foundation")will be established in connection with the proposed development(the"Project"); and 2. The Developer will contribute the following in connection with the Project: a. A fixed dollar amount for each single family detached housing unit; b. Land sufficient to develop the number of schools that would be required to educate the prospective 6251 students generated by the Project; c. Improvements to the land donated for school sites consistent with that to be completed in the applicable development at the time,including grading, curbs, gutters and roadways; d. Location of the school sites adjacent to parks and/or recreation centers,to provide shared space for athletic fields and facilities;and e. Sleeves or other underground routing for cables,wires, optic fibers or other facilities required for communications,technology or similar functions. We acknowledge that our meetings also raised certain other questions,such as agreement upon the actual cost per square foot to build a school and the monetary contribution to the Foundation by the Developer. While we,too,are anxious to make these determinations, we feel it is in everyone's best interest to wait until the process is further along prior to finalizing those figures. 1226 Bannock Street Denver, Colorado 80204 303.333.9810 phone 303.333.9786 fax www.fostergraham.com Dr. Marvin Wade April 4,2006 Page 2 As you know,there is ahearing scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners on Monday,April 10,2006. We would like the opportunity to meet with you and your staff prior to the April 10th hearing. Please contact me at 303.333.9810 with your schedule for next week. Thank you for your continued assistance in this matter. I look forward to speaking with you. Very truly yours, David Wm. Foster,Esq. Foster,Graham,Milstein&Calisher,LLP cc: Harvey Deutsch Joel Farkas Joy McGee 2 MEMO TO: Chris Paulson, Pioneer Communities, Inc. FROM: Bradley A. Simons,P.E., Gateway American Resources LLC DATE: April 5, 2006 RE: Pioneer Water Supply Provisions In accordance with your request, I have reviewed the "Summary of the Weld County Planning Commission Meeting". The summary, based upon Weld County staff's presentation at the February 21, 2006 Planning Commission meeting, indicates: "Central water is proposed to supply the site, the demand for the units would be approximately 6100 acre feet (at) per year." The summary also indicates: "The Pioneer Metropolitan District would contract with the Resource Colorado Metropolitan District and the actual source of water would be 23% from Denver Basin, 36% from Lost Creek/Prospect Valley, and 40% from the Box Elder Alluvium. There will be return flows that will be used to augment agricultural uses downstream, which is significant. However, there has been no information provided as to what those amounts would be." These statements are not accurate. Appendix F to the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application summarizes and quantifies the various components of the overall water supply plan for the project. The demands of the development will include indoor and outdoor residential uses associated with 10,000 equivalent residential units, as well as the agricultural needs associated with 1,280 acres of crops. These uses, as well as the annual amounts, are tabulated below. Use Annual Demand Indoor Residential 2,650.0 acre-feet Outdoor Residential 1,500.0 acre-feet Agriculture 2,036.0 acre-feet TOTAL 6,186.0 acre-feet Memo to Chris Paulson April 5, 2006 Page Two The sources of water to meet this quantity include Prospect Valley (Lost Creek Designated Groundwater Basin), Denver Basin and Box Elder Alluvium. In addition, water for various uses can be supplied with surface water that can be introduced to Box Elder Creek from the Henrylyn Irrigation District shares owned by the property owner. The quantities of water from each of the ground water sources are tabulated below. Source Annual Supply Prospect Valley 2,250.0 acre-feet Denver Basin 1,458.5 acre-feet Box Elder Alluvium 2,477.5 acre-feet TOTAL 6,186.0 acre-feet Return flows from the uses are equal to 85% of the indoor residential water use and 15% of the outdoor residential use, with agricultural return