HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060410.tiff MEMORANDUM
AoTO: Brad Mueller, Department of Planning rFebruary 3, 2006
impC FROM: Don Warden, Director Finance and Administration
COLORADO SUBJECT: REVISED Service Plans for Seven Pioneer Metro Districts
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 Market/Fiscal Review. As you are aware Weld County engaged Leland Consulting
Group to review the project. On January 30, 2006, a report was issues by Leland that
based on the analyses 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.
• 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.
As a result of the Leland analysis and conclusions reached I would recommend denial
of all of the Pioneer Metro Districts. The change in the build out from 20 years to 30-35
years, and the fiscal deficit that the project would create for the taxing jurisdiction in the
area are my main reasons for recommending denial. Any new project in Weld County
should be able to demonstrate evidence of paying its own way, and not being a future
fiscal burden to current or future property taxpayers in Weld County. The build out
projections going from 20 years to 30-35 years are also a major concern. I fear that a
project in a remote location in Weld County with that kind of build out could result in
the creation of another Beebe Draw type project that has caused concerns for the county,
area residents,and purchasers of parcels in the development.
The Weld County Comprehensive Plan discourages development in remote areas where
services are not fully available. In my opinion the Leland analysis for this project
provides good evidence why projects in remote areas of Weld County may not be in the
best interest of Weld County's future growth and fiscal well being.
Cc:Monica Mika
pioneermetrofiscalmarketimpact
4 ., -I ,Iry .+. . Dw-Dy.C-woau mcueaoy sisneros, VC Julia Dybdah I -0-19703046498 02/11
McGEADY SISNEROS, P. C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1675 BROADWAY, SUITE 21OO
DENVER,COLORADO 8O2O2
TELEPHONE:13O31 592-438O
FACSIMILE:1303)592-4385
MARYANN M.MCG EAOY W W W.MCGEADY519NEROS.COM
DARLENE SISNEROS
MARY JO DOUGHERTY a✓. NaE
MEGAN BECHER KENNETH M.KO KOPROw'.C2
VALERIE D. BROMLEY ANNE K.LAPORTA
RUSSELL W.DYKSTRA
KATHRYN S. KANDA
JACQUELINE C.MURPHY
GEORGE M.ROWLEY February 3, 2006
Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail
Brad Mueller
Weld County
Department of Planning Services
918 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Service Plan Application for Proposed Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District &
Proposed Pioneer Metropolitan District 41-6 (the "Districts")
Dear Brad:
Thank you for the memorandum dated January 31, 2006 ("Memo") which included
comments from Finance and Public Health, your January 30, 2006 letter containing additional
questions and the potential conditions.
For ease of reference, the following lists the potential conditions and the County
comments and our response to each.
Potential Conditions:.
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.
Response: See attached draft Conditional Resolution of Approval which includes our
proposed language on this issue.
B. The Service 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.
Response: We agree to prepare a low growth scenario as a guide to the Districts, but do
not believe amending the Services Plans is required or warranted. See additional
responses to No. 6 below.
00062949.DOC V 2)
R'
D Z/_)/tuuo 12:41 ( JW- 92-4JEU mcueaay Sisneros, PC Julia Dybdahl-.19703046498 03/11
Brad Mueller
February 3, 2006
Page 2
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.
Response: We agree to work toward citizen participation and control of the Service
District in accordance with County Policy 2-14-40. Please see additional detail in No. 1
below.
D. Other textual and clarification items previously identified by staff shall be addressed
within the Plans.
Response: See responses set forth below.
Letter from Brad Mueller dated January 30, 2006:
1. County Comment: 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.
Response: The Authority concept was incorporated into the revised drafts of the Service
Plans for the sole purpose of providing a mechanism to transfer control to future residents.
The Authority will be established by way of an intergovernmental agreement between and
among the Districts and when the infrastructure and financing of all of the public
improvements to serve the development is complete, the operation and maintenance of all
public infrastructure that is in the control of the Districts and is of general benefit to the
community will be conveyed to the Authority.
2. County Comment: 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?
{00062949.000 v:2}
Ty 2/A/2000 12:41 (303-592-4380 MCGeady Sisneros, PC Julia Dybdahl-*19703046498 04/H
Brad Mueller
February 3, 2006
Page 3
Response: All of the property within the proposed Districts has been included into either
Hudson Fire Protection District or Southeast Weld Fire Protection District.
