HomeMy WebLinkAbout20051454.tiff BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
PUBLIC HEARING FOR PROPOSED EAST I-25 SANITATION DISTRICT
FEBRUARY 14, 2005, 10:00 a.m.
PRESENT FOR THE HEARING WERE:
COMMISSIONER WILLIAM H. JERKE, CHAIR
COMMISSIONER M. J. GEILE, PRO-TEM
COMMISSIONER DAVID E. LONG
COMMISSIONER ROBERT D. MASDEN
COMMISSIONER GLENN VAAD
ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD, CAROL A. HARDING
COUNTY ATTORNEY,BRUCE BARKER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE, KIM OGLE
1 2005-1454
Viz " G .
S-ii-a COS $600941
1 CHAIRMAN: We have a hearing scheduled to consider a Proposed Service Plan for
2 establishment of the East I-25 Sanitation District. As far as staff presentation, do we have, Bruce, are
3 you making any kind of a presentation, or is it Kim in this one?
4 BARKER: Kim.
5 CHAIRMAN: Let me talk for just a minute before you start your presentation, Kim. The
6 Courts have this room at 1:00 o'clock. We have 2 hours and 12 minutes, something like that. So what
7 we're going to have to do is go ahead and be pretty limited. We're not interested in redundancy. We
8 need to hear equal amount, if possible, from proponents, equal amount from opponents, of this.
9 Hopefully, staff time will be reasonably limited as well with respect to the amount of time their
10 application actually takes. Once we are done with the portion of the presentation, that is staff, then
11 we'll kind of determine how much time we've got left to give an equal amount of time for the
12 proponents to go ahead and speak, and then for opponents to go ahead and speak as well. So plan on
13 it being fairly limited. Kim, are you ready?
14 OGLE: I have Jerry coming down to get the image to come up, but I can start with my remarks
15 if you'd like.
16 CHAIRMAN: Yes,please do.
17 OGLE: Good morning, Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services. I'm sorry. Do you want
18 to read the record, Bruce?
19 BARKER: The hearing before you today is a request for the Board of County Commissioners
20 pursuant to the requirements of Section 32-1-203, and I believe also 205 to review the Service Plan
21 for the proposed East I-25 Sanitation District. Notice of today's hearing was provided, and also it was
22 published by the applicant. Published on January 19, 2005, in the Fort Lupton Press. Also we had
23 notification by posting on the property for which encompasses the Sanitation, the proposed Sanitation
24 District. Our Case # is 2004-XX.. The legal description, I'm going to go ahead and read this: "Part of
25 Section 31and 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West, all of Sections 35 and 36 , Township 4 North,
2
1 Range 68 West, part of Section 5, all of Sections 6, 7, 8, 17, 18, 19, and part of 20 of Township 3
2 North, 67 West, all of Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13, 14, 23 and 24 of Township 3 North, Range 68
3 West, in Weld County, Colorado. Location of the proposed district is north of and adjacent to State
4 Highway 66, west of County Road 17, south of County Road 40, and east of I-25.
5 CHAIRMAN: Sounds like you've appropriately made record. Kim, are you ready?
6 OGLE: Thank you, yes. Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services. Previously stated, this
7 case if for the East 1-25 Sanitation District Service Plan. The applicants are represented by James
8 Collins of Collins, Cockrel, Coles, attorney. The site is located on several parcels north of State
9 Highway 66, east of 51-25 and generally west of or adjacent to County Road 17. (Inaudible)a piece
10 of property utilized as irrigated and non- irrigated agricultural lands, lands in transition and urbanized
11 lands. Site is within a 3-mile referral area, the towns of Firestone and Mead and the City of Longmont.
12 Longmont and Mead respondents stated they are in opposition to the proposal and the Town of
13 Firestone did not respond. Service plan proposes to overlap both the two way district boundaries for
14 the Town of Mead and St Vrain Sanitation District as delineated on a graph that will eventually get on
15 the screen. The Town of Mead returned a referral dated December 14, 2004, that states "The Town
16 Board strongly opposes County approval or indorsement of this proposal. It would impinge on the
17 town's wastewater facilities,plans, and development potential". The Weld County Department of
18 Public Health and Environment, in their referral dated December 16th, 2004, noted all property within
19 the initial proposed district lies within unincorporated Weld County. The proposed district boundary
20 overlaps two existing - Town of Mead and St. Vrain Sanitation District Service area boundaries as
21 defined by the area wide Water Quality Management Plan, and the area wide Water Quality
22 Management Plan is administered by the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association who
23 must approve said surface boundaries. The City of Longmont, in their referral, they did December 15,
24 2004, states that this proposed district is brought before the North Front Range Water Quality Planning
25 and Association Board of which the City is a member. The City plans to vote against this inclusion in
3
1 the North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association Water Quality Management Plan. In a
2 referral response, from St Vrain Sanitation District, the District stated it has been made very clear to the
3 proposed new district that although St Vrain Sanitation District strongly supports regionalization of
4 sanitation services in the area, we being, St Vrain Sanitation District are not and will not go out and
5 acquire a territory from other districts,nor will St. Vrain Sanitation District interfere with or impose on
6 a designated 208 boundaries of another district from this (inaudible). The sign from today's hearing
7 was posted at least ten (10) days prior to this Board hearing, the ad was evidenced by affidavit and
8 photographed by staff. Eight referral agencies have reviewed this case, six offered comments that have
9 been integrated into staff's administrative recommendation . The Planning Commission, is a vote of 8-0
10 moved to approve the application as it was their opinion that the applicant has shown compliance with
11 Section 32-1-203, Colorado Revised Statutes. The applicants are present and again are represented
12 by Mr. Collins, and there are representatives from the town of Mead, and the City of Longmont to
13 speak on this application.
14 CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Geile.
15 GEILE: Yes, Kim, a very quick question either to you or to Bruce. If we were to move ahead
16 and approve this today, but they couldn't establish their 208 Boundary status with the North Front
17 Range Water Quality Control Group, what in effect happens to anything we do today?
18 BARKER: Basically, what you're being asked to consider today is the service plan 1 that the
19 next step would be to petition to the District Court and a Court Order would need to come forth
20 authorizing the formation of the District. There would need to be a vote also. I think the question that
21 you've got is really any sort of a condition that would be placed with respect to the 208 Boundary, and
22 that, Mr. Collins will be proposing that that condition actually be made a part of the Court Order, and
23 your Service Plan or at least the Resolution that approves that would require that the Order, proposed
24 Court Order would be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office to make certain that that condition
25 would be made a part of it, so Mr. Collins will be addressing that issue as part of his presentation.
4
1 GEILE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
2 CHAIRMAN: Kim, do you have any more for us?
3 OGLE: No,that concludes staff's remarks.
4 CHAIRMAN: And I noted that Peter was up here. Did you have any testimony for us?
5 SCHEI: No.
6 CHAIRMAN: No, not into sewers today. Okay. Good enough. We will go ahead and move
7 into the applicant's testimony. It's now 5 to 11 and I would like to be able to be completely done with
8 applicants by quarter of twelve, about a 50-minute period. That includes all of our questioning and
9 everything.
10 JIM COLLINS: Very good, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jim Collins, I'm the
11 attorney for the proponents and I'm with the law firm of Collins, Cockrel and Cole. The matter before
12 you this morning is very simply the approval of a service plan. The Special District Act of the State of
13 Colorado requires that we submit a proposed service plan to the County Commissioners , and if you
14 have a Planning Commission, prior to approaching the District Court, and then having the District Court
15 Order and election. We first had to establish your jurisdiction. Bruce has mentioned several of the
16 items having to do with the notice. There also were, as required by Statute to be in addition to
17 publication, certain mailing of notices to various parties, including all of the property owners, the
18 municipalities within 3 miles, other special districts, and the Division of Local Government. With this,
19 Bruce, I would like to submit our original of the certification of the publication and notice appear. I
20 would note that there again by Statute as the opportunity for property owners to request exclusion from
21 the 1 proposed district. None have requested exclusion, and no property owner or owners over 51%
22 has objected to the Service Plan. As Kim indicated,the Planning Commission considered this matter
23 and 5 recommended unanimously for approval. As Bruce has indicated, there was a condition
24 attached. The condition was actually proposed by the proponents that we would dissolve this district if
25 the 208 Boundary essentially providing for sanitation service to properties east of I-25 flowed to the St.
5
1 Vrain Sanitation District. If the 208 Boundary is not changed within one year, this district will dissolve.
2 We have proposed to Bruce that this be just in case some contingency arises, unless some further
3 action is taken to extend that time period by this Board by the Weld County Commissioners. We are
4 caught here in a "Catch-22." Property owners who have petitioned for this district formation have
5 concluded and their engineers have concluded, that service to this area is best provided by St. Vrain .
6 St. Vrain has the facilities already constructed to provide service. St. Vrain has indicated a willingness
7 to provide service, although, as indicated does not want to get into 1 the fray of this 208 boundary
8 change. They have, in fact, authorized us to begin drafting an intergovernmental agreement with St.
9 Vrain in the eventuality this district is formed, which 5 would provide for the treatment of the sewage, at
10 St. Vrain. Our preference would be to actually simply include into St. Vrain. Under the current
11 Statute, you're able to establish the subdistrict and we would be able to do all the financing that we're
12 doing through this district through the subdistrict. Again,that would put St. Vrain squarely in the issue
13 of the 208 boundary, and they have proposed instead that we create this district. It is expected that
14 once the 208 boundary is changed, then the district may dissolve and become a part of St. Vrain, but
15 that's another step. We have, at the Planning Commission level, addressed a number of issues that
16 were raised by staff, raised by Planning Commission members, and I would like to address some of
17 those. After my presentation, which I think will be well before the allotted time period, and of the four
18 people who I have been asked to testify, we will have Mead's response. I understand-just found out
19 that Mead also has submitted to you a major 1 report which I've had several minutes to review just
20 prior to our presentation. The report doesn't provide any new objections that we haven't heard at the
21 Planning Commission. It is more voluminous, but same objections. This is not a Land use decision.
22 The question required by the Statute is whether this proposed district is viable. Is it able to pay off the
23 debt, is it able to provide an economical and sufficient service to the area within the boundaries? That
24 essentially is the question before you. We believe the area within the proposed district is prime for
25 urban scale development. We agree that it's not yet, for most of the property, but for a large part it is,
6
1 not a use by right,plan is flexible, and allows for whatever zoning the County should effect at this
2 property. In fact, it allows for Mead's annexation of the property, if that happens to be a possible
3 eventuality. Even Mead's Comp Plan shows this area as an urban scale development as likely. This is
4 not a kind of control issue. We're not trying to control anything. Simply trying to get through in an
5 extremely reasonable time, and in a reasonable fashion, and on a regional basis to this property. We do
6 not argue here whether Mead should annex this area. How likely a Mead public vote would pay
7 construction to some kind of rational development isn't the issue here. The issue is whether the I-25
8 East Sanitation District is a rational solution to an established need at least according to 100% of the
9 property owners who are petitioning you here. We've talked about the "Catch-22." The North Front
10 Range Water Quality Planning Association has said, "When you have a district come, ask us about the
11 208 boundary change". We understand the logic of it. We have been told informally but we need to
12 have a district formed. At the Planning Commission level, we addressed the issue of when you get your
13 208 boundary change effective, come talk to us about a district. So the "Catch-22" has been resolved
14 with this condition to the approval. I have proposed to Bruce that I would submit all of my pleadings to
15 the District Court, to Bruce ahead of time for him to review and to assure that we are complying with
16 the commitment that we would have in this condition. With that I would like to call on our first witness,
17 and that would be John Burgeson, who is with MFG, Inc.,the engineer who proposed this plan. John.