flows being negligible as a result of farming best management practices. These return flows could be made available annually to augment tributary water pumped from the Box Elder Alluvium. These return flows could also be used in the development of the irrigation component of the dual water system thereby reducing the demands of the potable water system. The return flows from the first-use applications are tabulated below. Use Annual Return Indoor Residential 2,252.5 acre-feet Outdoor Residential 225.0 acre-feet Agriculture 0.0 acre-feet TOTAL 2,477.5 acre-feet As for providing greater detail regarding the water supply provisions for the proposed development and associated agricultural uses, Weld County's subdivision regulations allow for proof of water to occur at time of preliminary plan submittal process. At the time of preliminary plan submittal, a water supply resource report shall be prepared by a licensed engineer and shall contain the following: 1) Evidence that adequate water service in terms of quality, quantity and dependability is available for the type of subdivision proposed. Such evidence may include, but shall be limited to: a. Evidence of ownership or use of existing and proposed water rights. b. Historic use and estimated yield of claimed water rights. c. Amenability of existing water rights to a change in use. d. Evidence that public or private water owners can and will supply water to the proposed subdivision stating the amount of water available for use within the subdivision and the feasibility of extending service to that area. e. Evidence concerning the potability of the proposed water supply for the subdivision. Memo to Chris Paulson April 5, 2006 Page Three In addition to the elements required by Weld County's subdivision regulations, the water supply resource report will also include the following: 1) The proposed sources of water for the subdivision. 2) The expected water requirements of the subdivision at full development, including the various water uses to be permitted. 3) The estimated consumptive use of water for the various uses within the subdivision. 4) An evaluation of the potential for material injury to existing water rights as a result of the subdivision, including the cumulative effect of on-lot exempt domestic wells. 5) A plan of augmentation or plan of exchange if any material injury to existing water rights is anticipated. The Colorado State Engineer, Division of Water Resources, is a preliminary plan referral agency. Upon receipt of a preliminary plan referral, the state engineer will prepare an opinion regarding the material injury likely to occur to decreed water rights by virtue of diversion of water necessary or proposed to be used to supply the proposed subdivision and adequacy of proposed water supply to meet requirements of the proposed subdivision. Finally, in addition to the water supply resource report required as part of the preliminary plan submittal process, Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District (RCW&SMD) and Pioneer Water and Sanitation District (PW&SD)will prepare a water supply plan in an effort to expedite the evaluation of the water supply resource report for the subdivision. The water supply plan will be submitted to the State Engineer's Office at the time the preliminary plan is referred to the State Engineer's Office for comment and will include: 1) A detailed summary of water rights owned, or available for acquisition, by RCW&SMD. 2) The yield of those water rights in average and dry years. 3) The anticipated demands on the water systems of RCW&SMD and PW&SD. 4) The amount of uncommitted firm supply RCW&SMD will have available for future development. Gateway American Resources LLC is prepared to initiate formal preparation of the water supply resource report and water supply plan in support of the preliminary plan submittal for the proposed Pioneer development. In doing so, much of the information presented above in support of the comprehensive plan amendment application, as well as information previously developed for the formation of the Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District and the Pioneer Water and Sanitation District, will be utilized. Should