HomeMy WebLinkAbout20060407.tiff McGEADY SISNEROS, P. C.
�'-• ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1675 BROADWAY, SUITE 2100
• DENVER,COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE:!3031 592-4300
FACSIMILE:13 031 5 92-4 38 5
WWW.MCGEADYSISNEROS.COM
W.MCGEADYSISNEROS.COM
MARYANN N.McGEAOY SPECIAL COUNSEL
DARLENE 515NER05
MARY JO DOUGHERTY KENNETH M.KANNE K.LAPORAPORC2
TA
MEGAN BECHER
VALERIE D. BROMLEY
RUSSELL W.DYKSTRA
KATHRYN S. KANDA
JACQUELINE C.MURPHY
GEORGE M.ROWLEY December 2, 2005 Weld County Planning Department
^REELFY OFFICE
Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail ?;E.C X 6 2005
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#1-6 (the"Districts")
Dear Brad:
Thank you for your letter dated November 21, 2005 relaying the Planning Staffs
comments on the above-referenced Service Plan application. On behalf of the proponents of the
Districts, the following lists each County comment and our response for ease of reference.
Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District Service Plan
• County Comment: Section I.A.5 on Page 1 states that the Plan will indicate how proposed
service standards will be compatible with those of Weld County. While statements found on
Page 11 commit to designing and constructing improvements in accordance with the
requirements of the local jurisdiction, there is no discussion concerning Levels of Service
(LOS) for such items as traffic, parks, or community spaces. As a large diverse County, it is
also important to distinguish between urban and non-urban LOS. Please provide more detail
in the Plan concerning service standards.
Response: Regarding Levels of Service (LOS), the Districts simply serve as a financing
mechanism to fund the public infrastructure that is required by the County as part of the land
use approval process. In terms of urban vs. non-urban LOS, where County service standards
exist, the Districts will abide by them. Where such standards do not currently exist, we
assume that they will be specified in the zoning and platting process. We would not be
inclined to include this discussion in the Service Plans because it is more in the nature of a
land use approval issue and not a district issue.
• County Comment: The seven items described in Section I.A as included in the Plan do not
provide all the information needed to address the County service plan policies now
EXHIBIT
1 000sazao.00c v:2 2006-0407
Brad Mueller
December 2, 2005
Page 2
consideration by the Board. (Please see Attachment.) Please respond separately to each of
the attached criteria. Also, please revise this Introduction and the body of the document to
address any omissions identified by addressing the County criteria. Note in particular the
following points identified by staff:
• Please provide justification for the need for television relay and translation, which is
readily provided by the private sector. (Policy C)
• Please describe the IGA required between the District and Resource Colorado. (Policy D)
• Please add text limiting the use of eminent domain to the District's essential functions.
(Policy G)
• Please revise the Plan to clearly state that the Aggregate Mill Levy Cap, consisting of a
debt service and operations/maintenance mill levy, is restricted to a maximum of 65
mills, without ability to be exceeded. (Policy H)
• Please clarify that the financial projections were prepared by a firm listed in "Bond
Buyers Marketplace." (Policy I)
• Please add language to the Plan providing Weld County the ability to review any
proposed ballot question for a formation election, debt authorization, or de-Brucing
question. (Policy J)
• Please add text clarifying that any new powers for Title 32 Districts provided by the State
would require County approval before being adopted by the Service District. (Policy K)
Response: We will refrain from commenting on this bullet point (and those listed at the top
of page 2) until the County service plan policies ("Guidelines") are approved by the BOCC.
• County Comment: Please revise the text at the conclusion of Section II ("it is anticipated that
the County will approve land uses"). As currently drafted, this language gives the
appearance of presuming an outcome of a series of land uses actions that need yet to take
place before urban development could take place within the Service Area. Please revise this
language to clarify that"if land uses are approved, then ..." and add a sentence speaking
clearly to the fact that any approvals of the District do not constitute an approval of future
proposed land uses.
Response: We will revise the Service Plans to reflect these requested revisions.
• County Comment: In the overview of services found on the first complete paragraph of Page
3, "sanitation and storm drainage" are referenced together, and "drainage" is later referred to
separately under (3). Should not storm drainage be referenced separately from sanitation
service, and should "storm drainage"be referred to only once? Please clarify.
Response: Authority to provide storm drainage facilities is not, in and of itself, one of the
enumerated district powers under Title 32. Instead, districts provide these types of
improvements pursuant to their power to provide street or sanitation facilities. We will
;00058260 DOC v2}
Brad Mueller
December 2, 2005
Page 3
revise the Service Plans as you suggest to have the storm drainage reference appear only
once in this section.