3. County Comment: 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?
Response: This language was included to address a circumstance where it is necessary to
construct interchange improvements or improvements along County Road 49. We would be
willing to add language to the Service Plan providing that to the extent such improvements
are necessary, we will come back to the County to get its approval for same and adjust the
Service Area as necessary.
4. County Comment: The designation of Section V on Page 8 is inconsistent with the
numbering scheme shown in the Table of Contents. Please reconcile.
Response: We will address any formatting issues, as necessary.
5. County Comment: Please explain why the projected assessed valuation and estimated cost of
the improvements, both on Page 16 of the Regional Plan, have increased.
Response: The projected assessed valuation and estimated cost of the improvements have
increased because the financial plan was revised to reflect the County minimum inflation
assumptions of 3% (in accordance with the Weld County Service Plan Guidelines) and
biannual reassessment assumptions of 6%. Please see No. 3 in the Significant Assumptions
set forth in Exhibit D to the Service Plans.
6. County Comment: [p.20—"various projected levels of development"—this isn't really the
case, would depend on Bill's assessment, too] (from other letter: "Other than the two pro
formas with start dates a year apart, staff was unable to identify the various projected levels
of development referred to on Sheet 15. Please clarify, and comment on whether any
sensitivity analysis was done in preparation of the Plan.")
Response: Proponents had a market study conducted in connection with the Comprehensive
Plan Amendment. We will be prepared to discuss this at hearing. The financing plan
indicates how debt will be incurred and repaid using the growth assumptions as forecasted in
the plan. Public improvements will be phased, financed and constructed as development
actually occurs to support development and not to incur debt or construct improvements
ahead of when it is needed. Therefore, any rate of development can be accommodated and
there is no need to mention all possible projections in the Plans.
7. County Comment: 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.
{00062949 DOC v2
./ .,,tuvtl .<:r1 nova-Dye-vsau mcueady sisneros, PC Julia Dybdahl -+19703046498 05/11
Brad Mueller
February 3, 2006
Page 4
Response: Per our conversation today, I understand we have sufficiently clarified this item.
•
8. County Comment: References made in new Section XII.C on Page 31 seem to be incorrect.
Response: We will address any formatting issues, as necessary.
Memorandum from Don Warden dated January 24, 2006:
9. County Comment: 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.
Response: In order to process all of the approvals necessary to facilitate the development of
the Pioneer community in an efficient way, it is important to complete the organization of the
Districts in this May '06 election cycle. The determination as to the land use approvals for
the project will continue to be brought before the BOCC, however, with the Districts
organized, the securing of sewer and water service to the development can proceed and be
available to implement the vision of the BOCC as will be reflected in the BOCC's decision in
the land use cases. We have attached a draft Conditional Resolution of Approval which
includes our proposed language for dealing with the "Chicken and Egg" scenario.
10. County Comment: 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 changed 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 (BOA), 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.
100062949.noC v:21
4 LfJiLUUo 1L:41 ( st13-nvz-4380 McGeady Sisneros, PC Julia Dybdahl -.19703046498 06/11
Brad Mueller
February 3, 2006
Page 5
• 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.
Response: The financial assumptions of the Districts are that the Districts will maintain
certain improvements as set forth in the Service Plans and that certain amenities will be
maintained by a homeowners' association. The purpose of referencing the possibility that the
County could, at its discretion, accept certain improvements for operations and maintenance,
is to eliminate the cost and expense that would be incurred in a service plan amendment if the
County determined it wanted to own or operate any of the public improvements.
Memorandum from Trevor Jiricek, dated January 4, 2006:
II. County Comment: 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.
Response: The expenses to which Mr. Jiricek is referring are operational in nature, which
costs have been projected in the Financial Plan. As is typical in Master Planned
Communities, the installation of facilities would need to be phased to assure that the
revenues would be available for funding the operation and maintenance of such amenities.
(00062949.DOC v:2)
4 L, ,, ,uuU IL:41 g .,u,-O•92-4asu Mcoeacly slsneros, PC Julia Dybdahl -X19703046498 07/11
•
Brad Mueller
February 3, 2006
•
Page 6
Service charges would be imposed for use of certain District facilities to supplement tax
revenues used for the provision of services (e.g., use of Recreation Center). •
We hope that the foregoing response is helpful in your processing of the Service Plans.
