HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050751.tiff Page 1 of 2
1`
Carol Harding
From: Myrna Folsom [myrnai2000@yahoo.com] __ y "; — 1 i ] C: :!6
Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 9:19 AM
To: Carol Harding R[-i.-., 1 , L=.1 J
Cc: Kim Ogle; Monica Mika; Lee Morrison; Bruce Barker
Subject: east 125 SD
To: Weld Board of County Commissioners
Dear Commissioners:
What follows are some responses to comments made by various Board members taken from the
certification for the East I-25 Sanitation District hearing.
Comment: "there is a projected need for service in this area at this time". The area is predominantly
outside of the MUD district. The code does not permit urban scale development in the area outside of
the MUD district. There is more than sufficient land area south of Highway 66 in the CARMA proposal
That is now in the MUD district and already served by sewer service from SVSD, and extensive lands in
other parts of the MUD district that have not been developed which will more than take care of present
and future development needs in the area.
Comment: "it would be easier for the new district, using SVSD for treatment, to handle the debt". The
Board might want to look further into the stated costs for the project to make certain there are not
substantial additional costs involved than those stated.
Comment: "and that metropolitan districts may be the wave of the future for providing services".
Basically, a metropolitan district is a devise used by developers to avoid upfront development costs to
themselves by issuing low interest bonds. The preference, in the name of sound planning, should be for
municipalities to take on providing all services rather than relying on special districts, such as MEAD is
proposing in this situation. Whether it is the creation of a sanitation district or a metropolitan district, in
effect, county government is ducking its responsibility to provide services in areas that it permits urban
scale development.
Comment: "He stated that the Planning Commission process is a good one, and it voted unanimously in
favor of this service plan, therefore, he has added confidence in the Plan'. Thanks for the compliment.
Comment: Re: the right of individual property owners for self-determination of their land use. This
always must be weighed against the rights of ALL the residents of the County for self-determination as
to what land use is in their best interests of their health, safety and welfare, and that of good planning.
As it stands, under the Code, most of this land is not approvable for urban development.
Comment: "He stated they are located very well on the interstate." There is only minor frontage of these
lands on the interstate. The property of the landowners, who apparently are best prepared to immediately
develop, front on highway 66. As it stands, there is no assurance that the property owners in the area
whose lands have been, gerrymandered around, will join the district in the future to give additional
frontage on I-25.
In conclusion, despite the reasoning of the Board in approving a step toward the creation of the
sanitation district, it would appear that the cart is being put before the horse. The approval of the
NFRWQ commission of the necessary 208 changes should have preceded this County procedure [even
considering the one year limitation imposed].
John Folsom
(oyi K i dajt t SDc�D99
3/1/2005 2005-0751
6,3- 07-0.5
Hello