18 CHAIRMAN: First, are there any 5 questions for Mr. Collins? Seeing none, go ahead, John.
19 COLLINS: Could you tell us your name, address, and your affiliation.
20 BURGESON: Mr. Chairman and Commission members, my name is John Burgeson. I am a
21 senior engineer with MFG, Inc., located at 3801 Automation Way, in Fort Collins, Colorado.
22 COLLINS: John, could you tell us what you had to do with this service plan.
23 BURGESON: I was asked as a team member responsible for preparation of the service plan
24 to structure an engineering, feasible, economic, financially feasible alternative for waste water collection,
25 transport and treatment.
7
1 COLLINS: And you did prepare a plan, apparently in coordination with contact with St.
2 Vrain Sanitation District.
3 BURGESON: I did as well. The owners of the property and I met with District Staff, St.
4 Vrain Sani District Staff, and Board Members on more than one occasion. We were told that the
5 Sanitation District was capable of providing sanitary sewer service, and as you have heard,they did not
6 wish to participate in land use decisions, and that we were to proceed on that basis. You've also heard
7 about the proposed IGA for treatment service.
8 COLLINS: Why is it you believe that St. Vrain is the most appropriate provider of
9 wastewater treatment?
10 BURGESON: St. Vrain represents a regional alternative to wastewater collection, transport
11 and treatment. They have an award winning wastewater treatment plant. They are fully capable of
12 serving this property,as well as properties south, further southwest, and east of the property herein.
13 COLLINS: Tell us about the three phases that you proposed for the collection system.
14 BURGESON: I structured three phases of development. Phase I being implementable,
15 assuming district approval and financial resources available that could be implemented within 6-12
16 months. Phase II and Phase III could be implemented only when and if the property owners affected
17 chose to either petition for inclusion into this district, or chose to receive service for sanitary sewer
18 service.
19 COLLINS: You have testified there's, in your view, no risk associated, financial risk, because
20 of 5 the three phases?
21 BURGESON: The risk is minimal in my judgment as reflected in the Service Plan that a single
22 family equivalent fee of$1750.
23 COLLINS: I have to address the statutory requirements so I apologize ahead of time, but John
24 do you believe there is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service to be provided within
25 the District?
8
1 BURGESON: A need most definitely, yes.
2 COLLINS: Do you believe the existing service is inadequate for present and especially
3 projected needs? •
4 BURGESON: Most inadequate at present.
5 COLLINS: Do you believe the district is capable of providing economical and sufficient
6 service?
7 BURGESON: Yes, as displayed and incorporated into the Service Plan.
8 COLLINS: For what you know, do you believe the area to be included within the district
9 boundaries has or will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable
10 basis?
11 BURGESON: As contained in the Financial Analysis and Service Plan, yes.
12 COLLINS: Do you believe that adequate service is not or will not be available through the
13 County in any existing special district, or especially in municipalities within a reasonable time, on a
14 comparable basis?
15 BURGESON: It will not be available via other means from information that I have been
16 provided with. In the case of one municipality, it looks like that service would be in 2009. As I
17 mentioned, the Phase I work is to be completed within a year of securing the financial wherewithal.
18 COLLINS: Do you believe the facility and service standards of the district will be compatible
19 with County standards?
20 BURGESON: County standards, yes, probably more importantly, St. Vrain's Sani District
21 standards and the State of Colorado.
22 COLLINS: Finally, do you believe that the proposal to be insubstantial compliance with the
23 County's Master Plan, and do you believe the proposal is in compliance with regional long-range water
24 quality management plans for the area? We'll come back to the 208 issues.
25 BURGESON: Yes, with regard to both of those 5 statements.
9
1 COLLINS: Mead has submitted a report last Thursday evening which I have briefly reviewed,
2 and it made primary points. It claims that this district does not demonstrate a need for services. Do
3 you want to elaborate a little bit on that opinion (inaudible)?
4 BURGESON: As displayed in the Service Plan, I feel that the phased operation that's
5 described therein, including the financial capability as well proven, and also will be attested to by others.
6 COLLINS: The Mead package indicates that it believes that this district does not demonstrate
7 it can provide the service. Tell us about the simplicity of wastewater treatment through St. Vrain, our
8 only collecting system.
9 BURGESON: The only function provided by this district as shown in the Service Plan is to
10 collect and transport wastewater from the affected property owners to an existing regional wastewater
11 treatment plant at the St. Vrain Sani-District.
12 COLLINS: It claims our Service Plan doesn't accurately reflect the town's ability to serve.
13 Can you tell us about the Town's ability to serve?
14 BURGESON: From my knowledge of the Town's system, the current service level is a
15 half-mile west of I-25. Service via that route is not of interest to the property owners to the best of my
16 knowledge.
17 COLLINS: In fact, the Town of Mead has produced a wastewater treatment plant facilities
18 study dated February 4, received in my office also on last Thursday, prepared by JR Engineering.
19 Have you read this report?
20 BURGESON: I have.
21 COLLINS: And can you tell us what this report in summary states about wastewater treatment
22 services in this area. I'd like to introduce this if I may as Exhibit "E, F, G" maybe.
23 BURGESON: In the Executive Summary II,that report just introduced, I read that the Town
24 has a policy that wastewater service will not be provided unless the land is annexed to the Town. The
25 possibility exists that land east of I-25 may not annex to the Town due to the landowners not wanting to
10
1 be subject to the annexation process that requires a public vote. Unless you hear to 5 the contrary
2 from the private owners, they have no interest in annexing to Mead.
3 COLLINS: In fact Mead has discussed somewhat the possibility of receiving it's wastewater
4 treatment at St. Vrain,has it not?
5 BURGESON: It has, and one of several alternatives put forth in this report that is an option,
6 and perhaps could be considered by Mead anytime they chose to.
7 COLLINS: That's all I have for Mr. Burgeson, Mr. Chairman.
8 CHAIRMAN: Okay, do we have questions for Mr. Burgeson? Go ahead. Commissioner
9 Vaad.
10 VAAD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three things. You stated the figure of$1750, I
11 guess you're projecting the build-out to decide how many single-family dwellings within the district, and
12 that's how you came up with that?
13 BURGESON: That is correct.
14 VAAD: Okay, and then, to what existing facility were you referring when you said it is not
15 adequate for taking care of these. There was a statement or a question and Mr. Collins asked you, but,
16 is there an existing facility that can take care of their waste water treatment facility now?
17 BURGESON: I was referring to the 5 existing Town of Mead, pond treatment system west of
18 I- 25. That issue of treatment capability, as well as the implementation schedules. As I mentioned,
19 these owners are interested in moving forward quickly with St. Vrain within a year, possibly. The put-
20 forth in the Mead report is a much longer time frame.
21 VAAD: Then, finally, you stated that the land owners are not interested in connecting to the
22 Mead system, and I believe I read in the newspaper article, it would require a considerable lift station
23 to get back to the - I guess they were referring to the lagoons.
24 BURGESON: I believe that's the case, yes.
25 VAAD: Thank you.
11
1 CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Geile.
2 GEILE: I have a couple of questions. What is the size of the St. Vrain Sanitation District's
3 sewage plant down on the River.
4 BURGESON: We have been told that they have reserve capacity, I don't recall the exact
5 current flow at the plant, they have reserve capacity at present. They also have a site plan that includes
6 the capability of expanding to 15-16 million gallons a day, much more than the need expressed here.
7 GEILE: The reason, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the question, according to the Planning
8 Commission, Mr. Collins stated that at full build-out, this particular area would use 5 million GPD a
9 day, gallons per day.
10 BURGESON: That was probably a peak flow, Commissioner, it does not represent the
11 average day flow from this development,no.
12 GEILE: Carrying that question a little bit further, if in fact this was to result in a significant
13 investment in their facility; I'm talking about their sewage facilities. Is there another fee that would have
14 to be charged to represent that improvement with the major investment?
15 BURGESON: I mentioned the$1750 (SFE) Single Family Equivalent, in addition to that there
16 will be fees that will be incurred in treatment service by St. Vrain Sani-District, yes.
17 GEILE: Do some of those fees relate to a capital investment fee?
18 BURGESON: It would be a capital investment fee.
19 GEILE: Do you have any idea what they would be, because $5,000 GPD is a lot.
20 BURGESON: $5,000 to $5,500, somewhere in that range, and the owners are well aware of
21 that fee as well.
22 GEILE: The other question I had is, in order to get the sewage from the site that you're
23 proposing, down to St. Vrain, you would have to have some kind of pumping stations?
24 BURGESON: With Phase I, no sir, and with Phases II and III, yes.
25 GEILE: So Phase I would be a gravity?
12
1 BURGESON: Phase I would be gravity, but it does include what some people, what I call a
2 gravity forced main in lieu of energy pumping and a motor providing that head, it can be provided by
3 topographic means.
4 GEILE: So the cost of all that is taken into consideration and is included within the $1,700?
5 BURGESON: It is for Phase I, yes.
6 GEILE: Okay,well how about Phases II and III.
7 BURGESON: I believe there are projected proformas in there for Phases II and III, as well.
8 Yes, to be implemented whenever the property owners so choose.
9 GEILE: Thank you.
10 CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Masden.
11 MASDEN: John, I just wanted to touch on that to straighten this out in my mind. You said for
12 Phase I the fees would be $1,750 per residential hookup.
13 BURGESON: Yes.
14 MASDEN: Is that the physical fees, is that with the hookup and everything included in that?
15 BURGESON: No,there will probably be what might be called a tapping fee, if you would, a
16 nominal $400 to $500 fee most probably.
17 MASDEN: Which is how much?
18 BURGESON: I think it's about $5,000 to $5,500 per single family. Yes.
19 MASDEN: So that would be additional per residential unit then, ok.
20 BURGESON: That is correct.
21 MASDEN: You said that the way this is structured, hypothetically, if we approve this today, if
22 it was not up and running in a year, that it would dissolve. Is that what you are saying Mr. Collins?
23 COLLINS: Commissioner, the 208 boundary change is what we would do within one year.
24 MASDEN: Oh, boundary changes, taking it through the system and getting those boundary
25 changes.
13
1 COLLINS: Right.
2 MASDEN: Okay. And, John, you talked about that the system could be up and running in a
3 year, and that's after it receives the funds to implement. How long would it take to put the finding
4 package together?
5 BURGESON: I think it is anticipated that once the district is formed, then the next step would
6 be the 208 Service Area Amendment, and then soon thereafter there are election activities that have to
7 take place, and then the bonding authorization by the Board of Directors.