Very/truly yoprs,
EAD S $111NERDS,P.C.
eline C. Murphy
c: Monica Daniels-Mika, Director of ing Services
(00062949 DOC v 2)
. -, ,, Luvv ♦c[Y1 tOVJ-JY L-.JOU mcueaay sisneros, PC Julia Dybdahl-+19703046498 08/11
DRAFT#3
MCGEADY SISNEROS, P.C.
January 3, 2006
RESOLUTION NO.
RE: CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF SERVICE PLANS -- PIONEER REGIONAL
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT AND PIONEER METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
NOS. 1-6
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to •
Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of
administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, seven documents entitled"Service Plan for Pioneer Regional Metropolitan
District (Service District)" and "Service Plan for Pioneer Metropolitan District Nos. 1 through 6
(Financing Districts; Service District and Financing Districts are collectively referred to as the
Districts)" ("Service Plans") were filed with the Clerk to the Board for consideration by the
Board of County Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the Clerk to the Board scheduled a public hearing on the Service Plans to be
held at_ _a.m. on February 21, 2006; and
WIIEREAS, notice of the date, time. location, and purpose of said hearing was duly
published in The Fort Lupton Press, the county legal newspaper, on ; notice
was provided to the Division of Local Affairs of the name and type of the proposed District: and
notice of the date, time and location of said hearing was provided to the Petitioners, to the
governing body of each municipality and of each special district which had levied an ad valorem
tax within the next preceding tax year and which had boundaries within a radius of three (3)
miles of the District, and to said Division, as required by Sections 32-1-202(1), C.R.S., as
amended, and to the Weld County Planning Commission as required by Section 32-1-204,
C.R.S., as amended; and
WHEREAS, the Weld County Planning Commission studied and considered the Service
Plans at its meeting on December 20, 2005, at which time said Commission adopted a Resolution
recommending denial of the Service Plans for various reasons as more specifically stated therein,
which recommendation was subsequently presented to the Board of County Commissioner,at its
hearing on this matter, as required by Section 32-1-240(2), C.R.S., as amended; and;
WHEREAS, the Board did, on February 21, 2006, conduct a full public hearing on this
matter, taking evidence establishing the jurisdiction of the Board to hear this matter and further
taking evidence regarding the substantive issues set forth in Section 32-1-203, C.R.S., as
amended, at which hearing all interested parties were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, the Board fully considered the Service Plans and all testimony and other
evidence presented to it in this matter relating to said Service Plans. including the
recommendation of the Department of Planning Services; and
{000611472 DOC v.21
-• �•• � -• • JVJ-JV L-.Jou mcueauy sisneros, PC Julia Dybtlahl-.19703046498 09/11
SERVICE PLAN - PIONEER REGIONAL METROPOLITAN DISTRICT AND
PIONEER METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-6
PAGE 2
WHEREAS, the Board, after consideration, finds that the Service Plans and the evidence
and testimony presented to the Board meets the criteria contained within Section 31-1-204,
C.R.S., as amended and the Weld County Guidelines for Service Plans (Guidelines); and
WHEREAS, no written requests for exclusion were submitted to the Board; and
WHEREAS, Section 32-1-203(2), C.R.S., as amended, states that the Board of County
/ Commissioners shall disapprove the Service Plans unless evidence satisfactory to the Board of
each of the following is presented:
A. "There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area
to be serviced by the proposed special district."
B. "The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is
inadequate for present and project needs."
C. "The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient
service to the area within its proposed boundaries."
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."
WHEREAS, Section 32-1-203(2.5) states "the Board of County Commissioners may
disapprove the service plan if evidence satisfactory to the Board of any of the following, at the
discretion of the Board, is not presented:"
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."
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 he located and each municipality which is an interested party
under Section 32-1-204(1)."
C. "The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to
Section 30-28-106, C.R.S."
D. "The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state
long-range water quality management plan for the area."
E. "The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the
area proposed to be served."
W, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County, Colorado, that:
00060472_DOC v 2 2
p G/ J/cuvo £ JUJ-JYL-4}gyp Meaeaay Sisneros, PC Julia Dybdahl -.19703046498 10/11
SERVICE PLAN - PIONEER REGIONAL METROPOLITAN DISTRICT AND
PIONEER METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-6
PAGE 3
Section I The Board hereby determined that all of the jurisdictional and other
requirements of Sections 32-1-202 and 32-I-204, C.R.S., as amended,
have been fulfilled, including those relating to the filing and form of the
Service Plans, the form and publication of the public notice of the hearing
on the Service Plans, and the type of public hearing held herein, and that.
pursuant to Section 32-1-204(1.5), the petitioners did give proper and
timely notification of the hearing to the property owners within the
district.
