HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060402.tiff BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Roy Spitzer, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER 2005-XX
APPLICANT: McGeady Sisneros. P.C.
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LOCATION: Proposed Service Area consists of approximately 5600 acres generally located about 4
miles north of Hudson.
REQUEST: Approve the Special District Service Plan for the proposed Pioneer Regional Metropolitan
District
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
The Planning Commission is recommending denial for the proposed Service Plan for the reasons
discussed below.
RECORD
The record of the proceedings of the Planning Commission for the Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District
and Pioneer Metropolitan Districts #1 —6 was consolidated.
Approval Criteria
Section 32-1-203 C.R.S. provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission and County
Commissioners must approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve a proposed Special District Service
Plan.
Planning Commission recommends denial based in part on the following broad items:
• No existing or projected need in the proposed service area
• Uncertainty concerning District governance and the future interests of the area
• Uncertainty about the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient service
• Lack of restrictions on District expansion or eminent domain powers
Section 32-1-203(2) C.R.S. requires that the Board deny a service plan unless the following criteria are
met. Each criterion is listed, followed by Planning Commission's findings.
a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by
the proposed special district.
Finding
The submitted Service District and supporting Financing Districts are proposed to provide urban
services within an area of Weld County that is zoned for agricultural uses. The current zoning
does not allow for urban-scale development or intensity of uses. Furthermore, the proposed
service area consists of land that is not supported by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan for
urbanization. Only land within existing municipalities, within the Intergovernmental Agreement
("I.G.A.") or Urban Growth Boundary ("U.G.B.") areas of those municipalities, or within the Mixed
Use District ("M.U.D.") are supported for urban-scale development. (Weld County Code Chapter
22) The proposed service area is not located within or near any of these areas.
b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for
present and projected needs.
Finding
Rural services currently exist in the proposed services area, provided by Weld County, the Weld
Central RE-4 School District, and various fire districts. Levels of service are rural in nature,
adequate for the needs, and consistent with those levels of service for other rural areas of the
County.
c) The proposed special district is capable of providing ec nmical and sufficient service to the area
within its proposed boundaries. EXHIBIT
2006-0402
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer Metropolitan District
Page 2
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to accurately determine whether the proposed Districts can
economically or sufficiently provide services. Specifically, the applicant did not provide
information concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms of
quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability.
Also, while the Finance&Administration Department indicates in their review comments dated
December 5, 2005, that the Service Plans are financially feasible, they note that an evaluation has
not been completed of the build-out assumptions that form the basis for the financial plans, and
that the capability of these remain uncertain at this time.
d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to
discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
Finding
Don Warden, director of Finance and Administration, notes that"the financial portion of the
service plan is adequate." However, Mr. Warden also comments that the plan is dependent upon
the development building out as projected in the pro-forma financial plan. At this time, "a separate
consultant is looking at the market analysis of this development and will issue an opinion as to
whether the build-out is realistic and feasible, given the market conditions in the timeframe
stated."
Discretionary Approval Criteria
The Planning Commissioners recommends denial of the proposed Service Plans based on whether any of
five additional criteria are unmet. (Section 32-1-203(2.5)C.R.S.)
a) Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other existing
municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable
time and on a comparable basis.
Finding
This criterion is met; Weld County, other jurisdictions, or other special districts are not able to
provide urban-level services within the proposed Service Area. (However, as discussed above,
rural-level services can be adequately provided; the need for urban-level services is not
demonstrated.)
b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility
and service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to be located
and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1).
Finding
Service levels and facilities of the Districts would likely match those of the County, though exact
Levels of Service are not precisely defined by the Plans or associated documentation.
c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-
106, C.R.S.
Finding
The proposed Services Plans are not in conformance with the adopted Weld County
Comprehensive (Master) Plan, since the Plans presume urban-level service in an area of the
County that does not allow for urban-level uses or subdivision of land into urban-scale
development.
d) The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long-range water
quality management plan for the area.
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to evaluate water quality standards from the information provided,
although the proposed District presumably would comply with state and other jurisdictional
requirements.
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer Metropolitan District
Page 3
e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be
served.
Finding
The proposed Districts presume high-density, urban and semi-urban development that would be
provided with urban-scale services, amenities, and facilities. This land use pattern is not currently
contemplated or allowed by the Weld County Code, and so the Districts are not in the best interest
of the area.
Weld County Special Districts Policies
The Weld County Commissioners are considering new Service Plan Policies which would apply to special
district applications. These are presently under review, with a proposed adoption date of December 28,
2005.
Whether adopted or not, these Policies represent items for consideration by staff, the Planning
Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. Accordingly, the proposed Plans do not adhere to
those portions of the draft Policies discussed below.
a) The County generally accepts the formation of districts where it is demonstrated the formation of a
district is needed to provide public services or facilities to local development and will result in
benefits to existing or future residents of the County and the District. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-
10.8)
Finding
As indicated above, there is not a demonstrated need to provide services, because the proposed
Service Area consists of land that is not zoned for urban-level development, nor does the
Comprehensive Plan recognize this area as one where urbanization is supported.
b) The Service Plan shall enumerate and describe all powers requested on behalf of the district.
Demonstration of the need or benefit of each power is required. Powers which are not clearly
needed will not be approved in the service plan. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.C)
Finding
As previously discussed, the need for urban-level services is not adequately demonstrated. Also,
Planning Commission expresses concern that television relay and transmission is a proposed
power of the Districts, a service that is readily provided by private-sector cable and satellite
service providers.
c) Any Intergovernmental Agreement which is required, or known at the time of formation of the
District to likely be required to fulfill the purposes of the District, must be described in the Service
Plan, along with supporting rationale. The Service Plan shall provide that execution of
intergovernmental agreements by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall
require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-
207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.D)
Finding
The proposed Service Plans explain that water and sanitation services will be provided via an
Agreement with the Resource Colorado Metropolitan District. Details about the nature and ability
of this Agreement are not described in the Service Plan. Furthermore, significant questions
remain unexplained concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms
of quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability. Also, the proposed Plans do not
include notice to the County, as prescribed by this policy.
d) The Service Plan shall include the description of any planned inclusion into, or exclusion of
property from, the District's boundaries. The Service Plan shall provide that inclusions or
executions by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice
publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft
Policy Section 2-14-20. E)
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer Metropolitan District
Page 4
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration of any expansion or
contraction of the District, regardless of the size of the potential area.
e) The Service Plan shall describe any planned extraterritorial service agreement. The Service Plan
shall provide that any extraterritorial service agreements by the District that are not described in
the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant
to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.F)
Finding
The Plans as proposed do not exclude the possibility of extraterritorial service agreements,
whether with potential neighboring communities such as the Town of Hudson, or areas as distant
as Metro Denver. The Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration if
extraterritorial agreements are proposed in the future.
f) The Service Plan shall outline any anticipated plans or needs for the exercise, by the District, of its
power of eminent domain. The Service Plan will contain language limiting the use of the District's
power of eminent domain to carry out the District's essential functions and services as well to
implement the intent of the "Primary Infrastructure Plan"as defined in the Model Service Plan
described in Section 2-14-60. The use of eminent domain will be undertaken strictly in
compliance with State laws. The Service Plan shall provide that use of eminent domain or change
in the Primary Infrastructure Plan by the District not described in the Service Plan shall require 45
day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S.
(Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.G)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not limit the Districts' eminent domain powers, nor do they provide for any
notification and consideration by the County.
g) The Service Plan shall restrict the District's debt service mill levy authorization to 50 mills (the
"Debt Service Mill Levy Cap'). The Service Plan shall restrict the District's total aggregate mill
levy(debt service mill levy plus operations and maintenance mill levy) to sixty-five (65) mill(the
"Aggregate Mill Levy Cap'). (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.H)
Finding
The proposed Plans do define a Mill Levy Cap that is no greater than 65 mills, but language in the
Plans seem to allow for flexibility in exceeding this Cap. (Page 14 of the Pioneer Regional
Metropolitan District Service Plan states: "The Mill Levy Cap does not apply to the Financing
Districts' ability to increase their mill levy as necessary for provision of operation and maintenance
services to the Property and Service Area.") Thus, the Plans do not seem to resolve the County's
concern regarding unrestricted mill levy powers.
h) The Service Plan shall require that 30 days prior to an election thereon, proposed ballot questions
for a formation election, debt authorization, or de-Brucing will be submitted to Weld County for
filing and review. Weld County shall have the right to object to any ballot questions not in
compliance with the Service Plan as a major modification of the District's Service Plan pursuant to
Section 32-1-207(3)(a), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.J)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for any notification and consideration by the County for
proposed ballot questions for formation elections, debt authorization, or"de-Brucing" clauses.
i) It is the intent of Weld County that "citizen/resident"control of Districts be encouraged to occur as
early as possible. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-40.A)
Finding
As currently proposed, the Service District would consist of a single acre, with a much broader
Service Area of thousands of acres. Membership on the District Board could be limited to owners
of the single acre. As such, citizen residents living within the Service Area may never have control
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer Metropolitan District
Page 5
of the Service District, but only eventually of the Financing Districts. Therefore, the County's goal
for"citizen/resident" control could potentially never be realized.
j) The Service Plan shall provide for the dissolution of the District after the District's debts and
financial obligations are fully defeased and the District has completed all of its operations and
maintenance responsibilities. A district with long-term, on-going operations and maintenance will
not be obligated to dissolve. However, the Service Plan must provide that in the event said
obligations are someday undertaken by another party, or are otherwise no longer the
responsibility of the District, it shall be required to dissolve. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-50)
Finding
No dissolution provisions are included in the Plans.
Review Comments
The Board of County Commissioners accepted the seven Pioneer Service Plans and referral to Weld
County on October 19, 2005. The service plans are proposed for a Service Area of approximately 5600
acres located approximately four miles north of the Town of Hudson. Exact legal descriptions are found in
the proposed Plan documents.
In addition to comments above, Planning Commission's recommendation to deny all seven proposed
Pioneer Special Districts is based, in part, on outstanding questions and concerns raised by staff, primarily
in regards to the proposed Service Plans.
Key questions remain, as discussed above, concerning the nature of the proposed Districts and their
ability to provide services; these questions can only be answered if additional information is provided in the
proposed Service Plans. Furthermore, responses do not resolve the fundamental question of whether
there is projected need for organized urban service in the area proposed to be serviced by the Districts.
Motion seconded by Paul Branham
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on December 20, 2005.
Rated the 20th of December, 2005.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Roy Spitzer, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER 2005-XX
APPLICANT: McGeady Sisneros. P.C.
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LOCATION: Proposed Service Area consists of approximately 5600 acres generally located
about 4 miles north of Hudson.
REQUEST: Approve the Special District Service Plan for the proposed Pioneer Metropolitan
District#1
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
The Planning Commission is recommending denial for the Pioneer Metropolitan District#1 for the reasons
discussed below.
RECORD
The record of the proceedings of the Planning Commission for the Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District
and Pioneer Metropolitan Districts#1 —6 was consolidated.
Approval Criteria
Section 32-1-203 C.R.S. provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission and County
Commissioners must approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve a proposed Special District Service
Plan.
Planning Commission recommends denial based in part on the following broad items:
• No existing or projected need in the proposed service area
• Uncertainty concerning District governance and the future interests of the area
• Uncertainty about the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient service
• Lack of restrictions on District expansion or eminent domain powers
Section 32-1-203(2) C.R.S. requires that the Board deny a service plan unless the following criteria are
met. Each criterion is listed, followed by Planning Commission's findings.
a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by
the proposed special district.
Finding
The submitted Service District and supporting Financing Districts are proposed to provide urban
services within an area of Weld County that is zoned for agricultural uses. The current zoning
does not allow for urban-scale development or intensity of uses. Furthermore, the proposed
service area consists of land that is not supported by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan for
urbanization. Only land within existing municipalities, within the Intergovernmental Agreement
("I.G.A.") or Urban Growth Boundary ("U.G.B.") areas of those municipalities, or within the Mixed
Use District ("M.U.D.") are supported for urban-scale development. (Weld County Code Chapter
22) The proposed service area is not located within or near any of these areas.
b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for
present and projected needs.