you have any comments or questions, or require additional information, please contact me. Pagel of 3 Mike Geile From: Sharon Croghan [mornglory40@rtebb.net] Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2006 9:24 PM To: weld@nosuperslab.org Subject: Pioneer Communities Honorable Commissioners, It would be my preference to present you with my concerns for the Pioneer Communities request to change the Weld County Comprehensive Plan to allow for the 10 , 000 home communities between Keenesburg and Hudson, but health issues preclude my attending the meeting, so if you will permit me I will briefly outline for you my concerns . First , I did attend the Weld Planning Hearing concerning the Pioneer Communities request , so I have heard their presentation and downloaded their presentation from the internet so as to be able to refer to it . This presentation was the first time I heard concrete information about the project and prior to it, really did not have an opinion, one way or the other. My main concern, after leaving the planning meeting, evolves around Pioneer Spokesmen' s repeatedly stating when questioned about issues such as school , roads and emergency services said, "you don' t need to worry about that . We've done developments like this before and we know what we are doing, we' ll take care of it . " I came away from this meeting feeling like these men felt they were talking to a room full of country bumpkins who couldn' t possibly understand or comprehend what they were proposing, thus we should take our concerns home with us and leave the hard work to them. My concrete concerns : Access and traffic - how can the roads out here possibly handle an increase in traffic of 92 , 000/week, even over the next 20 years . Why are their plans so vague about dealing with this? Could it be, they expect FRTR to put a toll road through or near their development, thus elevating some of the transportation problems? Agricultural preservation - 1400 Acres to remain agricultural? That' s really nice, but such a blatant attempt to "look good" to the community. Most of the land they are proposing to keep agricultural is underwater during wet years, so could not be relied on for production and probably because of its location in the flood plain, could not be developed for residential or commercial use anyway. Just a bread crumb offering. EXHIBIT 4/10/2006 Page 2 of 3 Water - They claim to be keeping Weld water in Weld, great, but what about the people living in the Lost Creek Basin who, in the future, loose their water because so much of it is being piped out of the Basin, rather than being used in the basin now. This basin is called rechargeable, but I haven' t had measurable moisture in the two years we have lived in the Lost Creek Basin. Where will the recharge come from if not rain, especially, with so much of it leaving the basin for other uses? Emergency Services - Pioneer claims the volunteer fire departments from the area can service the needs of this community. Our volunteer' s are just that, they have jobs, lives and many of them farm also. These wonderful , giving people should not be called upon to serve this community also . Pioneer should not just offer money to our emergency service personnel and think that will elevate over taxing them. Full time, paid personnel would be required to adequately service this community. (this was also an issue they seemed to think we should worry about, they've looked into it and we should not worry) . How is it, the needs of the existing community, can be put on the back shelf to this new development? It will not be stood for in this community. Schools - If, as Pioneer claims, they know what they are doing, why are schools not a specific part of the plan they are offering? They say, they will work with the school district to identify the location of new schools in the future and they believe RE3j . can handle the influx of students until then. Again, don' t worry we' ll take care of it . Thank-you, I am worried and it seems for good justification. Fiscal Short Fall vs Fiscal Benefit - If the difference between Brad Muller' s fiscal short fall to the county vs the fical benefit to the county were, at least close, I would say "fuzzy math" on someone' s part, but the massive difference between the two numbers, $9 . 