Section 2 The Weld County Planning Commission has considered this matter as
required by law and has recommended denial of the Service Plans.
Section 3 Based upon the information contained with the Service Plans and evidence
presented to the Board at the hearing, the Board hereby finds and
determines as follows:
A. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized
services of the nature proposed in the Service Plans in the area to
be serviced by the proposed District.
B. The existing services in the area to be served by the proposed
District are inadequate for present and projected needs.
C. The proposed District is capable of providing economical and
sufficient services to the area within its proposed boundaries.
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.
E. Adequate services are not,and will not be, available to the area
through Weld County or other municipal or quasi-municipal
corporations, including special districts, within a reasonable time
and on a comparable basis.
F. The facilities and service standards of the proposed District are or
will be compatible with the facilities and service standards of Weld
County and of each municipality and special district which is an
interested party hereto.
G. The Service Plans are in substantial compliance with the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan and the Guidelines,
H. The creation of the proposed District will be in the best interest of
the area proposed to be served.
1 00060472 DOC v 2) 3
+ - - ---- -- •- +.,. muueauy ,tsneros, rl Julio Uybdahl-*19703046498 11/11
SERVICE PLAN - PIONEER REGIONAL METROPOLITAN DISTRICT AND
PIONEER METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NOS. 1-6
PAGE 4
Section 4 The proponents acknowledge that an amendment to the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan has been filed for consideration by the Board of
County Commissioners which provides for urban development which
would support the debt presented in the Financial Plans attached to the
Service Plans (Comprehensive Plan Amendment). Therefore, the Service
Plans of the proposed Districts be, and hereby are, approved subject to the
condition that bonds shall not be issued by any of the Districts until the
Comprehensive Plan Amendment is approved.
Section 5 The Clerk of the Board be, and hereby is, directed to advise the Petitioners
in writing of this action and to attach a certified copy of this Resolution for
the purpose of filing the same with the District Court of Weld County.
Section 6 All Resolutions or parts thereof, in conflict with the provisions hereof, are
hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict only.
•
Section 7 This Resolution, immediately upon its passage, shall be authenticated by
the signatures of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk to the
Board and sealed with the corporate seal.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the day of , A.D.,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST Robert D. Masden, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board
William H. Jerke, Pro-Tem
Deputy Clerk to the Board
M. J. Geilc
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
David E. Long
County Attorney
Glenn Vaad
Date of signature:
VIN)fi0472.LJOC v 2 4
2/6/2006 13:11 (303-592-4380 McGeady Sisneros, PC Julia Dybdahl+19703520242 1/1
Motion to Approve,subject to the Service Plan incorporating the following:
1. A provision which prohibits any of the Districts from issuing debt prior to the
approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment which anticipates land use designations
substantially similar to the land use designation set forth in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment
submitted for the County review in 2005.
2. Incorporation of an alternative financial plan which would present the impact of a
30 year absorption of the projected build-out of development within the Service Area.
3. A provision which requires the control of the Service District to be transitioned to
the Financing Districts by way of an Intergovernmental Agreement when all of the public
improvements needed to serve the Service Area have been financed and constructed.
P(c(
{00063305.Doc v:11
EXHIBIT
I Th,l y
m
W 4-
(n i-+ i
C V U c
C -- a o
a 0 ' X 2
x 'OwO
it O
O
C. O (n N c0 co L5
jto C� N v
L.