• County Comment: In that same section, why is the term "some" drainage improvements
used? Please clarify.
Response: We will revise this section accordingly.
• County Comment: Although discussed later in the document, please clarify why police and
fire service are not listed in the overview paragraph on Sheet 3.
Response: We do not include "police" in the recitation of district powers because Title 32
metropolitan districts do not have this power under the statute. "Fire service" is referred to in
this section of the Service Plans only if the respective district contains "Non-Overlapping
Areas." The Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District is not one of these districts.
• County Comment: The Plan does not appear to address the need for ambulance service.
Please clarify how this service need will be ensured, given the remoteness of the planned
urban service area from any existing or planned hospitals.
Response: For those plans which include fire protection as one of the district's powers, the
description of proposed services in Section V includes a "Fire Protection" subsection. That
subsection provides in each such plan that the district will have the power to provide for the
"financing...operation and maintenance of facilities and equipment for fire protection,
including fire stations, ambulance and emergency medical response and rescue
services..."
• County Comment: The possibility of a fire subdistrict for the non-overlapping fire district
areas (i.e., areas currently not serviced by a fire district) is discussed on Page 3. Please
provide an estimate of the acreage of non-overlapping areas.
Response: The acreage for the Non-Overlapping Areas is 1,852 acres.
• County Comment: Please clarify the relationship of the mill levy associated with the
proposed Pioneer Law Enforcement Authority IGA to the proposed Mill Levy Cap. When
would the proposed Pioneer Law Enforcement Authority be formed, and what assurances
through the District are provided to ensure that service is available at the time of
development of the site?
Response: The mill levy associated with the Pioneer Law Enforcement Authority ("Pioneer
LEA") is in addition to the debt service mill levy that would be subject to the proposed Mill
Levy Cap. We prepared a draft LEA Resolution that would be considered by the BOCC
which was provided as part of the Service Plan submittal in October. The LEA Resolution
I00058260.DOC v:2
Brad Mueller
December 2, 2005
Page 4
contemplates that the LEA would be created thirty days following the canvass of votes cast at
an election indicating approval of the creation of the LEA at the November 2006 election.
The Service Plans discuss how law enforcement services will be provided by the Weld
County Sheriffs Department via contract with the LEA, recognizing that the Pioneer
Districts, as special districts, do not have the authority to provide such services.
• County Comment: The District structure, as outlined on Page 4, 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. As such, it appears
that full control can remain indefinitely with the developer and owners of the single-acre
ownership lot. Please describe in detail the governing structure and board of the proposed
Service District. Will representation only be from owners of the acre, or will there be
representation from future residents of the service area?
Response: We will refrain from commenting on this bullet point until the Guidelines are
approved by the BOCC.
• County Comment: The relationship between the Service District and Finance District is
described in detail on Page 5 (and more generally on Page 2). Please provide similar detail in
describing the agreement that will be entered into with Resource Colorado, which is the only
identified provider of water and sewer services. As currently described, the Service District
would function as "paper district" only, which, without additional information, does not
structurally guarantee its access to tangible water or sanitation assets.
Response: We will refrain from commenting on this bullet point until the Guidelines are
approved by the BOCC.
• County Comment: Please provide information detailing Resource Colorado Metropolitan
District's ability to provide water to the proposed service area by indicating sufficient water
in terms of quantity, quality, availability (transmission), and dependability. Detailed
information is needed to fulfill the County policy of detailed information about proposed
IGAs (Page 5), and to validate the claim that the District will be able to acquire water rights
and water services as necessary (Page 7).
Response: We will refrain from commenting on this bullet point until the Guidelines are
approved by the BOCC.
• County Comment: Text on Sheet 6 indicates that the District's boundaries may change from
time to time; please explain why, as a one-acre ownership parcel, the Service District's
boundary could or should ever change. Also, please provide language indicating that any
changes in the District's boundaries would require review and approval by the County.
I00058260.DOC v:21
Brad Mueller
December 2, 2005
Page 5
Response: We will refrain from commenting on this bullet point until the Guidelines are
approved by the BOCC.
• County Comment: Sections referring to streets, safety protection, and parks and recreation
imply that physical improvements will be accepted by the County for maintenance and
ownership. Since the County's position on these cannot be determined at this time, please
revise the language indicating the District's ownership unless (not"until") accepted by the
County. (Sheets 8 — 10)
Response: We are amenable to revising sections referring to streets, safety protection etc. to
reflect District ownership "unless and/or until" accepted by the County.