Finding
Rural services currently exist in the proposed services area, provided by Weld County, the Weld
Central RE-4 School District, and various fire districts. Levels of service are rural in nature,
adequate for the needs, and consistent with those levels of service for other rural areas of the
County.
c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area
within its proposed boundaries.
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#1
Page 2
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to accurately determine whether the proposed Districts can
economically or sufficiently provide services. Specifically, the applicant did not provide
information concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms of
quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability.
Also, while the Finance &Administration Department indicates in their review comments dated
December 5, 2005, that the Service Plans are financially feasible, they note that an evaluation has
not been completed of the build-out assumptions that form the basis for the financial plans, and
that the capability of these remain uncertain at this time.
d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to
discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
Finding
Don Warden, director of Finance and Administration, notes that"the financial portion of the
service plan is adequate." However, Mr. Warden also comments that the plan is dependent upon
the development building out as projected in the pro-forma financial plan. At this time, "a separate
consultant is looking at the market analysis of this development and will issue an opinion as to
whether the build-out is realistic and feasible, given the market conditions in the timeframe
stated."
Discretionary Approval Criteria
The Planning Commissioners recommends denial of the proposed Service Plans based on whether any of
five additional criteria are unmet. (Section 32-1-203(2.5)C.R.S.)
a) Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other existing
municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable
time and on a comparable basis.
Finding
This criterion is met; Weld County, other jurisdictions, or other special districts are not able to
provide urban-level services within the proposed Service Area. (However, as discussed above,
rural-level services can be adequately provided; the need for urban-level services is not
demonstrated.)
b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility
and service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to be located
and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1).
Finding
Service levels and facilities of the Districts would likely match those of the County, though exact
Levels of Service are not precisely defined by the Plans or associated documentation.
c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-
106, C.R.S.
Finding
The proposed Services Plans are not in conformance with the adopted Weld County
Comprehensive (Master) Plan, since the Plans presume urban-level service in an area of the
County that does not allow for urban-level uses or subdivision of land into urban-scale
development.
d) The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long-range water
quality management plan for the area.
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to evaluate water quality standards from the information provided,
although the proposed District presumably would comply with state and other jurisdictional
requirements.
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#1
Page 3
e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be
served.
Finding
The proposed Districts presume high-density, urban and semi-urban development that would be
provided with urban-scale services, amenities, and facilities. This land use pattern is not currently
contemplated or allowed by the Weld County Code, and so the Districts are not in the best interest
of the area.
Weld County Special Districts Policies
The Weld County Commissioners are considering new Service Plan Policies which would apply to special
district applications. These are presently under review, with a proposed adoption date of December 28,
2005.
Whether adopted or not, these Policies represent items for consideration by staff, the Planning
Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. Accordingly, the proposed Plans do not adhere to
those portions of the draft Policies discussed below.
a) The County generally accepts the formation of districts where it is demonstrated the formation of a
district is needed to provide public services or facilities to local development and will result in
benefits to existing or future residents of the County and the District. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-
10.8)
Finding
As indicated above, there is not a demonstrated need to provide services, because the proposed
Service Area consists of land that is not zoned for urban-level development, nor does the
Comprehensive Plan recognize this area as one where urbanization is supported.
b) The Service Plan shall enumerate and describe all powers requested on behalf of the district.
Demonstration of the need or benefit of each power is required. Powers which are not clearly
needed will not be approved in the service plan. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.C)
Finding
As previously discussed, the need for urban-level services is not adequately demonstrated. Also,
Planning Commission expresses concern that television relay and transmission is a proposed
power of the Districts, a service that is readily provided by private-sector cable and satellite
service providers.
c) Any Intergovernmental Agreement which is required, or known at the time of formation of the
District to likely be required to fulfill the purposes of the District, must be described in the Service
Plan, along with supporting rationale. The Service Plan shall provide that execution of
intergovernmental agreements by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall
require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-
207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.D)
Finding
The proposed Service Plans explain that water and sanitation services will be provided via an
Agreement with the Resource Colorado Metropolitan District. Details about the nature and ability
of this Agreement are not described in the Service Plan. Furthermore, significant questions
remain unexplained concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms
of quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability. Also, the proposed Plans do not
include notice to the County, as prescribed by this policy.
d) The Service Plan shall include the description of any planned inclusion into, or exclusion of
property from, the District's boundaries. The Service Plan shall provide that inclusions or
executions by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice
publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft
Policy Section 2-14-20. E)
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#1
Page 4
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration of any expansion or
contraction of the District, regardless of the size of the potential area.
e) The Service Plan shall describe any planned extraterritorial service agreement. The Service Plan
shall provide that any extraterritorial service agreements by the District that are not described in
the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant
to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.F)
Finding
The Plans as proposed do not exclude the possibility of extraterritorial service agreements,
whether with potential neighboring communities such as the Town of Hudson, or areas as distant
as Metro Denver. The Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration if
extraterritorial agreements are proposed in the future.
f) The Service Plan shall outline any anticipated plans or needs for the exercise, by the District, of its
power of eminent domain. The Service Plan will contain language limiting the use of the District's
power of eminent domain to carry out the District's essential functions and services as well to
implement the intent of the "Primary Infrastructure Plan"as defined in the Model Service Plan
described in Section 2-14-60. The use of eminent domain will be undertaken strictly in
compliance with State laws. The Service Plan shall provide that use of eminent domain or change
in the Primary Infrastructure Plan by the District not described in the Service Plan shall require 45
day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S.
(Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.G)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not limit the Districts' eminent domain powers, nor do they provide for any
notification and consideration by the County.
g) The Service Plan shall restrict the District's debt service mill levy authorization to 50 mills (the
"Debt Service Mill Levy Cap'). The Service Plan shall restrict the District's total aggregate mill
levy(debt service mill levy plus operations and maintenance mill levy) to sixty-five (65) mill(the
"Aggregate Mill Levy Cap'). (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.H)
Finding
The proposed Plans do define a Mill Levy Cap that is no greater than 65 mills, but language in the
Plans seem to allow for flexibility in exceeding this Cap. (Page 14 of the Pioneer Regional
Metropolitan District Service Plan states: "The Mill Levy Cap does not apply to the Financing
Districts' ability to increase their mill levy as necessary for provision of operation and maintenance
services to the Property and Service Area.") Thus, the Plans do not seem to resolve the County's
concern regarding unrestricted mill levy powers.
h) The Service Plan shall require that 30 days prior to an election thereon, proposed ballot questions
for a formation election, debt authorization, or de-Brucing will be submitted to Weld County for
filing and review. Weld County shall have the right to object to any ballot questions not in
compliance with the Service Plan as a major modification of the District's Service Plan pursuant to
Section 32-1-207(3)(a), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.J)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for any notification and consideration by the County for
proposed ballot questions for formation elections, debt authorization, or"de-Brucing" clauses.
i) It is the intent of Weld County that "citizen/resident"control of Districts be encouraged to occur as
early as possible. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-40.A)
Finding
Membership on the District Board could be limited to owners of the single acre. As such, citizen
residents living within the Service Area may never have control
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#1
Page 5
of the Service District, but only eventually of the Financing Districts. Therefore, the County's goal
for"citizen/resident" control could potentially never be realized.
j) The Service Plan shall provide for the dissolution of the District after the District's debts and
financial obligations are fully defeased and the District has completed all of its operations and
maintenance responsibilities. A district with long-term, on-going operations and maintenance will
not be obligated to dissolve. However, the Service Plan must provide that in the event said
obligations are someday undertaken by another party, or are otherwise no longer the
responsibility of the District, it shall be required to dissolve. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-50)
Finding
No dissolution provisions are included in the Plans.
Review Comments
The Board of County Commissioners accepted the seven Pioneer Service Plans and referral to Weld
County on October 19, 2005. The service plans are proposed for a Service Area of approximately 5600
acres located approximately four miles north of the Town of Hudson. Exact legal descriptions are found in
the proposed Plan documents.
In addition to comments above, Planning Commission's recommendation to deny all seven proposed
Pioneer Special Districts is based, in part, on outstanding questions and concerns raised by staff, primarily
in regards to the proposed Service Plans.
Key questions remain, as discussed above, concerning the nature of the proposed Districts and their
ability to provide services; these questions can only be answered if additional information is provided in the
proposed Service Plans. Furthermore, responses do not resolve the fundamental question of whether
there is projected need for organized urban service in the area proposed to be serviced by the Districts.
Motion seconded by Paul Branham
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on December 20, 2005.
D ted the 20'"of December 2005.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Roy Spitzer, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER 2005-XX
APPLICANT: McGeady Sisneros. P.C.
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LOCATION: Proposed Service Area consists of approximately 5600 acres generally located
about 4 miles north of Hudson.
REQUEST: Approve the Special District Service Plan for the proposed Pioneer Metropolitan
District#2
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
The Planning Commission is recommending denial for the Pioneer Metropolitan District#2 for the reasons
discussed below.
RECORD
The record of the proceedings of the Planning Commission for the Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District
and Pioneer Metropolitan Districts#1 —6 was consolidated.
Approval Criteria
Section 32-1-203 C.R.S. provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission and County
Commissioners must approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve a proposed Special District Service
Plan.
Planning Commission recommends denial based in part on the following broad items:
• No existing or projected need in the proposed service area
• Uncertainty concerning District governance and the future interests of the area
• Uncertainty about the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient service
• Lack of restrictions on District expansion or eminent domain powers
Section 32-1-203(2) C.R.S. requires that the Board deny a service plan unless the following criteria are
met. Each criterion is listed, followed by Planning Commission's findings.
a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by
the proposed special district.
Finding
The submitted Service District and supporting Financing Districts are proposed to provide urban
services within an area of Weld County that is zoned for agricultural uses. The current zoning
does not allow for urban-scale development or intensity of uses. Furthermore, the proposed
service area consists of land that is not supported by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan for
urbanization. Only land within existing municipalities, within the Intergovernmental Agreement
("I.G.A.") or Urban Growth Boundary ("U.G.B.") areas of those municipalities, or within the Mixed
Use District ("M.U.D.") are supported for urban-scale development. (Weld County Code Chapter
22) The proposed service area is not located within or near any of these areas.
b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for
present and projected needs.
Finding
Rural services currently exist in the proposed services area, provided by Weld County, the Weld
Central RE-4 School District, and various fire districts. Levels of service are rural in nature,
adequate for the needs, and consistent with those levels of service for other rural areas of the
County.
c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area
within its proposed boundaries.
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#2
Page 2
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to accurately determine whether the proposed Districts can
economically or sufficiently provide services. Specifically, the applicant did not provide
information concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms of
quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability.
Also, while the Finance &Administration Department indicates in their review comments dated
December 5, 2005, that the Service Plans are financially feasible, they note that an evaluation has
not been completed of the build-out assumptions that form the basis for the financial plans, and
that the capability of these remain uncertain at this time.
d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to
discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
Finding
Don Warden, director of Finance and Administration, notes that"the financial portion of the
service plan is adequate." However, Mr. Warden also comments that the plan is dependent upon
the development building out as projected in the pro-forma financial plan. At this time, "a separate
consultant is looking at the market analysis of this development and will issue an opinion as to
whether the build-out is realistic and feasible, given the market conditions in the timeframe
stated."
Discretionary Approval Criteria
The Planning Commissioners recommends denial of the proposed Service Plans based on whether any of
five additional criteria are unmet. (Section 32-1-203(2.5) C.R.S.)
a) Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other existing
municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable
time and on a comparable basis.
Finding
This criterion is met; Weld County, other jurisdictions, or other special districts are not able to
provide urban-level services within the proposed Service Area. (However, as discussed above,
rural-level services can be adequately provided; the need for urban-level services is not
demonstrated.)
b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility
and service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to be located
and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1).
Finding
Service levels and facilities of the Districts would likely match those of the County, though exact
Levels of Service are not precisely defined by the Plans or associated documentation.
c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-
106, C.R.S.
