HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062992.tiff RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
MINUTES
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
OCTOBER 25, 2006
TAPE #2006-38
The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, met in regular session in full conformity
with the laws of the State of Colorado at the regular place of meeting in the Weld County Centennial Center,
Greeley, Colorado, October 25, 2006, at the hour of 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL: The meeting was called to order by the Acting Chair Pro-Tem and on roll call the following
members were present, constituting a quorum of the members thereof:
Commissioner M. J. Geile, Chair- EXCUSED
Commissioner David E. Long, Pro-Tem - EXCUSED
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Acting Chair Pro-Tem
Commissioner Robert D. Masden
Commissioner Glenn Vaad
Also present:
County Attorney, Bruce T. Barker
Acting Clerk to the Board, Jenny Luna
Director of Finance and Administration, Donald D. Warden
MINUTES: Commissioner Masden moved to approve the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners
meeting of October 23, 2006, as printed. Commissioner Vaad seconded the motion, and it carried
unanimously.
AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA: There were no amendments to the agenda.
PUBLIC INPUT: Sharon Croghan, representing the Save Our Homes Coalition, stated she realizes the
Commissioners have been present at previous meetings,and area residents have had emotional reactions
to learning of the possibility of a toll road. She stated the residents are taking a pro-active approach, and
are tying to solve the potential problems. She further stated over 1,000 letters were submitted to the Board
at the meeting of October 18,2006, and after that meeting, several local Realtors had concerns regarding
the toll road project. Ms. Croghan submitted documents pertaining to a Contract to Buy and Sell Real
Estate,marked Exhibit A,and a letter outlining the damaging impact of the toll road, marked Exhibit B. She
stated the toll road will be a private, for-profit toll road, and will not be built for the benefit of Weld County
residents, since the primary purpose of the toll road is to make a profit. She further stated the formal filing
of the three-mile corridor has had a damaging impact on surrounding property owners near the corridor,
and it is currently driving down property values. She stated the toll road is proceeding at the expense of
Weld County property owners, and the toll road will halt future developments in the area. Ms. Croghan
stated homeowners are also putting plans to make improvements to existing homes on hold.
Christine Curl, Colorado Tenderfoot Properties II, Inc., stated she is a Realtor serving the Towns of
Keenesburg, Hudson,and Roggen. She stated a disclosure form has been created because Realtors are
2006-2992
BC0016
//- b8"-46,
required to disclose any material fact about a property. She stated the disclosure states there could be
possible condemnation proceedings upon a property located within the three-mile corridor. She stated
Realtors within the area have had significant problems with closing on a property, since property owners
are already aware of the possible proceedings of the toll road. She further stated homes built upon a small
acreage are discriminated against due to the required disclosure the Realtor must provide to potential
buyers. Ms.Curl stated the toll road is also impacting property values that are not within the corridor, due
to the fact that most property owners do not desire to live in close proximity to the proposed toll road.
Mike Coan, resident, stated the County has an important role in the proceedings of the toll road, and the
residents within the three-mile corridor have taken an proactive approach. He stated several candidates
for State Senate and Colorado Governor have been contacted,and the alternatives presented during those
meetings make sense and allow for transportation needs. He stated the Colorado Department of
Transportation(CDOT)completed a study in 2004,studying the effects of toll roads,and in all three cases,
the toll roads were determined unfeasible. He further stated Prairie Falcon Parkway Express formally filed
despite CDOT's findings, and the project is not fiscally legitimate. Mr. Coan stated the project is
unreasonable because the company is not required to show any justification to file for a toll road. He stated
the responsibility of the County is to request a consultation with the toll road company, and the local
government has to give consent regarding the county roads that the toll road would cross. He stated during
the consultation,the company must consider available mitigation of demonstrable negative impacts. He
further stated CDOT has requested public/private initiatives, and the area residents believe the company
needs to have a viable project before laying burdens upon the surrounding property owners. He stated the
County's input is needed at the State level.
Ms.Croghan stated she has spent a large amount of time researching the project,and she believes the toll
road will have an insignificant impact on commuter traffic, or traffic along the Interstate 25 Corridor. She
stated the railroad companies have shown no interest in the toll road project, and the utility corridor idea is
not feasible. She requested the Board be a part of the relief process for area residents by holding public
meetings.
CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Vaad moved to approve the consent agenda as printed.