6 million, is not a number to be trifled with. Especially, since the county is already facing a great many new burdens with an already fast growing population, it seems irresponsible to increase that burden with a speculative project, such as this . At this time, the plans proposed by Pioneer, do not fit with the community, already established in and around Keenesburg and Hudson. We, the people who have lived in the area, many only a short time, many for years, deserve to have our community sustained and enhanced, not destroyed, as the development would do. The good of the county does not out weigh the good of the individual , nor should the plans of the men involved with Pioneer, come before the plans, dreams, hopes and futures of the families currently living in their area. Peace and grace, Sharon K Croghan 44250 E 168th Ave Keenesburg, CO 80643 303-732-1003 4/10/2006 Page 3 of 3 "difficulties must be overcome, not yielded to." John Dyke Acland No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385/Virus Database: 268.4.0/305 -Release Date:4/8/2006 4/10/2006 k rf PIONEER COMMUNITIES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT www.pioneercommunities.com PIONEER. Regional Map of Area ■ 1:1:1.1..1 i.1 Ira ,.,. \CONp I'1'. .U14 N UI 1111)\ RIOT[to\ KKO() i'1 A.1) '1'11OR ' N OU F 2 I+r) akia21" kPIONEER. DINVER Policy Determination Board of County Commissioners Should the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Designate Pioneer for Urban Scale Development? ■ There are a number of options available for implementing this policy direction . Isaft, PIONEER Key Elements of the Amendment • Keeps Weld County water in Weld County; • Provides regional answer to sewer and water augmentation source; • Sustains irrigated farmland ( roughly 1 , 441 acres would remain in agricultural production ); • Strengthens the retail and commercial base of Keenesburg and Hudson; • Accommodates urban development along the 1-76 Corridor as a result of regional trends and DIA job growth . Lajcia PIONEER Southeast Weld County Is In Growth Path • DIA is a major factor in the front range economic base; • DIA creates a 25, 000+ employee base and demand for housing ; • DIA Partnership and Urban Land Institute are jointly planning for growth . Weld County's role needs to be identified ; • E-470 and 1-76 has improved access to all employment centers; • 1-76 is a prime access route, but is underutilized ; • Measurable number of employees will live north . 5 5a21, L PIONEER State and Regional Trends New urban development will continue along the Colorado Front Range : — Residential construction will average 30,000 new units annually in the greater Denver area , including Weld County over the next 25 years (750, 000 new residential units). — A total of 55,500 to 150 ,000 new homes are expected within the 1-76 Corridor. — Southern Weld County will capture 30-35% of the residential growth. Pioneer will capture 35% of the Southern Weld County share (233-735 units annually) . — Promotes growth in all sectors including commercial , retail and employment. Is-aft PIONEER Relationship to Commerce lia I . / ter aillit ( -"nets' ; s. r \,_____:.._,), , _ , ‘ , i , „._ ______ ___ PIONEER i �a Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment Seeks to change the Weld County Comprehensive Plan Future General Land Use Classification Map (§22-1-13o e) from "Agriculture" to "Agriculture and " Residential — Urban Scale" for approximately 5, 600 acres s PIONEER v-. Future Land Use Map Land use areas in the WC r Comp . plan (Chapter 22) • i - allow residential development ,, ` to be classified in two (2) /7 `, ', categories; urban scale development and non-urban scale development .T_ Sec 22-1-50-D Article II3d i` , -----j — a liaise : r \ \ t..:. . F ht r1.` .. u I \ .s/ N - r 3 ` - - t ' • , , r. I tagia:21" r P I O N L: l: It 1O 76 1 . Pioneer' s AGRICULTURAL Component Results of Pioneer's urban designation • Makes water available for agricultural use in the Box Elder Basin . • Enhanced production agriculture will evolve on 1 , 400 acres. • Use of best management practices to reduce conflict with other uses. ( regulated by PUD) • Progressive irrigation and crop production practices will provide sustainable agricultural production . 