Finding
The proposed Services Plans are not in conformance with the adopted Weld County
Comprehensive (Master) Plan, since the Plans presume urban-level service in an area of the
County that does not allow for urban-level uses or subdivision of land into urban-scale
development.
d) The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long-range water
quality management plan for the area.
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to evaluate water quality standards from the information provided,
although the proposed District presumably would comply with state and other jurisdictional
requirements.
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#2
Page 3
e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be
served.
Finding
The proposed Districts presume high-density, urban and semi-urban development that would be
provided with urban-scale services, amenities, and facilities. This land use pattern is not currently
contemplated or allowed by the Weld County Code, and so the Districts are not in the best interest
of the area.
Weld County Special Districts Policies
The Weld County Commissioners are considering new Service Plan Policies which would apply to special
district applications. These are presently under review, with a proposed adoption date of December 28,
2005.
Whether adopted or not, these Policies represent items for consideration by staff, the Planning
Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. Accordingly, the proposed Plans do not adhere to
those portions of the draft Policies discussed below.
a) The County generally accepts the formation of districts where it is demonstrated the formation of a
district is needed to provide public services or facilities to local development and will result in
benefits to existing or future residents of the County and the District. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-
10.8)
Finding
As indicated above, there is not a demonstrated need to provide services, because the proposed
Service Area consists of land that is not zoned for urban-level development, nor does the
Comprehensive Plan recognize this area as one where urbanization is supported.
b) The Service Plan shall enumerate and describe all powers requested on behalf of the district.
Demonstration of the need or benefit of each power is required. Powers which are not clearly
needed will not be approved in the service plan. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.C)
Finding
As previously discussed, the need for urban-level services is not adequately demonstrated. Also,
Planning Commission expresses concern that television relay and transmission is a proposed
power of the Districts, a service that is readily provided by private-sector cable and satellite
service providers.
c) Any Intergovernmental Agreement which is required, or known at the time of formation of the
District to likely be required to fulfill the purposes of the District, must be described in the Service
Plan, along with supporting rationale. The Service Plan shall provide that execution of
intergovernmental agreements by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall
require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-
207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.D)
Finding
The proposed Service Plans explain that water and sanitation services will be provided via an
Agreement with the Resource Colorado Metropolitan District. Details about the nature and ability
of this Agreement are not described in the Service Plan. Furthermore, significant questions
remain unexplained concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms
of quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability. Also, the proposed Plans do not
include notice to the County, as prescribed by this policy.
d) The Service Plan shall include the description of any planned inclusion into, or exclusion of
property from, the District's boundaries. The Service Plan shall provide that inclusions or
executions by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice
publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft
Policy Section 2-14-20. E)
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#2
Page 4
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration of any expansion or
contraction of the District, regardless of the size of the potential area.
e) The Service Plan shall describe any planned extraterritorial service agreement. The Service Plan
shall provide that any extraterritorial service agreements by the District that are not described in
the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant
to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.F)
Finding •
The Plans as proposed do not exclude the possibility of extraterritorial service agreements,
whether with potential neighboring communities such as the Town of Hudson, or areas as distant
as Metro Denver. The Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration if
extraterritorial agreements are proposed in the future.
f) The Service Plan shall outline any anticipated plans or needs for the exercise, by the District, of its
power of eminent domain. The Service Plan will contain language limiting the use of the District's
power of eminent domain to carry out the District's essential functions and services as well to
implement the intent of the "Primary Infrastructure Plan"as defined in the Model Service Plan
described in Section 2-14-60. The use of eminent domain will be undertaken strictly in
compliance with State laws. The Service Plan shall provide that use of eminent domain or change
in the Primary Infrastructure Plan by the District not described in the Service Plan shall require 45
day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S.
(Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.G)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not limit the Districts' eminent domain powers, nor do they provide for any
notification and consideration by the County.
g) The Service Plan shall restrict the District's debt service mill levy authorization to 50 mills (the
"Debt Service Mill Levy Cap'). The Service Plan shall restrict the District's total aggregate mill
levy(debt service mill levy plus operations and maintenance mill levy) to sixty-five (65) mill(the
"Aggregate Mill Levy Cap'). (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.1-1)
Finding
The proposed Plans do define a Mill Levy Cap that is no greater than 65 mills, but language in the
Plans seem to allow for flexibility in exceeding this Cap. (Page 14 of the Pioneer Regional
Metropolitan District Service Plan states: "The Mill Levy Cap does not apply to the Financing
Districts' ability to increase their mill levy as necessary for provision of operation and maintenance
services to the Property and Service Area.") Thus, the Plans do not seem to resolve the County's
concern regarding unrestricted mill levy powers.
h) The Service Plan shall require that 30 days prior to an election thereon, proposed ballot questions
for a formation election, debt authorization, or de-Brucing will be submitted to Weld County for
filing and review. Weld County shall have the right to object to any ballot questions not in
compliance with the Service Plan as a major modification of the District's Service Plan pursuant to
Section 32-1-207(3)(a), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.J)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for any notification and consideration by the County for
proposed ballot questions for formation elections, debt authorization, or"de-Brucing" clauses.
i) It is the intent of Weld County that "citizen/resident"control of Districts be encouraged to occur as
early as possible. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-40.A)
Finding
Membership on the District Board could be limited to owners of the single acre. As such, citizen
residents living within the Service Area may never have control
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#2
Page 5
of the Service District, but only eventually of the Financing Districts. Therefore, the County's goal
for"citizen/resident" control could potentially never be realized.
j) The Service Plan shall provide for the dissolution of the District after the District's debts and
financial obligations are fully defeased and the District has completed all of its operations and
maintenance responsibilities. A district with long-term, on-going operations and maintenance will
not be obligated to dissolve. However, the Service Plan must provide that in the event said
obligations are someday undertaken by another party, or are otherwise no longer the
responsibility of the District, it shall be required to dissolve. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-50)
Finding
No dissolution provisions are included in the Plans.
Review Comments
The Board of County Commissioners accepted the seven Pioneer Service Plans and referral to Weld
County on October 19, 2005. The service plans are proposed for a Service Area of approximately 5600
acres located approximately four miles north of the Town of Hudson. Exact legal descriptions are found in
the proposed Plan documents.
In addition to comments above, Planning Commission's recommendation to deny all seven proposed
Pioneer Special Districts is based, in part, on outstanding questions and concerns raised by staff, primarily
in regards to the proposed Service Plans.
Key questions remain, as discussed above, concerning the nature of the proposed Districts and their
ability to provide services; these questions can only be answered if additional information is provided in the
proposed Service Plans. Furthermore, responses do not resolve the fundamental question of whether
there is projected need for organized urban service in the area proposed to be serviced by the Districts.
Motion seconded by Paul Branham
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on December 20, 2005.
piled the 20' of Decerpb r` 2005.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Roy Spitzer, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER 2005-XX
APPLICANT: McGeady Sisneros. P.C.
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LOCATION: Proposed Service Area consists of approximately 5600 acres generally located
about 4 miles north of Hudson.
REQUEST: Approve the Special District Service Plan for the proposed Pioneer Metropolitan
District#3
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
The Planning Commission is recommending denial for the Pioneer Metropolitan District#3 for the reasons
discussed below.
RECORD
The record of the proceedings of the Planning Commission for the Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District
and Pioneer Metropolitan Districts#1 —6 was consolidated.
Approval Criteria
Section 32-1-203 C.R.S. provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission and County
Commissioners must approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve a proposed Special District Service
Plan.
Planning Commission recommends denial based in part on the following broad items:
• No existing or projected need in the proposed service area
• Uncertainty concerning District governance and the future interests of the area
• Uncertainty about the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient service
• Lack of restrictions on District expansion or eminent domain powers
Section 32-1-203(2) C.R.S. requires that the Board deny a service plan unless the following criteria are
met. Each criterion is listed, followed by Planning Commission's findings.
a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by
the proposed special district.
Finding
The submitted Service District and supporting Financing Districts are proposed to provide urban
services within an area of Weld County that is zoned for agricultural uses. The current zoning
does not allow for urban-scale development or intensity of uses. Furthermore, the proposed
service area consists of land that is not supported by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan for
urbanization. Only land within existing municipalities, within the Intergovernmental Agreement
("I.G.A.") or Urban Growth Boundary("U.G.B.") areas of those municipalities, or within the Mixed
Use District("M.U.D.") are supported for urban-scale development. (Weld County Code Chapter
22) The proposed service area is not located within or near any of these areas.
b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for
present and projected needs.
Finding
Rural services currently exist in the proposed services area, provided by Weld County, the Weld
Central RE-4 School District, and various fire districts. Levels of service are rural in nature,
adequate for the needs, and consistent with those levels of service for other rural areas of the
County.
c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area
within its proposed boundaries.
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#3
Page 2
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to accurately determine whether the proposed Districts can
economically or sufficiently provide services. Specifically, the applicant did not provide
information concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms of
quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability.
Also, while the Finance &Administration Department indicates in their review comments dated
December 5, 2005, that the Service Plans are financially feasible, they note that an evaluation has
not been completed of the build-out assumptions that form the basis for the financial plans, and
that the capability of these remain uncertain at this time.
d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to
discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
Finding
Don Warden, director of Finance and Administration, notes that"the financial portion of the
service plan is adequate." However, Mr. Warden also comments that the plan is dependent upon
the development building out as projected in the pro-forma financial plan. At this time, "a separate
consultant is looking at the market analysis of this development and will issue an opinion as to
whether the build-out is realistic and feasible, given the market conditions in the timeframe
stated."
Discretionary Approval Criteria
The Planning Commissioners recommends denial of the proposed Service Plans based on whether any of
five additional criteria are unmet. (Section 32-1-203(2.5)C.R.S.)
a) Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other existing
municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable
time and on a comparable basis.
Finding
This criterion is met; Weld County, other jurisdictions, or other special districts are not able to
provide urban-level services within the proposed Service Area. (However, as discussed above,
rural-level services can be adequately provided; the need for urban-level services is not
demonstrated.)
b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility
and service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to be located
and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1).
Finding
Service levels and facilities of the Districts would likely match those of the County, though exact
Levels of Service are not precisely defined by the Plans or associated documentation.
c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-
106, C.R.S.
Finding
The proposed Services Plans are not in conformance with the adopted Weld County
Comprehensive (Master) Plan, since the Plans presume urban-level service in an area of the
County that does not allow for urban-level uses or subdivision of land into urban-scale
development.
d) The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long-range water
quality management plan for the area.
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to evaluate water quality standards from the information provided,
although the proposed District presumably would comply with state and other jurisdictional
requirements.
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#3
Page 3
e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be
served.
Finding
The proposed Districts presume high-density, urban and semi-urban development that would be
provided with urban-scale services, amenities, and facilities. This land use pattern is not currently
contemplated or allowed by the Weld County Code, and so the Districts are not in the best interest
of the area.
Weld County Special Districts Policies
The Weld County Commissioners are considering new Service Plan Policies which would apply to special
district applications. These are presently under review, with a proposed adoption date of December 28,
2005.
Whether adopted or not, these Policies represent items for consideration by staff, the Planning
Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. Accordingly, the proposed Plans do not adhere to
those portions of the draft Policies discussed below.
a) The County generally accepts the formation of districts where it is demonstrated the formation of a
district is needed to provide public services or facilities to local development and will result in
benefits to existing or future residents of the County and the District. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-
10.8)
Finding
As indicated above, there is not a demonstrated need to provide services, because the proposed
Service Area consists of land that is not zoned for urban-level development, nor does the
Comprehensive Plan recognize this area as one where urbanization is supported.
b) The Service Plan shall enumerate and describe all powers requested on behalf of the district.