• County Comment: Please add text clarifying that streets will be built to County standards,
unless otherwise approved by the County. (Sheets 8 —9)
Response: We will revise the Service Plans to reflect this requested revision.
• County Comment: Please clarify whether the "it" referred to in the first full sentence at the
top of Sheet 9 refers to the County deeming a supplemental maintenance desirable, or to the
District. (The reference is probably to the District,but this should be clarified.)
Response: You are correct that the "it" in the first full sentence at the top of page 9 refers to
the District. We will revise the Service Plans to reflect this requested revision.
• County Comment: Please add language to Item 6 on Sheet 10 clarifying that eminent domain
may not be exercised by the District for any regional roads (i.e., "super slabs" and the like).
Response: We will refrain from commenting on this bullet point until the Guidelines are
approved by the BOCC.
• County Comment: As discussed above, please justify the need for District powers for
television relay and transmission, which is readily provided by private-sector cable and
satellite service providers.
Response: We will refrain from commenting on this bullet point until the Guidelines are
approved by the BOCC.
• County Comment: Please revise Item 9a (Page 11) to clarify that any material modifications
to the Plan, as determined by the County, shall review by Weld County.
Response: We will refrain from commenting on this bullet point until the Guidelines are
approved by the BOCC.
00058260.DOC v:2;
Brad Mueller
December 2, 2005
Page 6
• County Comment: Item 9c (Page 11) allowing the District to "divide . . . into one or more
areas consistent with the services . . . therein" does not seem to make sense in the context of
a one-acre ownership district. Please comment.
Response: Item 9c (Page 11) refers to the Districts' ability to form subdistricts. Part 11 of
Article 1, Title 32 was amended in 2000 to allow special districts to do this. A district would
form a subdistrict for the purpose of financing a facility or improvement that is particular to
the area within the subdistrict. For example, this statutory provision could be invoked to
enable a district to form a subdistrict which would levy a tax to finance construction of a
fence that benefits the portion of the District's property that is within the subdistrict. This
provision was included in each of the Service Plans to facilitate formation of a subdistrict in
the event that any one of more of the seven districts needs to implement this part of the
statute. However, we will revise the Regional Metropolitan District Service Plan (one-acre
district) to delete this language just for this Service Plan.
• County Comment: Please add the following to the end of the first sentence of B (Page 11): "
. in which the Improvements are located, and consistent with the Levels of Service adopted
by that jurisdiction."
Response: We will revise the Service Plans to reflect this requested revision.
• County Comment: The first sentence of the first full paragraph of Page 14 could imply an
unlimited ability to increase mill levies beyond County policy. Please revise this text to
acknowledge the County's acceptance of caps of only 65 mills and lower.
Response: We will refrain from commenting on this bullet point until the Guidelines are
approved by the BOCC.
• County Comment: 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: We will refrain from commenting on this bullet point until the Guidelines are
approved by the BOCC.
• County Comment: A Regional Improvements Mill Levy is described on Pages 17, 20, and
22, yet one is described at a level of 2 mills and another at a level of 10 mills. Please clarify
this discrepancy.
Response: The Service Plans contemplate that the Financing Districts will impose a
Regional Improvements Mill Levy not to exceed 10 mills (as adjusted for Gallagher) and that
revenue equivalent to 2 out of the 10 mills will be transferred to the Pioneer Regional
Metropolitan District to fund operation and maintenance costs of the Districts. The
{00058260.DOC v2 1
Brad Mueller
December 2, 2005
Page 7
remainder revenue from the 8 mills will be used for capital costs. The subsection entitled
"Operations" on page 17 discusses the 2 mill "carve out" from the total Regional
Improvements Mill Levy which is earmarked for operating costs.
• County Comment: The "Roadways" map found under Appendix C9 shows a number of
roads built outside the limits of the proposed service area for the District. Please clarify
under what powers outlined in the Plan the four districts shown (Pioneer Regional, District
#2, District#4, and District#5) would be able or compelled to provide these streets.
Response: Title 32 Metropolitan Districts have the authority to furnish services and facilities
outside of their boundaries pursuant to Section 32-1-1001(1)(k), C.R.S.
Pioneer Financing Districts #1-6 Service Plans
• County Comment: Please refer to the comments and questions above for the Service District.
Almost all of these apply to the proposed service district plans as well; please modify the
plans as applicable.