8 MASDEN: What is the ballpark total time frame say from today to implementation?
9 BURGESON: I would stand corrected by Mr. Collins, but my estimation would be that by the
10 end of 2006,this system could be in service.
11 MASDEN: All right,thank you.
12 CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Thank you. Jim, do you have another party now to testify?
13 COLLINS: Yes, I have next Russ Caldwell,with Kirkpatrick Pettis Municipal Bond Writers
14 answering some of these questions, I think. Russ, give your name, address, and affiliation.
15 RUSSELL CALDWELL: Russell Caldwell, I'm Senior Vice President of Kirkpatrick Pettis, a
16 regional banking firm in Denver, at 1600 Broadway, Denver, Colorado 80402.
17 COLLINS: Is it accurate that you prepared the financial analysis that is attached to this plan?
18 CALDWELL: Yes, sir.
19 COLLINS: Can you tell us how the financing works, and what are some of the alternative
20 financing alternatives would be?
21 CALDWELL: The Phase I Service Plan contemplates about 3,000 acres, and the options
22 obviously when you form a district - one option is bonding, bonding is not the only option. Property
23 owners can also pay cash. The $1,750 tap fee-- actually a major portion of that would be a credit
24 over on the St. Vrain side. In their tap system,they have a treatment component and a collection
25 component, we would be providing our own collection, so we get a credit on that side. St. Vrain is
14
1 also looking at their system going toward their rates and charges, and obviously would be subject to
2 whatever happens there. But within the 3,000 acres,the $1,750 tap fee has assumed that at build-out
3 of about 180 single-family homes and a major portion of the property being commercial and industrial,
4 that size of tap fee would be sufficient should bonding be the alternative to retire the debt fairly quickly
5 in about 15 years. We also have in here an assessed value projection in the Service Plan. We are
6 looking at a very small mill levy to support operation and maintenance at about 5 mills. And,unlike
7 most of these that we do state-wide, we put a 50 mill cap on property taxes. We've actually imposed
8 a 20 mill cap on the property taxes. So,this is a fairly efficient program compared to many districts that
9 we looked at.
10 COLLINS: So in summary, in order to fit the statutory words, it is your opinion that this district
11 can provide economical and sufficient service?
12 CALDWELL: Extremely economical service.
13 COLLINS: And you believe the property within the district has, or will have, the financial
14 ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness?
15 CALDWELL: Completely.
16 COLLINS: Do you believe the creation of the district is in the best interest of the area to be
17 served from your discussions with the property owners?
18 CALDWELL: Yes, I do.
19 COLLINS: You provided also some consultation to us on the adequacy of service now
20 through the Town of Mead and the availability of possible sewage treatment expansion by the Town of
21 Mead. Is it accurate that you have prepared an analysis of the ability of the Town of Mead to finance
22 such improvements?
23 CALDWELL: Yes.
24 COLLINS: Tell us about the analysis and I'll submit these to be exhibits..
25 CALDWELL: Yes.
15
1 COLLINS: Another exhibit we would like to submit entitled "Debt Capacity Analysis - Town
2 of Mead."
3 CALDWELL: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, and staff, in my 24 or so years of
4 traveling Colorado, most of my representation has been for small municipalities throughout the State. I
5 also represent a number of district, our firm does both, and as we started looking at this and I took a
6 pretty decent review of Mead's finances as well, and I was able to review their 2002 audit, their 2003
7 audit, 2004 budget with year-end projections, I did not have the 04 audit. I don't know if that's
8 currently available. In August, over on Mead's side, they're discussing a project, a competing project,
9 will be upwards of Seven Million Dollars. Mead has a very small tax base to date, and Mead does not
10 have a credit rating. Mead does have a couple of financing options, in that they have, ah, for one
11 reason or another, chosen not to exercise. Their general obligation debt limit is about 3.4 Million
12 Dollars, obviously, to finance the sewage plant on their general obligation debt limit is a vote of the
13 people, it's an unlimited tax on your current tax base, but that is a source of revenue for them to do
14 some things. They also have a small amount of sales tax capacity, (inaudible) a municipalities reserve or
15 sales tax capacity to do some things that are more in the general government line, than to support
16 development related proposals. So,we've looked at that. My review of that is that generally on
17 occasion you may see some municipalities dip into those sources to support sewer capacity, but not
18 very often. In addition to that, as I look at the magnitude of a 7.3 Million Dollar proposal on their side
19 and some 600,000 to 700,000 housing units, it appears to be, ah, there would appear to be, from my
20 background and experience, an unwillingness on the part of the electorate to do much that imposes
21 burdens there. Now, the last comment I would make is that the big impediment to me continues to be
22 event risk. If you talk to me, if you talk to commercial bankers, if you talk to Rural Development or
23 Farmer's Home, if you go down to the State and talk to State Health and Water and Power, this event
24 risk, of being able to actually do something related to large scale financing that is subject to an election
25 is just a killer blow in their system financially. So, at this point in time, Mead actually does have some
16
1 limited financial capacity that is yet to be willing to be exercised.
2 CHAIRMAN: I have a quick question for you on that before you move on. Who paid you to
3 go ahead and do this report?
4 CALDWELL: Actually in preparing a Service Plan, we do not charge districts to prepare a
5 service plan of this magnitude, in that it was so simple.
6 CHAIRMAN: So you go ahead and do service plans for free?
7 CALDWELL: Unfortunately, sometimes we do. Yeah.
8 CHAIRMAN: And then,no one, no one paid you at all. . .
9 CALDWELL: We only get paid when and if, the way our industry works, and it's the way
10 underwriting works for small towns and school districts and everyone else, we actually are not paid
11 unless there is an underwriting, and is a bond issue. I think the County probably does it the same way
12 for their underwriting.
13 CHAIRMAN: So, no one paid you either then to do a study of Mead?
14 CALDWELL: No.
15 CHAIRMAN: As a comparative. You were just betting on the
16 CALDWELL: We are fee based bankers on a transaction basis.
17 CHAIRMAN: Okay, I understand better now. Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Geile.
18 GEILE: Russ, a real quick question about the financial integrity of the district if something were
19 to happen, such as, St. Vrain finding that they are limited as far as treatment capacity, and to be able to
20 take your district would require a significant financial investment, which in essence most of which would
21 be put back upon the district as far as financing. As you know, those wastewater treatment plants can
22 become very, very expensive. The question I have is with five mills and the way you have this
23 structured, do you have the financial, or does the district have the ability to maintain the financial
24 integrity of the district, if this kind of an investment fee was drawn upon?
25 CALDWELL: You know what, we look at this as somewhat of a market driven transaction. If,
17
1 in fact, they form the district and get through the two-way battle, they have reasonable ability to
2 proceed with development proposals. If you were to look very closely in the schedules, most special
3 districts go out and do longer term bonding where they need to stretch their debt out. At the end of the
4 day, we've got a fairly short debt schedule in here. If we felt conditions existed that created different
5 levels of risk,we may take the debt schedule and move it out a little more. At(inaudible) we have a lot
6 of financial flexibility compared to other districts in the market. I mean, it could be $1,500, it could be
7 $2,200. Some property owners may proceed to go with cash, there is a wealth of things to look at in
8 terms of being able to properly manage the growth projections and those development fees and timing.
9 At the end of the day, we put the five mills in, really, it just creates some money on the operating side in
10 a 20 mill cap, so if they were ever issued, it would be a limited tax backing, in addition to the tap fees.
11 This is, it's not a very onerous load on those property owners, and of course, to the extent that they
12 enter into agreements,they'll be enforceable agreements to pay tap fees. Was that what you were
13 trying to get at?
14 GEILE: The way that you formed the district, and the $1,700 associated with each tap, if you
15 had a -- if there was a major capital investment fee that spun out of this as a result of St. Vrain having
16 to make significant investments, is this, would this be part of your package or would that have to be
17 picked up by the developers or by the property owners? Would that be separate from this or would it
18 CALDWELL: I'm assuming that anything St. Vrain would charge would be on top of our
19 $1,750, although we would get a credit on having done some of our own collection on our system. So
20 if they enlarge their plant,then they, you know,that would get passed along to us through an
21 Intergovernmental Agreement I would assume.
22 GEILE: So, you could increase the $1,700 to a level to more or less pick up those additional
23 costs, capital investment fees,
24 CALDWELL: Yes, sir; If that's where you're going, yes, sir.
25 GEILE: That answers my question.
18
1 CHAIRMAN: Any further questions at this point? Commissioner Masden.
2 MASDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I have one. You talked about Mead's proposal,
3 it costs somewhere around 7.3 Million Dollars. What is the cost of this project with the district?
4 CALDWELL: If you were looking at Phase I, a little less than $2-112 million dollars.
5 MASDEN: All right, thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN: Okay, go ahead and continue on, then.
7 COLLINS: The entire service plan, all three phases, is Nine Million Dollars of collection
8 system improvements. The wastewater treatment facility at St. Vrain are essentially built and
9 expansable. One of the things that Mead has submitted in the report they gave last Thursday is that
10 somehow this district concedes,Mead says, that the district does not have the financial ability to fund
11 improvements, but relies on future funding. Could you address that statement.
12 CALDWELL: Yes, Mr. Collins, there is nothing really speculative about this type of bond in
13 our market, it's a very common plan of finance. It's a very low cost for the improvement, there is no
14 speculation to it, we do this as part of our normal day job all over the State under these kind of
15 conditions.
16 COLLINS: Russ has to be down at the Legislature, he's going to have to leave so you're going
17 to have to
18 CALDWELL: They'll have a less friendly crowd where I'm going next, probably,
19 CHAIRMAN: Any further questions for Russ? Thank you for your time.
20 COLLINS: I'm going to ask him to stay around as long as he can just in case someone has any
21 questions.
22 CALDWELL: I'm going to stay until noon if I can.
23 COLLINS: At this time, I'd like to call Merlin Mass, Mr. Chairman.
24 CHAIRMAN: Go ahead and state your name.
25 MASS: My name is Merlin Mass. My address is 4950 Weld County Road 38, Platteville,
19
1 Colorado. After this very formal beginning, I want to just take a few minutes to tell you a little bit about
2 who we have, and a little about the landowners here. We started this process a little over a year ago.
3 We sat out to find some of the finest qualifications we could as landowners. Mr. Collins is one of the
4 finest and most noted special District Attorneys around representing more than 100 special districts.
