HomeMy WebLinkAbout20021940.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: ACTION OF BOARD CONCERNING PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT -WELD COUNTY ROAD 57
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, a Petition for a Local Improvement District was submitted to the Board by
owners of property which is more particularly described in said petition, marked as Exhibit "A,"
a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and
WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to schedule a hearing to
determine the intent to create Weld County Weld County Road 57 Local Improvement
District#2002-1 for August 14, 2002, at 9:00 a.m.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Weld County, Colorado, that a hearing to consider the aforementioned Petition for a Local
Improvement District be, and hereby is, scheduled for August 14, 2002, at 9:00 a.m.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded,
adopted by the following vote on the 22nd day of July, A.D., 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WEL COUNTY, C LORADO
ATTEST: att#1 1• IE CE/,�, 06-
(cii Gle V. .d, Chair
Weld County Clerk to the �ar. .,,�
1861 (11. i
� 1 Fia_, i
►` avid . Lo , Pro-Tem
Deputy Clerk to the Bo. N 1 4,,,,----
M. J. eile
APP AS M: "Lt.—/77G"`c
illiam H. Jerke
ou ty ney! V ‘IL
Robert D. Masden
Date of signature: �(/
2002-1940
Lie Aki (,4 jeY✓i5 f.k SD0106
i
g EXHIBIT
L
Lib#2ooz-I
PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Weld County Road 57 for %of a Mile North of Weld County Road 20
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Weld County.Colorado
P.O.Box 758
Greeley,Colorado 80632
We,the undersigned citizens of Weld County.who are owners of record of real property,propose to be
assessed the costs of improving to a County gravel roadway standadard and which property will
benefit from Improvement of:
The right of way for Weld County Road 57 for %of a Mile North of Weld County Road 20
Situated In Weld County,Colorado,do hereby petition the Board of County Commissioners of the County of
Weld,State of Colorado,for the formation of a local Improvement district pursuant to the CRS,30-20-601,et seq.
We represent that the real property listed in this petition(s)will be assessed more than one-half of the estimated
$50,000 in costs proposed to be assessed to the local Improvement district. Such improvement district is for the
purpose of improving the above described unimproved and=maintained public right-of way.
The specific Improvements we wish to have constructed are as follows:
Shape,and grade the above described road to a standard which would allow it allow it to be accepted by the
County for maintenance as more specifically stated in Exhibit A,attached hereto and incorporated by this
reference.
We request that the following materials be used with the following unit costs: See Exhibit B attached
hereto and incorporated by this reference.
The specific manner of assessments we recommend is as follows
The calculation to determine the share of the assessment for each parcel is based on the portion of the road
from the southern most point of contact of each parcel with the intersection with WCR 20 as more
specifically stated in Exhibit C,C.1,and C.2.
The specific manner of payment we recommend is as follows:
The estimated cost per property to be paid in fill without interest or over a ten year period,at an interest
rate of%5.00,with the principal being divided into ten equal annual payments along with interest
computed to the unpaid balance.
We further understand and acknowledge that we are to be responsible,individually for any grading or other
adjustments to our driveways and culverts necessitated by such project
Do not sign this petition unless you are an owner of real property benefitting from
the project and request to be assessed costs of the Improvements. An owner is a person
holding fee title to real property. You are an `owner' if you hold a contract to purchase real
property,which obligates you to pay general taxes on that property. In that instance,the
seller may not sign this petition. C.R.S. section 30-20-602(3) and 603 (3)—Joint tenants
and tenants in common should each sign
Exhibit A
Sec.8-6-150. Road acceptance policy.
The County does not maintain private roads, lanes or driveways. (See Article I, Sec. 8-1-30.
Snow Removal Plan A, F., Operations, 7: Snow Policy) The sponsor(s) of the roadway project
desiring to obtain County maintenance shall first address such request to the Board of County
Commissioners for its consideration at one of its regularly-scheduled business meetings. The
sponsor(s) shall be responsible to pay the entire cost of notification to owners and/or occupants of
lands lying adjacent to the roadway. Such notification shall include a description of the request
and shall set forth the time and place of the Board consideration. Before a public road can be
accepted by the Board of County Commissioners for maintenance, the road must meet the
following minimum conditions:
A. The road right-of-way shall be dedicated or otherwise secured to the satisfaction of
Weld County for use by the public and maintenance by the County.
B. The road right-of-way shall be clearly staked and flagged for construction purposes
by a licensed land surveyor. The surveyor shall notify the Department of Public
Works,in writing,when the staking is completed.