Response: Where we have acknowledged in this letter that we will make requested revisions,
we will revise all of the Service Plans, as applicable.
• County Comment: The proposed Financing District Plans include a ninth service power that
the Service District does not for"limited fire protection." (Pages 3 & 10) Please explain
why this distinction is made, and clarify the reason for the use of the term "limited" fire
protection.
Response: With regard to the recitation of the power to provide fire protection services,
please see the sixth bullet point response above under the "Pioneer Regional Metropolitan
District" heading.
• County Comment: The standards of construction of facilities are detailed differently in the
Financing District Plans than in the Service Plans (Sheet 12). Please explain this difference
in approach, and note that a discussion of Levels of Service, etc., as indicated above, would
also be appropriate for this section of the Plan.
Response: In all circumstances, the Districts will be constructing to County standards, and
we will reconcile the language in the Service Plans accordingly.
• County Comment: Please explain why the Property within the various Districts would have
an assumed assessed value of$0, as indicated on Page 13.
Response: For purposes of the Service Plans, we assume an assessed value of S-0- because it
allows for a cleaner more conservative presentation. When the Districts are proposed, the
assessed value is de minimus, since it is vacant agricultural land.
00058260.DOC v:2}
Brad Mueller
December 2, 2005
Page 8
We hope that the foregoing response is helpful in your processing of the Service Plans
and we look forward to working with you in the County's review process.
Very truly • s,
Mc e- : ' ' as,P.C.
Jac' •line ' . Murphy
c: Bruce Barker, County Attorney
Monica Daniels-Mika, Director of Planning Services
Frank Hempen, Director of Public Works
Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld County Attorney
00058260.DOC v:2
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
918 10th Street
I GREELEY, COLORADO 80631
W� DC. WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us
wco.weld.co.us
E-MAIL: bmueller@co.weld.co.us
PHONE (970) 353-6100, EXT. 3572
COLORADO FAX (970) 304-6498
November 21, 2005
Jacqueline Murphy
McGeady Sisneros, P.C.
1675 Broadway, Suite 2100
Denver, CO 80202
RE: Service Plan Application for Proposed Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District& Proposed
Pioneer Metropolitan Districts#1 - 6
Dear Jacqueline:
It was a pleasure to speak with you by phone recently; I look forward to meeting you in person.
As you are aware, the seven service plan applications submitted to Weld County for review and
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners has been scheduled for hearing before the
Planning Commission on December 20, 2005. The Board of County Commissioners will then set their
hearing as required by state law on January 4, 2006, with an anticipated hearing date of February 6,
2006.
Planning staff has at this time reviewed the submitted service plan with the following comments. Most of
these are intended to provide clarification needed in finalizing our recommendation to the Planning
Commission, but some are requests for an explanation of how the proposed plan conforms to the
approval criteria of C.R.S. Title 32.
Please note that additional comments and questions will be forthcoming based on referral reviews by the
County Finance and Public Works Departments. In addition, Planning Staff reserves the right to provide
additional comments based on any re-submittals or responses resulting from this review. Please provide
written response to the following comments and questions:
Pioneer Regional Metropolitan District Service Plan
• Section I.A.5 on Page 1 states that the Plan will indicate how proposed service standards will be
compatible with those of Weld County. While statements found on Page 11 commit to designing and
constructing improvements in accordance with the requirements of the local jurisdiction, there is no
discussion concerning Levels of Service (LOS)for such items as traffic, parks, or community spaces.
As a large diverse County, it is also important to distinguish between urban and non-urban LOS.
Please provide more detail in the Plan concerning service standards.
• The seven items described in Section I.A as included in the Plan do not provide all the information
needed to address the County service plan policies now under consideration by the Board. (Please
see Attachment.) Please respond separately to each of the attached criteria. Also, please revise this
Introduction and the body of the document to address any omissions identified by addressing the
County criteria. Note in particular the following points identified by staff:
1
o Please provide justification for the need for television relay and translation, which is readily
provided by the private sector. (Policy C)
o Please describe the IGA required between the District and Resource Colorado. (Policy D)
o Please add text limiting the use of eminent domain to the District's essential functions. (Policy
G)
o Please revise the Plan to clearly state that the Aggregate Mill Levy Cap, consisting of a debt
service and operations/maintenance mill levy, is restricted to a maximum of 65 mills, without
ability to be exceeded. (Policy H)
o Please clarify that the financial projections were prepared by a firm listed in "Bond Buyers
Marketplace." (Policy I)
o Please add language to the Plan providing Weld County the ability to review any proposed
ballot question for a formation election, debt authorization, or de-Brucing question. (Policy J)
o Please add text clarifying that any new powers for Title 32 Districts provided by the State
would require County approval before being adopted by the Service District. (Policy K)
• Please revise the text at the conclusion of Section II ("it is anticipated that the County will approve
land uses"). As currently drafted, this language gives the appearance of presuming an outcome of a
series of land uses actions that need yet to take place before urban development could take place
within the Service Area. Please revise this language to clarify that"if land uses are approved, then
..."and add a sentence speaking clearly to the fact that any approvals of the District do not constitute
an approval of future proposed land uses.