5 John Ferguson is a 25-year northern Colorado engineer,having worked for just the City of Johnstown
6 for more than 25 years. You know many of the landowners. Many of them have been very successful
7 businessmen, both here in Weld County and some are noted on a more national scale. For myself, as a
8 landowner, I guess the farm boy doesn't leave you, so I've continue to have a farm. I'm here for the
9 past 37 years I've worked water quality. After coming out of graduate school there were, there was no
10 EPA, there was a water quality, called the Pollution Control Federation of Cincinnati, Ohio, but I
11 graduated along with them, along to the EPA and I've worked with the EPA very closely through my
12 career. Through this process I've kept many people informed. Mr. Vaad, who is our Commissioner,
13 I've kept him very informed. I've kept Mr. Barker very closely informed. We worked with Monica
14 through the process here, and then we approached St. Vrain. When John said St. Vrain was an award
15 winning district, I don't know, many of you know about the Special District Association, but last year
16 as, they special district awarded what they refer to as their Most Coveted District of the Year Award
17 to St. Vrain for several reasons, but also to include,because of their vastly increased capacity, and as
18 they said, they are now able to negotiate with other sanitation districts in the area an merge their
19 services to a more efficient region wide surface provider. Through the past year, we've also maintained
20 a good dialogue with Lloyd Grant and the Board at St. Vrain, meeting with them on many, many times
21 more than we can count, and we've had a complete dialogue with Dave DuBois in the North Front
22 Range District. Through that process we have been able to identify that when the 208 boundary was
23 established it wasn't something magical. It wasn't done by some engineering study at the time, and
24 when there's a better opportunity that it should be presented for boundary change. The proposed I-25
25 East San District was not done in haste. It was extremely well planned and had a lot of legal counsel,
20
1 engineering staff, and financial planning, and any district would be proud to have the landowners we
2 have and the qualifications we have. We're dedicated to this planned district. I'd like to say we seek
3 services from St. Vrain because they were reasonable, it's geographically right, it's within the EPA's
4 approach to go geographic whenever feasible and reasonable, and that we as landowners are
5 committed to this project. Thank you.
6 CHAIRMAN: Do we have questions for Mr. Mass? Seeing no questions, thank you for your
7 time.
8 MASS: Thank you.
9 COLLINS: Finally, Mr. Gary Woods.
10 CHAIRMAN: Welcome, please state your name and who you represent.
11 WOODS: My name is Gary Woods, I live at 80 Comstock, Castle Rock, Colorado, and I'm
12 a member of Benson Farms, which owns a 300-acre piece just north of 66. If I might, I would like, I
13 had a Power Point presentation, if I can. Our property, if you turn to page 5 of what I just passed out,
14 is a map that actually is part of the application, shows the three phases of the transmission facilities.
15 Our property is located in the five, the two quarters just north of 66 that are on blue. I have the 208
16 boundary that runs kind of through the portions of it, a part of our property is in the St. Vrain 208
17 boundary, and part is in the Mead 208 boundary. And then, we have an affiliation with the Tom
18 Reynolds Family which is the three quarters immediately north of us and south of 32, and a portion of
19 Tom's eastern quarter there is in St. Vrain 208 boundary, and the balance, is in the Mead 208
20 boundary. The, we have pending before the County, that Monica and Kim have been looking at is a
21 sketch plan application for that 800 acres that we call Meadow Ridge. We have staff comments, I
22 would expect that we will complete that process within the next 30 to 60 days, and be along with the
23 change of zone application to the County on those five quarters. If you turn to the last page, it's a copy
24 of your most current MUD and we are the, kind of the five quarters along the northern portion of that
25 MUD, so our full 800 acres in the MUD that designates urban-scale development. We did that,
21
1 actually, the, ah, one of our quarters we have owned since 1919,was owned by my grandfather,
2 Peter's Benson, and the four owners of it now are the his grandchildren., and in 19, or 2002 we
3 acquired the Barnes Farm which was immediately east, from Frank Barnes' heirs who had farmed our
4 quarter for 40 or 50 years, and so we now have acquired those, that's approximately 300 acres. I
5 think the reasons I've expressed here, that we are in favor of this district is it is economically feasible
6 and realistic. It allows for smart water quality. We have regional quality treatment at St. Vrain. I think
7 there is flexibility in the plan that has been explained to you in terms of the phasing. Some of the
8 properties north of us are not yet in the MUD, but anticipate applications to include an MUD and do
9 urban-scale development. I think the, there is no duplicity of treatment facilities in this plan. We are
10 effectively trying to prepare a willing, service providing,provider with willing owners. St. Vrain has a
11 state-of-the-art treatment facility, and one that I think creates the kind of certainty, reliability, that is
12 required to do urban-scale development. The, I think it's clear that the existing service is inadequate,
13 even in Mead's report, their pond system has no capability of handling any sort of urban-scale
14 development in this area, so their plan is really a projected development of a sewer system. And let's
15 be candid here, I think we've spent a year-and-a-half at Mead with an annexation petition. I respect
16 Mead's positions on things, but they're just not consistent with the kinds of certainty that we think we
17 need for development and zoning of this property. I think the I-25, the East 1-25 Metro District is the
18 best solution. As Merle has indicated to you, it's been worked on for a long time, it's not a short-term
19 solution here. I think it's a long-term solution to the east I-25 service issues. So, with that I'd take any
20 questions.
21 CHAIRMAN: Do we have any questions at this point?
22 MASS: Thank you very much.
23 CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN: You have anybody else?
25 COLLINS: That's it.
22
1 CHAIRMAN: No one else? You've got a couple of minutes if you want to summarize or
2 wrap up for us.
3 COLLINS: I will simply say this is a very simple proposal. We agree to provide St. Vrain
4 with tap fees to pay for the sewage treatment component. We build our collection system. It's a
5 straightforward proposal. We believe that we have met the requirements, both procedural and
6 statutorily for the formation of the district,we agreed to the Condition that we talked about earlier, and
7 request a resolution of approval.
8 CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Masden?
9 MASDEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Collins, I just have one question. All the property
10 we're talking about would be served by this district is in unincorporated Weld County, right?
11 COLLINS: That is correct. There was at one point in time a portion of a small amount of
12 property that was in Mead, not, is not in. So it is all unincorporated Weld County.
13 MASDEN: Okay, thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Vaad?
15 VAAD: Mr. Collins, if you can share this. Have you had any conversations with the Town of
16 Mead about using your collection facility to meet the needs that they propose with their system?
17 COLLINS: At the Planning Commission meeting, we did offer to coordinate with them to,
18 because it happens to be our belief that it is most logical for Mead also to receive its wastewater
19 treatment at St. Vrain. Thus far that offer has not been taken.
20 VAAD: Thank you.
21 CHAIRMAN: Any final questions? Thank you.
22 COLLINS: Thank you very much.
23 CHAIRMAN: We were able to come in under time, so that's helpful. Now,what we would
24 like to do is go ahead and open it up to anyone who opposes the proposal. We would like to limit it to
25 about 12:30, that gives a reasonable amount of time, that's 50 minutes, roughly the same amount of time
23
1 that the applicant had with questions. So, and I don't know if there's a lead person that would want to
2 come up first. That may well be helpful to go ahead and give a lot of the lead action, and then others to
3 follow to hopefully support that, but not be redundant in remarks.
4 UNKNOWN: Mr. Chairman, we have a number of speakers from the Town of Mead, and I
5 understand the Town of Longmont would also like to speak. They might like to go first and then we
6 could follow along. So,the City of Longmont might like to speak first.
7 CHAIRMAN: Okay. Apparently you are being drafted, Longmont, to come on up, so, go
8 ahead.
9 UNKNOWN: (inaudible).
10 CHAIRMAN: Okay, let me back up for a minute. I probably should have done this a little
11 differently. There's a, if there's anyone else who would like to testify in favor of this, please come up
12 now. We're still going to go ahead and continue proponent for a little bit, I guess. We'll have to refix
13 this time. Please come on up and state your name.
14 MR. BARKER: Mr. Collins referred to some statutory requirements. If you look at Kim
15 Ogle's comments, they are listed there, so all of those that he mentioned are listed in Kim's comments.
16 CHAIRMAN: Okay, go ahead and proceed.
17 KEN WILLIAMSON: My name is Ken Williamson. I live at 224 Mulligan Lake Drive,
18 Mead, Colorado. I have lived in the City limits of Mead for 9 years. My home is on a septic system,
19 as are all the homes south of the Mead Old Town area. It was one of the first homes built in the
20 Mulligan Lake area and it was built about 10 years ago. I believe the present sewer system are about
21 one-half mile away to the north, the Mead's present services. My house is about a mile south of that
22 area. This is the extent of the present and the present ability of Mead to service the area. There are
23 many subdivisions more than a mile away which have been put in with septic systems since. By the
24 Town of Mead. Last fall the people of Mead voted approval for four subdivisions in the outlying area.
25 The present sewer needs, system that they have,needs expansion and repair. Money for that was not
24
1 in the December 13th 2005 budget. I believe the burden is extreme,just for Mead to provide service
2 to the west side of I-25. There, they are about ten years behind on the west side, let alone being able
3 to service the east side of I-25. And then outgrowing faster then their ability to service that particular
4 area,that area being west of I-25. I'm a general partner in Zeek, LLP Partnerships. I purchased 148
5 acres there in 1986, known as the Rademacher Business Park, which was approved by the Weld
6 County Commissioners in 1983. In 1996 we started this development which is now named the I-25
7 Business Park. We have tried to get sewer service many times since 1986. In 1997 a Letter
8 Agreement was made with St. Vrain Sewer District to provide service. So, sewer lines were installed
9 in the I-25 Business Park at a cost of$200,000. The trustees of Mead refused to give approval, after
10 it had been promised, because the Business Park is in their 208 service area, and they were going to
11 provide service. And that was seven years ago. Today, they do not have the money in their budget to
12 repair present pipes and expand the present system so they can, they provide the service. Isn't the east
13 side of I- 25 already outgrowing their ability? I do not believe they can provide sewer in 2009, which
14 was stated in the Longmont Time-Call. It will take them years to get the money and a detailed plan.
15 Mead leaders do not have a desire to go east of I-25. February 6, 2005, Longmont Times-Call
16 Newspaper had these comments, a special meeting February 7th to formally approve a sewer plant
17 facility study, and I underline the word, "study". That was just a week ago. And the comments. One
18 is, ah, they want the area to remain rural and are scrambling to build their own sewer plant on the east
19 side of the Interstate to control growth. Bob Acres, Mead Trustee, quote, "You can't say that we're
20 not going to be able to serve the area,because we are." I'm not sure what he meant by that. Quote
21 three, the Mead Wastewater Treatment Facility Study was not finished by the last meeting, January 31,
22 05, so the Board agreed to hold a special meeting this week to look at the document. Town Attorney,
23 Rick Samson, has bid papers on his desk for land on County Road 17. Nothing was discussed in the
24 December budget hearing concerning that.
25 CHAIRMAN: Mr. Williamson,we just have such a tight time situation, that I'd really ask you
25
1 you to summarize.
2 WILLIAMSON: I'll try to finish quickly,here.
3 CHAIRMAN: All right.
4 WILLIAMSON: On February 8th, and Tuesday in the Times-Call paper, Town leaders
5 Monday unanimously approved the wastewater study. Mead leaders opposed the I-25 sewer district
6 because they want the area to remain rural and our families to build their own sewer plant in the area.
7 Mead will provide sewer services to the area in 2009. We want, we would like to go to Weld County
8 Commissioners and say we're ready, we have the facility, we have the plan, that's why we're here.
9 Mayor Richard Cramer said by a four(inaudible) vote. As to the County Road 17, Trustee, Harry
10 Walker, said "He liked the alternative the best because it gives Mead control over the growth on the
11 east side of the Interstate." What this means is the leadership's desire, it appears to be based on, if it's
12 anything to do with the performance of the last nine years,they don't want any growth. And they want
13 to maintain the rural atmosphere. That's completely out of step with what's going on up and down the
14 Interstate. I guess I doubt their desire to really want to do this on the east side of the Interstate. As fast
15 as they are growing, I don't think they can hardly handle what they've got on the west side.