C. The width of the right-of-way cannot be less than sixty(60)feet.
D. The road shall serve a minimum of three(3)legal lots which must have
residential dwellings to be considered for acceptance. Properties abutting the
intersection of the road under consideration for acceptance and an existing publicly
maintained road do not count toward the required three(3)lots.
E. The minimum road width shall be a minimum of 26 feet of graveled surface or
meet the minimum design guidelines for the anticipated traffic on the roadway
segment being considered.
F. The following shall be the minimum acceptable standards before a road is accepted
for maintenance:
1. The roadway cross slope,from center line,shall be not less than 3%.
2. Borrow ditches shall be a minimum of 24" deep with 3:1 side slopes and
graded to provide adequate drainage.
3. All side road borrow ditches shall be sufficient to carry the five-year storm
or be a minimum of an 18" diameter culvert as determined by the Director
of Public Works. Cross road drainage structures shall be sufficient to
carry the ten-year storm or be a minimum of an 18 inches culvert as
determined by the Director of Public Works.
4. The Department of Public Works shall test and inspect the roadbed
sub-grade for structural adequacy and acceptable materials. The subgrade
shall be compacted to ninety five(95)percent of AASIITO Standard
Proctor T-99(Method A)or other compaction standards previously
approved by the Director of Public Works.
F. A minimum of four inches of compacted gravel meeting Colorado Department of
Transportation specifications for Class VI material must be provided on the
traveled surface. The gravel shall be compacted in accordance with AASHTO
Standard Proctor T-99(Method D)requirements. Or if necessary, additional
material may be required to support anticipated traffic loads.
G. The road cannot be fenced or gated. If cattle have cross access to the roadway in
the area,a cattle guard shall can be installed in accordance with the County cattle
guard policy.
H. If a fence exists along the section line on which the road is to be built,relocation of
the fence(s)to the road right-of-way lines shall be the responsibility of the
sponsor(s)of the roadway project.
I. Reimbursement by the sponsor(s)of the roadway project shall be made for acreage
within the road right of way included in an adjacent property Conservation
Reserve Program(CRP)crop or which has an unharvested annual crop demolished
by the roadway construction project.
J. The sponsor(s)of the roadway project shall be responsible for all costs associated
with construction of the road.
Exhibit B
WCR 57 L.I.D. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATE
Location: From WCR 20 Approximately 0.75 miles North
Assumptions: 1. All additional right of way necessary for a 60 foot easement will be dedicated
without charge to the project.
2. Roadway width shall be 26 feet.
3. Depth of compacted gravel shall be 4 inches
4. No significant design engineering will be required. Field engineering/survey-
ing will be sufficient.
5. Project cost based on time and materials budget of Public Works work force
and contract costs.
PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
Materials
1. Gravel (2,400 tons @$2.78/ton) $ 6,672
2. Signs (lump sum) 600
3. Drainage culverts (lump sum) 11,250
Contract Expenses
1. Trucking(10 trucks @ $50/hr for 8.5 hrs/day
for 4 days) $17,000
Equipment with Operators
I. Motor grader w/Operator($460/day for 7 days) $ 3,220
2. Roller w/Operator($330/day for 7 days) 2,310
3. Water Truck w/Operator($402/day for 7 days) 2,814
4. Loader w/Operator($671/day for 4 days) 2,684
Miscellaneous Expenses Wield survey, contingency, etc. $ 3,450
TOTAL $50,000
Exhibit C
Computation of Assessment Shares
Simply stated, this cost breakout calculation is based on the premise that
those who use more of the road should pay more of the cost to improve it.
Those who use it less should pay less. The cost for each lot should be
proportional to the minimum distance needed for access.
The calculation that determines the share of the assessment from each
lot is designed to achieve a fair allocation of cost based on the minimum
amount of the road actually required for access, regardless of where
current driveways may be located. The distance from the southern most
point of contact with the road to the intersection with WCR 20 is the
shortest distance of the road that each lot requires. That distance is
calculated as a percent of the whole 3/, mile section and becomes the
individual lot percent usage. Then the sum of this percent usage from all
lots is totaled and divided by the individual lot percent usage to yield the
individual percent share of the total project costs.
See the map, Exhibit C.1, for the southern point of contact for each lot.
See the chart, Exhibit C.2, for the determination of proportional share of
costs for each lot.
