HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060401.tiff rs Memorandum
TO: Board of County Commissioners
IDATE: January 31, 2006
C FROM: Brad Mueller, Assistant Director
•
COLORADO Department of Planning Services
RE: PioneerServices Districts
February 6, 2006 Board Hearing
On December 20, 2005, the Weld County Planning Commission considered seven Pioneer
metropolitan district proposals and is recommending denial of these proposals.
Since the time of the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has submitted additional
information and revised the service plans.
Staff has also received additional review comments concerning these updates from the Public
Health and Environment Department(Attachment A), and Finance and Administration (Attachment
B). An outside consultant, Bill Cunningham of Leland Consulting Group, has provided financial
analysis. (Attachment C) Additional questions have been provided to the applicants by Planning
Staff in response to the re-submittals. (Attachment D)
The Planning Commission was provided comments, based on the original submittals, from the
Planning, and Finance and Administration Departments.
The purpose of this memo is to provide the Board with this additional information not heard by the
Planning Commission. Should the Board choose to not accept the Planning Commission's
recommendations, potential conditions are included as Attachment E.
I. Additional Submitted Information
The Public Health and Environment Department ("DPH&E") indicates in their comments dated
January 4, 2006 (Attachment A) a concern that the Service Plans fail to budget funds to develop
certain recreation-type amenities. DPH&E notes that these types of facilities are"vital to the public
health of future residents." They also note the importance of the Districts being able to finance
unanticipated costs such as the treatment of groundwater.
Comments from the Director of Finance and Administration dated January 24,2006, (Attachment B)
note that the changes to the revised Service Plans address many of the requirements of the
recently-adopted County Guidelines for Special Districts. Specifically, the revised plans address
bonded indebtedness, a 30-year debt maturity, obligation bonds, and the mill levy cap. The Plans
also address extraordinary inclusions into the District, eminent domain, board elections, and
dissolution of the district.
2006-0401
1
However, the Director of Finance and Administration also notes that the financial plans rely on a
market analysis of the potential development, and whether the build-out assumptions are realistic.
In their report dated January 30, 2006, Leland Consulting Group notes the following items relevant
to the Service District proposals (see Attachment C):
• Absorption rates assumed for the Districts are aggressive and may not be
achievable.
• Because market values and assessment rates are likely to be lower than what is
assumed by the proposed Plans, there would be negative fiscal impacts to the
County.
• These lower values and assessment rates would negatively affect other
jurisdictions (library, schools, etc.).
Planning Services, in its letter of January 30, 2006 (Attachment D)notes that there are some minor
outstanding questions, which the applicant should address prior to the Board of County
Commissioners hearing.
II. Planning Commission Resolution
The Planning Commission Resolutions indicate the recommendation of denial based 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
Based on the referral agency comments and Planning Staff's analysis,only the fourth item has been
definitively resolved. Because there is no urban-scale zoning within the proposed Districts'
boundaries, there remains no existing or projected need. There remains uncertainty about the
ability of future citizens to govern the proposed Regional Service District. And financial analysis
concerning the build-out suggests uncertainty about the proposed Districts' ability to provide
sufficient service.
The memo from Don Warden notes: "[F]or the process to work, the land use decisions associated
with the development and the approval of the metro districts need to be made concurrently or
conditional on the approval of one another."
The attached Conditions of Approval were submitted to the Planning Commission for their
consideration during their December 20th hearing. (Attachment E) Staff has indicated which of these
appear to no longer apply and provides alternative language for others, in case the Board
determines that it is appropriate to conditionally approve the applications.
n
2
Art, cWMEw-r A
Memorandum
TO: Brad Mueller, Planning Services
' C DATE: January 4, 2006
COLORADO FROM: Trevor Jiricek, Public Health &
Environment
Mid County Piar,m[ip Department
GREELEY OFFICE SUBJECT: Service Plan Application for Proposed
Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District
JAN fE 6. 7(1k, &Proposed Pioneer Metropolitan
e, - District #1 , District #2, District #3, District #4,
ECE District #5, & District #6
The Department of Public Health & Environment has reviewed the Service Plan
Application for Proposed Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District &Proposed Pioneer
Metropolitan District #1, District #2, District #3, District #4, District #5, & District #6.
