HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060408.tiff a
'14
Weld County Referral
C.
COLORADO November 9, 2005
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant HP Farms, LLC & Pioneer I Case Number I TBD
Communities, Inc.,
do McGeady Sisneros
Please Reply By November 28, 2005 Planner !Brad Mueller
Project Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District
Legal SE4, Section 18, Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M. (1.0 acre)
Location !Approx. 3 '/2 miles northeast of Hudson
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this
date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any
further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please
note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process.
If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of
Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing: December 20, 2005
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
Q We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter.
Comments:
D n D. D. •7C fV/A0t—
Name ivt FIN ' ',� e, =.)�, ) j t° Signature:
P. O. Box "75H
/f
Agency: GrF,.=6LY co 8°632 Date: /.U/ .5
:• Weld County Planning Dept. •: 918 10th Street, Greeley, CO. 80631 9 (970)353-6100 ext.3572 + (970)304-.••: _• .
EXHIBIT
2006-0408 1 /
Weld County Referral
COLORADO November 9, 2005
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant HP Farms, LLC & Pioneer Case Number TBD
Communities, Inc.,
do McGeady Sisneros
Please Reply By , November 28, 2005 Planner I Brad Mueller
Project I Pioneer Metropolitan District#1
Legal Sections 7, 8, 17 & 18, Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M.
(1010 acres)
Location Approx. 4 'A miles northeast of Hudson
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this
date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any
further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please
note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process.
If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of
Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing: December 20, 2005
U We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
lS See attached letter.
Comments:
// Si Name: �-Dill l�'Y� nature:9
Agency: Pf 010.144,,p/441 ! n Date: /2/S /6 5-
4. Weld County Planning Dept.4. 918 10th Street,Greeley,CO. 80631 4 (970)353-6100 ext.3572 4 (970)304-6498 fax
re
Weld County Referral
C.
COLORADO November 9, 2005
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant HP Farms, LLC & Pioneer Case Number TBD
Communities, Inc.,
do McGeady Sisneros iI
_
Please Reply By November 28, 2005 Planner 1 Brad Mueller
Project Pioneer Metropolitan District#2
Legal Sections 7 & 8, Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M.
1(445 acres)
Location Approx. 4 ''A miles northeast of Hudson
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this
date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any
further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please
note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process.
If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of
Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing: December 20, 2005
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter.
Comments:
Name I Signature:
Agency: Greeley, CO _ 8C.)532 Date: /.2.-/_5 /U
fi Weld County Planning Dept. 918 10'"Street,Greeley, CO.80631 + (970)353-6100 ext.3572 i• (970)304-6498 fax t•
Weld County Referral
COLORADO November 9, 2005
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant HP Farms, LLC & Pioneer Case Number TBD
Communities, Inc.,
do McGeady Sisneros
Please Reply By November 28, 2005 I Planner Brad Mueller
Project Pioneer Metropolitan District#3
Legal Sections 5, 8 & 9, Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M.
(995 acres)
Location Approx. 4 '/2 miles northeast of Hudson
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this
date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any
further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please
note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process.
If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of
Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing: December 20, 2005
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
21( See attached letter.
Comments:
Name: '4'Stgnature:
Greeley, COAgency: a,./0.2,:). Date:
+ Weld County Planning Dept.4 918 10'"Street, Greeley, CO.80631 + (970)353-6100 ext.3572+ (970)304-6498 fax+
6isik
Weld County Referral
C.
COLORADO November 9, 2005
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant I HP Farms, LLC & Pioneer Case Number TBD
Communities, Inc.,
c/o McGeady Sisneros
By Planner Brad Mueller
Please Reply � November 28, 2005
Project Pioneer Metropolitan District#4
Legal ' Sections 4 & 5, Township 2 North, Range 64 West of the 6th P.M.
(1,108 acres)
Location Approx. 4 Yz miles northeast of Hudson
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this
date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any
further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please
note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process.
If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of
Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing: December 20, 2005
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
p(See attached letter.
Comments:
Name FI(1F,!`dCE. Signature:
P. O. BOX 7C 1
Agency: GreEtey, CO S?'' Date: iss2/,7/fie-
US
4. Weld County Planning Dept. 4 918 10`"Street, Greeley, CO. 80631 4 (970)353-6100 ext.3572 4 (970)304-6498 fax 4
(4
Weld County Referral
COLORADO November 9, 2005
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant HP Farms, LLC & Pioneer Case Number TBD
Communities, Inc.,
do McGeady Sisneros J _.
Please Reply By November 28, 2005 Planner I Brad Mueller
Project Pioneer Metropolitan District#5
Legal I Sections 1, 2, 11 & 12, Township 2 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M.
(1,320 acres)
Location Approx. 3 %miles north of Hudson
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this
date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any
further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please
note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process.