16 Homeowners of Mulligan Lake, ah homeowners, put 151 signed petitions in about paving Adams
17 Road, its paved at both ends, its two acres in the middle that isn't paved, They don't have any money
18 for that, they told us, at the December budget meeting. They didn't have any money put in for
19 engineering services. So, as a resident of Mead for the last nine years, I guess I have, I just don't trust
20 what they are offering. The east I-25 Sewer District offers a solid solution now. A detailed plan that is
21 well-defined, and financially backed, and is ready to go. Mead offers an emergency approved study as
22 of Mondays February 7, 2005, and several quotes in the newspaper that indicate that their only
23 intention is to control the area and keep a rural atmosphere. Thank you.
24 CHAIRMAN: Do you have any questions for,Mr. Williamson? Yes, Commissioner Masden.
25 MASDEN: Mr. Williamson, I don't know if you're aware of this, but all the landowners
26
1 affected by this district, where this district is proposing to be, are they all in favor of this district?
2 WILLIAMSON: Yes, they are.
3 CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Vaad.
4 VAAD: Can I, I was just wondering,
5 WILLIAMSON: What specific area are you talking about, I, are you referring to the Zeke
6 property or
7 MASDEN: Just the property that is proposed in the map where this district would be.
8 WILLIAMSON: I think there's about 3,000 acres and we're all in favor of that.
9 CHAIRMAN: If you're an applicant,you're in favor of it, I'm guessing.
10 WILLIAMSON: Yes.
11 CHAIRMAN: Obviously spending money to do so, anyway. Commissioner Vaad?
12 VAAD: I just want to go back. I was trying to recall when Commissioner Baxter was on the
13 208 Board, and I believe you and maybe a representative went to the 208 hearing in Loveland, was
14 that the seven years you were referring to?
15 WILLIAMSON: Yes, it was.
16 VAAD: Okay, thank you.
17 WILLIAMSON: And we were approved to be dismissed from the 208 Board and go ahead
18 with our agreement with St. Vrain sewer, and then about a month later that, Mead got that turned
19 around on us. And said they would provide service, which they never did. Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN: Any further questions? Seeing none. Now we have other proponents that
21 would like to speak. Please make your way on up and state your name and proceed.
22 scull'HOUSTON: My name is Scott Houston. I am here as a representative to the
23 Houston family. We would like to express our support for the East I-25 Sanitation District and
24 approval of their Service Plan. The Houston family has been life-time residents of Weld County. Our
25 agricultural operation consists of a working cattle ranch, which provides breeding seed stock to
27
1 customers throughout the United States, and to many foreign countries. We are aware of the East 1-25
2 Sanitation District's proposed Service Plan which would include installing a lift station to transport
3 wastewater to St. Vrain Sanitation District's existing water treatment plant. We have also been
4 approached by representatives of the west of I-25 municipality about their desire to acquire some of
5 our land,by condemnation, if necessary, as a site for a water treatment plant. Considering the
6 alternatives, we feel that the potential lift station proposed by the East I-25 Sanitation District would be
7 much less intrusive to our property and our operation. We are concerned about the disruption to both
8 our ranch and to the environment of the area which would be result if a water treatment plant were to
9 be located on our property. In addition,we are concerned about the negative affect such a plant would
10 have to the value of our surrounding property, and to that of our neighbors. Being from four
11 generations of ranchers, we have always tried our best to be good stewards to the land. Again, we as
12 a family would like to express our support for the East I-25 Sanitation District Service Plan. Thank you
13 for your time.
14 CHAIRMAN: My questions for Scott? Commissioner Masden?
15 MASDEN: Thank you. Scott, have you or your family had any plans, I guess, or contracts to
16 sell Mead any property for a wastewater treatment plant?
17 HOUSTON: We have not.
18 MASDEN: All right, thank you.
19 CHAIRMAN: Any more questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to testify as
20 a proponent? Welcome and please state your name.
21 DOMINIC SEKICH: Good morning, my name is Dominic Sekich, I'm here on behalf of the
22 Sekich Family. I'll keep my remarks very brief because I don't want to repeat anything that has been
23 said already. We're speaking here in support of the application for the service plan. My family owns
24 approximately 1,000 acres of, ah, and one of the applicants of the plan. And, as a consequence, one of
25 the larger applicants. As many of you know, we have been involved for nearly 30 years in
28
1 development east of I-25 and are very familiar with the conditions of that area. And, it is our opinion,
2 at least in two areas, that the proposed plan is beneficial to landowners on that side of the Interstate.
3 First, I think it provides a very efficient and very manageable alternative to fairly expeditiously and
4 efficiently get service to that area of Weld County. And secondly, echoing some of the remarks of our
5 neighbor immediately to the north of our property, Scott Houston, it's probably one of the least invasive
6 and least impactful approaches to providing services to that area. Thank you very much.
7 CHAIRMAN: Any questions? Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else as a proponent?
8 You've been trying to make your way up here, but those boys have been beating you to the punch.
9 Welcome.
10 FRANCIE GRAHAM: I'm Francie Graham and I reside at 5003 Weld County Road 36,
11 Platteville. And I would like to voice my support for the proposed East I-25 Sanitation District. And in
12 fact, if it is approved, I would like to be added to the list of people who are on the original proposal.
13 CHAIRMAN: Any questions? Thank you. Anyone else on the proponent side? Come on
14 up. Welcome.
15 JOHN KIRSCHNER: My name is John Kirschner, 1624 Market Street, Suite 475, Denver,
16 80202. I represent the owners of about 500 acres over in this service area, and they just wanted me to
17 make sure I came. They've been involved from day one and they support this completely.
18 CHAIRMAN: Can you state what owners you are representing?
19 KIRSCHNER: Yeah. I believe, there are 385 acres from 38 to 40, it's right on the Frontage
20 Road. It's Schoolmar Property, is what it is. Then, we just closed on, I think it was 120 acres on Mr.
21 Moss's, and we have a contract to close on the other half, and we're looking at other pieces right now.
22 So we have about 500 acres in total.
23 CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
24 KIRSCHNER: Thanks.
25 CHAIRMAN: Is there anyone else on the proponent side? Okay, I think finally we can go to
29
1 opponent side, and I think, was it the request to have Longmont go first then on this? We're going to
2 do our best to give you a full hour now. Obviously,we've gone over on the other side, so.
3 FRODA GREENBERG: Good morning, still, gentlemen. My name is Froda Greenberg and
4 I'm with the City of Longmont, 350 Kimbark Street, 80501. Only about 1,000 acres of the 13,000
5 acres proposed in the sanitation district currently are in the I-25 Mixed Use Development area and
6 planned for urban development. So the urban land use assumptions that are used as the basis of the
7 financial calculations in the service plan, essentially are hypothetical since they are not based on an
8 adopted comprehensive plan of the County. That is one of our concerns, that also is a requirement of
9 the Service Plan - - that it be in compliance with the Weld County Plans. We also, and you'll probably
10 hear more about, and are aware that there is a difference of opinion regarding who is to provide
11 service, the Town of Mead or the St. Vrain Sanitation District, and believe there would be appropriate
12 for this issue to be resolved prior to approving the Service Plan. The proposed 13,000 acres almost
13 doubled the I-25 Mixed Use Development area. If this were approved,presumably that there would
14 be urban land uses proposed to support the sanitation district which would require amendments. If the
15 Board of County Commissioners is interested in almost doubling the area of the Mixed Use
16 Development area, we respectfully suggest that it would be more appropriate to amend that plan first,
17 that would allow the public and variety of service providers to understand the implications of that. And
18 once that land use is fixed through your approval, it would be a better opportunity to understand the
19 assumptions used and the implications of the assumptions used in the service plan. Having said that,
20 given the amount of build-out of the Mixed Use Development area, the City of Longmont also
21 respectfully suggests that to almost double the size of this area, given the amount of build-out, may be
22 premature. So, in the interest of time I'll end my comments here, and I'm happy to answer any
23 questions.
24 CHAIRMAN: Could you state your name again, for the record?
25 GREENBERG: It's Froda, F-R-O-D-A G-R-E-E-N-B-E-R-G. My apologies for mumbling.
30
1 CHAIRMAN: My apologies for not having my hearing tested. Questions? Commissioner
2 Vaad?
3 VAAD: Ms. Greenberg, I'm curious about, you referred to doubling the size. We calculate
4 now that the Mixed Use Development District is about 15,000.
5 GREENBERG: Correct.
6 VAAD: So, if I add 3,000 that's the proposed district size,
7 GREENBERG: I believe,potentially, it could be 13,000 in the Service Plan.
8 VAAD: Over three phases?
9 GREENBERG: The 13,000 acres.
10 VAAD: And then, could you estimate the distance from the nearest piece of property inside the
11 Longmont City limits to the, say to I-25?
12 GREENBERG: I'd say about 5 miles.
13 VAAD: Thank you.
14 CHAIRMAN: Questions. Commissioner Geile?
15 GEILE: If I may. Does Longmont currently have any Metropolitan Districts within the City
16 boundaries or within 3 miles of the City boundaries?
17 GREENBERG: We have one within the City, excuse me, we have one within the City limits
18 that has to do with fire protection, and of course, the St. Vrain Sanitation District is also within the City
19 as well.
20 GEILE: Thank you.
21 CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?
22 GREENBERG: Thank you, so much.
23 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Is there anyone from Longmont to continue their portion?
24 Apparently not, then I assume, Mayor Kraemer. Welcome. Go ahead and state your name.
25 RICHARD KRAEMER: Thank you. My name is Richard Kraemer. I live, this address is
31
1 101 Silo Court, Mead, Colorado. I'm the Town Mayor, and I'm, ah, Mayor of the Town of Mead,
2 thank you, and I'm here to speak on behalf of the citizens and the residents of the Town of Mead. We
3 have a number of speakers here today, ah, attorneys, engineers, to express our comments about the
4 proposed East I-25 Sanitation District. The Town of Mead is adamantly opposed to the proposed
5 district. Mr. Collins indicated this is not a land use decision, rest assured,this is a land use decision.
