HomeMy WebLinkAbout20022241.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD CONCERNING DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD, COLORADO, TO
CREATE A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WITHIN THE COUNTY, TO BE
DESIGNATED AS WELD COUNTY ROAD 57 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO.
2002-1, ADOPTING DETAILS AND SPECIFICATIONS THEREFORE, ORDERING THE
PUBLICATION AND MAILING NOTICES OF HEARING TO THE OWNERS OF
PROPERTY IN SAID DISTRICT
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, by Resolution #2002-1940, dated July 22, 2002, the Board deemed it
advisable to schedule a hearing for August 14, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. to determine the intent to
create Weld County Weld County Road 57 Local Improvement District#2002-1 for
improvements to Weld County Road 57 lying north of Weld County Road 20 for a distance of
three-fourths mile, and
WHEREAS, at said hearing on August 14, 2002, after consideration of the terms of the
petition and hearing the testimony presented, the Board finds it is in the best interest of the
inhabitants of the area to decline the create.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board does hereby decline to create
Weld County Local Improvement District #2002-1.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 14th day of August, A.D., 2002.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELi��NTY, COLORADO
In��
ATTEST: ,/ ��4'%' F, L
G : n Vaa Chair
Weld County Clerk to t B
r 1861 � .'kV Chi.
C� t %O`�� David E. ng, Pro-Te
BY: C>" • �1,
Deputy Clerk to the j I Net�t
M. J. eile
APP ED AS TO M: / l/h-t"
Wi .am H. Jerke
our-II—At,Ktt rne) A),
s9 Robert D. Masden
Date of signature:
2002-2241
CC •' /�a,, n4 -�-_E SD0106
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 3 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 unmaintained 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 full 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.D.S. section 3O-2O-6O2(3) and603(3)—Joint tenants
and tenants in common should each sign
,?vuv2.,2Q`i
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 AASHTO 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
1. 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 3/4 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)
a
E OD
c
W O
L C
/ 5 ` O
oto N
Cu'
} N 2
E .cD
w
Z \ \ N O 0 a N
+- = a
� U
C O O h �•
O U H -0
0 ON N
iii C Q h
0 0 O
Za3o
z
3
O 0
s4
-t —
a
o
o sz
LS NOM
COL
L C
a) T.)
Q u- U
m
a)
Y
J
J
L
Q Q a)
^. 4) a) h
U a
J
a) 3
.Q o
t N
K
W U
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 $50,000.
Signature and Printed Name Mailing Address Property Description Date Is this
signed property
with a city or
town?
74.,„1/4.... a teC)c 5 7 2-
, Kra, cioloz No
r, „,....._,:_. ,,,,._tC,C.- k k
93% ts, e 57 7b CO kR5
ct Y
R' 404_ Pgene Ghur5Cv 3 L ` H 47\a33 ea, kW
a:/frtic
/a� -An A�p In u k�. siNrya
* �,//'YI..-&o 4 %d ei A Yv\ Vi
(VVVV/ i 6#74
b
9 . portoic9 `` 4.,9k.c', 1,ItrriC -
/� pp C?3-$� cock 57 I(? Qe 1;25 i L -14 uath H 1.ukt- SH171e_
/
?c 0A4C2 i ti tr LPL j d'A tl'LJ�,,,
Keene lnw-ccco `50643 —7b at res a34-t-A^+ ;), C
S11 & ('. fC123 Pr'n\\`P
(( lO Ct( GeS 2 .7J-u-krLo
(4 --L-A S� LMC-
Vcc5bvtt C -4"03 /
y2 sZ e4 S J 7 4 cflrj. t 3/t No
A.,,I rst S'Aiwc-- 2.,O rA
.,1 coq /`/C« fr/fl �vc.� sT
l9-1414. C 37 S tA)c:_5-7
ii�.S 645 Alb
RA")tAL C r� . �,� fee�Nes N��r< ,6,g*C�3 _:5/9-rnr- I) 45/0.2, 100 1 c h P• Pa7 A. ?V/�e c g � cis r� /�
ee u 01 8 �f3 /0 /9 17k oz I�Z�
+ 1��a" '1�f-/� Cal rni12_
414A-
kt
Jer- tfik.