As all of the proposed expenses are estimates. We have reviewed these Districts
under the assumption that each will have the ability to adjust costs for unanticipated
costs? For example, depending upon the quality of the water delivered by Resource
Colorado, the District may be required to install certain treatment plants/processes in
order to comply with State water quality regulations. It is our understanding that the
source of water for these Districts is groundwater. The quality of groundwater can
fluctuate and may vary depending upon the formation and aquifer it is drawn from. We
have been verbally informed by Brad Simons of Gateway America Resources, LLC, that
the water that would be delivered to the development would currently meet State
standards. However, should additional treatment be required the required treatment
plants/processes are often costly and the District should consider costs in their
financing processes.
It appears that the Districts failed to budget funds to develop certain recreation-type
amenities that have specifically been discussed in both the draft Service Plan for
Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District (Service Plan), dated October 13, 2005, and the
Pioneer Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Comp Plan Amendment), dated July 29,
2005 and amended October 17, 2005. More specifically, sections 3-30.03 and 3-70.05
of the Comp Plan Amendment make reference to a clubhouse and regional community
center. Page 9 of the Service Plan makes reference to "...cultural activities, community
recreational centers, water bodies..." Yet the budgets outlined in the Service Plan don't
seem to account for these recreational amenities that would likely be large
expenditures.
Pioneer Districts
January 5, 2006
Page 2 of 2
The Department is of the opinion that readily available recreation activities are vital to
the public health of the future residents of this community. Recreation opportunities
including regular physical activity, fitness, and exercise are critically important for the
health and well being of people of all ages. According to the United States Department
of Health & Human Services', physical activity has been shown to reduce the risk of
developing or dying from heart disease, diabetes, colon cancer, and high blood
pressure. There is also a significant fiscal impact associated with inactivity. The
National Institutes of Health estimate the total cost from chronic disease to be in
excess of$500 billion.
Please do not hesitate to call me should you have any questions.
United States Department of Health&Human Services. Physical Activity Fundamental to Preventing Disease.
June 20, 2002.
2 United States Department of Health and Human Services,National Institutes of Health, Office of the Director.
Disease Specific Estimates of Direct and Indirect Costs of Illness and NIH Support. February 2000.
AI-r-ACHpiENIT B
MEMORANDur T'A '
L�l,t _
f � TO: Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Jar ,
WIiDcFROM: Don Warden, Director Finance and Administration
SUBJECT: REVISED Service Plans for Seven Pioneer Metro Districts
COLORADO
In response to your referral concerning the REVISED Service Plans for the Pioneer
Regional Metro District and the Pioneer Metro Districts 1-6 I have the following to offer
as it relates to the financial plan of the service plans primarily. As a general comment
the applicant has done a good job in the revisions of making the plans consistent with
the new metro district service plan guidelines (Weld County Code sections 2-14-10
through 2-14-70). The revision also addresses many of the financial issues I raised in
my December 5, 2005, referral letter on the original plans. Specifically, the following
items have been resolved:
• Page 6 paragraph 2 is now consistent with Section 2-14-30 B. of the metro
district service plan guidelines regarding bonded indebtedness issuance.
• Pages 23-24 (Financial Plan/Proposed Indebtedness) has changed the
maximum maturity of debt to 30 years versus 40 years to be consistent with
Section 2-14-30 of the metro district service plan guidelines.
vr_ ..• Pages24-25 (Financial Plan/Proposed Indebtedness: Section IX. C) has been
changed to be consistent with Section 2-14-20 I. of the metro district service plan
guidelines.
• Page 26 (Financial Plan/Proposed Indebtedness: Section IX. C.2. Mill Levy Cap)
has been changed to be consistent with Section 2-14-20 H. of the metro district
service plan guidelines.
The revised plans increase the funding levels in several places. Kirpatrick Pettis'
statements of significant assumptions still seem reasonable and the pro-forma financial
plan prepared seems realistic and feasible, assuming the build out of the districts takes
place as projected. 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 timeframe stated.
In conclusion the revisions address all of the major financial plan concerns I expressed
in my December 5, 2005, referral letter on the original plans. Therefore, I have no
issues regarding the financial aspect of the plan 'and would recommend approval of the
districts from a purely financial perspective.
I would offer the following comments on the other aspects of the plans that go beyond
the financial plan:
I would repeat my comment on the observation that for the process to work the land
use decisions associated with the development and the approval of the metro districts
need to be made concurrently or conditional on the approval of one another. If this is
not done, there appears to be a "chicken or egg first" issue that could develop in the
approval process.