• In the overview of services found on the first complete paragraph of Page 3, "sanitation and storm
drainage" are referenced together, and "drainage"is later referred to separately under (3). Should not
storm drainage be referenced separately from sanitation service, and should "storm drainage" be
referred to only once? Please clarify.
r
• In that same section, why is the term "some" drainage improvements used? Please clarify.
• Although discussed later in the document, please clarify why police and fire service are not listed in
the overview paragraph on Sheet 3.
• The Plan does not appear to address the need for ambulance service. Please clarify how this service
need will be ensured, given the remoteness of the planned urban service area from any existing or
planned hospitals.
• The possibility of a fire subdistrict for the non-overlapping fire district areas (i.e., areas currently not
serviced by a fire district) is discussed on Page 3. Please provide an estimate of the acreage of non-
overlapping areas.
• Please clarify the relationship of the mill levy associated with the proposed Pioneer Law Enforcement
Authority IGA to the proposed Mill Levy Cap. When would the proposed Pioneer Law Enforcement
Authority be formed, and what assurances through the District are provided to ensure that service is
available at the time of development of the site?
• The District structure, as outlined on Page 4, 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. As such, it appears that full control can remain indefinitely with the
developer and owners of the single-acre ownership lot. Please describe in detail the governing
structure and board of the proposed Service District. Will representation only be from owners of the
acre, or will there be representation from future residents of the service area?
• The relationship between the Service District and Finance District is described in detail on Page 5
(and more generally on Page 2). Please provide similar detail in describing the agreement that will be
2
entered into with Resource Colorado, which is the only identified provider of water and sewer
services. As currently described, the Service District would function as "paper district" only, which,
without additional information, does not structurally guarantee its access to tangible water or
sanitation assets.
• Please provide information detailing Resource Colorado Metropolitan District's ability to provide water
to the proposed service area by indicating sufficient water in terms of quantity, quality, availability
(transmission), and dependability. Detailed information is needed to fulfill the County pol icy of
detailed information about proposed IGAs (Page 5), and to validate the claim that the District will be
able to acquire water rights and water services as necessary(Page 7).
• Text on Sheet 6 indicates that the District's boundaries may change from time to time; please explain
why, as a one-acre ownership parcel, the Service District's boundary could or should ever change.
Also, please provide language indicating that any changes in the District's boundaries would require
review and approval by the County.
• Sections referring to streets, safety protection, and parks and recreation imply that physical
improvements will be accepted by the County for maintenance and ownership. Since the County's
position on these cannot be determined at this time, please revise the language indicating the
District's ownership unless (not"until") accepted by the County. (Sheets 8 — 10)
• Please add text clarifying that streets will be built to County standards, unless otherwise approved by
the County. (Sheets 8 —9)
• Please clarify whether the "it" referred to in the first full sentence at the top of Sheet 9 refers to the
County deeming a supplemental maintenance desirable, or to the District. (The reference is probably
to the District, but this should be clarified.)
• Please add language to Item 6 on Sheet 10 clarifying that eminent domain may not be exercised by
the District for any regional roads (i.e., "super slabs" and the like).
• As discussed above, please justify the need for District powers for television relay and transmission,
which is readily provided by private-sector cable and satellite service providers.
• Please revise Item 9a (Page 11) to clarify that any material modifications to the Plan, as determined
by the County, shall review by Weld County.
• Item 9c(Page 11) allowing the District to "divide . . . into one or more areas consistent with the
services . . . therein" does not seem to make sense in the context of a one-acre ownership district.
Please comment.
•
• Please add the following to the end of the first sentence of B (Page 11): " . . . in which the
Improvements are located, and consistent with the Levels of Service adopted by that jurisdiction."