The formula for the calculation is as follows:
(individual lot % usage) divided by (Sum of all the % usage) equals
(individual lot % share)
(individual lot % share) multiplied by (the project cost) equals ( $ Share of
assessment)
t a
Eo2
• o a
W N :- h
N C
/ D Li)
O
O + "a
N
N C tn
P
O O O N
Z \ \ H • a
C• O O €11
\
a o y
p . D
0N
/ O O
S 0 'H O OU -5
ZQ3o
a N N
a
0 2
O O
Y
0
a
C
Om
u L9 l0M
L E- C
m ce U
a)
Y
J
J
L
Q a
a)
e a) y )
U 0 m
CD 3 L.L.
0
L N
K
Ill
gx
3
Exhibit C.2
Determination of Shares
Lot % Usage % Share $ Share
Jervis 100% 14.3% $7,150
Feather A 100% 14.3% $7,150
Feather B 100% 14.3% $7,150
West 83.3% 11 .9% $5,950
Rotello 66.6% 9.5% $4,750
Kovanda A 75% 10.7% $5,350
Kovanda B 66.6% 9.5% $4,750
Luke A 41 .6% 5.9% $2,950
Luke B 33.3% 4.8% $2,400
Draper 33.3% 4.8% $2,400
Lot, see Exhibit C.1
The sum of all % usage is 699.7
The sum of all % Share is 100
The sum of all $ Shares is $50,000
On project completion, if the total sum expended is less than $50,000, the
owner of each lot will be assessed % share of that smaller sum. In case of
cost overruns, the total assessment will not exceed $50,000.
Signature and Printed Name Mailing Address Property Description Date Is this
signed property
w/ina city or
town?
YI,C,iloc 5 72-
OWN , jr;R ti l$ Krrii\IF 6kia a' %41(3 80 lIC t214°2- 14
0
1;•-fN--gx_ cNik-;‘.. C:N)c,---'Me k k
Gil VOL t\
93e5 LC)ee57 ZbAekt5
� � � �i ju k'oPnc�hur�C�� 'k 3 Lot A 6\a3\0a, kit
/
a . DWuJ) E to{{.C', .S k rrt c , (fink, §O
g355 tuck 57 IV OC kt fj
4 Sil,� t�AJ:t e_. V�tm e {j.t r�(l) iii 8 in 03'W ADO
arth H- LU F-L. SR11LC
n mot) re Lit & 4»lYtk_
Keenest,w-',co t00't3 .26 at res o --1? a ?•1 o
Yom-�t--cR�t.h,- A F F rnfr V en S -1 L C V. 51
7 r.¢- ( CD Ct c to S 23 --vui o
s•-a—a. C p-S!,C\._
A-
4, / k{ccattcbvtf C b'cl�3 �
�7.5"-Z (pl e/I .-7/ �O /f cA0 �L'3/t NoG l "C ."(
G
c�s�/tll O 7-4�
� � - / l�( a dir6t /Oefe,eer5 ezi,-‘ ryo
Z . q3 % boa s7
RA")tpvic a . A e•�- feeGN€stiL.)M' �a6, 3u6f3 f4l/,�i567-re2- A.)O x (r_g_4____. _(.7. 7. '
--,,,,. ..r.____ -L,,,,,, /1 44 rii 00
62
/1 i c. iiig-Z D. PQ7EVZ) 99// kJ c K S. 7 r� /
_ Kee Aies ,c_r8c /3 /0 /9C s /Arlon. /JO
2y,2
! —41 r rr 7l J
JM. (-_L_U c r
` .9-- JaiU
STATE OF COLORADO
SS AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR
COUNTY OF WELD )
I, NT:0111M1 jfrfQ0 S , being first duly sworn, depose and say that my address is
P,i9.6DY 572-(97W '0tR 57) KOEN,P8(3VCG, (0 ,that I have circulated the within Petition consisting of
pages,that each signature thereon was affixed in my presence, and that each signature thereon is a
signature of the person that it purports to be and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, each person
signing the petition was, at the time of signing, an"owner"of real property proposed to be assessed and
beneftt-
I JVtM L, JF V`LS
Si:na' ' .circulator Printed Name
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 1571Z day of ,L ` 2002.