6 This is one of the most important land use decisions that certainly affects the Town of Mead, and we
7 believe it also affects Weld County insofar as the MUD is apparently going to be requested to expand
8 to include this area. The Town of Mead and it's residents have spent a great deal of money, and time
9 and energy planning it's future. And this would, in effect,undermine a great deal of that planning and
10 expense. And we have submitted documentation so that you gentlemen can understand the
11 background and the history of what has already been done by the Town of Mead, and you'll have a
12 book in front of you and,hopefully, you have the time to look at it. Because it is important that you
13 know that there, sometimes things are said by innuendo, opinion about whether the Town is ready,
14 willing and is planning this area, and in fact, the Town of Mead is, and has been, planning for the
15 development of this area. It is, and has been, planning for wastewater treatment in this area, and it has
16 been doing so for a number of years. Since 1990,well, originally in 1992, the proposal was what's
17 going to happen to the wastewater treatment plant, what happens if the town grows. The Town of
18 Mead must modify its existing lagoon treatment system. It cannot keep it. The Department, ah,
19 Environmental Quality of the State of Colorado said we have to change it. So, in anticipation of those
20 changes, we have until 2009 to get those changes done. We have Jim Wright, our engineer, here to
21 testify and tell you that, in fact,we are going to be done by 2007. We're going to have a wastewater
22 treatment plant in place by that time. The only question that the Town of Mead has and what we've
23 been struggling with for some time is where this wastewater treatment plant would be located, and
24 whether or not it is as an alternative to constructing an additional new plant, whether we should in fact
25 be dealing with St. Vrain. St. Vrain Sanitation District is immediately to the south, it has a separate 208
32
1 District. The Town of Mead is in discussions with St. Vrain about whether or not that is an economic
2 and viable alternative. I believe you have in front of you as part of the packet, the Wastewater
3 Treatment Plant for the Town of Mead, and the plan and the facility study. One of the alternatives that
4 we had considered, and we continue to consider, is whether or not St. Vrain would be a viable
5 alternative. It may still be. There's a potential that we would have a wastewater treatment plant on the
6 east side of 1-25 and one on the west side of I-25. Our plan was, in fact one of the sites that we
7 planned was Mr. Houston's, a portion of Mr. Houston's farm. Obviously,that is probably not going to
8 be our chosen site,now that he doesn't seem to want it there, but the idea was to go as far out east as
9 we could with our potential plant so that we could, in fact, accommodate Mr. Moss, and Mr. School,
10 and Mr. Benson, and Mr. Woods and Mr. Williamson. We wanted to accommodate those people.
11 We have attempted to accommodate those people. They have, Mr. Moss had an application, I don't
12 want to go through everything that's in this packet,but the Town of Mead is ready and willing and able
13 to serve wastewater treatment to all of these folks. It has the financial wherewithall, it has the bonding
14 capacity, it has the ability to do these things. We are ready, we are willing an able to serve these
15 applicants.
16 We believe that this proposal is contrary to good planning practices. It's contrary to good
17 water treatment practices, and it's contrary to the, Mead's planning abilities, and it's also contrary to
18 Weld County's. We urge you to review that. This is not the MUD. The MUD is south of 66. These
19 are farms. This is, if you look at your own Comprehensive Plan and your own planning documents, you
20 will see that this proposal is contrary to your own rules, policies, and regulations, and we refer to that as
21 well. Mead has anticipated this kind of growth. Mead has been anticipating this growth. We set out to
22 do a wastewater treatment plan which was completed in 2001, and we didn't have any users in 2000,
23 since then. No one has come forward and said we're ready, we need 200 single-family equivalents, we
24 need this, we need that, and so therefore,Mead has not moved as quickly as maybe we should have or
25 maybe we might. And the reason we didn't is because there wasn't anybody that wanted that treatment
33
1 capacity. Mead has been waiting. We had to move forward with projects on the west side of I-25,
2 and we have, in fact, expanded and we have new homes on the west side of I-25 and we have
3 continued to treat those new homes. Nobody on the east side,with the exception of Mr. Moss, ever
4 came forward. Mr. Moss had an application, he withdrew the application, when he withdrew his
5 application, there was really not particular need to move more quickly. Now, we see that there is a
6 bunch of landowners over there who are anxious to see us move forward, and so we have moved
7 forward as well. We are well ahead of them in terms of our planning. We have a study completed.
8 We have, actually, sites chosen. We have engineering studies done. We have the financial ability to do
9 this, and we've contacted, we have that in place. We have everything we need, that is, the Town of
10 Mead has everything it needs to move forward. And we intend to do so. We would like very much to
11 have the folks who are represented by the East I-25 Project to be involved with us. They have not, in
12 fact, asked us to join with them. They have not, in fact, asked us to annex them. Mr. Benson indicated
13 that he had an application before the Town of Mead for a year and a half. He withdrew his application,
14 that's an exhibit. Mr. Williamson indicated that he would like to have service on, he has a parcel on the
15 east side of I-25. In response to him in 2001, the Town of Mead went out and purchased the Lake
16 Thomas Treatment Plant, which is on the east side of I-25, it's a small plant. And after we did that, he
17 didn't want service. Well, the Town of Mead has been waiting and ready and able to provide those
18 services.
19 Mr. Moss indicated that the 208 boundary is not magical. It is based upon geography. There
20 is a geographical basin between County Road 40, which doesn't actually exist but where County Road
21 40 would be,and Highway 66. It is a geographical basin. It was based on geography. That's why it is
22 Mead's and Mead is, in fact, designated as the provider for that area, and has actively maintained its
23 authority within that area, and it intends to do that. Mead is taking this application very, very seriously.
24 That's why we are here. We intend to protect that 208 boundary. We would protect it in front of
25 North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association, as well. That,these applicants cannot go at
34
1 this time before that body. They need that approval. There is a 208 boundary in place and it is
2 Mead's. Mead intends to defend it and protect it. We believe we can serve it. We believe we have
3 the capacity to serve it. In anticipation of development on the east side of 1-25, we put together a
4 planning document which we call our Comprehensive Plan. We had hearings. We had a number of
5 public comments. We had a lot of folks from the community come forward. We planned for the
6 development in the area which is represented by the applicants. We have provided copies of the maps.
7 We have provided copies as part of your packet. You will see that we anticipated residential
8 development on the east side of I-25. We anticipated that each of these owners,represented by the
9 applicants, would at some point in time come forward and request to be annexed. So far they have not
10 done so. If there is any question in their mind whether or not the Town of Mead anticipates that they
11 are going to be, ah, there is going to be development there, the Town of Mead clearly does, and in fact,
12 based upon the colors in the map you can see exactly how many single-family residents we expect to
13 have in each of those areas. It is true that the Town of Mead and its residents would like to see a rural
14 character preserved, and that is why the Town of Mead's residents have enacted an ordinance which
15 provides that there is an election procedure. In effect, the Town of Mead residents take very seriously
16 growth. They are very actively involved and pay very close attention to what happens in town and
17 where it is going to grow. We had an election this last November, and there were four applications, ah,
18 annexation proposals all four passed. There have been a number of elections. Generally, those
19 elections have passed. If it looks to the citizens like a bad proposal, something they don't want to see,
20 then they voted it down. It's democracy at its best, if you will. We have an active little democracy up
21 in Mead in which the residents of the community participate in growth, participate in planning. They
22 participate in what is happening in Town, and we'd like to preserve that if we can. What would
23 happen, technically, is that each of these applicants or all of them could come forward and say we are
24 ready to be annexed, and they could go through the Town's procedures, and we would invite them to
25 do so. They can file through the procedures and eventually the citizens will have the right to look at
35
1 their proposals and see if it meets with the community's needs. We are waiting for them to do so.
2 In anticipation of that, we have the Comprehensive Plan. You can see the Comprehensive Plan
3 anticipated this area to be developed. We anticipate growth out to high, to 17, and County Line Road
4 to the east. We have planned for, ah up to County Road 40 on the north and 66 and somewhat, and
5 actually to the MUD on the south. That is the area contained within the Comprehensive Plan. We have
6 this extremely thought through and planned. We would like each of these applicants to come to the
7 Town. We would like this Board to determine now that these applicants are premature, that#1 they
8 don't have a 208 plan, #2 that they haven't come to the Town. We would, ah we think that the
9 cooperation that we have had between the Town and the County should be preserved. We cooperate
10 on roads. We cooperate on pest management. We cooperate on a number of areas. We are
11 cooperating on the interim arterial road study. There is a great deal of cooperation that the Town and
12 the County has had, we would like to preserve that. We would like to continue the cooperation that
13 we have seen in terms of some of the development that's occurring. We have submitted our responses
14 to everything that you tell us you are going to do, in particular, the expansion of the MUD,that's
15 occurring both on the east and the west side of I-25. We're particularly interested in what you're doing
16 there. You're building a city. The MUD is going to be a very intense development community. We
17 would like to see Weld County defer to the Town of Mead for development decisions north of
18 Highway 66. We believe that's appropriate. We believe that was originally planned. We believe that's
19 where the MUD is now. We believe that, for effective planning of the community,that the Town is in
20 the best position to do so. We believe, further, that the Town of Mead is in the best position to provide
21 services to those residents. Once these 13,000 acres, if you look at the plan of what they
22 proposed, the Phase I looks like Swiss cheese because it doesn't include the 13,000 acres. It only
23 includes 3,000 acres. Well, there's a lot of other folks out there that are going to need to be served
24 with something. It's going to be, there's going to be roads, there's going to be storm water runoff,
25 there's going to be all kinds of problems, there's going to be social problems, there's going to be
36
1 services such as police protection. We believe that the Town of Mead is in the best position to provide
2 all of those additional services to the community. Services that, while Weld County may have the ability
3 to provide, we think that Mead is in, is now providing those services, and we would like to continue to
4 provide those services to these additional residents. We believe that would be an unfair burden on the
5 rest of Weld County, when in fact Mead is in a position to do so. We would ask you to consider that,
6 as well.
7 I have representatives here,we have Special Counsel from Bendelow Law Firm in Denver.
8 We're taking this application very seriously. We'd like you to hear from them. We also have Jim
9 Wright,present, Jim Wright is our engineer. He's developed the Wastewater Treatment Plan. He
10 would like to comment, he can comment on our plan if you would like. He would also comment on the
11 applicants'proposal and where it is flawed. And I will be happy to answer any other questions you
12 may have, as well.
13 CHAIRMAN: Do we have questions? Commissioner Geile?
14 GEILE: I did, I just have two, ah, Mayor Kraemer. First of all,when, ah, at the Planning
15 Commission Hearing, Mr. Friesen, speaking on, as the Town Administrator, speaking on behalf of the
16 Town of Mead he made a statement that kind of took me back, well a couple of them. The first one
17 was, ah, it can't be, ah, I'm kind of jumping into the middle of this sentence, but I think the point will be
18 well taken. "And it can't be done by private property (inaudible)", and he's talking about- let me back
19 up. When Mead intervened on sewer service agreements, it was because Mead had a right and ability
20 to get sewer service boundary changes done through the North Front Range Water Quality
21 Association, and it can be done by private property owners negotiating their own deal with sanitation
22 district without the consent of the municipality, in other words, he saying here that you can't change the
23 208 boundary without the consent of the municipality. I have a, that's the first I'd heard of that, and
24 then, one other, a couple of other statements that Mr. Friesen made. Ah, Mr. Friesen wants to control
25 their own sewer service area so they can control the rate and density of development that occurs.
37
1 Mead is not opposed to growth and development but opposes too much too fast. What we've heard
2 from the property owners is that they want to get about the business of developing their property, but
3 those statements lead me to believe that perhaps there might be something here that I'd like for you to
4 respond on, is are you, in fact, using a Comprehensive Plan to control growth or to stop growth or,
5 because that is what those kind of statements insinuate to me.