• The first sentence of the first full paragraph of Page 14 could imply an unlimited ability to increase mill
levies beyond County policy. Please revise this text to acknowledge the County's acceptance of caps
of only 65 mills and lower.
• 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.
• A Regional Improvements Mill Levy is described on Pages 17, 20, and 22, yet one is described at a
level of 2 mills and another at a level of 10 mills. Please clarify this discrepancy.
3
• The "Roadways" map found under Appendix C9 shows a number of roads built outside the limits of
the proposed service area for the District. Please clarify under what powers outlined in the Plan the
four districts shown (Pioneer Regional, District#2, District#4, and District#5) would be able or
compelled to provide these streets.
Pioneer Financing Districts #1-6 Service Plans
• Please refer to the comments and questions above for the Service District. Almost all of these apply
to the proposed service district plans as well; please modify the plans as applicable.
• The proposed Financing District Plans include a ninth service power that the Service District does not
for"limited fire protection." (Pages 3 & 10) Please explain why this distinction is made, and clarify
the reason for the use of the term "limited"fire protection.
• The standards of construction of facilities are detailed differently in the Financing District Plans than in
the Service Plans (Sheet 12). Please explain this difference in approach, and note that a discussion
of Levels of Service, etc., as indicated above, would also be appropriate for this section of the Plan.
• Please explain why the Property within the various Districts would have an assumed assessed value
of$0, as indicated on Page 13.
As we have discussed, the Special District requests are planned at this point to be heard by the Planning
Commission on December 21, 2005, set by the Board of County Commissioners on January 4, 2005, and
heard by the Board on February 21, 2005. In order to maintain this schedule and meet internal timelines,
it will be important to address the questions and issues above by December 5, 2005.
I look forward to working with you to complete your application for Title 32 Special Districts service plans
in a timely and efficient manner. If you have any questions about these comments or revisions, please do
not hesitate to call me at 970-353-6100, ext. 3572.
Sincerely,
Brad Mueller, Assistant Director
cc: Bruce Barker, County Attorney
Monica Daniels-Mika, Director of Planning Services
Frank Hempen, Director of Public Works
Lee Morrison, Assistant Weld County Attorney
Attachment: Draft Weld County Policy concerning Title 32 Special District Plans
4
Page 1 of 1
,� Brad Mueller
From: Brad Mueller
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 5:04 PM
To: Bruce Barker; Lee Morrison
Cc: Brad Mueller
Subject: RE: Pioneer Development Application
Bruce & Lee,
The Pioneer folks have committed to getting us the file in PDF; I'm pushing them to get it to us ASAP, but it may
be next week.
On a different note, some questions about the Service District applications . .
We will be having to provide publication noticing on this very soon. We had thought it was with 10 days notice,
but please let me know if it is a 15-day requirement.
More critically, there was a question about how specific the Legal Description needs to be. As you know, with the
exception of the Service District (which is 1 acre in size), the other six Financing Districts are huge, covering lots
of legal parcels and many sections. Do we need to list 1)all of the parcels, 2) all of the Sections/T/R listed; or 3)
Can we simply say something like"several parcels of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado"? Same basic
question with the Locaton Description.
.► A couple of questions within the Service Plan itself:
Sheet 11, Section 9a. Do we need more confined language in allowing Plan Amendments? Some definition of
what would constitute a material modification?
* Section 9(b). The ability to "forgo . . . construction . . . " struck me as overly broad and permissive. Your
thoughts?
Section 9(c) Are additional services "imbliedly granted" OK? Or is this too broad?
Thank you for your help on these matters. Please call if it is easier to simply talk through some of these.
Brad
From: Bruce Barker [mailto:bbarker@co.weld.co.us]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:55 PM
To: Monica Mika; Brad Mueller; Kim Ogle; Michelle Martin
Subject: Pioneer Development Application
Do you have a copy of the Pioneer Development application in electronic format? If so, can you send a copy over
to me?
�- Thanks! Bruce.
11/22/2005
MEMORANDUM
/FK al TO: Bill Cunningham, LCG September7, 2005
I FROM: Don Warden, Director of Finance and Administration
"lige SUBJECT: Review of Pioneer Development Proposal
COLORADO
Attached is the market and fiscal section of the Pioneer Development Proposal. As Monica Mika
and I have discussed with you Weld County would like you to review the proposal and give your
comments on its accuracy and whether or not the data is reasonable for a project of this type.
The areas we would want you to examine are:
1. Overall review of the market and fiscal impact data and your opinion of it.
2. Review the Market Opportunity Assessment (Appendix C) and give your opinion as to
whether it is accurate and reasonable. This area is key since the assumptions and data
appears to drive many of the conclusions as to the economic feasibility of this project.