��,(tY PVe
WITNESS my hand and official seal. O <�O
�'p- ESTHER E.ti
Notary Public GESICK
rc
OF DLO
My Commission expires: Po 1'
�` 4
ahailiasisska Expins September I 2005
•
•
John Jervis
From: LEE Morrison [LMORRISON@co.weld.co.us]
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 3:14 PM
To: jeivis@allpack.com
Cc: BRUCE Barker
Subject: RE: Final form petition
The petitions would be received by the Board at the next meeting after filing [2-5 days}
and a preliminary order hearing established at a hearing held in 14-21 days. A final
hearing would follow for which a 30 day notice is required to be published so that
means 34-45 days after the preliminary. (total of 60-81 days J The assessment occurs
after the work is done and there is a hearing with the opportunity to object after the
work is completed
However, it is also necessary to put this thing on the ballot and the last day for
presenting the issue for placement on the ballot by the Clerk and Recorder is September 11
• (Assuming you get the petitions filed the 1st of July , Sept 11 is at the 72 day mark
so things could fit ) the election will be November 5 which means actual work will not
occur until spring of 2003 at the earliest. However, no assessment will appear until
tax bill of January of 2004 .
EXHIBIT
TO: Weld County Board of Commissioners 7-2-02
FROM: Charles and Kathleen Kovanda
9718 WCR 57
Keenesburg, CO. 80643
303-732-0255
Dear Sirs;
We would like to make our feelings clear upon a petition that Mr. Jervis sates he is
filing with you. Enclosed you will find a copy of that petition.
As a little background- Mr. Jervis called a road meeting at his home approximately
two years ago. Only one family showed up. From that response he felt he had the go
ahead to do this.
REASONS FOR OPPOSITION
1. He has left three property owners without a vote in this matter. He has told
them they have no say and that it is a done deal. This was a deliberate
move because he knew they would be opposed.
2. His manner of allotting the assessments. He has left people off because
"that property is not using the road at present and you can not assess on
future possible benefit". Yet he has done just that with two other
properties. ( see map that is enclosed)
3. The closeness of the road to the McMann's front door.
4. What other people are told by the County Attorney's and Road
Development offices he simply states "that's not true" and dismisses the
speaker.
5. He says he only needs to have $26,000 of the monies accounted for to
push this through and therefore does not need the rest of us. He arranged
the votes that way.
6. Various legal opinions feel that this petition would not stand up to a court
challenge.
In conclusion we would like to add that he only has the yes vote of three of the
families, plus 1/2 of another family, that have property on the road. He has given these
families multiple votes. There are 51/2 no votes and one that we don't know. We don't
feel that this is enough of a majority for him to put the rest of us through this.
Thank-You,
J ir u EXHIBIT
On o -v
c
o to
W N
N C
/ O
O N N
N a
c _8
E - t'
z \ \ y2
N U p a
c O h
c p
a p U -p
N U N C
Cji o N
6
N
aicce .FS
O 004_
Z Q 3 O
h• h 4
a $ I c uf`
\y
\ -..\ hi
\e3 ica E.
Fen
Y ? as a3M
ii
1
L-�
J _767\
3 ,_
V mIl �»� „ ��' 3
A LL = N
A _
Exhibit C.2
Determination of Shares
Lot % Usage % Share $ Share
Jervis 100% 14.3% $7,150 Pc la
Feather A 100% 14.3% $7,150 ,5/ ii15 /.-E,?-5O r)
Feather B 100% 14.3% $7,150 f L' /cL
West 83.3% 11.9% $5,950 IAN kAJOLOA/
Rotello 66.6% 9.5% $4,750 itiL7tiintr
Kovanda A 75% 10.7% $5,350 r}h4t,V$r
NO
Kovanda B 66.6% 9.5% $4,750 74 D LA5 CE ecj ,r/1
Luke A 41 .6% 5.9% $2,950 r0la
NO
Luke B 33.3% 4.8% $2,400 N 0 LAO 6- -1-211! l T
Draper 33.3% 4.8% $2,400 0 ft.)
/e-7,gm,T
Lot, see Exhibit C.1 , (swsT ; '12 !e aki(1
Ike)
The sum of all % usage is 699.7 i Lkl d \J D ' N
The sum of all % Share is 100 A C"I rA 1't' j `�i. 1"O a`.`"
UDt , O,,elud4c
The sum of all $ Shares is $50,000
On project completion, if the total sum expended is less than $50,000, the
owner of each lot will be assessed % share of that smaller sum. In case of
cost overruns, the total assessment will not exceed $50,000.
07/18/02/ 13:24 FAX 303 654 8182 PFS 1002
(fr-61
(40 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PHONE (970)356-4000,EXT. 3750
FAX: (970)352-2868
1111 H STREET
P.O. BOX 758
• GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
COLORADO
•
December 29, 1999
Mr. Kenneth L.Madsen
19150 195'"Avenue
Hudson, CO 80642
Re: Acceptance for County Maintenance of WCR 57 from WCR 20 North 0.75 Miles
Dear Mr. Madsen: •
I have reviewed your request to incorporate the referenced segment of roadway into the county
maintenance program and determined it is not acceptable.