The original service plans had repeated references to the districts paying for the
maintenance of the facilities constructed "until accepted by the County". Those sections
have been changes to read "unless and/or until accepted". I am not sure of the change
in meaning or intent with the wording change, but my original concerns and
recommendations remain the same as my December 5, 2005, referral comments.
Some of the facilities should never be accepted by the County to maintain, specifically
those facilities that are not a normal level of service or specific service provided by the
county. Specific examples are:
• All streetscaping and street landscaping improvements should be maintained by
one of the districts or landowners' association (HOA), since this is above normal
county service levels.
• Park and recreation facilities should be maintained by one of the districts or
landowners' association (HOA); since the county is not in the park and recreation
r business.
• Transportation systems, such as buses and rails, should be maintained by one
of the districts or landowners' association (HOA), since the county is not in this
business, except for Headstart and Human Services' clients.
• Certain streets in the development that are developed at a lesser county
standard than a subdivision street should be maintained by one of the districts or
landowners' association (HOA). This is similar to what some municipalities do
with PUD's that retain private streets or are gated communities.
• Water and sewer are not a county provided service.
The new changes on pages 3-4 and page 13 regarding fire services appear to be
acceptable, as long as the metro districts would not try to provide fire services
independent of the existing fire districts, but only supplement them financially. This is
what is implied in the last sentence of Section V. Description of Proposed Services A.9.
on page 13, but perhaps a specific condition of approval should state that the metro
districts can not provide fire services independent of the existing fire districts.
Changes on pages 7-8 regarding Extraordinary Inclusions, page 14 regarding Eminent
Domain, page 30 regarding Election Question, page 31 regarding Dissolution of District
and Default District are all consistent with the new metro district service plan guidelines
(Weld County Code sections 2-14-10 through 2-14-70).
r-
On pages 17-18 Section VII. Regional Improvements/1GA the formation of an "authority"
once the development has reached full build out and use of IGA's seem to be a
practical approach to delivery of services at that stage of the development.
With the above changes and/or clarifications from review of the revised service plans I
would recommend approval of all seven service plans conditional upon addressing the
above issues.
Cc: Monica Mika
P i o nee rMetroDistRevised
P-rrRCtirnEkiT
LELAND CONSULTING GROUP
LPIONEER DEVELOPMENT MARKET/FISCAL REVIEW
Memorandum
TO: Don Warden
Director of Finance and Administration
Weld County
FROM: Bill Cunningham
Anne Ricker
DATE: 30 January 2006
SUBJECT: Market/Fiscal Review of Pioneer Development Submittal
Project Number: J3026
This memorandum summarizes the market and fiscal reviews completed for the
proposed Pioneer development(the Development)in southern Weld County(the
County). This review included analyses of the Development with regard to:
• Absorption and buildout of land uses;
• Market values by land use type;
• Fiscal impacts to the County(operating revenues and expenditures);and
• Impacts on area schools.
Each of these analyses is summarized in the following paragraphs.
Development Absorption
The Pioneer Development envisions a mix of single family detached,single family
attached,and multifamily residential uses,with supporting grocery store-anchored retail
space. The projected buildout of this development program is twenty years.
The market absorption analysis provided by RCLCo estimates absorption based on a
"top-down" analysis of growth in the"extended"Denver region,the northeast Denver
metro area,the I-76 Corridor,Southern Weld County and finally,the project itself. This
"market capture" methodology for estimating absorption at the project level is
reasonable,given the availability of data and the size and scope of the proposed
development.
The biggest challenge in estimating absorption for a project such as this is in attempting
to forecast regional growth trends and how they might be influenced by the project itself.
• Real Estate Strategists, 2mmo.letandconsdting.com Page 1 of 7
LELAND CONSULTING GROUP
L While growth in the Denver region is certainly moving to the northeast and in the
direction of the proposed Development,there is substantial competition for future
growth from a number of areas in this quadrant of the region,e.g.,the I-25 Corridor
(Westminster,Broomfield,Thornton,Southwest Weld County),the E-470 Corridor
(Commerce City,Brighton,Aurora),and the I-76 Corridor(Brighton,Commerce City). A
number of large-scale,master-planned communities are developing in these areas,
capturing a significant share of the short-and mid-term market. The Pioneer
development is at a competitive disadvantage compared to these projects,due to its more
remote location. Due to these competitive influences,particularly in the next decade,it is
estimated that the Pioneer development will be more affected by growth in Weld
County,rather than in the extended Denver region.