Demonstration of the need or benefit of each power is required. Powers which are not clearly
needed will not be approved in the service plan. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.C)
Finding
As previously discussed, the need for urban-level services is not adequately demonstrated. Also,
Planning Commission expresses concern that television relay and transmission is a proposed
power of the Districts, a service that is readily provided by private-sector cable and satellite
service providers.
c) Any Intergovernmental Agreement which is required, or known at the time of formation of the
District to likely be required to fulfill the purposes of the District, must be described in the Service
Plan, along with supporting rationale. The Service Plan shall provide that execution of
intergovernmental agreements by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall
require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-
207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.D)
Finding
The proposed Service Plans explain that water and sanitation services will be provided via an
Agreement with the Resource Colorado Metropolitan District. Details about the nature and ability
of this Agreement are not described in the Service Plan. Furthermore, significant questions
remain unexplained concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms
of quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability. Also, the proposed Plans do not
include notice to the County, as prescribed by this policy.
d) The Service Plan shall include the description of any planned inclusion into, or exclusion of
property from, the District's boundaries. The Service Plan shall provide that inclusions or
executions by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice
publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft
Policy Section 2-14-20. E)
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#3
Page 4
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration of any expansion or
contraction of the District, regardless of the size of the potential area.
e) The Service Plan shall describe any planned extraterritorial service agreement. The Service Plan
shall provide that any extraterritorial service agreements by the District that are not described in
the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant
to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.F)
Finding
The Plans as proposed do not exclude the possibility of extraterritorial service agreements,
whether with potential neighboring communities such as the Town of Hudson, or areas as distant
as Metro Denver. The Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration if
extraterritorial agreements are proposed in the future.
f) The Service Plan shall outline any anticipated plans or needs for the exercise, by the District, of its
power of eminent domain. The Service Plan will contain language limiting the use of the District's
power of eminent domain to carry out the District's essential functions and services as well to
implement the intent of the "Primary Infrastructure Plan"as defined in the Model Service Plan
described in Section 2-14-60. The use of eminent domain will be undertaken strictly in
compliance with State laws. The Service Plan shall provide that use of eminent domain or change
in the Primary Infrastructure Plan by the District not described in the Service Plan shall require 45
day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(6), C.R.S.
(Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.G)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not limit the Districts' eminent domain powers, nor do they provide for any
notification and consideration by the County.
g) The Service Plan shall restrict the District's debt service mill levy authorization to 50 mills (the
"Debt Service Mill Levy Cap'). The Service Plan shall restrict the District's total aggregate mill
levy(debt service mill levy plus operations and maintenance mill levy) to sixty-five (65) mill(the
"Aggregate Mill Levy Cap'). (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.H)
Finding
The proposed Plans do define a Mill Levy Cap that is no greater than 65 mills, but language in the
Plans seem to allow for flexibility in exceeding this Cap. (Page 14 of the Pioneer Regional
Metropolitan District Service Plan states: "The Mill Levy Cap does not apply to the Financing
Districts' ability to increase their mill levy as necessary for provision of operation and maintenance
services to the Property and Service Area.") Thus, the Plans do not seem to resolve the County's
concern regarding unrestricted mill levy powers.
h) The Service Plan shall require that 30 days prior to an election thereon, proposed ballot questions
for a formation election, debt authorization, or de-Brucing will be submitted to Weld County for
filing and review. Weld County shall have the right to object to any ballot questions not in
compliance with the Service Plan as a major modification of the District's Service Plan pursuant to
Section 32-1-207(3)(a), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.J)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for any notification and consideration by the County for
proposed ballot questions for formation elections, debt authorization, or"de-Brucing" clauses.
i) It is the intent of Weld County that"citizen/resident"control of Districts be encouraged to occur as
early as possible. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-40.A)
Finding
Membership on the District Board could be limited to owners of the single acre. As such, citizen
residents living within the Service Area may never have control
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#3
Page 5
of the Service District, but only eventually of the Financing Districts. Therefore, the County's goal
for"citizen/resident" control could potentially never be realized.
D The Service Plan shall provide for the dissolution of the District after the District's debts and
financial obligations are fully defeased and the District has completed all of its operations and
maintenance responsibilities. A district with long-term, on-going operations and maintenance will
not be obligated to dissolve. However, the Service Plan must provide that in the event said
obligations are someday undertaken by another party, or are otherwise no longer the
responsibility of the District, it shall be required to dissolve. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-50)
Finding
No dissolution provisions are included in the Plans.
Review Comments
The Board of County Commissioners accepted the seven Pioneer Service Plans and referral to Weld
County on October 19, 2005. The service plans are proposed for a Service Area of approximately 5600
acres located approximately four miles north of the Town of Hudson. Exact legal descriptions are found in
the proposed Plan documents.
In addition to comments above, Planning Commission's recommendation to deny all seven proposed
Pioneer Special Districts is based, in part, on outstanding questions and concerns raised by staff, primarily
in regards to the proposed Service Plans.
Key questions remain, as discussed above, concerning the nature of the proposed Districts and their
ability to provide services; these questions can only be answered if additional information is provided in the
proposed Service Plans. Furthermore, responses do not resolve the fundamental question of whether
there is projected need for organized urban service in the area proposed to be serviced by the Districts.
Motion seconded by Paul Branham
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on December 20, 2005.
ted the 20th of December 005.
'ThVoneen ac in lJ�
Secretary
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Roy Spitzer, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER 2005-XX
APPLICANT: McGeady Sisneros. P.C.
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LOCATION: Proposed Service Area consists of approximately 5600 acres generally located
about 4 miles north of Hudson.
REQUEST: Approve the Special District Service Plan for the proposed Pioneer Metropolitan
District#4
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
The Planning Commission is recommending denial for the Pioneer Metropolitan District#4 for the reasons
discussed below.
RECORD
The record of the proceedings of the Planning Commission for the Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District
and Pioneer Metropolitan Districts#1 —6 was consolidated.
Approval Criteria
Section 32-1-203 C.R.S. provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission and County
Commissioners must approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve a proposed Special District Service
Plan.
Planning Commission recommends denial based in part on the following broad items:
• No existing or projected need in the proposed service area
• Uncertainty concerning District governance and the future interests of the area
• Uncertainty about the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient service
• Lack of restrictions on District expansion or eminent domain powers
Section 32-1-203(2) C.R.S. requires that the Board deny a service plan unless the following criteria are
met. Each criterion is listed, followed by Planning Commission's findings.
a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by
the proposed special district.
Finding
The submitted Service District and supporting Financing Districts are proposed to provide urban
services within an area of Weld County that is zoned for agricultural uses. The current zoning
does not allow for urban-scale development or intensity of uses. Furthermore, the proposed
service area consists of land that is not supported by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan for
urbanization. Only land within existing municipalities, within the Intergovernmental Agreement
("I.G.A.") or Urban Growth Boundary ("U.G.B.") areas of those municipalities, or within the Mixed
Use District("M.U.D.") are supported for urban-scale development. (Weld County Code Chapter
22) The proposed service area is not located within or near any of these areas.
b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for
present and projected needs.
Finding
Rural services currently exist in the proposed services area, provided by Weld County, the Weld
Central RE-4 School District, and various fire districts. Levels of service are rural in nature,
adequate for the needs, and consistent with those levels of service for other rural areas of the
County.
c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area
within its proposed boundaries.
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#4
Page 2
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to accurately determine whether the proposed Districts can
economically or sufficiently provide services. Specifically, the applicant did not provide
information concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms of
quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability.
Also, while the Finance &Administration Department indicates in their review comments dated
December 5, 2005, that the Service Plans are financially feasible, they note that an evaluation has
not been completed of the build-out assumptions that form the basis for the financial plans, and
that the capability of these remain uncertain at this time.
d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to
discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
Finding
Don Warden, director of Finance and Administration, notes that"the financial portion of the
service plan is adequate." However, Mr. Warden also comments that the plan is dependent upon
the development building out as projected in the pro-forma financial plan. At this time, "a separate
consultant is looking at the market analysis of this development and will issue an opinion as to
whether the build-out is realistic and feasible, given the market conditions in the timeframe
stated."
Discretionary Approval Criteria
The Planning Commissioners recommends denial of the proposed Service Plans based on whether any of
five additional criteria are unmet. (Section 32-1-203(2.5) C.R.S.)
a) Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other existing
municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable
time and on a comparable basis.
Finding
This criterion is met; Weld County, other jurisdictions, or other special districts are not able to
provide urban-level services within the proposed Service Area. (However, as discussed above,
rural-level services can be adequately provided; the need for urban-level services is not
demonstrated.)
b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility
and service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to be located
and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1).
Finding
Service levels and facilities of the Districts would likely match those of the County, though exact
Levels of Service are not precisely defined by the Plans or associated documentation.
c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-
106, C.R.S.
Finding
The proposed Services Plans are not in conformance with the adopted Weld County
Comprehensive (Master) Plan, since the Plans presume urban-level service in an area of the
County that does not allow for urban-level uses or subdivision of land into urban-scale
development.
d) The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long-range water
quality management plan for the area.
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to evaluate water quality standards from the information provided,
although the proposed District presumably would comply with state and other jurisdictional
requirements.
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#4
Page 3
e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be
served.
Finding
The proposed Districts presume high-density, urban and semi-urban development that would be
provided with urban-scale services, amenities, and facilities. This land use pattern is not currently
contemplated or allowed by the Weld County Code, and so the Districts are not in the best interest
of the area.
Weld County Special Districts Policies
The Weld County Commissioners are considering new Service Plan Policies which would apply to special
district applications. These are presently under review, with a proposed adoption date of December 28,
2005.
Whether adopted or not, these Policies represent items for consideration by staff, the Planning
Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. Accordingly, the proposed Plans do not adhere to
those portions of the draft Policies discussed below.
a) The County generally accepts the formation of districts where it is demonstrated the formation of a
district is needed to provide public services or facilities to local development and will result in
benefits to existing or future residents of the County and the District. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-
10.8)
Finding
As indicated above, there is not a demonstrated need to provide services, because the proposed
Service Area consists of land that is not zoned for urban-level development, nor does the
Comprehensive Plan recognize this area as one where urbanization is supported.
b) The Service Plan shall enumerate and describe all powers requested on behalf of the district.
Demonstration of the need or benefit of each power is required. Powers which are not clearly
needed will not be approved in the service plan. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.C)
Finding
As previously discussed, the need for urban-level services is not adequately demonstrated. Also,
Planning Commission expresses concern that television relay and transmission is a proposed
power of the Districts, a service that is readily provided by private-sector cable and satellite
service providers.
c) Any Intergovernmental Agreement which is required, or known at the time of formation of the
District to likely be required to fulfill the purposes of the District, must be described in the Service
Plan, along with supporting rationale. The Service Plan shall provide that execution of
intergovernmental agreements by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall
require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-
207(3)(6), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.D)
Finding
The proposed Service Plans explain that water and sanitation services will be provided via an
Agreement with the Resource Colorado Metropolitan District. Details about the nature and ability
of this Agreement are not described in the Service Plan. Furthermore, significant questions
remain unexplained concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms
of quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability. Also, the proposed Plans do not
include notice to the County, as prescribed by this policy.
d) The Service Plan shall include the description of any planned inclusion into, or exclusion of
property from, the District's boundaries. The Service Plan shall provide that inclusions or
executions by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice
publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft
Policy Section 2-14-20. E)
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#4
Page 4
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration of any expansion or
contraction of the District, regardless of the size of the potential area.
e) The Service Plan shall describe any planned extraterritorial service agreement. The Service Plan
shall provide that any extraterritorial service agreements by the District that are not described in
the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant
to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.F)
Finding
The Plans as proposed do not exclude the possibility of extraterritorial service agreements,
whether with potential neighboring communities such as the Town of Hudson, or areas as distant
as Metro Denver. The Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration if
extraterritorial agreements are proposed in the future.
f) The Service Plan shall outline any anticipated plans or needs for the exercise, by the District, of its
power of eminent domain. The Service Plan will contain language limiting the use of the District's
power of eminent domain to carry out the District's essential functions and services as well to
implement the intent of the "Primary Infrastructure Plan"as defined in the Model Service Plan
described in Section 2-14-60. The use of eminent domain will be undertaken strictly in
compliance with State laws. The Service Plan shall provide that use of eminent domain or change
in the Primary Infrastructure Plan by the District not described in the Service Plan shall require 45
day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S.
(Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.G)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not limit the Districts' eminent domain powers, nor do they provide for any
notification and consideration by the County.
g) The Service Plan shall restrict the District's debt service mill levy authorization to 50 mills (the
"Debt Service Mill Levy Cap'). The Service Plan shall restrict the District's total aggregate mill
levy(debt service mill levy plus operations and maintenance mill levy) to sixty-five (65) mill(the
"Aggregate Mill Levy Cap'). (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.H)
Finding
The proposed Plans do define a Mill Levy Cap that is no greater than 65 mills, but language in the
Plans seem to allow for flexibility in exceeding this Cap. (Page 14 of the Pioneer Regional
Metropolitan District Service Plan states: "The Mill Levy Cap does not apply to the Financing
Districts' ability to increase their mill levy as necessary for provision of operation and maintenance
services to the Property and Service Area.") Thus, the Plans do not seem to resolve the County's
concern regarding unrestricted mill levy powers.
h) The Service Plan shall require that 30 days prior to an election thereon, proposed ballot questions
for a formation election, debt authorization, or de-Brucing will be submitted to Weld County for
filing and review. Weld County shall have the right to object to any ballot questions not in
compliance with the Service Plan as a major modification of the District's Service Plan pursuant to
Section 32-1-207(3)(a), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.J)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for any notification and consideration by the County for
proposed ballot questions for formation elections, debt authorization, or"de-Brucing" clauses.
i) It is the intent of Weld County that"citizen/resident"control of Districts be encouraged to occur as
early as possible. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-40.A)
Finding
Membership on the District Board could be limited to owners of the single acre. As such, citizen
residents living within the Service Area may never have control
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#4
Page 5
of the Service District, but only eventually of the Financing Districts. Therefore, the County's goal
for"citizen/resident" control could potentially never be realized.
j) The Service Plan shall provide for the dissolution of the District after the District's debts and
financial obligations are fully defeased and the District has completed all of its operations and
maintenance responsibilities. A district with long-term, on-going operations and maintenance will
not be obligated to dissolve. However, the Service Plan must provide that in the event said
obligations are someday undertaken by another party, or are otherwise no longer the
responsibility of the District, it shall be required to dissolve. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-50)
Finding
No dissolution provisions are included in the Plans.
Review Comments
The Board of County Commissioners accepted the seven Pioneer Service Plans and referral to Weld
County on October 19, 2005. The service plans are proposed for a Service Area of approximately 5600
acres located approximately four miles north of the Town of Hudson. Exact legal descriptions are found in
the proposed Plan documents.
In addition to comments above, Planning Commission's recommendation to deny all seven proposed
Pioneer Special Districts is based, in part, on outstanding questions and concerns raised by staff, primarily
in regards to the proposed Service Plans.
Key questions remain, as discussed above, concerning the nature of the proposed Districts and their
ability to provide services; these questions can only be answered if additional information is provided in the
proposed Service Plans. Furthermore, responses do not resolve the fundamental question of whether
there is projected need for organized urban service in the area proposed to be serviced by the Districts.
Motion seconded by Paul Branham
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on December 20, 2005.
Dated
the he 20th offDecem r, 2005.
Vvoneen Macklin
Secretary
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Roy Spitzer, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER 2005-XX
APPLICANT: McGeady Sisneros. P.C.
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LOCATION: Proposed Service Area consists of approximately 5600 acres generally located
about 4 miles north of Hudson.
REQUEST: Approve the Special District Service Plan for the proposed Pioneer Metropolitan
District#5
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
The Planning Commission is recommending denial for the Pioneer Metropolitan District#5 for the reasons
discussed below.
RECORD
The record of the proceedings of the Planning Commission for the-Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District
and Pioneer Metropolitan Districts #1 —6 was consolidated.
Approval Criteria
Section 32-1-203 C.R.S. provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission and County
Commissioners must approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve a proposed Special District Service
Plan.
Planning Commission recommends denial based in part on the following broad items:
• No existing or projected need in the proposed service area
• Uncertainty concerning District governance and the future interests of the area
• Uncertainty about the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient service
• Lack of restrictions on District expansion or eminent domain powers
Section 32-1-203(2) C.R.S. requires that the Board deny a service plan unless the following criteria are
met. Each criterion is listed, followed by Planning Commission's findings.
a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by
the proposed special district.
Finding
The submitted Service District and supporting Financing Districts are proposed to provide urban
services within an area of Weld County that is zoned for agricultural uses. The current zoning
does not allow for urban-scale development or intensity of uses. Furthermore, the proposed
service area consists of land that is not supported by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan for
urbanization. Only land within existing municipalities, within the Intergovernmental Agreement
("I.G.A.") or Urban Growth Boundary("U.G.B.") areas of those municipalities, or within the Mixed
Use District("M.U.D.") are supported for urban-scale development. (Weld County Code Chapter
22) The proposed service area is not located within or near any of these areas.
b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for
present and projected needs.
Finding
Rural services currently exist in the proposed services area, provided by Weld County, the Weld
Central RE-4 School District, and various fire districts. Levels of service are rural in nature,
adequate for the needs, and consistent with those levels of service for other rural areas of the
County.
c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area
within its proposed boundaries.
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#5
Page 2
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to accurately determine whether the proposed Districts can
economically or sufficiently provide services. Specifically, the applicant did not provide
information concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms of
quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability.
Also, while the Finance &Administration Department indicates in their review comments dated
December 5, 2005, that the Service Plans are financially feasible, they note that an evaluation has
not been completed of the build-out assumptions that form the basis for the financial plans, and
that the capability of these remain uncertain at this time.
d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to
discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
Finding
Don Warden, director of Finance and Administration, notes that"the financial portion of the
service plan is adequate." However, Mr. Warden also comments that the plan is dependent upon
the development building out as projected in the pro-forma financial plan. At this time, "a separate
consultant is looking at the market analysis of this development and will issue an opinion as to
whether the build-out is realistic and feasible, given the market conditions in the timeframe
stated."
Discretionary Approval Criteria
The Planning Commissioners recommends denial of the proposed Service Plans based on whether any of
five additional criteria are unmet. (Section 32-1-203(2.5)C.R.S.)
a) Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other existing
municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable
time and on a comparable basis.
Finding
This criterion is met; Weld County, other jurisdictions, or other special districts are not able to
provide urban-level services within the proposed Service Area. (However, as discussed above,
rural-level services can be adequately provided; the need for urban-level services is not
demonstrated.)
b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility
and service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to be located
and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1).
Finding
Service levels and facilities of the Districts would likely match those of the County, though exact
Levels of Service are not precisely defined by the Plans or associated documentation.
c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-
106, C.R.S.
Finding
The proposed Services Plans are not in conformance with the adopted Weld County
Comprehensive (Master) Plan, since the Plans presume urban-level service in an area of the
County that does not allow for urban-level uses or subdivision of land into urban-scale
development.
d) The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long-range water
quality management plan for the area.
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to evaluate water quality standards from the information provided,
although the proposed District presumably would comply with state and other jurisdictional
requirements.
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#5
Page 3
e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be
served.
Finding
The proposed Districts presume high-density, urban and semi-urban development that would be
provided with urban-scale services, amenities, and facilities. This land use pattern is not currently
contemplated or allowed by the Weld County Code, and so the Districts are not in the best interest
of the area.
Weld County Special Districts Policies
The Weld County Commissioners are considering new Service Plan Policies which would apply to special
district applications. These are presently under review, with a proposed adoption date of December 28,
2005.
Whether adopted or not, these Policies represent items for consideration by staff, the Planning
Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. Accordingly, the proposed Plans do not adhere to
those portions of the draft Policies discussed below.
a) The County generally accepts the formation of districts where it is demonstrated the formation of a
district is needed to provide public services or facilities to local development and will result in
benefits to existing or future residents of the County and the District. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-
10.8)
Finding
As indicated above, there is not a demonstrated need to provide services, because the proposed
Service Area consists of land that is not zoned for urban-level development, nor does the
Comprehensive Plan recognize this area as one where urbanization is supported.
b) The Service Plan shall enumerate and describe all powers requested on behalf of the district.
Demonstration of the need or benefit of each power is required. Powers which are not clearly
needed will not be approved in the service plan. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.C)
Finding
As previously discussed, the need for urban-level services is not adequately demonstrated. Also,
Planning Commission expresses concern that television relay and transmission is a proposed
power of the Districts, a service that is readily provided by private-sector cable and satellite
service providers.
c) Any Intergovernmental Agreement which is required, or known at the time of formation of the
District to likely be required to fulfill the purposes of the District, must be described in the Service
Plan, along with supporting rationale. The Service Plan shall provide that execution of
intergovernmental agreements by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall
require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-
207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.D)
Finding
The proposed Service Plans explain that water and sanitation services will be provided via an
Agreement with the Resource Colorado Metropolitan District. Details about the nature and ability
of this Agreement are not described in the Service Plan. Furthermore, significant questions
remain unexplained concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms
of quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability. Also, the proposed Plans do not
include notice to the County, as prescribed by this policy.
d) The Service Plan shall include the description of any planned inclusion into, or exclusion of
property from, the District's boundaries. The Service Plan shall provide that inclusions or
executions by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice
publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft
Policy Section 2-14-20. E)
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#5
Page 4
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration of any expansion or
contraction of the District, regardless of the size of the potential area.
e) The Service Plan shall describe any planned extraterritorial service agreement. The Service Plan
shall provide that any extraterritorial service agreements by the District that are not described in
the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant
to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.F)
Finding
The Plans as proposed do not exclude the possibility of extraterritorial service agreements,
whether with potential neighboring communities such as the Town of Hudson, or areas as distant
as Metro Denver. The Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration if
extraterritorial agreements are proposed in the future.
f) The Service Plan shall outline any anticipated plans or needs for the exercise, by the District, of its
power of eminent domain. The Service Plan will contain language limiting the use of the District's
power of eminent domain to carry out the District's essential functions and services as well to
implement the intent of the "Primary Infrastructure Plan"as defined in the Model Service Plan
described in Section 2-14-60. The use of eminent domain will be undertaken strictly in
compliance with State laws. The Service Plan shall provide that use of eminent domain or change
in the Primary Infrastructure Plan by the District not described in the Service Plan shall require 45
day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S.
(Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.G)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not limit the Districts' eminent domain powers, nor do they provide for any
notification and consideration by the County.
g) The Service Plan shall restrict the District's debt service mill levy authorization to 50 mills (the
"Debt Service Mill Levy Cap"). The Service Plan shall restrict the District's total aggregate mill
levy(debt service mill levy plus operations and maintenance mill levy) to sixty-five (65) mill(the
`Aggregate Mill Levy Cap'). (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.1-1)
Finding
The proposed Plans do define a Mill Levy Cap that is no greater than 65 mills, but language in the
Plans seem to allow for flexibility in exceeding this Cap. (Page 14 of the Pioneer Regional
Metropolitan District Service Plan states: "The Mill Levy Cap does not apply to the Financing
Districts' ability to increase their mill levy as necessary for provision of operation and maintenance
services to the Property and Service Area.") Thus, the Plans do not seem to resolve the County's
concern regarding unrestricted mill levy powers.
h) The Service Plan shall require that 30 days prior to an election thereon, proposed ballot questions
for a formation election, debt authorization, or de-Brucing will be submitted to Weld County for
filing and review. Weld County shall have the right to object to any ballot questions not in
compliance with the Service Plan as a major modification of the District's Service Plan pursuant to
Section 32-1-207(3)(a), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.J)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for any notification and consideration by the County for
proposed ballot questions for formation elections, debt authorization, or"de-Brucing" clauses.
i) It is the intent of Weld County that"citizen/resident"control of Districts be encouraged to occur as
early as possible. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-40.A)
Finding
Membership on the District Board could be limited to owners of the single acre. As such, citizen
residents living within the Service Area may never have control
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#5
Page 5
of the Service District, but only eventually of the Financing Districts. Therefore, the County's goal
for"citizen/resident" control could potentially never be realized.
D The Service Plan shall provide for the dissolution of the District after the District's debts and
financial obligations are fully defeased and the District has completed all of its operations and
maintenance responsibilities. A district with long-term, on-going operations and maintenance will
not be obligated to dissolve. However, the Service Plan must provide that in the event said
obligations are someday undertaken by another party, or are otherwise no longer the
responsibility of the District, it shall be required to dissolve. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-50)
Finding
No dissolution provisions are included in the Plans.