Commissioner Masden seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMISSIONER COORDINATORREPORTS: Commissioner Masden stated he recently attended the
Energy Impact Hearings,which were very successful. He stated funds, in the amount of$500,000.000 have
been reserved for the Weld County Road 13 project. He further stated Weld County contains approximately
half of the oil and gas wells within the State, and the funds are disbursed to help mitigate the impacts
caused by the oil and gas industry.
WARRANTS: Donald Warden, Director of Finance and Administration, presented the following warrants
for approval by the Board:
All Funds $219,935.42
Commissioner Masden moved to approve the warrants as presented by Mr.Warden. Commissioner Vaad
seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
BIDS:
PRESENT BIDS: Mr. Warden stated there were no bids to present.
Minutes, October 25, 2006 2006-2992
Page 2 BC0016
APPROVE SOUTH CO PARKING LOT AT 11TH AVENUE AND A STREET BID - DEPARTMENT OF
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION: Mr.Warden stated the paving project is part of an exchange of property
from the Greeley Urban Renewal Authority. He stated staff recommends the low bid from Drexel Barrell
and Company, in the amount of$24,021.00. He stated the company has completed past projects for the
County. In response to Acting Chair Pro-Tem Jerke, Mr.Warden stated the parking lot will be paved due
to the shortage of parking available at the Department of Social Services building. He further stated the
parking lot will provide access from the rear of the building to A Street, and another access point will be
necessary when improvements begin on 11th Avenue. Responding to Commissioner Vaad, Mr.Warden
stated the bid from Drexel Barrell and Company is for the engineering and design aspects, and the project
will total over$300,000.00 overall. He further stated the City of Greeley requested the paving project be
completed before the improvements to 11th Avenue begin. In response to Acting Chair Pro-Tem Jerke,Mr.
Warden stated the pavement will be placed in early Spring 2007. Commissioner Vaad moved to approve
said bid, based upon staffs recommendation. Seconded by Commissioner Masden, the motion carried
unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS:
CONSIDER PROMISES FOR CHILDREN EARLY CHILDHOOD INITIATIVE GRANT PROPOSAL FOR
THE PRENATALOUTREACH PROJECTANDAUTHORIZECHAIRTO SIGN-UNITED WAY OF WELD
COUNTY:Linda Henry,Department of Public Health and Environment,stated the grant proposal to United
Way of Weld County will provide funding for a full-time Prenatal Outreach Specialist. She stated the
Specialist will assist pregnant women through the Medicaid process, and assist with scheduling prenatal
appointments. She stated the proposal, in the amount of$95,773.00, is for a term of January 1, 2007,
through June 30, 2008. In response to Acting Chair Pro-Tem Jerke, Ms. Henry stated the funds will be
provided by United Way of Weld County, and the funds provided by United Way are secured by local
contributions. Commissioner Vaad moved to approve said proposal and authorize the Chair to sign.
Seconded by Commissioner Masden, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF WCR 9.5 AND THE
TRANSFER OF PORTIONS OF THE 1-25 FRONTAGE ROAD AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN -
COLORADO DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION,TOWN OF MEAD,AND TOWN OF FIRESTONE:
Drew Scheltinga, Department of Public Works,stated the agreement will provide direct pass-through funds
from CDOT, in the amount of$3.7 million, to construct Weld County Road 9.5. He stated staff has made
significant progress on the agreement,the design is underway,and the right-of-way agents have been the
necessary work. He stated the acquisition of necessary parcels will begin soon,meetings have been held
with the Town of Mead,and the Town is working with the County to complete the project. He further stated
a second Intergovernmental Agreement is required with the Town of Mead for the remaining amount of
$750,000.00. He stated the agreement has been drafted, the Town has approved the agreement, and
construction will begin by December 1, 2007. In response to Commissioner Vaad, Mr. Scheltinga stated
the engineer for the project is the same engineer that completed the design work for the Saint Vrain Lakes
development,therefore,the road will be constructed to the same standards. He further stated the first pass
of design needs to be developed in conjunction with the Town of Mead, and the Saint Vrain Lakes
development will still be required to provide funds for impact mitigation. Commissioner Vaad expressed
his approval for the project, and stated the need for local traffic has been taken care of without a vast
purchase of right-of-way to expand Interstate 25. Commissioner Vaad moved to approve said agreement
and authorize the Chair to sign, and to accept the transfer of ownership for potions of the Interstate 25
Frontage Road. The motion was Seconded by Commissioner Masden. Acting Chair Pro-Tem Jerke stated
the project will be very helpful to surrounding communities, and he is pleased that staff has been able to
work well with the municipalities involved and CDOT. Commissioner Masden expressed his appreciation
to staff for the work done with the local municipalities, and stated the project will benefit the local economy.