Therefore,in order to evaluate the reasonableness of the absorption forecast,project
estimates were compared to projected growth in Weld County over the twenty-year
buildout period.
Table 1 summarizes the projected absorption of housing units within the Development
over the next 20 years,compared to growth in Weld County and the"extended" Denver
region(defined as the Denver-Boulder metro area plus Weld County).
TABLE 1
PIONEER DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL
MARKET ABSORPTION REVIEW
Figures Growth
Indicator/Area 2005 2015 2025 2005-2015 2015-2025 2005-2025
Population
Denver Region 2,625,600 3,054,000 3,526,400 428,400 472,400 900,800
Weld County 223,300 303,600 413,300 80,300 109,700 190,000
Denver Region Extended 2,848,900 3,357,600 3,939,700 508,700 582,100 1,090,800
Households
Denver Region 1,103,100 1,286,500 1,553,500 183,400 267,000 450,400
Weld County 82,700 112,500 156,000 29,800 43,500 73,300
Denver Region Extended 1,185,800 1,399,000 1,709,500 213,200 310,500 523,700
Pioneer Development
Housing Units 0 2,904 10,000 2,904 7,096 10,000
Market Share
Weld County 0.0% 2.6% 6.4% 9.7% 16.3% 13.6%
Denver Region Extended 0.0% 0.2% 0.8% 1.4% 2.3% 1.9%
Households in Price Ranges
Weld County(Ownership) 53,100
Weld County(Rental) 13,600
Pioneer Development
Housing Units(Ownership) 9,000
Housing Units(Rental) 1,000
Market Share of Growth
Weld County(Ownership) 18.9%
Weld County(Rental) 7.4%
Source:Pioneer Companies,Inc.;Colorado State Demographer;and Leland Consulting Group.
As shown in Table 1,projected absorption of the Development's residential units would
require a market capture rate of 9.7% of Weld County growth between 2005 and 2015,
16.3% of County growth between 2015 and 2025,or an overall 13.6% of County growth
over the twenty-year buildout period.
• Real Estate Strategists, www.lelandconsulting.cam Page 2 of 7
LELAND CONSULTING GROUP
L' Table 2 summarizes a further analysis of residential growth by expected income category
(which translates to supportable home price and apartment rent). As shown,this reduces
the potential"pool" of new households from 73,300 to approximately 66,700 over the
twenty-year analysis period. Of this total,approximately 53,100 are estimated to be
ownership units and 13,600 are estimated to be rental units.As shown in Table 1,this
increases the required project market capture rate to approximately 17% for ownership
units and 7% for rental units. These rates appear to be high,again based on the level of
competition in northeast metro Denver and southern Weld County.
TABLE 2
PIONEER DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL
RESIDENTIAL DEMAND BY PRICE POINT
Trade Area Demand from New Households(2005-2025
Current HHs Est Net
Annual Income In Income New HHs Total
Range(2005 Approx. Approx.Home Bracket by Income Est. Pd. Total Ownership
dollars) Rent Range Price Range (2005) Bracket Total Units Routers Rental Units Units
up to$15K up to$375 up to$50K 8% 2% 1,466 1,393 73
$15-25K $375-$625 $50 to$85K 8% 7% 5,131 4,361 770
$25-35K $625-$875 $85 to$120K 9% 11% 8,063 a., 4,435 3,628
$35-50K $875-$1,000 $120 to$175K 15% 17% 12,461 10 3,738 8,723
$50-75K $1,000+ $175 to$250K 24% 25% 18,325 20°<. 3,665 14,660
i••-• $75-100K $1,000+ $250 to$350K 15% 15% 10,995 10'% 1,100 9,896
$100-150K $1,000+ $350 to$500K 15% 15% 10,995 550 10,445
$150K and up $1,000+ $500K and up 6% 8% 5,864 117 5,747
Totals 100% 100% 73,300 rc` 19,359 53,941
Source:ESRI-BIS, Colorado Division of Local Governments, U.S. Census,and Leland Consulting Group
Development Market Values
The estimates of development market value and resulting property tax revenues
prepared by RCLCo for the proposed Development utilized the following assumptions:
• Residential Units(all): $250,000
• Retail(per square foot): $120
• Residential assessment rate: 9.12%
• Commercial assessment rate: 29%
Despite the fact that the proposed residential mix for the Development was estimated at
90% single family detached,10% single family attached,and 10% multifamily,no attempt
was made to differentiate residential units by product type and expected market value.