Review Comments
The Board of County Commissioners accepted the seven Pioneer Service Plans and referral to Weld
County on October 19, 2005. The service plans are proposed for a Service Area of approximately 5600
acres located approximately four miles north of the Town of Hudson. Exact legal descriptions are found in
the proposed Plan documents.
In addition to comments above, Planning Commission's recommendation to deny all seven proposed
Pioneer Special Districts is based, in part, on outstanding questions and concerns raised by staff, primarily
in regards to the proposed Service Plans.
Key questions remain, as discussed above, concerning the nature of the proposed Districts and their
ability to provide services; these questions can only be answered if additional information is provided in the
proposed Service Plans. Furthermore, responses do not resolve the fundamental question of whether
there is projected need for organized urban service in the area proposed to be serviced by the Districts.
Motion seconded by Paul Branham
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on December 20, 2005.
Dad the 2 0`hofDecember, 205.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
BEFORE THE WELD COUNTY, COLORADO, PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Moved by Roy Spitzer, that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning
Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for:
CASE NUMBER 2005-XX
APPLICANT: McGeady Sisneros. P.C.
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LOCATION: Proposed Service Area consists of approximately 5600 acres generally located
about 4 miles north of Hudson.
REQUEST: Approve the Special District Service Plan for the proposed Pioneer Metropolitan
District#6
be recommended unfavorably to the Board of County Commissioners for the following reasons:
The Planning Commission is recommending denial for the Pioneer Metropolitan District#6 for the reasons
discussed below.
RECORD
The record of the proceedings of the Planning Commission for the Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District
and Pioneer Metropolitan Districts#1 —6 was consolidated.
Approval Criteria
Section 32-1-203 C.R.S. provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission and County
Commissioners must approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve a proposed Special District Service
Plan.
Planning Commission recommends denial based in part on the following broad items:
• No existing or projected need in the proposed service area
• Uncertainty concerning District governance and the future interests of the area
• Uncertainty about the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient service
• Lack of restrictions on District expansion or eminent domain powers
Section 32-1-203(2) C.R.S. requires that the Board deny a service plan unless the following criteria are
met. Each criterion is listed, followed by Planning Commission's findings.
a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by
the proposed special district.
Finding
The submitted Service District and supporting Financing Districts are proposed to provide urban
services within an area of Weld County that is zoned for agricultural uses. The current zoning
does not allow for urban-scale development or intensity of uses. Furthermore, the proposed
service area consists of land that is not supported by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan for
urbanization. Only land within existing municipalities, within the Intergovernmental Agreement
("I.G.A.") or Urban Growth Boundary ("U.G.B.") areas of those municipalities, or within the Mixed
Use District("M.U.D.") are supported for urban-scale development. (Weld County Code Chapter
22) The proposed service area is not located within or near any of these areas.
b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for
present and projected needs.
Finding
Rural services currently exist in the proposed services area, provided by Weld County, the Weld
Central RE-4 School District, and various fire districts. Levels of service are rural in nature,
adequate for the needs, and consistent with those levels of service for other rural areas of the
County.
c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area
within its proposed boundaries.
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#6
Page 2
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to accurately determine whether the proposed Districts can
economically or sufficiently provide services. Specifically, the applicant did not provide
information concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms of
quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability.
Also, while the Finance &Administration Department indicates in their review comments dated
December 5, 2005, that the Service Plans are financially feasible, they note that an evaluation has
not been completed of the build-out assumptions that form the basis for the financial plans, and
that the capability of these remain uncertain at this time.
d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to
discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
Finding
Don Warden, director of Finance and Administration, notes that"the financial portion of the
service plan is adequate." However, Mr. Warden also comments that the plan is dependent upon
the development building out as projected in the pro-forma financial plan. At this time, "a separate
consultant is looking at the market analysis of this development and will issue an opinion as to
whether the build-out is realistic and feasible, given the market conditions in the timeframe
stated."
Discretionary Approval Criteria
The Planning Commissioners recommends denial of the proposed Service Plans based on whether any of
five additional criteria are unmet. (Section 32-1-203(2.5)C.R.S.)
a) Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other existing
municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable
time and on a comparable basis.
Finding
This criterion is met; Weld County, other jurisdictions, or other special districts are not able to
provide urban-level services within the proposed Service Area. (However, as discussed above,
rural-level services can be adequately provided; the need for urban-level services is not
demonstrated.)
b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility
and service standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to be located
and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1).
Finding
Service levels and facilities of the Districts would likely match those of the County, though exact
Levels of Service are not precisely defined by the Plans or associated documentation.
c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-
106, C.R.S.
Finding
The proposed Services Plans are not in conformance with the adopted Weld County
Comprehensive (Master) Plan, since the Plans presume urban-level service in an area of the
County that does not allow for urban-level uses or subdivision of land into urban-scale
development.
d) The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long-range water
quality management plan for the area.
Finding
Planning Commission is unable to evaluate water quality standards from the information provided,
although the proposed District presumably would comply with state and other jurisdictional
requirements.
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#6
Page 3
e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be
served.
Finding
The proposed Districts presume high-density, urban and semi-urban development that would be
provided with urban-scale services, amenities, and facilities. This land use pattern is not currently
contemplated or allowed by the Weld County Code, and so the Districts are not in the best interest
of the area.
Weld County Special Districts Policies
The Weld County Commissioners are considering new Service Plan Policies which would apply to special
district applications. These are presently under review, with a proposed adoption date of December 28,
2005.
Whether adopted or not, these Policies represent items for consideration by staff, the Planning
Commission, and the Board of County Commissioners. Accordingly, the proposed Plans do not adhere to
those portions of the draft Policies discussed below.
a) The County generally accepts the formation of districts where it is demonstrated the formation of a
district is needed to provide public services or facilities to local development and will result in
benefits to existing or future residents of the County and the District. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-
10.8)
Finding
As indicated above, there is not a demonstrated need to provide services, because the proposed
Service Area consists of land that is not zoned for urban-level development, nor does the
Comprehensive Plan recognize this area as one where urbanization is supported.
b) The Service Plan shall enumerate and describe all powers requested on behalf of the district.
Demonstration of the need or benefit of each power is required. Powers which are not clearly
needed will not be approved in the service plan. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.C)
Finding
As previously discussed, the need for urban-level services is not adequately demonstrated. Also,
Planning Commission expresses concern that television relay and transmission is a proposed
power of the Districts, a service that is readily provided by private-sector cable and satellite
service providers.
c) Any Intergovernmental Agreement which is required, or known at the time of formation of the
District to likely be required to fulfill the purposes of the District, must be described in the Service
Plan, along with supporting rationale. The Service Plan shall provide that execution of
intergovernmental agreements by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall
require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-
207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.D)
Finding
The proposed Service Plans explain that water and sanitation services will be provided via an
Agreement with the Resource Colorado Metropolitan District. Details about the nature and ability
of this Agreement are not described in the Service Plan. Furthermore, significant questions
remain unexplained concerning the proposed Districts' ability to provide sufficient water in terms
of quantity, quality, availability(transmission), and dependability. Also, the proposed Plans do not
include notice to the County, as prescribed by this policy.
d) The Service Plan shall include the description of any planned inclusion into, or exclusion of
property from, the District's boundaries. The Service Plan shall provide that inclusions or
executions by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice
publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. (Draft
Policy Section 2-14-20. E)
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#6
Page 4
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration of any expansion or
contraction of the District, regardless of the size of the potential area.
e) The Service Plan shall describe any planned extraterritorial service agreement. The Service Plan
shall provide that any extraterritorial service agreements by the District that are not described in
the Service Plan shall require 45 day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant
to Section 32-1-207(3)(6), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.F)
Finding
The Plans as proposed do not exclude the possibility of extraterritorial service agreements,
whether with potential neighboring communities such as the Town of Hudson, or areas as distant
as Metro Denver. The Plans do not provide for County notification or consideration if
extraterritorial agreements are proposed in the future.
f) The Service Plan shall outline any anticipated plans or needs for the exercise, by the District, of its
power of eminent domain. The Service Plan will contain language limiting the use of the District's
power of eminent domain to carry out the District's essential functions and services as well to
implement the intent of the "Primary Infrastructure Plan"as defined in the Model Service Plan
described in Section 2-14-60. The use of eminent domain will be undertaken strictly in
compliance with State laws. The Service Plan shall provide that use of eminent domain or change
in the Primary Infrastructure Plan by the District not described in the Service Plan shall require 45
day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(6), C.R.S.
(Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.G)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not limit the Districts' eminent domain powers, nor do they provide for any
notification and consideration by the County.
g) The Service Plan shall restrict the District's debt service mill levy authorization to 50 mills (the
"Debt Service Mill Levy Cap'). The Service Plan shall restrict the District's total aggregate mill
levy(debt service mill levy plus operations and maintenance mill levy) to sixty-five (65) mill(the
"Aggregate Mill Levy Cap'). (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.H)
Finding
The proposed Plans do define a Mill Levy Cap that is no greater than 65 mills, but language in the
Plans seem to allow for flexibility in exceeding this Cap. (Page 14 of the Pioneer Regional
Metropolitan District Service Plan states: "The Mill Levy Cap does not apply to the Financing
Districts' ability to increase their mill levy as necessary for provision of operation and maintenance
services to the Property and Service Area.") Thus, the Plans do not seem to resolve the County's
concern regarding unrestricted mill levy powers.
h) The Service Plan shall require that 30 days prior to an election thereon, proposed ballot questions
for a formation election, debt authorization, or de-Brucing will be submitted to Weld County for
filing and review. Weld County shall have the right to object to any ballot questions not in
compliance with the Service Plan as a major modification of the District's Service Plan pursuant to
Section 32-1-207(3)(a), C.R.S. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-20.J)
Finding
The proposed Plans do not provide for any notification and consideration by the County for
proposed ballot questions for formation elections, debt authorization, or"de-Brucing" clauses.
i) It is the intent of Weld County that "citizen/resident"control of Districts be encouraged to occur as
early as possible. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-40.A)
Finding
Membership on the District Board could be limited to owners of the single acre. As such, citizen
residents living within the Service Area may never have control
Resolution 2005-XX
Pioneer District#6
Page 5
of the Service District, but only eventually of the Financing Districts. Therefore, the County's goal
for"citizen/resident" control could potentially never be realized.
j) The Service Plan shall provide for the dissolution of the District after the District's debts and
financial obligations are fully defeased and the District has completed all of its operations and
maintenance responsibilities. A district with long-term, on-going operations and maintenance will
not be obligated to dissolve. However, the Service Plan must provide that in the event said
obligations are someday undertaken by another party, or are otherwise no longer the
responsibility of the District, it shall be required to dissolve. (Draft Policy Section 2-14-50)
Finding
No dissolution provisions are included in the Plans.
Review Comments
The Board of County Commissioners accepted the seven Pioneer Service Plans and referral to Weld
County on October 19, 2005. The service plans are proposed for a Service Area of approximately 5600
acres located approximately four miles north of the Town of Hudson. Exact legal descriptions are found in
the proposed Plan documents.
In addition to comments above, Planning Commission's recommendation to deny all seven proposed
Pioneer Special Districts is based, in part, on outstanding questions and concerns raised by staff, primarily
in regards to the proposed Service Plans.
Key questions remain, as discussed above, concerning the nature of the proposed Districts and their
ability to provide services; these questions can only be answered if additional information is provided in the
proposed Service Plans. Furthermore, responses do not resolve the fundamental question of whether
there is projected need for organized urban service in the area proposed to be serviced by the Districts.
Motion seconded by Paul Branham
VOTE:
For Passage Against Passage Absent
Michael Miller
Bruce Fitzgerald
Erich Ehrlich
Roy Spitzer
Chad Auer
Doug Ochsner
James Welch
Tom Holton
Paul Branham
The Chair declared the resolution passed and ordered that a certified copy be forwarded with the file of this
case to the Board of County Commissioner's for further proceedings.