There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
Minutes, October 25, 2006 2006-2992
Page 3 BC0016
CONSIDER DECLARATION OF CERTAIN EQUIPMENTAS SURPLUS PROPERTY,ANDAUTHORIZE
SALE OF SAME TO SUNNY COMMUNICATIONS, INC.: Mr. Warden stated the County previously
converted to 800MHz,therefore, many old ambulance radios have been determined to be obsolete. He
stated Sunny Communications wishes to acquire ten of the obsolete radios, which are of no value to the
County. He recommended approval of the sale of the radios to Sunny Communications, in the amount of
$1,600.00. Commissioner Masden moved to approve said declaration and authorize the sale of equipment
to Sunny Communications, Inc. Seconded by Commissioner Vaad, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER ASSIGNMENT OF TAX SALE CERTIFICATE TO THE TOWN OF SEVERANCE,COLORADO:
Bruce Barker, County Attorney, stated a parcel of land exists within the Town of Severance, which was
created as a bicycle path. He stated the parcel was never transferred to the Town, and the Assessor's
Office has assigned a parcel number,and has been taxing the parcel. He further stated the parcel may be
removed from the tax roll since the bicycle path cannot be purchased. Mr. Barker stated the Certificate of
Purchase will be assigned to the Town of Severance,and a deed will be obtained. He stated the Town will
pay an assignment fee of$10.00,the full amount of taxes in the amount of$77.00,and the$300.00 fee for
the deed and appropriate notice. Commissioner Vaad moved to approve said assignment. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Masden. In response to Acting Chair Pro-Tem Jerke, Mr. Barker stated the
property is not a private property. There being no further discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER COLORADO HERITAGE PLANNING GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION FOR THE EAST
GREELEYAREA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIGN: Becky Safarik, City of
Greeley,stated the grant application will be submitted to the Department of Local Affairs. She stated the
program provides a collaborative opportunity to study the East Greeley Area in respect to land uses, and
support has been received from the Division of Wildlife, Weld County School District 6, and the
Greeley-Weld County Airport. She further stated the airport is a major influence on the area, and they do
not want the program to conflict with the airport's Master Plan. Ms.Safarik stated the grant will be executed
with a considerable amount of in-kind support,and she is grateful that good professionalism exists between
the City and the County. In response to Acting Chair Pro-Tem Jerke,Mr.Warden stated there is no County
cost involved. Mr. Barker stated the program will essentially pre-plan for the area, and help to understand
possible future uses of the area. Ms. Safarik stated public involvement is welcome, and staff hopes to
come to an agreement on the process for referrals within the area. Commissioner Masden moved to
approve said application and authorize the Chair to sign. Seconded by Commissioner Vaad, the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE FAIR BOARD: Commissioner Vaad moved to appoint Stuart
Gebauer, K.C. Hatch, and Laurie MacDonald to the Fair Board, and to reappoint Pat Kindvall, Rose
Esparza, Reid Graves, and Katie Samples to the Fair Board, all with terms to expire September 30, 2009.
Seconded by Commissioner Masden, the motion carried unanimously.
PLANNING:
CONSIDER VACATION OF USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT#110 - LEWIS CHICHESTER:Chris
Gathman, Department of Planning Services,stated there are five existing Use by Special Review Permits
within the Ranch Eggs Subdivision,which are no longer in operation. He stated the property owners have
sent letters which request the vacation of the permits,since the permits are no longer being utilized on each
of the five properties. Commissioner Vaad moved to approve said vacation. Seconded by Commissioner
Masden, the motion carried unanimously.
CONSIDER VACATION OF USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT#108-JOHN SOBCZAK: Commissioner
Masden moved to approve said vacation. Seconded by Commissioner Vaad, the motion carried
unanimously.
Minutes, October 25, 2006 2006-2992
Page 4 BC0016
CONSIDER VACATION OF USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT #580 - GEORGE STRUBLE:
Commissioner Vaad moved to approve said vacation. Seconded by Commissioner Masden,the motion
carried unanimously.