STATE OF COLORADO
)) SS AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR
COUNTY OF WELD
a I, ,J J 6�� S , being�frst duly sworn, depose and say that my address is
P,v�Bvx.672_(17W Wt-12 S7) KfielliFS6G 13V , (D ,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
benefitt- .
3 Vt3i LL Jr/e.05
Sizna /lirculator Printed Name
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this /SIL day of ,1 ` 2002.
WITNESS my hand and official seal. O "% .%
%, ESTHER E.
Notary Public GESICK
My Commission expires:
�OFc01 0 i
Hp AMrbths ripens September,`.1005
az 52 a , yh `.2 - a at
fac Marv) Dith
9x57 u)&
<fi,,,2-tuotim?
SLYzio th6 9- Ma/Li
c,79 / MA' 5O
-KQ erase
is , ga nd y 77-754xd
;u w&14 9
wee 02°
Kwittobul
ups- , 11..E j Windy
Z672-2yinwi 36± /
roiamdc., ¢ <c dui . /e !pa'? dq
RE: PETITION FOR LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Weld County Road 57 for 3/$ 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.
its c3 L
Randall M. Draper Patricia A. Draper
a
!" BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
r�7 PHONE (970) 336-7204, Ext. 4200
FAX: (970)352-0242
' P. O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
C.
COLORADO
July 24, 2002
RE: WELD COUNTY ROAD 57 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT #2002-1
Dear Property Owner:
As property owners, you are probably aware that there are efforts to improve Weld County
Road 57, from Weld County Road 20, north three-quarters (3/4) of a mile, and to assess the
costs against your property as it is within the District.
This letter is to notify you that an Intent Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
concerning the Local Improvement District will be held at 9:00 a.m. on August 14, 2002, in the
First Floor Hearing Room, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley,
Colorado. The purpose of this hearing will be to determine if there is an intent to create the
district and to consider the adoption of a preliminary order and preliminary plans and
specifications, which would describe the materials to be used, and the number of installments
and the period of time in which the cost of improvements shall be payable and the property to
be assessed. The preliminary order will also contain the cost estimates and approximate
amount to be assessed on each property. A great deal of this information is now contained in
your petition.
You are encouraged to make your feelings known either through your appearance at the
meeting, through a power of attorney to another person so that he may testify on your behalf, or
you may submit a letter, prior to the hearing, to the Board of County Commissioners, P.O.
Box 758, Greeley, Colorado 80632.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUN , SOLORADO
£ te44 "'
Glenn Vaad, Chair
GV/eeg
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of
Hearing, was placed in the United States mail, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to
the following property owners.
DATED this 25th day of July, 2002.
JOHN AND JANET JERVIS
PO BOX 572
KEENESBURG CO 80643
DONALD AND JUDITH LUKE
9355 WELD COUNTY ROAD 57
KEENESBURG CO 80643
JERRY AND PATRICIA FEATHER
9757 WELD COUNTY ROAD 57
KEENESBURG CO 80643
RANDALL AND PATRICIA DRAPER
9378 WELD COUNTY ROAD 57
KEENESBURG CO 80643
MICHAEL AND JANET ROTELLO
9611 WELD COUNTY ROAD 57
KEENESBURG CO 80643
CHARLES AND KATHLEEN KOVANDA
9718 WELD COUNTY ROAD 57
KEENESBURG CO 80643
VERN AND DENELLE WEST
10698 WELD COUNTY ROAD 15
LONGMONT CO 80504
Deputy Clerk to the Board
.H... ,
a
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PHONE (970)336-7204, Ext. 4200
FAX: (970)352-0242
P. O. BOX 758
wilkGREELEY, COLORADO 80632
COLORADO_,
July 24, 2002
RE: WELD COUNTY ROAD 57 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT#2002-1
Dear Property Owner:
You are probably aware that there are efforts to improve Weld County Road 57,from Weld County
Road 20, north three-quarters(3/4)of a mile, and to assess the costs against the properties within
the Improvement District. Your property is not in the district, but you are being provided notice
since the creation of the district may be of interest to you.