70 i _PIONEER 2 . URBAN Development Component • The Comprehensive Plan acknowledges the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses. (Comp . Plan 22-1 -50 D.2) • Efficient and orderly land development and the conversion of agricultural land suggest that urban-type development take place in or adjacent to existing municipalities or where urban infrastructure is currently available or reasonably obtainable . (Comp . Plan 22-2-100B) • Conversion of agricultural land to urban residential . .will be encouraged when the subject site is located inside of an approved intergovernmental agreement, urban growth boundary, the 1-25 MUD area „ or urban development nodes or where urban infrastructure is currently available or reasonably obtainable . (Comp. Plan 22-2-210B) 11 j i PIONEER AGRICULTURE URBAN RESIDENTIAL Development I Countywide I I I Cities UGB 1-25 IGA MUD ..where adequate services and infrastructure are currently available or reasonably obtainable PIONEER SERVICES � �mer enc (Recreatiorif, Water Sewer chool Roads g �� Landsca Services \ in Pin9l PIONEER L-- Urban Services Metropolitan Districts ■ Resource Colorado Metropolitan District has been approved ■ Pioneer Metropolitan Districts have been conditionally approved by Weld County Commissioners. ■ Legal and financial ability to provide a full range of urban services, including water and sewer service to the future residents of Pioneer. i PIONEER n".."--"Ir Pioneer Services • Water Committed and available thru Resource Colorado • Sewer 208 Plan Approval thru Resource Colorado • Transportation Per Weld County Code • Recreation Per Weld County Code • Landscaping Per Code and PUD 7A , PIONEER Urban Services Other Existing Service Providers • Sheriff's Department : LEAA proposed • School District : School District Foundation & Dedications • Fire Districts : Inclusion and mill levy assessment • Weld County : Net positive fiscal 154kfrk impact PIONEER - - Regional Infrastructure • Water and sewer available to others . (i . e . Keenesburg) • Districts will participate in regional traffic improvements . (i . e . County Road 49 , 22 , and 52) • Districts will participate in 1 - 761 County Road 49 interchange improvements . icalt PIONEER Area Plans LAND uu PLAN o 4 i 9 ;- . •J —. y A 'S _ . u.r..._. 77 PIONEER _ k Pioneer' s Proposal • Modify the Future General Land Use Map to show the Pioneer Urban Land Use Designations— "Urban Residential" and "Agricultural" -This is a policy decision under the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 22) . • Future actions including all of the available VJeld County regulatory tools ( PUD and the potential of a new MUD) are available to provide the flexibility to address site specific land use issues and standards as next steps. 78 � PIONEER Pioneer Timeline Resource Colorado Construction of District Formation (2004) PUD Change major water and Future Area Plats of Zone wastewater Pioneer District treatment facilities Homes ji Formation (2006) (20Q8"9) ___Dt1/4tigki _ _-.4alirLisi _ jir, eleit Comp plan Final Plat amendment Preliminary Plat (Phase one ^. 208 Plan (Phase one) approval Sketch Construction of (2005) plan i nfrastnzcture Strategic Roadway review Designation (2003) Begun water/wastewater 791121" planning and Public hearing required YI ONE Llt financing k Questions ? Thank you . Isza, PIONEER K PIONEER T April 14, 2006 Mayor& Trustees of Keenesburg 140 S. Main St. PO Box 312 Keenesburg, CO 80643 Mayor& Trustees of Hudson 557 Ash Street Hudson, Colorado 80642 Dear Council Members & Mayors: As you may be aware, on April 10, 2006 the Weld County Commissioners gave initial approval to Pioneer's Amendment to the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. The Pioneer Amendment designates urban land use and agriculture for approximately fifty-six hundred acres at the intersection of CR 49 & CR 22. During the extensive hearings on this matter several of the commissioners made it clear that our commitment to work with our neighbors in Hudson and Keenesburg should continue and afford