If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of
Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing: December 20, 2005
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
U We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
XSee attached letter.
Comments:
Do*''�! o. r,r WARDEN, r�! ,a
" Signature:
Name: FINANCE AND P 9
P. D. C
Agency: Date: 4Z/57o-S/
4 Weld County Planning Dept.4. 918 10'"Street,Greeley,CO. 80631 4- (970)353-6100 ext.3572 4- (970)304-6498 fax 4-
Weld County Referral
wfiC.
COLORADO November 9, 2005
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant HP Farms, LLC & Pioneer Case Number TBD
Communities, Inc.,
c/o McGeady Sisneros
Please Reply By November 28, 2005 I Planner I Brad Mueller
Project Pioneer Metropolitan District#6
Legal I Section 12, Township 2 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M.
(105 acres)
Location Approx. 3 '/2 miles north of Hudson
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation
you consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that
we may give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this
date may be deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any
further questions regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please
note that new information may be added to applications under review during the review process.
If you desire to examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of
Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing: December 20, 2005
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
ttt❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
/)a See attached letter.
Comments:
DONALD D. WARDEN, DlR CTOR
Namf)NANCE AND PE it "1;" Signature:
F c. E `' 11 Z/,S�/D.C
Agency: Orr r_;, � - Date:
4- Weld County Planning Dept.4- 918 10'"Street,Greeley,CO.80631 4- (970)353-6100 ext.3572- (970)304-6498 fax 4-
MEMORANDUM
ftTO: Brad Mueller, Department of Planning Dec ber 5, 2005 FROM: Don Warden, Director Finance and Administration/
IIiDcSUBJECT: Service Plans for Seven Pioneer Metro Districts
COLORADO
In response to your referral concerning the 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. Other subjects of the service
plan, such as, services in the area, compliance to master plan (comprehensive plan),
etc I will leave for other referral agencies with more expertise. I would comment on the
observation that for the process to work that 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 financial plan calls for the Pioneer Regional Metro District (PRMD) to be the service
district and Pioneer Metro Districts 1-6 to be the financing districts. Through a Facilities
Funding, Construction, and Operations Agreement (FFCOA) the development would be
serviced. The financial portion of the service plan is adequate. Kirpatrick Pettis'
statements of significant assumptions 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.
The financial plan calls for the Districts 1-6 to each have a 40 mill levy for debt and a 10
mills for operations, plus through the FFCOA pay PRMD 8 mill for its debt service and 2
mills for PRMD's operational costs. The total mill levy for each would be 60 mills, which
is within the standard of a maximum 65 mills proposed in the pending Weld County
Metro District Policies. As proposed the financial plan has a reasonable mill levy and a
reasonable tax burden on all residential and commercial properties within the Districts
(development). I do think that the mill levy cap of 60 mills needs to be clarified in the
final approval of the service plan. It seems to be implied that the mill levy cap is 60
mills (page 18 PRMD Service Plan), but there are reference that are confusing, such as
page 14 PRMD Service Plan that the cap does not apply to the District 1-6's ability to
increase their mill levy as necessary for the provisions of operations and maintenance
of services. On page 20 of PRMD Service Plan it appears that the mill levy cap may
vary by District 1-6 and the 40 mill cap is an estimate. I think a firm mill levy cap needs
to be approved in the final approval of the service plan, and it should never exceed the
65 mill levy cap in the proposed county metro policy. Also, on page 21 of PRMD
Service Plan is the issue of removing the mill levy cap once total debt is less than 50%
of a district's assessed value. The Commissioners will make a final decision of this
point when the metro district policies are adopted. This service plan should be
consistent with that final policy.
Page 11 od PRMD, item 9.b. seems to leave open a great deal of latitude to
restructure the financing of the project, if build out or other matters change. Some
latitude is understandable, but if the financial structure is significantly changed I think it
should be considered a significant change to the service plan and be required to come
back to the Commissioners for review. This area should be clarified as to what is a
significant restructuring of financing. Perhaps, the district should give a 45 day written
notice of the proposed change to the county, and if the county objects then the
proposed change shall be considered a material modification to the service plan and
shall be resolved in accordance with Section 31-1-207 (2) C.R.S.
The service plan calls for a maximum of 40 years for the length of bond debt. The
proposed county's metro district policy calls for only a maximum of 30 years for the
length of bond debt. The services plans should be amended to 30 years maximum to
be consistent with the proposed county policy.
The service plans have repeated references to the districts paying for the maintenance
of the facilities constructed "until accepted by the County". 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
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.
With the above changes and/or clarifications from review of the service plans I would
recommend approval of all seven service plans conditional upon addressing the above
issues.
Cc: Monica Mika
Hello