This letter is to notify you that an Intent Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
concerning the Local Improvement District will be held at 9:00 a.m. on August 14, 2002, in the First
Floor Hearing Room, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. The
purpose of this hearing will be to determine if there is an intent to create the district and to consider
the adoption of a preliminary order and preliminary plans and specifications,which would describe
the materials to be used, and the number of installments and the period of time in which the cost
of improvements shall be payable and the property to be assessed. The preliminary order will also
contain the cost estimates and approximate amount to be assessed on each property. A great deal
of this information is now contained in the petition.
You are encouraged to make your feelings known either through your appearance at the meeting,
through a power of attorney to another person so that he may testify on your behalf, or you may
submit a letter, prior to the hearing,to the Board of County Commissioners, P.O. Box 758, Greeley,
Colorado 80632.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUN COLORADO
.4444 c�7Y
Glenn Vaad, Chair
GV/eeg
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of
Hearing, was placed in the United States mail, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to
the following property owners.
DATED this 25th day of July, 2002.
KEN AND DEB MCMANN
9037 WELD COUNTY ROAD 57
KEENESBURG CO 80643
BOB AND MARTA SEVIER
27713 WELD COUNTY ROAD 20
KEENESBURG CO 80643
ALFRED AND TERRIE WILDER
28285 WELD COUNTY ROAD 20
KEENESBURG CO 80643
GARY MYERS
30113 TROUTDALE SCENIC DRIVE
EVERGREEN CO 80439
ARTHUR BERGLUND
1290 DEBORAH AVENUE
AZUSA CA 91702
& 4 Jd Aso,
Deputy Clerk to the Board
t ; .
F
I W
1 f i
ra
tat
tC
0 1 _
—
C
WJ
Q 1.
W — 1.'_
r < ,,,,,i0
0 = oo
W a
m0 - --
W Q =
= o
rnN
10
fn.
izr
O M
O CO x
m O i
la 03
=- � W F
03 ILI
GO
—I 0 d ,_ �;
L- A
6 Isil T f ,..
...
(4t,..
.. .,..... :_ ,,..i5
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PHONE (970) 336-7204, Ext. 4200
rertit___ :
FAX: (970) 352-0242
P. O. BOX 758
wifige GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
COLORADO
July 24, 2002
RE: WELD COUNTY ROAD 57 LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT#2002-1
Dear Property Owner:
You are probably aware that there are efforts to improve Weld County Road 57,from Weld County
Road 20, north three-quarters (3/4)of a mile, and to assess the costs against the properties within
the Improvement District. Your property is not in the district, but you are being provided notice
since the creation of the district may be of interest to you.
This letter is to notify you that an Intent Hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
concerning the Local Improvement District will be held at 9:00 a.m. on August 14, 2002, in the First
Floor Hearing Room, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado. The
purpose of this hearing will be to determine if there is an intent to create the district and to consider
the adoption of a preliminary order and preliminary plans and specifications,which would describe
the materials to be used, and the number of installments and the period of time in which the cost
of improvements shall be payable and the property to be assessed. The preliminary order will also
contain the cost estimates and approximate amount to be assessed on each property. A great deal
of this information is now contained in the petition.
You are encouraged to make your feelings known either through your appearance at the meeting,
through a power of attorney to another person so that he may testify on your behalf, or you may
submit a letter, prior to the hearing,to the Board of County Commissioners, P.O. Box 758, Greeley,
Colorado 80632.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUN�N , COLORADO iii Glenn Vaad, Chair
GV/eeg
Security Title Guaranty Company
Ownership & Encumbrance Report
Assistant Attorney- Weld County July 23,2002
COMPANY DATE
Lee Morrison Lisa Callaway
ATTENTION PREPARED BY
**Properties Owners in Section 14/15-Township 2 North —Range 64 West
PROPERTY OWNERS
PROPERTY ADDRESS
**SEE ATTACHED DEED**
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Assessors information available by calling Weld County at 970-353-3845
Treasures information available by calling Weld County at 970-353-3845
Public Trustee information available by calling 970-352-4365
The information provided herein is a preliminary search of the county records.