those communities an opportunity to participate in regional land use issues in the area as Pioneer moves forward from here. Although we have met with you in the past, we would like to continue those discussions to explore any planning issues that might fruitfully be addressed jointly. To that end, we are offering to make ourselves available for discussions either jointly or individually with officials from both of your communities at times convenient for you to discuss such topics. If this offer is of interest, please communicate your request to my assistant, Meta, at 303-843-9742 so that we can explore the opportunities which lay ahead for all of us along the 1-76 corridor. Chris Paulson CFO Pioneer Communities cc: Chairman, Mike Geile, Weld County Board of Commissioners Monica Daniels-Mika, Weld County Planning Department EXHIBIT Ira/ai°O' '7 -2-C2"45 E. Kenyon Ave.,Suite 200 • Denver,CO 80237 • Tele.(303)843-9742 • Fax 1303)843-0143 Page 1 of 1 Carol Harding From: Bill Jerke Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 9:31 AM To: Carol Harding Subject: FW: Pioneer Communities From: Sharon Croghan [mailto:mornglory40@rtebb.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 8:26 PM To: weld@nosuperslab.org Subject: Pioneer Communities Honorable Commissioners, As I am unable to attend tomorrows second hearing concerning Pioneer Communities request to change the master plan, I am again emailing to reiterate my concerns for this project . I would request this project be put on hold until feasibility and long term affects of this project on the existing communities be thoroughly studied, as I believe it will negatively affect the communities of Keenesburg and Hudson, if not Ft . Lupton and Brighton. I see no reason to allow for a 3rd and final hearing concerning this issue, vote no and stop it now. Peace and grace, Sharon K Croghan 303-732-1003 Keenesburg, CO "difficulties must be overcome, not yielded to." John Dyke Acland No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.385/Virus Database: 268.4.3/316-Release Date:4/17/2006 EXHIBIT 4/19/2006 $ tad��Y�-] Ordinance 2006-4 Pioneer Board Work Session Tape April 19, 2006 Exhibit M Not Scanned A I I) O P ` U o4 e` 1 + / • t4 I / 1 \ ' P 1 / \ \ ' . •P • ` / / \ \ \ 1 4... _ 1 H I C •/ T ■ f/ / W I I P �r 1 / POTENTIAL ‘ ■ \ � \ \ / P KEENESBERG y PARKWAY ALIG NMENT CR22 • 0A. - - - `• / 7 1 I , ' CR20 > cc 1 ? U \ 1 TO FORT ce 7 MORGAN I \ o U CR18C306 KEENESBURG `I LAND USE LEGEND D SE MUD AREA BOUNDARY HUDSON RESIDENTIAL Z AGRICULTURAL LIMITING SITE FACTORS /\./ ROADS TRAILS © COMMUNITY PARK* OP NEIGHBORHOOD PARK* O NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER O FUTURE SCHOOL SITE* *LOCATION AND NUMBER OF SCHOOLS AND PARKS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO REVISION AT TIME OF PUD ZONING. SOUTHEAST WELD MIXED USE DEVELOPM b SCALE APRIL 19, 2006 WENT AREA (SE MUD) 8 8O ":' § co STRUCTURAL LAND USE MAP-DRAFT N .] 475 W.12!h Avenue-Suite E-Denver Colorado 002044698-1303 893-6288 r � >✓6'X.�n I A I 1 o� cc 4 \ U a 44 / / \ \ / / / \ \ T `o \ / \ \ \ \ 4-• / / 1 ` - ^o // -. S \ / v POTENTIAL \ \t/ �/ KEEN ESBERG "\ � CR22 l , OO /_. r PARKWAY ALIGNMENT 1I L 1 I / \ \ CR20 1 ? U \ TO FORT in I MORGAN cc re I \ O O CR18 l• ocial 06 KEENESBURG If LAND USE LEGEND Ini SE MUD AREA BOUNDARY HUDSON RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL M LIMITING SITE FACTORS .' / ROADS /' / TRAILS O COMMUNITY PARK* OP NEIGHBORHOOD PARK' `J NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER • FUTURE SCHOOL SITE* 'LOCATION AND NUMBER OF SCHOOLS AND PARKS ARE CONCEPTUAL AND SUBJECT TO REVISION AT TIME OF PUD ZONING. SOUTHEAST WELD MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT SCALE APRIL 19.2006 AREA(SE MUD) f i g g g STRUCTURAL LAND USE MAP-DRAFT GAGE DAVIS .sw,=m. a-,aE-�,•- a�=�o0A s a.1303)893-0210 Maize Page 1 of 1 Carol Harding To: kborkowski@brightonco.gov; cityclerk@frii.net; clerk@hudsoncolorado.org; townofkeene@rtebb.net; njohn@lochbuie.org Subject: Revision of the Weld County Code Attachments: Ord06-4.Appendix.doc; Ord06-4.2nd.wpd; Ord06-4.2nd.doc Mayors of Brighton, Fort Lupton, Hudson, Keenesburg, and Lochbuie; At the request of the Board of County