CONSIDER VACATION OF USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW PERMITS#461 AND#462-KENNETH HOHNER:
Commissioner Masden moved to approve said vacation. Seconded by Commissioner Vaad,the motion
carried unanimously.
RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES: The resolutions were presented and signed as listed on the
consent agenda. No Ordinances were approved.
Let the minutes reflect that the above and foregoing actions were attested to and respectfully submitted by
the Acting Clerk to the Board.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 10:15 a.m.
� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
*1 Elsa lsa WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: MO,1.w . , �I EXCUSED
1861 :prole M. J. Geile, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Boa,=; r/ 4" r':}S
j--t-7'--N.5..2, A EXCUSED
--191;` i?9° David E. Long, Pro-Tem
BY: /01, �4 C2
Depu Jerk t. t e Board Vim —, ll/„�
Willi H. Jerke, Acting Chair Pro-Tem
Rob D. Marti n
`"`r T'
Glenn Vaad'<-
Minutes, October 25, 2006 2006-2992
Page 5 BC0016
Colorado Tenderfoot Properties N, Inc.
PO Box 499
Keenesburg, CO 80643
Phone: 303-732-1115, Fax: 303-732-4053
ADDENDUM
Pertaining to Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate dated August 23, 2006 between Burton L Burough and
Valerie L Burough (Buyer's) and Michael Coan (Seller) .
For real estate whose legal description is Lot C of RE 4299, pt of NE4 S31 TIN R63W of 624 being 14 acres
more or less with a property address of 435 WCR 63, Keenesburg Colorado.
The selling price of this property has been reduced from $100,000.00 to $80,000.00, a $20,000.00
reduction, due to the fact that this property is in the proposed three-mile wide corridor of the Front
Range Toll Road. The Buyers are concerned that the mere possibility of this project will reduce the
re-sale value of the home they plan to build.
BUYER L Burough L �S.�Li4i� DATE g/i2 DC`
Burton L Burough
BUYER ' Y / ?‘-' '\ DATE 27-OY
Valerie L Burough y
{f �
SELLER 0��-i_"v( Lt d.:r‘1/4 , ,, Lef .r,_ DATE /Cr VC:-
Michael Coan
:'REFARED BY.Christine A.Curl,Managing Broker '' 1
Blank Addendum Form Colorado Real Estate Commission +
I 4\ 1 IiIIIIN:'
1
i
vA 1t m
a E II I.
._. I at •
bHn, k
2 , it
..
e , 1
ti �
OIt
Iii IN al /^..--`N 1 \)ti . t,-.4
In=
a 0 at
V
I I :`
a
' 4
D
1
:1.
I. ti :
II
:' 5A:
WI
U ;:
r S
v/
f i€
tP
w
F- 3
z �_
w
LL
o; J o --
o o 0 c
i -Ig13) OLU LL co o In to o a
CD co
u. cal o a.)
LL
Wie. ♦ � J O
Co J J W O m } U
O z a)
1+0•0 }, fA = } Z • • • • •
— Q ¢ F- wO
,� Q) LL 0
ID 0 -- 0 E
U) a2
U W IL
w r co r 'Q N N Q N r O)
N M
4 v a
N c
U.
O .— c
C d J -I J J J J O a) 0 I]) 0 0 0 0
W W W W W W = > j = = = =
CO
H F.- F-- I-6 Fes- H am >,
N
CO O - = c CO > y f
I- O O N ( m 7, O 'S 0
a C
U *� 5 n c m m — c
O z W cc O N N O N ` ECD
) E
tf) O �G' NC
CC,. O Co N I` t` .C > > co
- c\1 c I` • N N �' O N N N co Oct `O
W
J
I— CO
0 c7
W
0
a
W co O
O0 O o0 o
Wg = 0 0
0 LL
S. mvd = a v• N• ti N
fin
\V W ~ W
W 0 a)
u. a
ea
ti, 0
J g
O W J W j
= ; J . ® • •
-E--J N ;1 5, CC o
�.. 0 'Co"
U E
.O �, o
/t�o+� w 0
V .® W v- co c- r - N N t N M T- At N a- 0
CD a. v -O.--
Limo
c
u
= -
,-. U
CO c
.� c
_ m m y v a�k+ in J J J J J _! O E E 4) O co O O
•U F W W W W W W = > T C = = = = CL
To U) (n F- tom- 75 13 H T)
C
C
A
ffl •
70 >. >. U U CL Lt
u) u) > N •
M (.) @ N c6 >, N
~ O of N N N .-�
W 0 ≤ o N < < 0 N- m O) (0
C ix
Z Lila) r2 Lo co .=� , > > Nc +..
d N r2- D N N (.) Z 0 0 -' ) a. mu_
o 0 0
h 0
a 00 o O O
F- � cod
U o T"' N N
J o
-1 � • • • • • • • •
U- 0 i.....