A complete title examination has not been performed.
SECURITY TITLE GUARANTY COMPANY
3690 West 1 Street,970 35'Floor,-4912 Greeley l 88 g OWE@
PHONF.9I0-356-3200,FAX 970356-4912,"POLL FREE 1-888-825321
JUL 2 4 2002 1111
WELD COUNTY
ATTORNEYS OFFICE
-e- ,,,,j _ N (\I w Vci / y_
w % r 'i4 /5- - 7 - 6y
We id.u) ,y e �I
?V P--
ft,-/) 14 v n c()U O, - A - 2_ 2_ /
u Sid NW //`" - f 4/ - (, c'
of k
Ly /4e_ L:12 G
N L r 27 4L/
Lo A
��� Sw /hi /t ; 2 - (, 61
�v' ✓j J `( ?CMG S.r" /y
�S CL'
r / S � IC
,�
f
-Q,d I/O
;_o Li
S1<z ivU-- 77 / -6 �i
COPIES OF RECORDED DEEDS
CAN BE FOUND IN
FILE SD0106
AT THE CLERK TO THE BOARD OFFICE
•
•
John Jervis
From: LEE Morrison [LMORRISON@co.weld.co.us)
Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 3:14 PM
To: jervis@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 1 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 .
(g. 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 '/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,
/
! (4)c/LL Lzt ,/�, ` t LI V 6(
EXHIBIT
k / /
coo
tu / t2
/ 7f }
e = in
-c
Z 1 \ 4— 0
to) o \
§ \ / 7 \
/ E S \
o : C
/ � \ g7
;6tce .ti
zo o_ 0
» \ i
kt
r \ � � � `\ b
/ � � > 2 - �
2 \ W
§
G « �
) ? 6 NOM
m 4_ t-
`3 o.
t 7/ $ ;—
u_ ® �+ / Th \
y _
/
< z\ « 7 f
/�\ `� . � * / .
ti 7 � I-- -s \
J3 A .° #
2 -hS , . \ / J
--7....„ _
Exhibit C.2
Determination of Shares
Lot % Usage % Share $ Share
Jervis 100% 14.3% $7,150 1-6 k-
Feather A 100% 14.3% $7,150 3/1 niE pgi25o7)
Feather B 100% 14.3% $7,150 re) /L.
West 83.3% 11.9% $5,950 mil KNDtcAl
Rotello 66.6% 9.5% $4,750 /4(71)/Ai 5 T
Kovanda A 75% 10.7% $5,350 , e,/ u'V 7
NO
Kovanda B 66.6% 9.5% $4,750 740 L .5 h pL",l FIT
Luke A 41 .6% 5.9% $2,950 f D 1L
7\(D
Luke B 33.3% 4.8% $2,400 N 0 uO 6" "2- Ic7C I T
Draper 33.3% 4.8% $2,400 0., [It
,`_, ,-,/;I AA l r
,f lid, Rota-
Lot, see Exhibit C.1 ( g 'l1\4)
I f r"cuiif
The sum of all % usage is 699.7 1 u+,hl tV o vi W
The sum of all % Share is 100 /" ) i-\ C"t l� 1 -.Jr { Rio-+
n` A I C\ etuA.Q.e1
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 O002
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PHONE (970)3564000,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 I900 feet have been improved. Regardless, the
improvement will have to be extended a total length of one mile. I am requiring that the
additional one quarter mile improvement be completed to ensure the County will not 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 `/s 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 right-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.
g EXHIBIT
07/18/02 13:25 FAX 303 654 8182 PFS 003
Mr: Kenneth L.Madsen
December 29, 1999
Page 2
5- Your letter indicates culverts will be installed"as plot accesses are definefl " 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 I8-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 out side of the roadway.