Commissioners, I have attached the Draft of Code Ordinance#2006-4 regarding changes to the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 22) and Mixed Use Development(Chapter 26) of the Weld County Code, which has been requested by Pioneer Communities, LLC. This draft, as presented, includes the changes made by the Board of Commissioners on first reading. They have directed staff to make additional minor changes, where necessary, to ensure consistency with the rest of the Weld County Code. That version will be available at second reading, which is scheduled for May 8, 2006, at 9:00 a.m., in the First Floor Hearing Room, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. Third reading will be on June 7, 2006, at the same time and place of second reading. You are welcome to attend both or either meeting to provide input, or you may forward your written comments for consideration. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Carol A. Harding, Office Manager Coordinator Clerk to the Board's Office and Department of Finance and Administration Weld County, Colorado D I~ 5/2/2006 Memorandum TO: Carol Harding, Clerk to the Board ' DATE: May 4, 2006 C FROM: Brad Mueller, Assistant Director COLORADO Department of Planning Services RE: Pioneer Ordinance—2o° Reading Changes Please note the following points of change requested by staff and the applicant to the 2nd Draft of Weld County Code Ordinance 2006-4. The 2n° Draft was provided by your office, and represents changes to Chapters 22 and 26 of the Code as first provided by staff, then discussed by the Board in First Reading on April 10th, and then discussed by the Board in a workshop April 19`". These proposed changes represent more technical matters then discussed between staff and the applicant since that time. Unless noted by the applicants at the 2n° Hearing on May 8, all of these changes are mutually agreeable to staff and the applicants. Please call with any questions or requests for clarification. Pg3 §22-2-220 4th line from bottom— strike such as the 1-25 MUD and urban growth node4 change to Mixed Use Development Plan and urban growth nodes land use principals are based on . . . g 3 §22-2-220 3rd line from the bottom—strike either in the MUD or for surrounding areas Pg4 §22-2-220.B 1st line— strike 1-25 !jig 4 §22-2-230.E [not in ordinance— needs to be added] MUD.Goal 5. All new development in the Mixed Use Development areas and urban development . . 3i 'I: 1 Pg 8 §22-2-250.E Add back Policies from existing §26-1-60.C.3. (b. & c.) l-25.MUD.P.Policy 3.1 — Encourage the siting of schools near or adjacent to community parks, open spaces, and trail systems. l-25.MUD.P.Policy 3.2— Mitigate the cost of land acquisition and capital construction for essential community facilities to the fullest extent corsistent with state law and identify any additional costs which will not be mitigated by the development as proposed. Page 12 §22-2-280 C. 2—change PUD to MUD Page 12 §22-2-280 C. 3. -- change number from 4 to 3 Page 13 §22-2-280.F.1 — strike establishment of and replace with use of legal mechanisms, such as Metropolitan Districts, that. . . Page 14 §22-2-260 should be §22-2-290 Page 14 §22-2-260 (now 290)A. 3rd line strike 1-25 and replace with SE Page 14 Change areas to area throughout this section (which is specific to SEMUD) —C., C.1., D., E. Page 15 §22-2-260 (now 290).1.— Strike New development, change to just Development . . . Page 15 §22-3-50.B.1 [Add to ordinance document] Change 1-25 area, to Mixed Use Development areas Page 15 §22-3-50— B.5 3r' line— the (word spacing) Page 15 §22-3-50.B.5—add to end, to read. . . of the MUD areas. Pages 15 - 17 All of§22-4-30 can be removed from the ordinance. These water policies are not currently specific to any or either MUD. An error in the original document produced by staff inadvertently added in the "MUD" label at the front of these Goals and Policies. Page 18 §26-1-20.C— Split into two sentences: The Southeast Weld MUD area is approximately 5,600 acres in size. It is located in . . . 2 Page 19 §26-1-60. 