CD
0 En
@
a)
all
LL
0
o 0 0 Z
�.ci (.n o 0
_, V � cw o 0 o a�
� O LU p • • • • • • • • • @ co
is U! is. teU a`.) a 0
M/ O , 0 13
cb
r -73
/7 + a S (0
Illha +.0 CO cLl_ Z
.® 0 0 CO O
MS
® c m
■� o0
Z M e- `- N 3- N M N""' N .-
in alma O
C31 0 o
a) V I
iv ® ! a c ca
• IZ
LL
aim a -o t a a
CTS `� ' a J J J J J J O E E WO O O O O .E
■� >- W W W W W W X -4 -, c CC CC 2 o N
U H -a 0) w F- F- F- F- f- >, 4
C '- C
o
Cti a) O
75 2
a)
c7)ca j
LII IIIIIIR E E t W w
o a ) `' Z) @ •
>. >, U N (r d 6 u.
(O O f� f� c (0 N F-
o uj L N ' 2 2 O op O J 2
O O Q Q mtzo t6 112 •c
0. N O0 (n N OP. cl-N. L c C O N `) O
N N Uon) a) t. D am
Z p Q a. m LL.
Private Toll Roads
1. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) views Public-Private Initiatives (PPI), a
process by which private money is used to construct private toll roads, as a desirable method
to construct highways in Colorado.
2. The formal filing of a private toll road has a damaging impact on the property owners in the
toll road corridor due to the uncertainty as to what and when actions might be taken. In the
case of the Super Slab project this includes the use of eminent domain proceedings and the
construction and operation of a high-speed highway, railroad and utility corridor.
3. Under current law anyone can form a private toll road corporation. That corporation can then
file for a private toll road corridor, in any location where there is no previous filing. The
corporation is not required to have any expertise in road building, nor demonstrate any need
for the toll road, nor is the corporation required to provide any project specifics, including
physical and financial feasibility.
Such a filing can be for a viable, useful toll road or for frivolous purposes, done out of spite or
anger, or for the purpose of intentionally driving down the value of the affected property.
In order to limit private toll road filings for anything other than viable reasons, we offer the
following solutions to this issue. Once the best solution is determined, we would suggest it then
be submitted in bill form for the 2007 legislative session:
Alternative #1
CDOT would develop a list of new highways/additional lanes that are needed throughout the
State.
The development of this list would include mandatory public input. Specifics as to how the
highway/lanes are to be built and the best available mitigation measure required for
demonstrable negative impacts on the local government or its citizens would also be
specified.
Please see `Attachment A for additional requirements.
CDOT would then request proposals for the construction of private toll roads for projects on
the list. There would be a fee required with the submittal of each proposal to cover the cost of
evaluating the proposal.
The proposals would be evaluated by CDOT. The winning proposal(s) would then be allowed
to formally file for a private toll road corridor(s).
Any toll road corporation who has complied with the existing provision of FIB 06-1003 would have
that filing cancelled. They would be required to forfeit all rights and inform the property owners
within the corridor by certified mail that the toll road company has been dissolved. If the toll road
corporation fails to do so, the Secretary of State would issue such a notice.
Alternative #2
A corporation, which chooses to construct a private toll road, would first submit their proposal
to CDOT for preliminary approval. A fee would be required to be submitted with the proposal
to cover the cost of evaluating the proposal.
The approval process would include public input, best available mitigation of demonstrable
negative impacts on the local government or its citizens, and detailed project specifics.
Please see `Attachment A for additional requirements.
CDOT would have 120 days, including public meetings, to issue a preliminary finding as to the
"financial and physical feasibility" of the proposed private toll road. If found to be infeasible, the
application would be cancelled.