45
a) eci (n T2._ (0
O ? m
•O_ Q TDD
Ct
a)
O
U
I . 0 E
O 2
a cz
a w a
co a)
E. co c E
U E
U •a O = O
'- � C6 O
Nt EL. (n
u) 44-c)�O E
45
A . . O
> a. swo L t) O
= O O ti -V O c c
Q — • a ma)
Q O CZ 054 .L c
4) Q 2 Q r O LL
O O O
•
•
•
co
C
O
co
a)
C
.O .° C
CO c a)
.� co
Q) O
E U °
.Cti
— a�
O C a E
U ca (7;
0 E • •
o
•
•
•
e L
N
H
U
CR22
LO , • NT iii
%FIRESTONE
FREDERICK ENESBURG
rD CON •
FT. UDSON
RICEI-ITON `
BR()() ' I :LitN i
DIA
g
try I-7o
DENVER
• • Proposed Districts
t - •
-
:;Wig}-
a
cU
V
N C
c O
.=
co
c N U
o
i.,
E 8 t a
U C c d) (D c
- ca ca a)
>
ao i`cz c v�
iii co
a co >, N o c r,
CO N }' > O5 o E2
a' N �a c n c
CO
C N c O+-' ( w LJ O U
O . « (6 • • *la •
Co iam = Cl)
V O O
I O O O
•
•
0
4)
U
• O
'2? N
a Et C
a) E co
o O •C
.o
1 U-
C
co O
2
O c� co L N al o
.L C O O O V) L
.O O U a L-Q N � N a co N
N _a 4- C O `�
O N O U O v > U?
CO
U) .a
C CO O V CO O O
CO C is
cz
o w co co 00 f -a
aa) . . . . . .
s_ O
Q. O
•
•
•
C
O 4 -'
.. U
co U
N
CO C
.V o oo so
ci
V i o N
p a . 0) u)
aCn co a CO -I--•
an
O - > F Q LL
a
L.
O. O
M
O
cn
I
C
N
CO i=
oco
U 5 -a)
O -
CD n o
as
N -
L >+
• U L
U ED_ � o
C� cr L
Q o
p �- Q o I?
co co CO
0
Q o 0 0
•
•
•
a)
a)a) a)
V a--•a)
a)
- u
7
U a) Co= =
.O O N a)
a m ca -O
Oa -L v -"- co
Q�
a) ca CD D .- co
-O Q
O o O' U
. _ - Q c _ V
.--+ a.., U � �-' u) w
L. C --
a CO tO c � E
O C) a)
a) L D Q z o -X
Co O
`- • • • W •
U) CO -
•
•
•
U
E ma'aC
O 't CO
C
O _CD CU Ca
0 U •—
' co
� CoO '> a) `4E
V a v �' o
CO C ' sO a o
Q) °vi � =
L.U co •o o
a) o ri o a
/1 U '0
E
CO 2 N 0
U
L
CD _a 04i0a a3 cn n c
. � CD U
L '- E 2 a !n-
o > N o .2 E t' a
CD cz = o a)
w
CO
o CT5w ' U U
c ai .a.)
a�
C/) a) 0 > =
O _ - 8 CI)
Co
al ..w
0 c ; a,
C o t o -t
O a) 0 a) 0 a
o = 0 0 9 U a D con
L a) W 2 E
. a .
V U) Q o V) O
. _
0 z
0
C c t c Cl)
O
O (�
v a a
a. l�
�--+ Q (u
L. coN o
N = U =
}, o
4.4.
al
c
n a)inO to U
c
}▪ ,
C N - .o N > o n °a
•- t (a -O 4.0 O O O
,0 a 0 > 0 %-i 0 Z o_
♦ D E n ca
N p • * ♦-' N
U O co
0
._
O
•
•
•
V) .�
a)
• — +r
O 0
a.
4ai
L
L— m U
D O o
•
•
•
06
co o
a) Cl
I N
C
O
'U-P a) o
CO E L C
E a) a)
i .co OO
'� a)
4O 2 co O co
L a) C a O
— Q
0
CO ca s- -a a 4-• 2
c E To < -8
U O U a) .c U
. to C Q
. _
-0 cn Q t.L S E Q
Q o 0 0 0 0
•
•
•
a)
L
U
L
c 175
o LT
`LT
co C
Co co _o a)
E C)
L. co ca
O C CZ U �C o U
06 a)
oa a a� a) m o
O n o -0 � -0 U
. ca o
al c J Z
- _ • • LE • •
Q 0 0
•
•
•
a)
O) O Ca.)
2 > A O
OW - CU c
Co L p g
E ca 2 a) ca n
.0 co to ca
to w .E O
L U) O (o
o N
CO E
O c o
a�
+� wflzO5o w a �
m
c • • • •
Q o
•
•
•
a)
4:1-
C
C 0 c'
O mil °
°Ca CO C To
CO C a O
� C
c�
i .
E a = o
wr) U)
O
o %._
C C
t NcD a
__ co ep i U)
cu
CO ri 0
C O) 2 ._ C
O - = E co
-� a) U-
V co a
-0 E • • Q
a o O
.