1st sentence. Change has to have Page 23 §26-2-40. Remove and Table 26.2, and revise end of sentence to read. . . within the P25 MUD area. Page 27 §26-2-50.D.2.e. Add . . . to I-25, State Highway 119, and/or straegic roads . . . Page 33 §26-3-30.A. Change Commercial to Neighborhood centers. Page 33 §26-3-30.C. Last line. Delete This open space shall be located on the Southeast Weld Mixed Use Development Structural Land Use Map Page 33 §26-3-30.D.1. Change Commercial centerto Neighborhood centers Page 33 §26-3-30.D.1. a. last line- Delete rural. Page 35— §26-3-30.D.2.d.3—Change to simply Schools. Page 35— §26-3-30.D.2.d.4— Delete Service businesses, such as smaller offices., and re-number subsequent. Page 35— §26-3-30.D.2.d.5— Delete mix Page 35— §26-3-30.D.2.d.6—Change to Public facilities and utility service facilities Page 36 4.b. 6`h line delete which comprises approximately eight percent (8%) of the total designated area in this MUD area. Page 37— §26-3-50. Add row to Table 26.2 and edit. R1 —50% (as is). New row: Estate, A— 30%. Page 41 — §26-3-60.D.2.e. Delete all but last sentence(Required landscaping and. . . ) Page 42 §26-3-80.B. Change PUD application to sketch plan application Page 43 §26-3-80.B.8.a. Add . . . (MUTCD), or other adopted standards, determine . . . r 3 Page 44 D. 1. : First line. Add SEMUD Structural Land Use Map Appendix Table 26-C Southeast Weld MUD Area Structural Land Use Densities: Change residential density to "7,389 Minimum to 12,425 Maximum." Structural Land Use Map • Remove "Draft" references • Change asterisk language to "Location and number of schools are conceptual and subject to revision at time of PUD zoning. r^� 4 Memorandum TO: Esther Gesick, Clerk to the Board Office IDATE: June 7, 2006 C� FROM: Brad Mueller, Assistant Director COLORADO Department of Planning Services RE: PioneerOrdinance — 3r° Reading Please note the following minor points of change requested by staff and the applicant to the 3rd Draft of Weld County Code Ordinance 2006-4. The 3rd Draft was provided by your office, and represents changes to Chapters 22 and 26 of the Code as first proposed by staff as part of the application processing. That draft of the changes was then discussed by the Board in First Reading on April 10th and discussed by the Board in a workshop April 19`h. Most recently,the Board heard this item on Second Reading on May 8, 2006,where only technical corrections and modifications to the text were proposed. Unless noted by the applicants at the Third Reading on June 12, 2006, staff and the applicant agree to all of the proposals of the draft Ordinance 2006-4, with these slight changes. Please call with any questions or requests for clarification. Thank you for all of the assistance you have provided concerning this application. Page 12 §22-2-280.C Item shown as "43" should be changed to indicate Subsection '3." Page 15 §22-2-290.G (SE.MUD.T.Goal 5) and §22-2-290.H (SE.MUD.T.Goal 6) should be relocated to §22-2-280 ("Southeast Weld MUD public facilities and services goals and policies") to be under a more applicable subsection. Under§22-2-280, these would become items "H" (SE.MUD.P.Goal 6) and "I" (SE.MUD.P.Goal 7) (Note, too, that SE.MUD.T.Goal 7 would need to be re-numbered within §22-2-290. to become Goal 5.) 41 BIT 13 i EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET Case ORD #2006-4 - PIONEER COMMUNITIES, INC. Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 02/21/2006) D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing E. Robert Grand Letter and Newspaper Articles, dated 02/28/2006 F. Applicant E-mail t staff- Review response & fiscal analysis G. Applicant E-mail to staff re: School District H. Applicant E-mail to staff- RCLCo fiscal memo; David Foster's letter; Brad Simons water memo Sharon Croghan Letter of opposition dated 4/9/06 J. Applicant PowerPoint Presentation at 1st Reading K. Applicant Letter re: Available for Discussions of Planning Issues Needing to be Addressed, dated 04/14/2006 L. Sharon Croghan Letter of opposition dated 04/19/2006 M. Clerk to the Board Board Work Session Tape dated 04/19/06 N. Applicant SE Weld MUD Structural Land Use Map dated 04/19/06 O. CTB Staff E-mail to Mayors w/draft of 2nd reading P. Planning Staff Memo re: 2nd Reading Changes, 05/04/06 Q. Planning Staff Memo re: 3rd Reading Changes 06/07/06 R. S. Hello