6 CHAIRMAN: And if you can,to the extent you can, cause I understand those are comments
7 made by another party so.
8 KRAEMER: Mr. Friesen is here, Dave Dubois is here, he's the executive Director of the North
9 Front Range Water Quality Planning Association, and he would tell you that the 208 planning area has
10 been decided, has been determined, and it is based upon geography. And I know some of you have
11 served on that Board so you understand that. And yes, indeed, that is the boundary, that is the, Mead
12 is the service provider within that boundary and yes,we intend to protect that boundary. No,we don't
13 want to give part of it away. We didn't want to give part of it away to Mr. Williamson in 1991, and we
14 don't want to give away most of it to these applicants. We believe, the Town believes it can serve that
15 area and serve it better, more economically then, in fact, they can. So, yes, the Town could if it chose
16 to do so concede a portion of its 208 boundary, I believe, legally, we would have to go before the
17 Front Range Water Quality to get approval to do that, and it would have to make sense geographic
18 wise, and it would have to,probably enter intergovernmental agreements. Conceivably, the town could
19 give up a portion of its 208 boundary, yes. Your second question was whether Mead anticipates
20 growth. Yes, people move to Mead for a lot of reasons. One of the reasons is to get out of, you
21 know,Northglenn or Commerce City or Denver or Boulder or somewhere else. And it does appear to
22 be beautiful and rural and we would like to preserve that character. The Town of Mead has worked
23 very hard to have growth be reasonable and appropriate and controlled. We don't want to look back
24 20 years from now and say gee, we probably should have put a road here. And I commend you
25 gentlemen for anticipating that. We have looked at 13 and 9.5 and the east side interim arterial and it
38
1 makes sense. It makes sense now particularly because there's farms there and we can still do it. We
2 would like to see growth progress at some reasonable,practical rate. Mr. Benson indicated he was in
3 front of, he has been there for a year and a half, in front of the Town of Mead. He didn't ask to move
4 his annexation proposal forward. Had he asked a year and a half ago, I would suggest to him and to
5 you that he might be annexed, now and be approved and building houses. That was his choice. We
6 have to wait, the Towns, as you,have to wait for these owners to come forward. And as they do, we
7 deal with them.
8 CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Long.
9 LONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mayor Kraemer, you talk about the, and we have the map
10 here that the Mead existing boundaries for the 208, when were those established?
11 KRAEMER: I believe when the original North Front Range Water Quality Planning
12 Association was established, and I want to say, somebody else may know better than me, I think it's
13 '78 or '87. The original boundaries were established, do you know, Dave?
14 DUBOIS: '87 was when the North Front Range
15 ICRAEMER: 1987 was the original formation of the boundaries.
16 DUBOIS: Those boundaries are not the same now.
17 KRAEMER: Right, the original establishment of boundaries.
18 DUBOIS: (inaudible).
19 KRAMER: Right.
20 LONG: My question is when were the lines on this map created for your existing
21 KRAMER: 1987.
22 CHAIRMAN: If you're going to, why don't you come on up if you're going to give testimony,
23 please come up. Cause otherwise we're relying on you and you're not in the record, so come on up.
24 And, Commissioner Long, why don't you ask the question specifically of him and that way we can have
25 it on the record properly.
39
1 LONG: Would you give your name.
2 DUBOIS: I'm Dave Dubois, I'm manager of the North Front Range Water Quality Planning
3 Association in Loveland.
4 LONG: Thank you, sir. When would you imagine these lines were existing?
5 DUBOIS: The existing lines on the 208 boundary map now were established in 1993 when we
6 updated the plan in 1993.
7 LONG: Thank you.
8 KRAEMER: But the plan is updated, how
9 DUBOIS: Every two years.
10 KRAEMER: Every two years, and it was originally established in '70 and every two years the
11 boundaries can be, well reestablished.
12 CHAIRMAN: Any more questions for the Mayor? Commissioner Vaad.
13 VAAD: Mayor Kramer, I know you've commented to a certain extent already, but let me ask
14 again. Would you comment on the circumstances regarding the situation I was referring to seven years
15 ago. And this was Ken Williamson got his 208 boundary changed,but then Mead prevailed and got
16 that boundary changed back to Mead. And I know you said that you wanted to retain your 208
17 boundary, was there anything else that you wanted to add to that, cause I guess you've answered the
18 question I had in mind, you wanted to preserve your 208 boundary.
19 KRAEMER: Mead has defended its 208 boundary every chance it got, and Mr. Williamson
20 had planned, or had hoped, to have, he's in the 208 boundary because he's on the north side of the
21 ridge line and he was thinking that he could pump to St. Vrain. St. Vrain had a policy that didn't have
22 lift stations, and then we intervened,that is the Town of Mead intervened, and said no,we don't think
23 that's a good idea. If you're going to have wastewater treatment, please use our facilities. And, it was
24 after that we bought the Lake Thomas Plant, and that's the only facility that we have on the east side of
25 I-25 at present. It's a very small facility. But we wanted to accommodate Mr. Williamson, at the same
40
1 time we wanted to preserve our 208 boundary. And so,we
2 (NOTE: Tape stopped abruptly, Clerk to the Board Notes show
3 the new tape,# 2005-11, containing 990 clicks or approximately
4 30 minutes of testimony,was defective and/or inadvertently
5 erased. During that time, the meeting moved to the Planning
6 Commission Hearing Room.)
7 ZEMKEE: . . . Members of the association that believe that before this Board acts on
8 something like the 208 boundary issue, it should come before the association. The question you had
9 about the Town of Erie was it helpful, and I think that to help all of us remember why we do these
10 things, and the fact that we draw lines on a map, it's important to make sure you're doing it with the
11 proper understanding of all the issues. If the Board decides not to take action on the gentleman's
12 request with respect(inaudible), I don't know your reasons, but there'd be a lot of good reasons to
13 support your actions if you weren't being, the town itself was going through a comprehensive planning
14 effort, and itself doesn't know where it wants its boundaries to be, and the proper timing to consider
15 that gentleman's request, I believe, is after the, it's an opportunity for that town to take action. The
16 same situation is presented today. There has to be some opportunity for Mead to take action on these
17 gentlemen's, ah, these properties, and to provide, to show that they can serve or refuse to serve.
18 We've shown through the materials in the plans, plus it should be there in your packet, plus our own
19 land use Plans,that we intend for the area to be urbanized, and we intend to serve it. We have taken it
20 a step further, and this is fairly recent also. We have told these landowners over the years and When
21 they've come in to inquire, that yes, we do plan to serve,here are our plans. We've got this draft study
22 that's been around now for a year or so. I'm happy to see they are offered as exhibits into the record,
23 it was missing from the record when we went and looked at it, (inaudible)
24 We sent letters to each of these landowners last week to announce to them that the study has
25 been approved in 2005, it is consistent with our 2004 Land Use Plan, and consistent with our 2003
41
1 statement(inaudible), 208 plan boundaries, and to connect all the dots, we are ready to serve, we are
2 willing to serve, and we want to serve. We sent those letters out as of last week. That's a big step for
3 a municipality to take. It's something other than what you've seen portrayed by the opponents of
4 Mead, being interested in keeping its plan. We're all not willing to take issue or take notice of the fact
5 that the area is developing around it. The sound bites, ah, this just isn't accurate. There's no need for
6 this to come to you right now, except these landowners want to take control over the situation that was
7 more properly brought through the process in other places first. It would be a different case if you
8 were here after having annexation petitions turned down by the citizens or the Town Board of Mead, or
9 after hearing that the Association had rejected the 208 boundaries, or had considered it and had
10 something, it would be a different situation. That would be the proper time to consider having someone
11 else serve this area. Simply stated, there is no need for this district, which is part of the statutory criteria
12 that you are obligated to address today. We've shown you, and Mr. Wright will touch on a few more
13 points in his report. His report is Exhibit "F" in our materials, and he was going to have some of the
14 data that was relied upon by the proponents is not correct. The nutshell is,we can serve this area with
15 the same infrastructure that they're proposing for the same cost or even cheaper depending on the
16 economies of scale that we can provide. There is no difference that way. The 7.5 Million versus the 3
17 Million, the difference between those two numbers is the fact that we in fact are giving the expected
18 costs to pay St. Vrain for sewer plant capacity, not just expansion of the capacity, but to pay for its
19 existing capacity,to give them a plant investment fee, which we expect them to charge. They're going
20 to charge us. They're going to charge these people if this district moves forward. It's the same cost.
21 but the fact is that with the plan that Mr. Wright will take you through, we will serve them cheaper. We
22 will have economies of scale that provide more economical and more efficient service. There is no way
23 for this proposed district to serve this area, more cheaply, more inexpensively, than the Town of Mead.
24 I think I touched on the fact that the proponents got the facts wrong with respect to our plan for
25 putting our services into place. The 2009 date that has been discussed is the date that has been
42
1 mandated by the federal government to have a new service plan in place. Our planning and our
2 financing and our conservative practices have allowed us to have that take place well ahead of
3 schedule, and possibly by within two years from now. Certainly well ahead of development on these
4 parcels. Other facts that were gotten wrong were (inaudible) acreage is, I think the plan talks about
5 3300, it's 3,052 acres. Fees were discussed at one point at$1,750 per home, but I think that doesn't
6 include whatever St. Vrain is going to have to charge. That's going to be the lion's share of the cost is
7 what St. Vrain is going to charge. And that's uncertain, so it's uncertain exactly what the fee is. Some
8 portions of the engineering study use 2004 numbers, others don't. There should be an apples to apples
9 consideration and apples to apples comparison. They called for revenue from the commercial area
10 after 2005, but they don't expect development to occur until, the sewage to be there until 2007. They
11 addressed maintenance costs but they didn't provide any costs for what St. Vrain is going to charge for
12 maintenance of their plant. And they omitted entirely the cost for providing for service by St. Vrain.
13 Touching quickly on the statutory criteria, I think missing figures support, what's St. Vrain's position on
14 this? We've heard a lot of anecdotes about what people think St. Vrain will do, but Mr. Ogle read into
15 the record at the beginning of this hearing what their actual position is on the matter. They do not
16 support this proposal this way. It's supported after there has been a 208 boundary change. That's the
17 proper method of handling these issues. These are wastewater issues, they are issues having to do with
18 a highly efficient serving area. Land use is involved, no question about it, but the proper boundaries, the
19 proper timing, is to come through the Association first. We'll talk about why land use is an issue. Your
20 comp plan, and I quoted you, or, the Mayor's quoted you in the letter we've attached to our
21 documents, a portion of your comprehensive plan, it prefers that the services in the area provided by
22 the municipalities as opposed to special districts. The same kind of language appears in the State
23 Regulations. The State Regulations say that we protect, this is Exhibit "E", have statements like this:
24 "General purpose local governments such as county and incorporated cities, ah, cities and towns, are
25 considered preferable as management agencies. If the opportunity to support a point source and non-
43
1 point source. I think you can appreciate the reasons why that coordination is important because you
2 can't plan to serve until you have some idea of what is expected in terms of demands. There are
3 (inaudible)to consider,there's road (inaudible)to consider, there are issues about point source
4 pollution and non-point source pollution. All of that, (inaudible) by one integrated planning use
5 decision. It is by far the preferred method of handling the situation both the comprehensive plan and the
6 State Regulations. The land use is important,but you are here to decide whether this district is needed.
7 I don't think you can tell from the evidence that there is a need for this. It's an idea, it's a great idea if,
8 indeed, Mead had turned down annexations. If there was no other way to get service there. If the
9 service that was being proposed by Mead was so far out that it was not realistic. That's not what the
10 evidence is. I would like to ask Mr. Wright to step up, and give a little bit more of his analysis and
11 (inaudible).