3. Review fiscal impacts to the local jurisdictions.
4. Are the market values used reasonable regarding number of units, type, and value? Are
the build out numbers reasonable?
5. Are the methodologies, such as the weighed per capita approach to revenue and
expense projections, accurate and reasonable?
6. Your opinion on whether or not since the development will be in the unincorporated areas
of the county will there be a disproportional impact on costs of county services rather
than doing as they appear to have done and simply took a weighted per capita cost of all
services for the total population?
7. They used 97,293 for the unincorporated population out of a total population of 217,850
in the county. The actual number for the unincorporated population is 42,477 out of a
total county population of 209,909 per the State Demographer as of July, 2003. How
does the correct number change their analysis?
8. They have used an assessment ratio of 9.12% for residential property for property tax
revenues. With the Gallagher Amendment the assessment ratio for residential property
keeps dropping. Has that factor been adequately accounted for in this analysis?
9. Weld County has a Home Rule Charter 5% property tax limitation that only allows the
total property tax to increase only 5% over the previous year, unless the County Council
authorizes an override to exceed the 5% or the voters authorize it. The result without the
override in their analysis is that only 2% of total new growth is realized in a year with 3%
inflation. This is just a factor that complicates any analysis of growth in Weld County.
10. Weld County recently adopted Metro District creation and review policies. How will those
policies impact this proposal? I will email you a copy of the policies.
r
r
11. Will the county's impact fees for transportation and capital expansion be affected by this
kind of concentration of growth over the proposed timeframe? Other than the obvious
impact of the collection of the fees.
12. A development of this type will require a law enforcement authority for Sheriff's patrol
services. Typically a seven mill levy is required to support the function. How will this
impact the project?
As you go through the analysis if you have questions please do not hesitate to contact me at
970-356-4000 Extension 4218. You have agreed to do this project on an hourly basis. If you
need a signed engagement letter please send it to me and I vill get it approved.
pioneerreview
DRAFT
McGEADY SISNEROS,P.C.
October 11, 2005
RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENT TO CREATE THE WELD COUNTY PIONEER
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
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, Section 30-11-401, et seq., C.R.S., provides the authority to create law
enforcement authorities and directs the procedures for establishment thereof; and
WHEREAS, that certain property owned by H.P. Farms LLC and Pioneer Communities,
Inc. (the"Property Owner") in Southern Weld County, is to be developed for urban density and
currently has minimal on-site law enforcement protection; and
WHEREAS,said Board of County Commissioners, the Property Owners and the Weld
County Sheriff desire to insure the provision of more intensive law enforcement required for a
residential development in an unincorporated area of the County located away from existing
municipalities; and
WHEREAS, after discussions between the applicant, the Weld County Sheriff's Office,
the Weld County Attorney's Office, and the Director of Finance, it appears from the legal and
fiscal standpoint that the creation of a law enforcement authority is necessary and appropriate in
order to provide adequate law enforcement in the Pioneer Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, the area to be included within the law enforcement authority is the property
more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference(the"Property"); and
WHEREAS,use of the Law Enforcement Authority will provide more adequate law
enforcement for persons residing in developed or developing unincorporated areas of Weld
County,will prevent the crime rate from rising therein and will better assist police, sheriff, and
other law enforcement agencies in prevention of crime and in the detection and apprehension of
criminal offenders; and
WHEREAS, the procedural requirements of Section 30-11-401, C.R.S., have been met,
including publication in a newspaper of general circulation, for at least three consecutive weeks,
of notice of the date, time, and place of the meeting whereby this Board considered the action
contemplated herein;and
WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners finds it has jurisdiction herein; and
WHEREAS, HP Farms,LLC and Pioneer Communities, Inc., as current landowners of
parcels of land exceeding twenty acres in size,have consented to inclusion with the Law
Enforcement Authority.
^ s.