•
Very truly yours,
B. Hempen, Jr.
Director of Public Works/County Engineer
pc: WCR 57 file
m:\wpfilee\fimk\wcr57no.wpd
Us 100%
Share 14.3% Share 14.3% Share 14.3%
Cost $7150 Cost $7150 Cost $7150
WEST K0VANDAA
Usage 83.3% Usage 75%
Sham 11.9% Share 10.7%
Cost $5960 Cost $5350
Share 9.5% K0VANDA B
Cost $4750 Usage 66.6%
Share 9.5%
Cost $4750
I
Was
Usage 41.6%
Share 5.9%
Cost $2960 DRAPER
Usage 33.3%
Share 4.8%
Cost $2400
3%
Share 4.8%
Coat $2490
N
in
SEVIER
WILDER
MCMANN Existing 30'ROW
--------.._ East Side of Section Line
WCR 20
- 0 0.1 0.2 Milos
N
z WCR 57 N of WCR 20
W.4-E
EXHIBIT S
1
I
Ir
C,;
a
O
O
Y
O
03
a
O
U
.b
g
e O U
Ei
y O
z
[�M .t BOA p.,
: v)
4 � 3 g 3
w w 0 67,4
C)
a
!�-. O u O � N O tr,
O O N OD oho C a
,rte W 'O N Fi� ,0 ,O N o N M 00 \O et
,yE�1 'EV4 0 v, 0 'O Z ,.D - cri N N N M F
cG ,L . 2 4s ~ s,
i ' G A V, is
. �
. N z
❑ °' 71 'a -o
UU ° `, 0
a O ,a N > to tO
n h
3 r a 0 Ea in
w o b v
te a�++ ... ` ., at '� s. `O
< '� 'U >,t 7- f o N f,, 68 'yam t, o O e,
Ge
0 71 �, cd O3 4 CI - tC M lO
R: ad
•S O 0 O bD O G' r h U 'C o p 8- 5 F
3 Q g w �1 Z .5 w o E > z `r 3
3 p
N cn 7 in O f, , c, y O -C O'fit Fr
1 H N M U ,--, .--� N M ct
/► 1
G.7
aQ
aQ
12 z
F
< c.
Z
•
Z N
q x
aca
o x
V) U
F n
z C
® a c
Ct ry l CG F
O_
L
(4 • •
S
O
M c0
O O
'71.p 0
CC c
-c4 cu
O
0
i
CJ c
H
O O
C.
t
\: i
\ I
- - T
!Z I I o[o o QIOIO'0[0[0[0'
!WI o CD CIN'jGD t'OICD NICD tI
I p�Ap: (C���p Uf>,s0s� Cp C M 't,.
} Ich C4 Ch'6 [64[641NICV INI'I.
e- s 69 ealea lta,tiI t4.69:
W
I J
O 0 0!!O 0 OIO O 0 O
�� [� OO 01000!0000
� o'o OIO OI1 4- O O O I
N N NIN N'LN'N N N N
IT-
(fT e3 e3 1E9 au t.,
EA
I F_ —I ''i,
I co Oo0ollo'0oo !o ®®!!
It:
W O cc��D � O'er N •O M 06 06 v
® W N O!*I1� 1n t N T !I
[ I ID r eltalltaltal 1ta; to 69 to
H -
W, OOO p OIO !
4ZQ o o10I0 CIO O O Oi0
O O O!wOI,OIO (p0. 0 6 0
to �y -' op e> co, I N (� N
< :N- Nil T T I T I T e} 6} e;.,et
,� e31691d3 eaIele i
I�
WHS I I T:N mlvr[ o[co r._lop c) of
_ > I I I I I
I
A ..
: la 1 II ' I I
ZIOI'r N c) 0io O OiO11O
1�, 06 6: i to CD I� 4D NT.
I1g2' 9
'} rjr_i_ O'IIf�NI Ny) . [ N-/Q rIlr lr T I(4 eiI
J I ILL to talcs to Iii It}.,
IL I I
W
I I JI oIo O cot) o1010 IQ OI
�- 0000000!01 oI
W II iri Sri I ui Sri I UD I ui Ili i ui Hsi in
IT T-IT-
T r:r r!r T TI
Ir` r` r�:r�Ilr.- r� r-Ir�ir a
9 CCI 6s to ds.tal64 to 64 64 le ea
CI) I0:o ooa 0IIOIIo OiOIO
W oIN- N10-1-ILOICO hit:bleb
•-!2. fX 6! C)I0 NN' q-r CV�. I
�I !al; I*!) co9) N N r .-- tl
CD I tai to 04164I(29.1e�Ie3 a!fR csj 'y�'
F- I I ' [l
ma i 1
W' LOIO 0;0:0I0,00;01 !