If given preliminary approval by CDOT, the corporation would then be allowed to formally file
for the private toll road corridor.
Any toll road company who has complied with the existing provision of HB 06-1003 would have 90
days to meet the proposal submittal requirements. Failing to do so, they would be required to forfeit
all rights and inform the property owners within the corridor by certified mail that the toll road
corporation has been dissolved. If the toll road fails to do so, the Secretary of State would issue
such a notice.
Alternative #3
Corporations formally filing for a private toll road must submit a detailed business plan, pay a
fee, and be subject to legal action by the property owners negatively affected by the filing, if
the plan is found to be physically or financially infeasible by CDOT.
The detailed business plan would include those elements listed on "Attachment B.
`Attachment A
(Private Toll Roads)
The detailed business plan would include:
• A detailed cost estimate for construction
• A detailed estimate of the revenue and operating costs.
• A detailed project schedule or timeline
Physical details such as: interchanges, overpasses, associated service areas,
service roads.
A requirement that a series of well publicized public meeting be held to determine
the economic and social costs that might be involved.
Implementation of best available mitigation of demonstrable negative impacts on
the local government or its citizens.
Provisions for crossing; federal, state and local roads, telephone lines, natural gas
lines, water lines, electrical lines, irrigation systems, existing natural gas and oil
wells and mineral rights, and creating landlocked parcels.
A guarantee of financing and full disclosure of investors.
*Attachment B
(Private Toll Roads)
Strengthen the requirements for the formation of a private toll road such that only those projects that
have a fully developed plan, not simply an idea, are allowed to file. Under the current provision once
a filing is made it sets in motion a process that could take years of effort only to find that the original
project was not "physically or financially feasible".
Corporations filing for a toll road must submit a detailed business plan and pay a fee.
(See HB 06-1003, Sections 7-45-101 and 7-45-105 (3)(b) )
• The detailed business plan would include:
o A detailed cost estimate for construction.
o A detailed estimate of the revenue and operating costs.
• A detailed project schedule:
1. Physical details such as interchanges, overpasses, associated service areas,
service roads.
2. A requirement that a series of well publicized public meeting be held to
determine the economic and social costs that might be involved.
3. Implementation of best available mitigation of demonstrable, negative impacts
on the local government or its citizens.
4. Provisions for crossing; federal, state and local roads, telephone lines, natural
gas lines, water lines, electrical lines, irrigation systems, existing natural gas
and oil wells and mineral rights, and creating landlocked parcels.
5. A guarantee of financing and full disclosure of investors.
6. A fee of 1% of the construction expense.*
*This fee would be used to pay for an expedited preliminary review by CDOT. In addition, the fee
would act as a fund to pay for possible lawsuits brought against the toll road company, if the
project is found to be infeasible. If the project is found to be feasible, the remaining money can
be used by the toll road company for project related costs.
CDOT would have 120 days, including public meetings, to issue a preliminary finding as to the
"financial and physical feasibility" of the proposed private toll road. If found to be infeasible, the
application would be cancelled. This cancellation would be recorded with all affected property
owners.
The remainder of the fee would be held until all possible lawsuits are settled.
A project found to be infeasible would be subject to legal action by the property owners
negatively affected by the original filing.
Any toll road company who has complied with the existing provision of HB 06-1003 would have
90 days to meet these requirements. Failing to do so, they would be required to forfeit all rights
and inform the property owners within the corridor by certified mail that the toll road company
has been dissolved. If the toll road fails to do so, the Secretary of State would issue such a
notice.
Private Toll Railroads
Currently CRS 40-20-101 allows five people to form a company for the purpose of constructing
and operating a railroad.
The company then has the power to designate a corridor for the rail line and has the power of
eminent domain to acquire property for the rail line within that corridor.
The Flat Penny Corporation has filed such a corridor. This corridor is 210 miles long and 12
miles wide. Thereby affecting 1,612,000 acres, which includes hundreds of homes.
The filing of this railroad corridor has a damaging impact on the property owners in and near
the corridor. The value of the property will decline due to the uncertainty as to what and when
actions may be taken in regard to eminent domain proceeding and the construction and
operation of a railroad.
There are no requirements that the five people have any expertise in constructing or operating
a railroad.
There are no requirements that the proposed rail line be physically or financially feasible.
There are no requirements that the company have a detailed plan for the construction and
operation of the rail line.