CERTIFICATION OF COPY
I,Voneen Macklin, Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing resolution, is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,
Colorado, adopted on December 20, 2005.
Dated the 20th of December, 005.
Voneen Macklin
Secretary
L - ,2 L: - G r-,
materials.
The Chair asked Peter Schei, Department of Public Works,about access to Hwy 66 and if this will need to be
negotiated with the state. Mr. Schei replied that the applicant will be asked to work with the Colorado Department of
Transportation and then supply Public Works with written recommendations. Normally we ask for limited movement
on and off arterial roadways,and we will carefully consider what they are presenting to us. There could be right-of-
way requirements and traffic improvements related to intersections that would come as a result of the traffic impact
study.
Gary Woods and Stephanie Stewart, representing Benson Farms, said they were here because they did the MUD
amendment in 2002 on the eight hundred acres. Since then,they have filed a sketch plan application with the
county and this request for an amendment is a result of this sketch plan review. They would like the ability for this to
be all residential with neighborhood commercial development also permitted in the area along Hwy 66 and CR 9.5.
They believe their request is consistent with the requirements of the MUD area.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak. The public portion was closed.
Mr. Holton asked if this was just an amendment to the MUD and if they approve it today will it come back for a PUD and
zoning changes in front of this board. Mr. Morrison answered yes. Mr. Spitzer asked what the biggest impacts of this
change might be and was the applicant asking for more flexibility in his development plan. Ms.Martin replied that there
would be a lower intensity of commercial uses but a higher intensity residential. This will give the applicant the flexibility
with the development to do one or two things; low intensity commercial or residential along HWY 66 and CR 9.5. Mr.
Spitzer asked if there would be high intensity commercial. Ms. Martin replied there would not be. Mr. Oschner asked
what low density residential was. Ms.Martin said it was low intensity commercial and the residential being proposed is a
variety of different densities from R-1 to R-4. Mr.Spitzer asked if this would impact the county infrastructure in any way.
Ms. Martin said there would be an impact to the schools in the area as they don't have the capacity to serve this many
residents,but the applicants are proposing two different sites within their development that could be used as school sites.
Mr.Schei, Public Works,said regarding roads,the residential densities would impact infrastructure and they would ask
the applicants to pay their own way to mitigate County involvement. Mr. Spitzer asked if we will see impacts in the next
stages. Mr.Schei replied that this should be mitigated as well when the applicants submit their traffic impacts study to
Public Works. Ms. Martin also gave the Planning Commission the definition of neighborhood centers as defined in the
Code for their general information.
Paul Branham moved that Case 2005-XX Benson Farms LLC, be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners
along with the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards with the Planning Commission's recommendation of
approval. Tom Holton seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton, yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, yes; Paul Branham, yes; Bruce Fitzgerald, yes. Motion carried
unanimously.
9. CASE NUMBER: 2005-XX
APPLICANT: Pioneer Communities Inc& HP Farms LLC
PLANNER: Brad Mueller
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Several parcels of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
REQUEST: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan.
LOCATION: Approximately 3-4 miles north of the Town of Hudson.
Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Services, presented the seven applications together. The first was known as
the Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District and the others were known as the Pioneer Districts 1-6. The applications
were formally accepted by the Board of County Commissioners on October 19, 2005. Mr. Mueller described the
service areas and district boundaries in general terms. The site was located north of 1-76 and north of Hudson at the
intersections of CR 49 and CR 22, approximately four miles north of 1-76. The service area was roughly fifty six
hundred (5600)acres in size and would potentially serve up to ten thousand dwelling units and was a separate land
use application that would be handled in the future. Mr. Mueller gave an overview of what a Title 32 Special District
consisted of and that it includes metropolitan districts. Mr. Mueller explained that a quasi-governmental entity was
being created when a special district was proposed,that is, an entity developed to provide services and financing
through taxes. There were two components;the district boundary which defined the land and the service boundary.
The single service district consisted of one acre within the fifty six hundred (5600)acres. There were eight services
prescribed which included sanitation, water, street improvements, traffic signals,transportation facilities, mosquito
control, park and recreation facilities and television relay. There were six financing districts and their purpose was to
allow for phased development and eventually there would be citizen control of the financing districts. These
financing districts would have the ability to levy taxes and use that ability as the financing me ... .i . .
proposed services. Mr. Mueller then talked about the three sets of approval criteria. The fir EXHIBIT
0-
Statute 32-1-203,which allowed the Board of County Commissioners and the Planning Commission to approve,
disapprove or approve them with conditions. The second set,also from State Statute 32-1-203,was discretionary
and the third set was draft policies that the Weld County Commissioners were currently considering. The
Department of Planning Services was recommending denial as the applications did not meet state statute and did
not comply with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Staff's recommendation to deny approval of all seven
proposed Pioneer Special Districts was also based, in part,on outstanding questions and concerns raised by staff,
primarily in regards to the proposed Service Plans. More specifically: no existing or projected need that the existing
rural services are adequate; uncertainties about the source and mechanism of certain types of services;
uncertainties about the mechanism and reliability of financing;water quality information;the plan was not in the best
interests of the area; concerns with the IGA inclusion/exclusion clauses; extra-territorial service; imminent domain
ballot and dissolution provisions;the mill levy cap language; and issues concerning citizen representation.
The Chair asked Mr. Mueller if this kind of request was unusual—are there other metropolitan districts of this size.
Mr. Mueller said we do have several in surrounding municipalities,though not too many in the county but he would
not characterize this request as unusual. The Chair asked if this application was premature. Mr. Mueller said the
question of ripeness was a relevant one and that state statutes are the guiding criteria and at this point many of the
issues are associated with urban scale development which was not supported for that area at this time. The Chair
also asked if this would give the metropolitan district some authority that the county now has in that area. Mr. Mueller
replied that part of the purpose of creating a metropolitan district was to provide services and a funding mechanism
that the county was unable or unwilling to do. If urban levels of development were supported in this area then the
service mechanism and the funding mechanism would be appropriate. The county was not in the business of
providing water and sanitation at this point, nor was it in the business of providing local parks, as a general rule.
This was a legitimate mechanism for providing services and in fact was part of the reason the Commissioners were
considering adopting policies. There was support for metropolitan districts as one more tool for accommodating
development.
Maryann McGeady,applicant's representative, 1675 Broadway, Ste 2100, Denver, CO, 80202,thanked Mr. Mueller
for his thorough presentation on metropolitan districts. Ms. McGeady said application times have gotten lengthier
through the years and that is why they were asking for consideration of this application before the land use process.
She touched upon the"chicken or egg first"conundrum. Where will the services come from to support this new
growth, and who will operate and maintain the water,transportation, and street services. Ms. McGeady concurred
that they deviated from the guidelines only because they did not know what those would be when they made their
application. However,they were asking for a recommendation of approval based on compliance with guidelines and
approval of the land uses that were assumed in their financing plan,and also the condition that the district not issue
debt and be required to dissolve within two years of the Districts approval by the Board of County Commissioners if
those land uses are not approved within that two-year time frame. That would give the districts the ability to get into
the election cycle,to get organized so that when the land uses are approved,the project would be ready to move
forward, be financed and be developed. If they get out of sequence, it would be very difficult to get those
comprehensive plans approved and the other land use approvals completed. If they condition it the other way,the
development would get approved but probably shelved for a year as the Special Districts tried to catch up.
Mr. Holton asked when the County Commissioners were voting for the establishment of the metropolitan districts.
Mr. Morrison replied that the third reading adopting those guidelines occurs at the end of the month. Mr. Holton
then asked why the hearing today if final changes won't occur until the twenty eighth. Mr. Morrison cited the chicken
and egg analogy and said he does not think the process will yield any major changes. Mr. Mueller said the reason
the applicants asked to come before the board today was to allow for a May election and if this hearing had been
farther out,they would not have met the May election. Mr. Holton expressed concern about eminent domain. Mr.
Mueller said eminent domain would be limited to just those services this district would provide. He would like a
sentence saying something like"eminent domain powers shall be limited to those services within the service
boundaries",or something similar,and also another sentence to the effect that"if the district has a change in its
policies concerning eminent domain,the county gets notified and the applicant must explain the reasons for the
change", and the county can decide whether to consider that a material modification to the plan which would require
a board hearing or not. Mr. Holton asked the applicant if eminent domain issues would be addressed. Ms. McGeady
replied they would—whatever improvements necessary would be provided. Mr. Holton then asked Mr. Morrison
about payment to the landowner in the event eminent domain occurs. Mr. Morrison said all they are talking about is
the ability to exercise authority, it does not change the process of an eminent domain proceeding. The Chair asked
the applicant about the sewer system and if it is off-site would it require eminent domain and/or would you negotiate
with that landowner first. Ms. McGeady responded that any government that exercises the power of eminent domain
must have entered into good faith negotiations with the property owner before they step down that road. Mr.
Oschner inquired about water quality and amount and mill levy caps and would they eventually be addressed. Ms.
McGeady replied that these issues are addressed in the guidelines and they would be revising the plans to show
how they comply with the guidelines as they bring the application to the Board of County Commissioners.
Mr. Mueller said that the water would come from Resource Colorado, an existing metropolitan district that was
created and approved about a year ago with the purpose of providing wholesale water. The Chair asked Ms.
7
McGeady what they had to offer that other developers in the proposed area did not. She said they had a master
plan concept that identifies the long term phasing of infrastructure and amenities that are at an upgraded scale over
what you would see in competing projects. It would provide a different kind of community to meet the market
demand in the area. Mr. Mueller asked Mr. Morrison if the need and justification for the development were separate
land use questions and wondered if it was appropriate to discuss them at this time and represented ex parte
communication. Mr. Morrison replied that it did not present an ex parte problem, and from a relevant standpoint it
only points out how the processes are related.
Chris Paulson,CEO of Pioneer Communities, 9145 East Canyon, Denver, CO, said because these seven
applications were proceeding at the same time,there were actually more checks and balances than usually seen,
and he would like conditional approval of the seven districts today. There would also be several opportunities to see
if they were following compliance at future hearings.
Mr. Spitzer asked about Resource Colorado and what it was. Mr. Paulson replied that it was an existing special
district of one acre within Weld County,whose pipeline would move past Keenesburg to Pioneer,and was presently
negotiating to provide some water to Keenesburg as well. Mr. Spitzer asked it if was all well water. Mr. Paulson said
it was coming from the Lost Creek designated ground water basin and was already adjudicated for four thousand six
hundred fifty two (4652)acre feet to be exported out of the basin. Mr. Paulson said when the Commissioners
approved Resource Colorado,they asked them to look at opportunities to use the water in Weld County and that
was why they looked for land in Weld County in an urban growth corridor and that was why they were before you
today. Mr. Branham asked the applicant if there was anything they would not be in compliance with,that they might
have a problem with. Mr. Paulson said this had been a four month process working with county guidelines and
philosophy behind it, and at this point he said they have looked at the discretionary criteria and can meet them. Mr.
Branham asked Mr. Mueller if he thought the applicant would have any problems complying with the state laws if the
land use case ultimately gets approved. Mr. Mueller replied that he did not see that as a problem,that he
understood their need to meet the May election, but the application did not contain a demonstrated need for urban
services. Ms. McGeady said that just because the votes came out of sequence did not mean you would not meet
the legal requirements. Mr. Morrison said there was a greater risk if action relied upon someone outside of the
county. Mr.Auer spoke to timing and the May election and what was so important. Mr. Morrison replied that with the
effect of the Tabor Amendment,you only have a certain amount of opportunities for these issues-November of an
election year and May of an even numbered year. Along with the land use process is the availability of services to
support the land uses. They have chosen to keep these moving along to show that nothing was being left out. Ms.
McGeady said they would like to be before the Board of County Commissioners prior to ballot content certification in
March for the May ballot. Mr.Auer said he didn't see why they were in such a rush and what difference would a
week or two make. Ms. McGeady said it all had to do with timing and getting information to the Planning
Commission and the Board of County Commissioners in order to make the May election because they have a 180
million dollar debt authorization and want the Commissioners to hear that number before it was certified in a ballot.