(00051930.DOC v:2} 9
NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County, Colorado,hereby declares its intent to create an Authority pursuant to Section
30-11-401, et seq., C.R.S., which shall be known as the Weld County Pioneer Law Enforcement
Authority(hereinafter referred to as Pioneer LEA). The territory of Pioneer LEA shall generally
include the property more particularly described in Exhibit A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, as the ex-
officio governing Board of the Pioneer LEA, shall have all such powers and duties granted or
imposed under Section 30-11-401, et seq., C.R.S., and any further powers and duties which may
hereinafter be granted and imposed by statute.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Pioneer LEA shall be deemed created thirty days
following the canvass of votes cast at the election indicating approval of the creation of the
Authority, which election shall be held on November 7, 2006.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the questions put forth to the electors at the election
to be held on the day of November, 2006, are as follows:
"SHOULD THE AREA KNOWN AS THE"PIONEER PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT,"WHICH IS GENERALLY LOCATED IN SECTIONS 4 5,
7, 8, 9, 17, 18,TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH,RANGE 64 WEST OF THE SIXTH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 64
WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AND SECTIONS 1, 2, 11, 12,
13, 14, 15,TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 65 WEST OF THE SIXTH
PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO, BE
INCLUDED IN A LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO
SECTION 30-11-401, ET SEQ., C.R.S.,TO BE KNOWN AS THE PIONEER
LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY?
SHALL WELD COUNTY PIONEER LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
TAXES BE INCREASED$ ANNUALLY OR SUCH LESSER
AMOUNT AS NECESSARY TO PAY THE AUTHORITY'S OPERATING
EXPENSES, AND SHALL PROPERTY TAXES BE IMPOSED IN ANY YEAR
AT A RATE OF 4 MILLS AND ANY INVESTMENT INCOME THEREON BE
COLLECTED AND SPENT BY THE AUTHORITY IN FISCAL YEAR 2007
AND IN EACH YEAR THEREAFTER FOR AS LONG AS THE AUTHORITY
CONTINUES IN EXISTENCE, WITHOUT LIMITATION BY THE REVENUE
AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE
COLORADO CONSTITUTION AND WITHOUT REGARD TO THE
LIMITATION ON PROPERTY TAXATION IN 29-1-301 C.R.S. OR ANY
OTHER STATUTORY OR CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT
PURPORTS TO LIMIT THE DISTRICT'S REVENUES OR
EXPENDITURES?"
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that notice of the election shall be published by the Clerk
to the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, and said notice shall contain
essentially the following information:
(0005193a DOC v:2 f 2
"The election precinct shall be the entire Pioneer Planned Unit Development in
Weld County, Colorado, as described and recorded at Book , Reception
,of the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder, and the
polling place shall be
, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.
The questions presented shall be:
'SHOULD THE AREA KNOWN AS THE"PIONEER
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,"WHICH IS GENERALLY
LOCATED IN SECTIONS 4 5, 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 64 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, SECTION 32,TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH,RANGE 64
WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, AND
SECTIONS 1,2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH,
RANGE 65 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO, BE INCLUDED
IN A LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO
SECTION 30-11-401, ET SEQ., C.R.S., TO BE KNOWN AS
THE PIONEER LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY?'
SHALL WELD COUNTY PIONEER LAW ENFORCEMENT
AUTHORITY TAXES BE INCREASED $ ANNUALLY
OR SUCH LESSER AMOUNT AS NECESSARY TO PAY THE
AUTHORITY'S OPERATING EXPENSES, AND SHALL
PROPERTY TAXES BE IMPOSED IN ANY YEAR AT A RATE
OF 4 MILLS AND ANY INVESTMENT INCOME THEREON
BE COLLECTED AND SPENT BY THE AUTHORITY IN
FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND IN EACH YEAR THEREAFTER
FOR AS LONG AS THE AUTHORITY CONTINUES IN
EXISTENCE, WITHOUT LIMITATION BY THE REVENUE
AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF
THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION AND WITHOUT
REGARD TO THE LIMITATION ON PROPERTY TAXATION
IN 29-1-301 C.R.S. OR ANY OTHER STATUTORY OR
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT PURPORTS TO
LIMIT THE DISTRICT'S REVENUES OR EXPENDITURES?
"Persons eligible to vote are persons who, on the date of this election, are
qualified to vote in a general election in the State of Colorado and have been a
resident of the proposed law enforcement authority or,who or whose spouse owns
taxable real or personal property within the proposed authority,whether or not
said person resides within the authority."
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if a canvass of the votes indicates that a majority of
those electors of the authority voting at said election have voted in favor of said proposition,
such authority shall be approved and the Pioneer LEA shall be created, effective thirty days
following such canvass.
100051930.DOC v..21 3
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the day of , 20_
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST:
Weld County Clerk to the Board
By:
Deputy Clerk to the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Attorney
00051930.DOC v 21 4
EXHIBIT A
(the"Property")
100051930.DOC v:21 5
Hello