For the purposes of this review,the following values were used:
• Residential(single family detached): $250,000
• Residential(single family attached): $200,000
• Residential(multifamily): $75,000
• Retail(per square foot): $120
• Real Estate Strategists, unmu.lelandrorisulting.corn Page 3 of 7
LELAND CONSULTING GROUP
The land values projected for the Development appeared to be reasonable. In addition to
refinements in residential market values,a lower residential assessment rate of 7.96%
was used to reflect current property tax conditions. In fact,the statewide residential
assessment rate has gradually declined over the last ten to twenty years,so it is likely to
decline further over the analysis period. An updated County mill evy rate(for 2005)
was also used in the review analysis.
Fiscal Impacts to County(Revenues and Expenditures)
The fiscal impact analysis provided by RCLCo estimated County operating revenues and
expenditures associated with the Development's buildout over twenty years. These
revenue and expenditure estimates were prepared based on a per capita methodology,
which takes current County budget figures and projects into the future on a proportional
per capita basis. This is an accepted methodology for fiscal impact analyses,particularly
for a project of this size at an early planning level. As development programs are refined
and more detail is provided related to phasing,product types,and potential residents,
more"realistic" revenue and expenditure impacts can be determined. Ideally,an
analysis of department-by-department impacts and the best determinants for those
impacts(such as"miles of street maintained" for public works or"number of police calls
per capita" for public safety)would be completed with input from department heads.
Additionally,a capacity analysis should be completed to account for unusual,or one-
time service impacts(such as the purchase of a fire engine or the hiring of new
personnel)associated with the Development. The methodology used in the fiscal impact
analysis,as noted,is probably appropriate for this level of planning,but should be
refined as the Development moves through the approval process.
With regard to the revenue and expenditure assumptions used in the RCLCo analysis,
the assumption that was adjusted or modified the most was the calculation for per capita
revenues and expenditures. The RCLCo analysis based per capita estimates on a
population figure for unincorporated Weld County of 108,054(97,293 residents and
11,291 employees). The population figure for unincorporated Weld County in 2004 was
42,857,far below the figure used in the RCLCo analysis. Adjusting for 2005 figures,the
review analysis used an unincorporated population figure of 44,100 and an estimated
employment figure of 12,300(proportionally the same as was used in the RCLCo
analysis)for a total per capita figure of 56,400 for calculation purposes. Because this
figure is nearly one-half of the figure used in the RCLCo analysis,estimates of per capita
costs and revenues will be significantly higher.
In addition to the change in unincorporated population,adjustments were made to the
Development's projected population. Based on current household sizes in Weld County,
for both ownership and rental housing units,upward adjustments were made to
household size figures by housing product type.
The changes in these fiscal impact assumptions are summarized in Table 3.
r
■ Real Estate Strategists, ioimo.lelandeonsulting.cou Page 4 of 7
LELAND CONSULTING GROUP
L TABLE 3
PIONEER DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL
COMPARISON OF FISCAL IMPACT ASSUMPTIONS
Indicator RCLCo Analysis Review Analysis
Household Size(SFD) 2.8 3.0
Household Size(SFA) 2.1 2.5
Household Size(MF) 1.8 2.0
Project Population 26,269 28,500
Per Capita Calculator 108,584 56,400
Per Capita Revenues* $84 $250
Per Capita Expenditures $255 $496
*Does not include property tax revenues.
The highlighted assumptions have the most profound impact on the estimates of
revenues and expenditures associated with the Development. In fact,these changes in
assumptions result in a fiscal deficit at buildout,rather than a fiscal surplus as indicated
in the RCLCo analysis. Table 4 summarizes the annual revenue and expenditure impacts
from the Development at buildout.