.
.
O
� � O L
.co
O O
ca � �
ci c
>' O N O
N J * N
U)
.c -a ci L
CDO
ccy) c) o
O U 4
co c _ .c c
co O o O o
p U
U
O) V N C �+_
C O O > O .c 'i
. _ U +� N a
V ca v
C CD c c 0 `� L
CD
CO c o M _M .C .o_
A-0 o Q = E U 2
_ i
Q. CV M 4
O 0
--a =
co a-
in' -ID 28
co
co c 2
. . a--� a) U) U)
a a) co w
O N 2
}' O c 'co
c O " t N
a) o cu N 2
E N g L 2 =
a' E O To
O v co c 0 •—
CO c.) X U
a) co �� cu
E a)
O �X O
E o z w w lU
= O. • • • •
U) o
•
•
•
a)
a--+
co
a)
cn ca
as a) a) 4-
VI n . o
E 46 n , acTI tl
O-co N }= co -t N
Co ♦-, >+ a) U C
2 O _ S ca
N c E •cn .a N
E 2 8 ,g 7 773 in
a E O o
E a
0 O m o
E o 0 z
= a. • • •
in o
•
•
•
e L
N
H
U
CR22
LO , • NT iii
%FIRESTONE
FREDERICK ENESBURG
rD CON •
FT. UDSON
RICEI-ITON `
BR()() ' I :LitN i
DIA
g
try I-7o
DENVER
• • Proposed Districts
t - •
-
:;Wig}-
U
mr: CD
CO L a
= D �a
co a) p U N
co E N
. O
0 C
a U N
i
Cu a) c
17; }, U L >, .
N C E
.
= - .Q oa CV c
a w t E 2 .
p .0 C Q .c a
p a
N to +r
O u U 4) O
E Z u O S i o
U) 0 0 0 0 0 0
•
•
0
• • Proposed Districts
t - •
-
:;Wig}-
ca C
4) .N N
.- -
^)
O 0 N
W i a)
U
•V iQ to
� O
O N 0 oa
C
li 06
CD CO 0 C
7.3
(1) C co
� 0 o
c�x •Q O O L
+r O
o
Li—
CD 0 _ 0 N
0
Q in z a)
a
C C . . 0 Q
U I a) n c2
CL 0 0 O 0
•
•
•
a)
a
.Q
a 43
4) .0 .
.V
— U t -o 73
O li N N co o
v) a) v a) a)
—
rra ga > atcn
v) Eh = o 7)
a) 'in o co o _ 'w 8
= a a ca '- a
O 06 ca
IINI •— cm
c°) O cm c 73 c
CO a .0 t 'U + + E a .0
L alt N p E. X O
e%"
Fz - zwz
co
• L. • .- • •
o
m w w
O. O O O
•
•
•
V♦ — ♦-0-' C
CU 0 caTat
g-1 pH so
o
O O v
il .a, c cn c
co 0 � r.,
-
a �--� fn -o
♦--i
4- U co o - o
CO >+ c a 4 v c 2
Q wino_ a) OD o .(nz
J
N • • Cl)
IP cn
U 0
li o 0 0
•
•
•
co , o
4) C 4... .. a
. ..
=4,co
a
U 0 C (53E(53E -5� 0
U a) = a) 5
O Co as .c cn co
1..I_ c/) L U E . C
22 OC a) O a U)
U D o �; cu 2
Ca C .� .3 O >> a)
+� U L ,— L
N >
all C N cn -02' .1 N
Co 0 2 o76 _— "_
.2 12 C)
E co o _= ro . C a
a
— -
E O cn U 4-5 .c O
a (pC .C �� tt
.UL. -0N Lo ‘,..1, U U
— V O +� � XOL_ CC
. . aCZc.) — a) -oo_ DD
U a • • . .