The following are the reasons for the rejection: •
1. Your letter dated November 12, 1999,indicates you have improved a 3/4 mile segment of
roadway. In fact, only approximately L900 feet have been improved. Regardless, the
improvement will have to be extended a total length of one mile. lam requiring that the
additional one quarter mile improvement be completed to ensure the County will riot be
responsible later. This will also accommodate continuity for potential improvements in the
next mile north.
2. The northern terminus of the roadway should include a cul-de-sac with a minimum radius
of 50 feet and an easement encompassing the improvement.
3. Currently,there is only a 30-foot right-of-Way for the improvement. It will be necessary to
dedicate an additional 30 feet of right-of-way along the east side of the E 'h of Section 15,
Township 2 North,Range 64 West,which I understand is under your control. •
4. The roadway must be constructed with a 60-foot tight-of-way that will reflect concentric
geometry.Currently,it is offset within the'existing 30 feet of right-of-way,which places the
edge of the roadway too close to existing utilities poles creating a safety hazard.
EXHIBIT
07/18/02 13:25 FAX 303 654 8182 PFS a 003
•
Mt Kenneth L. Madsen
December 29, 1999
Page 2
5. Your letter indicates culverts will be installed"as plot accesses are defined." There is no
evidence of culvert installations to facilitate drainage for the existing accesses. Those'
culverts must be installed prior to acceptance to ensure that the County does not become
responsible'for installation.
6 No cross road pipe has been appropriated on WCR 57 immediately north of the intersection
of WCR 20. That pipe should be sized and installed . It also appears that an l8-inch cross
road pipe may be required approximately 1500 feet north of the intersection noted above to
drain a small watershed on the west side of WCR 57.
7. Ditches are not properly defined along the east side of the roadway.
Very truly yours,
B.Hempen, Jr.
Director of Public Works/County Engineer
pc: WCR 57 file
m:\wpfiles\fimNwcr57no.wpd
az 62 AZ, im4'442 — acci
filc Mani) cr Dab
37 600
bal
.. . . . . _.. . . .. . . .. . . . . . . .
skyi),) /0
a� �..
-1?Dnsobuit
.P../L6thate} 9ydy Tivcs
la"dub ) iThAid lwa 07o
��
oha9
009 ' �vc� v� ��-Cl�.
zUnrzw74 go Oct sL
4tvamdc._ akaai 9_ <6b9iy
K1/4,0..ing/7/ 9
RE: PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Weld County Road 57 for%of a Mile North of Weld County Road 20
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Weld County,Colorado
P.O.Box 758
Greeley,Colorado 80643
We, the undersigned petitioner's wish to withdraw our names from the petition entered by Mr. John Jervis
for the below reasons;
1. When Mr. Jervis spoke with us concerning the petition he told us that several of the residents
of road had no problem with the petition and that they were in favor of it. Yet, after the fact of
signing we discovered this not to be correct information. Mr. &Mrs. Ken McMann and Mr.
and Mrs. Fred Wilder are not in favor of this petition.
2. When Mr. Jervis spoke with us he told us that the bottom line would be fifty thousand dollars
($50,000.00)and that if the road costs went over this amount the county would be responsible
for the overage. Upon investigating this I have learn that this decision will be up to the county
commissioner and that it may be possible for the road to cost us more then the original
estimate of fifty thousand($50,000.00). After all the word estimate suggests that it is not a
firm bid. But just an estimate.
3. Mr. Jervis also told us that our signatures did matter if they were on the petition or not. Yet,I
have discovered that if they were not on the petition the county would not have accepted this
petition to begin with.
4. Originally, when this project was first suggested and undertaken it did not seem to be that big
of a deal. Yet,as this has progressed it has become a can of worms and has caused difference
between the neighbors in the area. For these reasons alone we feel that it may not be the right
time in which to move forward with this petition. Maybe at a later date when there can be a
mutual agreement between all the neighbors of road 57 we will back a stipulated agreement.
But at the present time it is causing dissention in the community with long reaching effects
even to the residents of Keensburg.
So for the above reasons I, Patricia A.Draper and I,Randall M. Draper am asking the
Commissioners who sit on the Weld County Board to remove our names from Mr. John Jervis
petition until which time as there can be a mutual agreement between the residents of Road 57.
14 N.
c7Cia Draper
Randall M. Draper
Hello