TABLE 4
PIONEER DEVELOPMENT SUBMITTAL
ANNUAL FISCAL IMPACTS @ BUILDOUT
Indicator 30-Yr Buildout
Estimated New Development Units/Sq Ft:
Single Family Detached 8,000
Single Family Attached 1,000
Multi-Family 1,000
Retail 200,000
Estimated Annual Revenues by Type:
Property Tax $2,350,625
Other Revenues* $7,322,525
Total New Annual Revenues to County: $9,673,150
Estimated Annual Operating Expenses by Department:
General Government $5,678,626
Public Safety $7,634,688
Public Works $423,756
Culture&Recreation $27,301
Health&Welfare $338,179
Economic Assistance/Miscellaneous $923,531
Total New Annual Service Costs to County: $15,026,081
.-, Total Net Annual County Surplus(Deficit): ($5,352,932)
*Includes Franchise Tax, Fines, Charges for Services,Permits/Fees,and Miscellaneous Revenues.
Source:Weld County;Pioneer Companies,Inc.;and Leland Consulting Group.
• Real Estate Strategists, ztnum.lelandconsulting.com PageS of 7
LELAND CONSULTING GROUP
L. School Impacts
The methodology to estimate pupil yields,facility needs and potential property tax
revenues available for school construction is reasonable for this level of project planning.
However, the results of the analysis,which project approximately$175 million in
property tax revenues to be available for school construction,will be negatively affected
by the changes in assumptions discussed in this review,namely:
• Slower absorption of development based on lower market capture rates
• Slightly lower market values for residential product types
• Lower assessment rate for residential development
The result is a likely lower revenue stream available for school construction and a wider
gap in funding for the proposed Capital Facility Foundation.
Conclusions
Based on the analyses summarized above,the following conclusions were drawn:
• The estimated absorption rate for the Development is aggressive,given the level
of competition in the northeast Denver and southern Weld County markets,and
the required project market capture rates.
• Adjusting for the"pool" of home buyers and renters potentially available to the
Development,the required market capture rates are even higher.
• While the Development's proposed mix of residential unit types-90% single
family detached,10% single family attached and 10% multifamily-will no doubt
respond to prevailing market conditions,it appears to be too heavily weighted
toward the single family detached market. The project's ultimate success will
depend on the variety of housing products with which it can penetrate different
market niches.
• The absorption of the project's commercial space is appropriately tied to
residential absorption. Any fluctuations in this residential absorption will have
an impact,whether positively or negatively,on the development of commercial
space within the Development. At buildout,the residential development
planned would likely support a greater amount of commercial development,
depending on its type and location.
• It is estimated that the Development's buildout would more likely occur over a
30 to 35-year period,rather than the 20-year buildout projected.
• Residential and retail market values estimated for the Development appeared to
be reasonable,however,a further refinement was necessary to account for
different residential product types(single family vs.multifamily). The
residential assessment rate was also lowered to approximately 8% to reflect the
historical downward trend in this rate.
• While the"per capita" methodology for determining fiscal impacts from the
Development is probably appropriate for this level of planning,analyses of
department-by-department impacts and a capacity analysis should be completed
to account for unusual,or one-time service impacts associated with the
Development.
• Real Estate Strategists, aatai lelatidconsalting.coin Page 6 of 7
LELAND CONSULTING GROUP
L' • The change in assumptions that had the most profound impact on the analysis
was the per capita multiplier figure(identified as the population-both residents
and employees-of unincorporated Weld County). Because the review analysis
used a per capita multiplier that was nearly one-half of that used by RCLCo,the
resulting per capita revenues and expenditures were nearly doubled.
• The changes in assumptions outlined above resulted in a fiscal deficit,rather
than a fiscal surplus for the Development at buildout.
• While the methodology used to calculate potential school impacts(pupil yield,
facility needs,costs and revenues for school construction)is reasonable,the
changes in assumptions discussed earlier in the review analysis will likely result
in lower revenues being available for school construction and a larger deficit in
capital facility construction.
• The adjustments in assumptions also result in lower tax revenues to other
jurisdictions,e.g.,Weld Library,AIMS Junior College,etc.,as well as any
potential special districts.
• Finally,it should be noted that the estimates of property tax revenues are
significantly affected by assumptions for inflation. The RCLCo assumed 4%
annual growth in revenue,which,over a 30-year analysis period,has a
substantial compounding effect. In addition,because property is assessed every
other year,the true impacts of that increase in revenue are not realized every
year. This compounding impact,without accounting for the County's
reassessment process,will likely overstate revenues in a long-term forecast.
r
If you have any questions regarding the analysis herein,please do not hesitate to call us
at 303.458.5800.