Such a filing can be for a viable, useful toll railroad or done frivolously, done out of spite or
anger or done to intentionally drive down the prices of property in the corridor.
In order to limit private toll railroad filings for anything other than viable reasons, we offer the
following solutions to this issue. Once the best solution is determined, we would suggest it then
be submitted in bill form for the 2007 legislative session:
Legislative Changes
"The General Assembly has granted the Public Utility Commission (P'L )
broad regulatory powers including the power to designate the location of facilities..." (1960 court
ruling)
In order to eliminate the damaging impact currently allowed under CRS, we offer the following
alternatives as solutions to the problem:
Alternative#1
• The PUC would develop a list of locations in which new or additional rail lines are desired.
The development of such a list would include extensive public involvement including the
requirements shown in *Attachment C.
• The PUC would then request proposals from companies interested in building and
constructing a private toll railroad. A fee would be required to be submitted with each
proposal to cover the cost of evaluating the proposal.
• The PUC would determine the best acceptable proposal.
• Only at this point would a company be allowed to file for a railroad corridor.
Any toll railroad company who has complied with the existing provision of CRS 40-120-101
would have that filing cancelled. They would be required to forfeit all rights and inform the
property owners within the corridor by certified mail that the toll railroad company has been
dissolved. If the toll railroad company fails to do so, the Secretary of State would issue such a
notice.
Alternative #2
• A company intending to construct and operate a private toll railroad would be required to
submit a detailed plan and pay a fee, to the Public Utility Commission for preliminary
approval. The plan would include the requirements shown in *Attachment C.
•
The PUC would have 120 days, including public meetings, to issue a preliminary finding as to the
"financial and physical feasibility" of the proposed private toll railroad, if found to be infeasible,
the application would be cancelled.
• If the PUC granted preliminary approval the company would then be allowed to formally
file for the toll railroad corridor.
Any toll railroad company who has complied with the existing provision of CRS 40-120-101
would have 90 days to meet these submittal requirements. Failing to do so, they would be
required to forfeit all rights and inform the property owners within the corridor by certified mail
that the toll railroad company has been dissolved. If the toll railroad company fails to do so, the
Secretary of State would issue such a notice.
Alternative #3
• Companies formally filing for a private toll railroad must submit a .Jetaiiad business
plan, pay a fee, and be subject to legal action by the property owners negatively
affected by the filing, if the plan is found to be physically or financially infeasible by the
PUC.
• The detailed business plan would include those elements listed on "Attachment D.
*Attachment C
(Private Toll Railroads)
The detailed business plan would include:
• A detailed cost estimate for construction
• A detailed estimate of the revenue and operating costs.
• A detailed project schedule
Physical details such as a narrowly defined physical location, crossings and overpasses.
A requirement that a series of well-publicized public meetings be held to determine the
economic and social costs that might be involved.
Implementation of best available mitigation of demonstrable negative impacts on the local
government or its citizens.
Provisions for crossing; federal, state and local roads, telephone lines, natural gas lines,
water lines, electrical lines, irrigation systems, existing natural gas and oil wells and mineral
rights, and creating landlocked parcels.
A guarantee of financing and full disclosure of investors.
*Attachment D
(Private Toll Railroad)
Strengthen the requirements for formation of a private toll railroad such that only those projects that
have a fully developed plan, not simply an idea, are allowed to file. Under the current provision once
a filing is made it sets in motion a process that could take years of effort only to find that the original
project was not "physically or financially feasible".
Companies filing for a toll railroad must submit a detailed business plan and pay a fee.
The detailed business plan would include:
1. A detailed cost estimate for construction.
2. A detailed estimate of the revenue and operating costs.
3. A detailed project schedule:
4. Physical details such as a narrowly defined physical location,
crossings and overpasses.
5. A requirement that a series of well-publicized public meeting be held to determine
the economic and social costs that might be involved.
6. Implementation of best available mitigation of demonstrable negative impacts on
the local government or its citizens.
7. Provisions for crossing; federal, state and local roads, telephone lines, natural gas
lines, water lines, electrical lines, irrigation systems, existing natural gas and oil
wells and mineral rights, and creating landlocked parcels.