i Ig IOI0 o:c0- jo!ololo!o i
- !I ,� OIin IOIO iO U IO u) O10
R ILO;to IN v C3) N- C0 1-ic�Iu)
a r,NtI� O:NIu) op r ,1
Ir-ICD u) t0 IM NINII r;ta
m Ifsita a a 'ef}Ite t-ite
! I
ICCI ''II
Iw N
r IR) ��iu)iCO ljr 0016I��!
I › I ,
Regarding The 3/4 mile section of WCR 57 north of WCR 20
John Jervis 9780 WCR 57 (303-732-4558)
Commissioners Meeting 8/14/02
Why do I want the road improved?
1 .) The road has proven to be a divisive issue among
neighbors since it's inception. As the population of users
increases, the problems are becoming acute and
troublesome. It would be fair to project that this trend will
continue. However, if it becomes an accepted County
Road, this will no longer be an issue between neighbors. I
want a road that will allow the neighbors to be
neighborly.
2.) I want a safe road for my family and those who visit. I
want it to be safe in all four seasons, year after year. I
want it to be safe by widely accepted and trusted public
standards.
3.) I want the road to be safe for rapid access by emergency
vehicles such as police, ambulance, and fire equipment.
4.) I want the road to be as smooth as possible for our cars to
avoid premature aging.
5.) I want drainage to be created to eliminate the seasonal
puddles that can be hazardous for months. In addition,
the mosquitoes produced are a health risk.
6.) I want the road to be maintained by experts with the
appropriate equipment and resources to continuously
meet specifications, without the need for neighborhood
involvement. I want to avoid the need to create an
"Association of Road Users" to manage maintenance.
J EXHIBIT
43t-to goo2--I
G
W O O
O O
O N "O
O C 8
-c O Q
t
\ O O 44) N
Z � > H a� � ° Q
c 0 v H
0 O U -0
U N c
cq ......4. O N N
N
1
.6 .c U -H
O O •--
�` Z Q O
3
c C C � �‹ h
Q r � �o ,,4,) z
vl`l v a`� -o
> (.1
j, U
3
4 `. 3
�m Z LS ZIOM
0
..c ‘:
o LL r eta 1.3O M. \_‘,.., 1,.• C - il"
\ RU
1
-- < %.\ < - L .4)
. ...t. 45--.)'N TB .-- .-cA4(
1 4 a
43 A \t_.-. -;., ,
.....--„t„, ,,A
\it-'\ S _.:..\ .-
W c�
M H o
TO: Weld County Commissioners 8-11-02
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Co. 80632
This letter concerns the petition requesting the converting from private road to county road
of Rd 57 north of Rd 20. We have numerous concerns and objections to this petition. At present
90%to 100%of the road is located on the easement on the east. Road width is 20-22 feet. Utility
poles are located 8-11 feet from the current road and on the edge of, but outside the easement.
There is only one culvert located on the west side of the road. There are no real drainage ditches
on the roadway.
1. We feel that the author of this petition has been very bias and unfair. He has left out
property owners that have property bordering the road. These owners deserve and
desire a voice in this matter. The way he has allotted the costs to property owners is not
consistent. For instance; Mr. Jervis has applied for and obtained a permit from zoning
for a temporary trailer to be placed upon his property for the purpose of building
another home on his property. Yet he is not accessed for two "shares" as others are.
This is a blatant attempt to not pay for a second house and increased usage of the road
as he states is the determing factor for his "shares".
2. Easements are not complete on the west side of the road. The thirty feet required will
not be given to the county by at least two of the property owners on the west side of
the road. (Exhibit B assumption #1 will not happen) Property owners on the east side
have already given thirty feet and have no intention of giving any more.