•
■ Real Estate Strategists, nnow.elandronsulting.com Page 7 of 7
rit
ATTACHMENT D
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
I918 10`h Street
CGREELEY, COLORADO 80re 1
WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us
E-MAIL: bmueller@co.weld.co.us
COLORADO PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT. 3572
FAX (970) 304-6498
January 30, 2006
Jacqueline Murphy
McGeady Sisneros, P.C.
1675 Broadway, Suite 2100
Denver, CO 80202
RE: Revised Submittals -- Service Plan Application for Proposed Pioneer Regional
Metropolitan District & Proposed Pioneer Metropolitan Districts#1 - 6
Dear Jacqueline:
Thank you for your recent calls and correspondence. As you are aware, the seven Pioneer
service plan applications are scheduled to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners on
February 6, 2006.
Planning staff has at this time has reviewed the re-submitted service plans with the following
comments. Most of these are intended to provide clarification needed in finalizing our
presentation to the County Commissioners
• As indicated on Page 2 of the revised Plan, the Regional Pioneer District will consist of 1.0
acre of property. As outlined on Page 4, the relationship of Regional to Metropolitan
Districts # 1 —6 consists of a controlling service district that has no residents within the one-
acre holding, but provides services through agreements to residents within the six other
financing districts.
It still appears that control of the services for the entire Pioneer Service Area can remain
indefinitely with the developer and owners of the single-acre ownership lot. This situation
seems to be reinforced on Page 17 of the Regional Plan where the anticipated Facilities
agreement will contemplate the formation of an Authority, which would include resident
citizens. (Emphasis added.) Please explain whether this would not be the case, and where
in the Service Plan there is a governance structure in place that will allow eventual board
control by the future citizens.
• The Plans have been amended to include limited fire protection services. On Page 4 of the
Regional Plan, the statement is made that this and medical response services will be
provided by the Hudson Fire Protection District or the Southeast Weld Fire Protection
District. How will this be ensured, given that portions of the service area are outside any
existing fire districts?
1
r
• Page 7 of the Regional Plan makes reference to the Districts "anticipat[ing] an inclusion to
the Service Area along County Road 49." What lands are being referred to? Along how
long of a stretch of County Road 49 could this be? Could these be miles in length?
• The designation of Section Von Page 8 is inconsistent with the numbering scheme shown
in the Table of Contents. Please reconcile.
• Please explain why the projected assessed valuation and estimated cost of the
improvements, both on Page 16 of the Regional Plan, have increased.
• Please clarify that the "ten (10) Regional Improvements Mill Levy" on Page 22 of the
Regional Plan is making reference to something else in the document.
• References made in new Section XII.C on Page 31 seem to be incorrect.
Also, we have received preliminary feedback from Leland Consulting concerning the various
projected levels of development (as referenced on page 20 of the Plan). Generally, there is
concern that the absorption rates are too aggressive as projected, which would hinder the
assumptions made for the financing of the Districts. We will forward on more information, just
as soon as it is available.
Thank you for your attention to these questions. If you have any questions about these
comments or revisions, please do not hesitate to call me at 970-353-6100, ext. 3572.
Sincerely,
Brad Mueller, Assistant Director
cc: Bruce Barker, County Attorney
Monica Daniels-Mika, Director of Planning Services
Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld County Attorney
2
ATTACHMENT E
Potential CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Pioneer Service Plans
1. Approval of the Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District and Metropolitan
Districts #1 — 6 Service Plans is conditional upon the following:
A. The Plans shall be amended to require automatic and immediate
dissolution of a District if the majority of land within a District does
not lie within an urban-level zoning district within two (2) years of
approval of the Plan.
B. The Plans shall be amended to also include, as a "low-growth
scenario" in the supporting Appendices, the population and growth
assumptions included in the Leland Consulting Group memo of
January 30, 2006.
C. The Service District (i.e., "Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District")
Service Plan shall detail the governing structure and board of the
proposed Service District and provide for citizen participation and
control of the Board at an appropriate point in its operation.
D. Other textual and clarification items previously identified by staff
shall be addressed within the Plans.
Hello