8. A guarantee of financing.
9. A fee of 1% of the construction expense.*
*This fee would be used to pay for an expedited preliminary review by the PUC. In addition the
fee would act as a fund to pay for possible lawsuits brought against the private toll railroad
company, if the project is found to be infeasible. If the project is found to be feasible, the
remaining money can be used by the private toll railroad company for project related costs.
The PUC would have 120 days, including public meetings, to issue a preliminary finding as to the
"financial and physical feasibility" of the proposed private toll railroad, if found to be infeasible,
the application would be cancelled. This cancellation would be recorded with all affected
property owners.
The remainder of the fee would be held until all possible lawsuits are settled.
A project found to be infeasible would be subject to legal action by the property owners
negatively affected by the original filing.
Any toll railroad company who has complied with the existing provision of CRS 40-20-102 would
have 90 days to meet these requirements. Failing to do so, they would be required to forfeit all
rights and inform the property owners by certified mail that the toll railroad company has been
dissolved. If the toll railroad company fails to do so, the Secretary of State would issue such a
notice.
Weld County Commissioners Meeting
October 25, 2006
The Prairie Falcon Parkway Express is a private for-profit toll road. The toll road would not be
built for the benefit of the citizens, under the direction of their elected government. The primary
purpose of the toll road is to make a profit for the developer and the investors.
The formal filing of this, or any other private toll road, has a damaging impact on the property
in or near the corridor.
The formal filing of the Super Slab involves 150,000 acres in Weld County and is driving down
property values in the 3-mile wide by 80 miles long corridor. This private toll mad is proceeding
at the expense of the Weld County property owners.
Realtors from the Keenesburg area have examples:
Written documentation of:
20%reduction in order to sell a property, see the signed statement from the buyers attached
Buyers refusing to consider property in the corridor
People in the corridor not improving their property
Only the State Legislature can remove the threat of this toll road through changes in the existing
laws. However,the County has a vital role to play in determining if this or any future private toll
road is allowed to proceed.
Our Coalition has developed alternatives that address the transportation needs of the State while
protecting property rights. We have presented our alternatives to several State House and Senate
candidates and received a favorable response. We intend to pursue these alternatives, which
would allow for financially feasible proposals to proceed and would prevent those that are not
financially feasible from proceeding or being formally filed.
In 2004,the Colorado Department of Transportation conducted a series of studies and concluded
that the Super Slab is "not feasible"financially. Please see the study attached.
Despite this study,the Super Slab proceeded with their formal filing.
Current law allows for any 3 individuals to form a private toll road corporation and to then file
for a toll road anywhere in the State. These individuals are not required to show any justification
for the filing.
Afib'te
Responsibility of the County
Current laws HB 06-1003 and SB 06-115, section 38-2-101(3), give the County the power of
consent regarding county roads that a private toll road would pass through, in, upon, under or
over.
In addition HB 06-1003, section 7-45-105 (3)(b), states, "Upon the request of a local
government...a toll road company shall consult with representatives from the local government
and shall consider available mitigation of demonstrable negative impacts on the local
government or its citizens that would result from the construction, operation, or financing of the
toll road..."
The County has the responsibility to identify, notify, and consult with the toll road company
regarding the "negative impacts on the local government or its citizens that would result from
the toll road". A toll road company is not required to consult with the County until requested to
do so by the County.
Legislative Alternatives
Our legislative alternatives include provisions that only financially feasible private toll roads will
be allowed to file for a corridor. The alternatives are attached, for your information.
To have a financially feasible plan the toll road company must know what the County
requirements are concerning, county roads, irrigation systems, utilities, mineral rights, water
rights, land locked parcels, noise control, air pollution, visual pollution, etc.
A legitimate private toll road company must know what the County requirements are so that
accurate estimates of the cost of constructing the toll road can be developed. If the required cost
of construction is too high the project will not be financially feasible.
For example, if the requirement is to provide overpasses so that all County roads remain open,
for the Super Slab that could amount to 80 county roads x $3,000,000 per overpass =
$240,000,000, which is an additional 10%added to the current guess of$2.5 billion.
Request for Public Meetings
We are requesting that public meetings be held in November so that the "demonstrable negative
impacts"and "available mitigation"can begin to be defined.
The information from these meeting is needed in order to demonstrate to the State legislature that
the Super Slab has not included these mitigation costs in their cost of construction.
These additional costs add to the evaluation that the Super Slab idea is "not feasible". Under our
legislative alternatives the Super Slab corporation would then be dissolved.
Hello