Qo
a o
•
•
0
z
Oc c
I— a) U
Q
rn co
Z cup
E To
W 02 c 0
c
O O
0 CD
O o o 0
U U U L
N
W To O. a O
�� < Q o
a)
o
W o
•
•
•
C r
-c• -- N
c __
ca
� 0 O
Cl)
c Q -O Z
O 2 co" 0-- 8 99 45
-.7i= cn a ' a) c
- = N E O L O
C E O (1)
C iv N = = wo curl) ca
CO
CO C C 5 O_ co 2 a)
- -• O co c -O
a cm
L (Ci O
CD w = N O U 0
O _ w Wes 5
CL V '' O .c V N V O
• • a -O 0 c
c�
U O a ccn E w coots i
CL O 0 0
•
•
•
C y 0 O O O O O a a a
. = N 0 N in 0 C") 0 N r- ;
>1= N M r O N In r N = `l t
= w Q au
-I— •V A-
,„, d C .C TN to ar�eu
Q x o ., o 0 0 0 0 0
D Etw 0 0 0 O) v o o r (p r
O Q 0' 1-
4 M r r 4 r h O N
O
U p =
z
wa min
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
^, D w d N 0 0 a a a 0 0 0 0
LI) S 2 2L 03 M 6 OO) 0 N- V N OM) OM)
3 2 N N N M M N ('M M N
w z
0 Za)
c NO
OO
a 0)
a11
O N ael V7 a) a O
O 0 O a)c t, y a y O O a c a'
t2 W 0 ti
°1 a Q O O 4) O a) a7 ( 2 m
V 3 Q Q m p° WQ � g
C m
O1 a)
v I
O ".�. �sw r 33ir `sz
$g J
co
m
-�- , C
' b
T
r �. b m L .Li
ai (5 E
W C
L \
a
s a� = O` 0• 0 c M gym„
e U O N M (O 0 CD
�a C Z O O N O '° 1
3 d ° i
�rn C V O
V/ Q d I II u
J
Is
O
00 0 OOOOOO 0 0 O a O
M CA to O O
~ Ci
0ON N co rc r ,- N
N
Z O
O C) C y 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O OO
C = n r Lo N. O CO 0O r
o Q Q = ri vi lA r M • M N
W
Oa
co L
r‘ c9
a a. > co 0 r C) N Co M M Cr? o
02t QQ � M (Ni N r• •Cr) r r N
{ O1 O
T =
W y
y
_W _ w a 0 = a) d d = y OO a) CO
ca� a o, 3 o SD 0 a'i c
O � 3QQm 000 � am
CO
N W
I) C o s
O
r O i.:".. --._Ct) U El , a c
-
4 £ gY s ',. -4C
} fig,, ;"
aG Rfc ,_ T 1
Q i
E V d C1 I
a� :
_.
O t ?F
o
d m O` 0 0 0 M co i
Z Ur r N Cr) O L`
Q U O O O > m I
O N C Z O N O O I,_
a I:
as
ooh I ' ) o
IA
{ V+
p ` 2
§ W CC tit s, IW w
` Q :� tee. .•
-. 6_.ir_ Q w wa 1• t1
000
. 0 .M
r 14rtRC_
▪ m
nl i..*.,s m1 ..a
[ t } NI 4I Q Mr
7. ..,. „. .. ...> O▪ I CU 0 III 010 0OAT 1"41;
. re leH
Cr) lR Y ! tlk 1. kg 4 Y
_ ' J .-Pel 4M!Pe01d;.,, 1 p l� —
O � a,
Y M w
4 Ca
o
Meld W49' 1a ! 011 .
I
rl d
•— L_ ECA
O i_a
-I— 7 F I p C c
E L I u
• g ._. ..SI C 'el
—C Isi 11 I Sr —F—' —1.2 -.h. e �b� a[Tole op r� �'-E 1 f t H
Sr C
rl %
O ._ --__ 1•en -mob Y �T_., I� ,
V
OL ..niH Nl5-uo1�H re 0 ` I
y PMe 1 a7 < 1 12;Ar
.rrr�..�..��rr .n _ - ..... ... �� g K I
^n r Im ; I mr
M
In
L.
J NJ I"
— C d —
1 e N -.Ii fin `...
0 O O O 0
o
O 0 0
o C 0
DO CO
c O CCD 7f O 7'
o c O N- N O N
O Q r N 00 co
O Lri N N M CO
CL Q
0
O -c
Do o 0 cca
ELI) a a
0
� o m - -c
N c
ON a a acc cr
o co a� E Q) c
Q W O 0w o
L 0 3 >% >,
+- O c cn C C cn
= �_ c 4-1
c -O c . L
O O O O O n O 0 � �
0 U U O � o = ,\
D 73 cn a) to up Wm O O
O O
Cl)� E � cn v �
= rn _
U CO
z -o zC0 00 o t•
Qom• Q Q > ... E- SQ
ii + li
Hello