Mr.Auer asked Mr. Mueller if staff was comfortable with the conditions of approval and could make a
recommendation. Mr. Mueller said staff was still recommending denial for the reasons previously indicated. Mr.
Holton asked if the land use application came first what would Mr. Mueller's opinion be then. Mr. Mueller said the
first criteria of demonstrated need might go away but the items in the service plan would still stay and they would
want to see those corrections and additions made to the service plans. The Chair asked Mr. Mueller if the current
recommendation was based on the current County Code not a code that may come along in the future. Mr. Mueller
replied that was correct. Their recommendation was based on the facts as they knew them today but could change
in the future. Mr. Morrison asked Mr. Mueller if they had referenced the pending guidelines and Mr. Mueller said they
had. Mr.Auer stated that a fifty six hundred (5600)acre land use application was significant and he was sure other
towns would have comments. He then asked that if the metropolitan district recommendations were approved
conditionally but the land use application failed,what would that mean for the metropolitan districts. Mr. Mueller said
the conditions that they proposed would require that it not fail so that condition would not have been met. Mr.
Oschner asked if the land use was not approved then was the special district dissolved automatically. Mr. Oschner
also asked if they approved the process, did it go to the County Commissioners and if they granted approval,did it
then it go to an election and was the election just for the bonds or did the public vote for this. Ms. McGeady said the
people who vote were qualified within the boundaries of each district and so it was a very limited group and they
would all be related to the current developer. She continued that the questions they would be voting on were: should
each district be organized;should the mill levy for operation and maintenance be imposed;and should the district
have the ability to issue debt for all of the different powers and purposes up to a maximum dollar amount which was
limited to what was in the plan. Mr. Morrison clarified further that the court was the next step after the
Commissioners. The petition was filed with the district court along with the resolution of approval from the
Commissioners if the service plan was approved. The court authorizes and supervises the election if the petition
was found to be sufficient and there had been no successful challenge to the service plan. They would then receive
the results of the election and declare the district created. Mr. Paulson said he thought they would be heard again
after they had the ability to provide urban services for zoning, plating,etc.,so you would see them until you were sick
of them. The Chair asked Planning staff for a copy of the conditions of approval prior for their reference prior to
making a decision. Mr. Spitzer inquired about the election and if the people voting in the election would also live in
8
those districts. Ms. McGeady said the election would be held in May and the people qualified to vote were individual
property owners within that district and they were all related to the applicant. Mr. Morrison said that is typical for
developer type districts because at their inception there was a limited group of persons eligible to vote in the
election. They could be residents or property owners who could register to vote in the state, and do not have to be
residents of Weld County. Mr. Spitzer asked if this election was still sanctioned by the state election laws. Mr.
Morrison replied that it was, in the Special District Act. Mr.Holton asked about the one acre service district that
encompasses the other districts and said he was uncomfortable with granting taxing powers in that district when the
control of that district would not be with the residents. Ms. McGeady said the regional district,which was the district
that provides service to an area that goes beyond its tax base, and its tax base is the one acre,does not tax any of
the other district's property. The districts that would eventually become resident controlled were the districts that
imposed the taxes. Mr. Holton asked for further explanation and Ms. McGeady referred to her map in explaining
each specific district and its purpose. Mr. Paulson said that this district would contract with Resource Colorado to
provide water and run a main sewer interceptor to the proposed sewer treatment plant. Then, improved lots would
be sold and debt would be paid down through tap fees. This was a twenty-five year plan and the boards would be
citizen controlled at some point. Mr. Holton said he just wanted to be sure that at full build out,the whole district
area would not be controlled by the one acre district. Ms. McGeady said it would not be.
Mr. Branham said he recognized the need for metropolitan districts which reduce the County burden,and he was
satisfied with all the response to the concerns raised, but it still bothered him that a demonstrated need was not
present. If that was the County position,then would it be appropriate for the applicant to demonstrate a need for
this metropolitan district in the future and would a demonstrated need be an appropriate condition of approval. Mr.
Mueller said the districts were proposed to provide what he would characterize as urban level service in a specific
geographic area. The criteria did not presume a general need, County wide, country wide, or regionally. It
presumed a need in that specific area,and a very literal reading of the current zoning and of the Comprehensive
Plan was that urban services were not needed in that area. There were two ways to overcome that: have it rezoned
or have the Comprehensive Plan amended to project a need for urban services;or conditionally approve the
application. Mr. Mueller said that obviously creates tracking issues and they would need to have some discussion
about how that would get met. Any change in land use was going to happen later next year. Mr. Mueller said the
fundamental question for this board to consider was whether it was appropriate to anticipate that possible outcome
or whether it was their pleasure to wait and see what that outcome was and then take direction on that. Mr. Mueller
then clarified the time line. The Board of County Commissioners whether they do or do not adopt the policies,was
scheduled to set this service plan hearing on January 4,2006 and anticipated that they would schedule it for
February 9,2006. The Planning Commission was anticipating hearing the land use application at the end of
February,which meant that the Board of County Commissioners would be hearing that in March at the earliest, more
likely April. There would also be subsequent processes with rezoning before actual building would take place on any
site. This was just a Comprehensive Plan amendment being processed by our office. Mr. Branham asked if the land
use hearing could take place if the Planning Commission does not approve the request before them today. Mr.
Mueller said it could absolutely take place, but would it be supportable in terms of adequate services,which presents
the potential for a condition that adequate services be in place through the formation of a district. Mr. Branham
asked Mr. Mueller if they approved today with conditions, if Mr. Mueller would have to develop those conditions. Mr.
Mueller replied that he would. Ms. Mika said out of fairness to the applicant and what they were going to see in the
future,the applicants were suggesting the county may not need to change the Comprehensive Plan in the future.
The applicant was pointing to the fact that what they were proposing was consistent with the existing Comprehensive
Plan and it was merely that the county may need to take a fresh look or revisit the language in the Comprehensive
Plan. The question that will come back to the Planning Commission, based on the rationale and the applicant's
support documentation,was whether the Comprehensive Plan will need to be revised in the future. This was not a
new land use application, it was a revisit and a support of the information that the applicant was suggesting was
already contained in the Comprehensive Plan, based on the definition of how the county defined urban and non-
urban.
The Chair asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak for or against this application. No one wished
to speak. The public portion was closed.
The Chair asked Mr. Mueller to review the potential Conditions of Approval. Mr. Mueller responded that if the
Planning Commission recommends approval that it be conditional upon the following: that there be supporting land
use policies and that the comments from the two letters be addressed. Mr. Mueller said there was some confusion
in items 1, 2,and 3 regarding providing information at the January 4,2006 meeting,and suggested removing the
parenthetical language in items one,two, and three.
Ms. McGeady said their goal was to come back during the Comprehensive Plan presentations and have this district
process application be moving along at the same time. She respectfully requested that the Planning Commission
either approve with condition that they comply with the guidelines period, or recommend denia,as this createed the
cleanest record. The Chair asked Ms. McGeady if it was do-able in fourteen days. She said they would comply with
guidelines to the best of their ability pursuant to all of the discussions they have had with the outside consultant for
the County,the County Commissioners and public debate, and the limited discussion they have had with staff.
They had not had direct discussion with staff on most of the development of the guidelines, that was the outside
9
consultant,so there might be some differences in compliance and the Board of County Commissioners would need
to sort that out. The Chair said this board doesn't typically send incomplete applications to the Board of County
Commissioners. Mr. Mueller said the conditions were proposed prior to the board hearing in February 8,2006. Mr.
Branham asked Ms. McGeady if she would be more comfortable with the conditions if she had until February 8,
2006. She said no. The Chair asked if the applicant was in agreement with the conditions. Ms. McGeady asked for
conditional approval to comply with guidelines. Mr. Morrison said the applicant was not obligated to continue this if
they were not comfortable that it was developed well enough. Mr. Paulson said what Ms. McGeady and the
applicant are concerned about was the suggested language and interpretation of the proposed guidelines. They
wanted to comply with those guidelines and would like a conditional approval based on compliance of those
guidelines, and then give them thirty days to hash out what that was. They don't think that was embodied in this
document and do not want to take the Planning Commission's time hashing that out.
Mr. Holton asked if the Commissioners pass the guidelines,would they have to adhere to all of these. Mr. Mueller
said yes, but that the question was more in the interpretation than in the mechanical exercise of getting through it.
Mr. Branham and Mr. Spitzer posed questions that were inaudible. Mr. Holton asked a question that was also
inaudible. Mr. Mueller responded that staff would carry forth their recommendations and provide the rationale for the
reasons for denial. Mr. Holton asked if staff would want input if they did approve this application. Mr. Mueller said
that if it were denied the applicant would try to resolve as many of those issues as possible. Mr. Morrison said that if
the Planning Commission just says to comply with the guidelines there would also be an opportunity to resolve that
but ultimately the Board of County Commissioners passes the guidelines and it was they who determine how the
guidelines were to be interpreted so it needed to get in front of.the Board of County Commissioners for resolution as
to what the guidelines mean. Staff would have input, but the County Commissioners ultimately make the final
decision. Ms. Mika said if the Planning Commission were to recommend denial then they would accept staff
recommendations. If the Planning Commission chose not to accept staff recommendations,or a fraction of staff
recommendations,they must come up with their own findings of facts in order to have a resolution that was sent to
the Board of County Commissioners. Either way this became their recommendation based on the criteria, policies
and state statute. Mr. Morrison concurred with Ms. Mika. Ms. McGeady asked if the revised finding of fact could be
that the application did not comply with the guidelines and therefore the condition of recommendation of approval be
to come back and comply with guidelines. Ms. Mika said that was correct. Ms. Mika also said that what she needed
from this board was a recommendation that says if they recommend approval,they need to have criteria in which to
make that recommendation of approval. There need to be references to state statute so that when this was
presented to the Board of County Commissioners they had something to tie their recommendation to,rather than a
simple yes or no.
Mr. Holton felt like there was not enough information and they must make decisions on information not yet in place.
Mr. Branham said Planning staff has bent over backwards to come up with conditions of approval that will not only
satisfy the guidelines,as they understand them,that will be developed by the County Commissioners, but will also
meet the state standards. He would favor approval if it contained the conditions of approval as presented, but
based on the applicant's statements that they are not in agreement, he saw no choice but to recommend denial. Mr.
Oschner said this was a project with enough checks and balances and that maybe this was the place to start. Staff's
recommendation of denial is mostly based on need.and he thought that by the time the land use applications come
through,a need should be apparent for this district. If they put in conditions of compliance with the guidelines,that
puts it in front of the Commissioners for their interpretation. Was there a need today—no but if you look at all of the
MUD's,there was a need and this application kept the water in Weld County. The Chair said he favored approval as
this was a good project,the potential of a new town in its infancy was exciting,and he hoped this could be
incorporated as soon as possible. The Chair asked Mr. Morrison for direction on the motions. Mr. Morrison said
each district must be called and voted on separately.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staff's recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton,yes;Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Doug Oschner commented that this needed to start somewhere and based on Section 32-1-203, to say that there
was not a need for this was incorrect. There was a need and should this not meet the guidelines,they have many
opportunities in the future to recommend denial,therefore he would like to see it continue and keep the ball rolling.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Metropolitan District #1, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staff's recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton,yes;Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Metropolitan District #2, be forwarded to the Board of County
10
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staff's recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton,yes;Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Metropolitan District #3, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staffs recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton,yes;Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Metropolitan District #4, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staffs recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton,yes;Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Metropolitan District #5, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staffs recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton,yes;Chad Auer,yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham,yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Roy Spitzer moved that Case 2005-XX Pioneer Metropolitan District #6, be forwarded to the Board of County
Commissioners in accordance with Planning staff's recommendations for denial. Paul Branham seconded the motion.
The Chair asked the secretary to poll the members of the Planning Commission for their decision. Roy Spitzer,yes;Tom
Holton,yes; Chad Auer, yes; Doug Ochsner, no; Bruce Fitzgerald, no; Paul Branham, yes. Motion carried 4-2.
Meeting adjourned at 5:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted
‘-.03A-Aid1/43 Aka-jes
Donita
Secretary
11
Hello