3. Two people on the road have asthma and other health issues that the increased dust and
dirt during construction will aggravate greatly. According to the doctors involved,
measures will be needed during construction to control dust. Also possibly oiling of the
road on a regular basis, after construction, will be needed if there is an increase in
traffic.
4. Safety issues were raised in a letter to Mr. Madsen, dated 12-29-99, concerning the
distance from the road of the utility poles. This has not changed. But have the county
safety standards changed? It has been suggested that the poles are within the thirty-foot
easement and would therefore be the responsibility of the power company to move.
The poles do not appear to be within that easement according to the survey pins.
Therefor the power company would not be responsible for the cost of moving them.
Nor would the people on the east side of the road give up any property to move them.
This would locate them closer to people's homes and they are opposed to that. This
letter also set forth other improvements necessary to make this a county road. None of
these issues are addressed in this petition. Are these reasons no longer valid? (copy of
letter enclosed)
5. What about access to the property located to the north of Jervis' and Feather's
property. The owners of these two parcels have been left out of this petition. Do they
4. EXHIBIT
I
not deserve access? Will we need to go through this again at a later date to grant them
access? (see map)
6. A couple of years ago HS Resources wanted to use the road to get to their battery and
for that use would maintain the road. Mr. Jervis said he required a written proposal and
HS Resources said to forget it.
7. For the most part the county gravel roads around us are in no better shape that our
private road. Some are worse. When it rains our road is in a lot better shape than the
surrounding county gravel roads. There is no need to have our road taken over by the
county when it is maintained in better condition than the surrounding county gravel
roads and at a lot less cost. Mr. Jervis refuses to participate in the road maintenance
unless he approves all decisions. In that instance he does not believe in a majority vote.
He does however believe in one for this road petition.
8. Other issues we have are:
A. Currently we have a number of speeders on the road. We will need speed limit signs
and strict enforcement. Will Weld County Sheriff respond when they are called
almost daily with the names of these speeders? We feel the speed limit should be 25
MPH and not the 35-MPH as proposed by Mr. Jervis. This is for the safety of the numerous
animals and children on the road.
B. Currently the road is privately maintained on an on call basis. (although some people
do not feel the need to contribute and force the rest of the people to pay a larger
amount each) Will we have maintaince on call with the county? If not, how often will
the road be graded?
C. Some fences will need to be moved to expand the road to the west. Who will pay this
cost, as these property owners are opposed to the road and will not move their fences?
D. Who will be responsible for installing and paying the cost of all new and upgraded
culverts for all driveways to county specifications?
E. The house on the corner of Road 20 and Road 57 is very close to the road now. If the
road is widened it will be even closer. They do not want this and we support them
them in this. They have unfairly been left off of the petition and told they do not have
a say in this.This is just wrong. ALL property owners with property bordering the road
should have a vote, not just the ones Mr. Jervis chose to include.
F. We have had several legal opinions that feel this petition will not stand up to a
court challenge. Who will pay the legal cost for the county to defend this petition
when it is litigated, as it will be?
G. If the cost of the road improvement is above $50,000 will the petition be null and void or will
the (taxpayers)county pay the excess amount?It does not seem right for the taxpayers to be
required to pay for what amounts to a driveway.
2d, Chuck& Kathy Kovanda Si--4 r1D Va44-0/0"C
Ken& Deb McMann
Bob &Marta Sevier
feAt
�. Cultsciv,/1 CV�c
71 00
VikkiPlihireN ill "'C �� m
m
6"itLi b.P
owl hi,/
look,M
G1 iz d• ,?=4:=v.:".'"✓FNS'' t a+w H;+ &' .+ yGs ,n, Y„.0
1 wss
:
ft t � {
4.
V 4 iY
W • {
5 u .�
�: x
4
1a �
+r i .� i 1
3+a � &!:.9-'2 r«A M1
I
'-,,,:„.'..--1. -;
wt -
r qq��.. { ,�yyy F��iit
i b i .g • 1::,, .171,„..: x�A x`"F` y a ; iuti.e .e 4:
9
{� {d `v y, a P 1
-b .F. h e 7. .w
v
k 3 "S de '4 v2x DM ;' b`
J
KEENESBURG ,a
Hello