12 WRIGHT: Thank you, good afternoon. I'll try to brush through this really quick.
13 CHAIRMAN: Go ahead and restate your name if you would.
14 WRIGHT: Okay, Jim Wright. I'm at 2316 (inaudible). I'd like to take the time, basically, to
15 review the technical engineering issues of the service plan. I reviewed that service plan and have some
16 concerns that I'd like to share with you. If time permits, I'd like to go over the Town's wastewater
17 facilities study. We probably don't have time for that today, but if you have questions, I'd be more than
18 happy to field those questions. I'd like to jump right in to the, ah, we're proposing a 10,000-foot long
19 siphon. Does everybody know what a siphon is? Basically, it takes the wastewater down to the
20 bottom of the valley and back over the top of the hill. So, I scaled that off of a map from elevation
21 4,900 and 4,900, and the siphon is actually going to be 16,000 feet long. That's almost three miles
22 long. That's another added cost of$212,000, but that's not the real concern that I have. For a siphon
23 to perform correctly, you've got to have two feet per second of velocity through that pipe at least once
24 a day or you're going to get solids collecting in that line. To get two feet per second,per day,you're
25 going to have over 1,000 pumps connected to that system in order to keep that once a daytime
44
1 velocity. Well, yes,they can probably do cleaning of that line on an interim basis, but that's going to
2 waste 100,000 gallons of water because they are going to have to shove 100,000 gallons of water
3 through that, either using picks or some sort of pressurized pumping equipment to get that velocity to
4 clean that line out. Then, the biggest concern I have is the fact that all of a sudden you're going to have
5 several weeks of solids (inaudible) collected in this low spot in this line. You're going to get a slug of
6 high strength wastewater in the St. Vrain Sanitation District Plant, and when those bugs get that high
7 strain, you're not going to have enough air in that plant to keep the bugs alive. The plant is not going to
8 meet it's discharge permit levels. So, I have a serious concern. Pipes of this type are typically used on
9 water systems. They're not typically used for long types of wastewater systems. It crosses rivers,
10 canals, very short length of pipe, that 16,000 feet, I think, is way too long. The other thing I'd like to
11 comment on is that in the flow calculations, he used a peaking factor of two. Well that's typically a
12 peaking factor that we see out at wastewater plants, and the upper end of the system will actually have
13 a peaking factor of around three and a half. I think that he's undersized the pipes in the study and that
14 probably would add about another$158,000 to the additional cost. Back on the siphon, what's
15 typically used for transporting wastewater from one drainage basin to another is a lift station. We have
16 about$1.8 million dollars factored into the Town's cost for a permanent lift station that will last 50 to 75
17 years, and,because it has to be very reliable to prevent any kinds of violations over time. So, in
18 summary, we have the site cost, about$212,000, a lift station that would probably add somewhere in
19 the neighborhood of$400,000, sewers to missing properties, some of the properties are not even
20 shown on the exhibit, and this report as being sewered, is not costed out, and that includes, (inaudible),
21 that would include going down to pick up this portion, (inaudible). Yeah,this portion of the property,
22 the Casey's, Mr. Williamson's property over here is not shown as being served, and this portion of the
23 property is also not being served. So the additional cost is pursuant to serving the missing properties is
24 about$170,000. The other big issue is, is they never talk about the St. Vrain Sanitation District Plant
25 Investment Fee. I just ran a quick calculation to figure out what it would cost to develop 2,180 acres of
45
1 six single-family units per acre times $5,525, and that's 72 million dollars in plant investment fees that
2 would be required by the St. Vrain District, and that was never mentioned in the study.
3 The other thing the study does not compare alternatives. I think I mentioned before that by
4 State Regulations, you are required to have alternative comparisons. We did that in our Town of Mead
5 study (inaudible). I guess without getting into talking about the Mead Wastewater Facility Study, I'd
6 just like to summarize the issues remaining. The selective alternative for the Town of Mead, I'm
7 jumping ahead of my presentation, this is what the Town of Mead has to accomplish. We need an IGA
8 with Weld County for land use for developing that land on the east side of I-25; we need to get the St.
9 Vrain Sanitation District to finish their plant investment fees, finish our analysis to choose the best
10 alternative for everybody in this area. We need to revise the IGA with St. Vrain. We need to have the
11 ability to grow and to expand,to have the cost set in place so that when the time comes that east I-25
12 people want to expand and build, we've got plenty of capacity sitting there ready for us. And then, the
13 last thing is that we need financial participation from the East I-25 landowners. It has to put Mead and
14 also the east I-25 landowners in the best financial position. I think if we did this together as a team,
15 partnered on this, we would have the best financial position for this particular project.
16 SPEAKER: Mr. Wright, can you tell the Board,have you calculated what you believe the
17 actual cost of the services needed to serve the district under the district's proposed plan would be.
18 WRIGHT: I think for that Phase I development, ultimately, you're probably going to be in the
19 Four to Five Million Dollar range for a pump station and all the infrastructure required, rather than the
20 quoted Three Million Dollars that they have. Obviously, the site gets some significant financial
21 advantage, and, but I just think it's a technology that it's not, for St. Vrain Sanitation, and
22 SPEAKER: Does the Four to Five Million Dollars include whether we pump to, say, St. Vrain
23 or somewhere else?
24 WRIGHT: No. Well, for the Phase I that was the 72 Million Dollars. For the 2,100
25 residential acres, the 1,100 residential, that doesn't include the, ah, the commercial and industrial
46
1 portion of it.
2 SPEAKER: The important point to make is that St. Vrain hasn't assessed that fee,that they
3 still working on exactly what that fee will be
4 WRIGHT: Correct. One of the points that's in the statutes probably in some,(inaudible) staff
5 is that the fact that a district is not consistent with or the opposed district's service plan is not consistent
6 with the 208 plan, is a specific grounds to allow you to deny the plan. It's already recognized by the
7 General Assembly that in that situation,they want to make it absolutely clear to the Board of County
8 Commissioners you have the power to deny the plan for that reason only, even if they can otherwise
9 meet the statutory criteria. That is specifically carved out in the statute in Subsection 2.5 of Section
10 32-1-203. There's a lot of good reasons for that, and I think we've gone over what those are. One
11 thing I also want to touch on is that the conditional approval that was discussed this morning is not
12 something that is allowed by the Statute. That is not, there is nothing in the Statute that allows the
13 Board of County Commissioners to make a decision of conditional approval based upon future
14 discretionary changes in the status quo. (Inaudible) for this to work, 208 boundary is just one of them.
15 That is not a condition of approval you're allowed to make. The last thing I want to touch on is to, if
16 you consider briefly the dilemma you are willing to put onto the lap of the Association if you approve
17 this plan. The word will go out that the Board of County Commissioners has approved this district for
18 this patchwork piece of the puzzle, I'll stay with that, (inaudible) can't be a district if the Association
19 approves this boundary change. What's not, there's some guidance for the Association on how to deal
20 with the rest of the puzzle. How to deal with this remaining area. It would even make sense to observe
21 the entire area, this district can't propose to claim that because it's not in a service area. The
22 Association can only assign that to an agency that is ready, willing and able to serve or can't take it
23 within its boundary. Right now Mead has said that it will. But this district is limited by what the service
24 plan will call out. If the service plan will commit it to serve the jigsaw puzzle pieces only, and not the
25 rest of the puzzle. So the Association is going to have to consider how to address that issue. They are
47
1 already hear from you presumably if'it's approved that the County thinks it is a good idea. Your
2 approval, if you give it, will be worded into ways that probably will go far beyond what your intentions
3 are. When these properties come in for contract amendments and for rebuilding, you will be told that,
4 well, the County already has given the signal that they expect these to be commercial or industrial or
5 whatever because they've approved this district. That is not what you are doing today, but that's how
6 you're going to hear your words and your actions later on. The same will occur at the North Front
7 Range Association meetings. There's a proper way for this to be handled and it does not take action to
8 approve it. I submit that you've got evidence in record and certain facts that support denial right now,
9 but I believe that, it should not be approved until you have first heard, that the North Front Range
10 Association wants to (inaudible). A conditional approval is not an appropriate way to do it. It sends
11 the wrong message to the North Front Range and to each of the towns. In addition,it is not permitted
12 by the Statute. The difference in dollars as you heard with Mead's plans and the District's plans if you
13 did an apples to apples comparison. The wild card is what is St. Vrain going to charge. The testimony
14 is that our plans, our services,will be no less expensive, and probably less expensive, given our
15 economies of scale than that proposed by the District.
16 CHAIRMAN: It sounds like you are ready to summarize.
17 WRIGHT: I am.
18 CHAIRMAN: You're done.
19 WRIGHT: I've got a couple of
20 CHAIRMAN: Close to it.
21 WRIGHT: We do want to introduce into the record the (inaudible) letters that we issued to the
22 town property owners last week. I'd like to see (inaudible)take notice of it as an exhibit.
23 CHAIRMAN: We would have to take the whole thing.
24 BARKER: A portion of that was included in that booklet that was provided by Mead. The, I
25 think you can (inaudible)notice to the entire plan, but the portion about development apparently is
48
1 provided by Mead to their presentation.
2 WRIGHT: Okay. We're giving you an excerpt as Exhibit "A". We want to show,want the
3 record to show that it is coordinated. It's involving a lot more than just the Town of Mead, it's best for
4 these properties.
5 CHAIRMAN: Do we have any final questions for Pete?
6 ZEMKEE: We'd like a copy of the,Mr. Caldwell's analysis that you all referred to. We
7 haven't seen,haven't(Inaudible), we've never seen it.
8 CHAIRMAN: I don't think you're going to get an opportunity to rebut it today, we'd be
9 playing with this until midnight.
10 ZEMICEE: I understand that, I was just making a point for the record.
11 CHAIRMAN: You're not on the record right now because you're not up there and I didn't
12 recognize you. Pete, do you have any final
13 WRIGHT: Yes, I'd like to state that we have not seen Mr. Caldwell's report that was provided
14 to the Board. Have not had an opportunity to review it or speak to its contents. With that I'll just point
15 out that, as my Uncle says at family gatherings, growing up with little kids and, you take it with you, and
16 (inaudible)jigsaw puzzle, I think a couple of pieces out and they, in turn, are struggling the last two
17 hours, at family gatherings, trying to figure out where's that piece of the puzzle. (Inaudible.)One of
18 these complications from acting (inaudible)You've taken a couple of pieces of the puzzle away from
19 the rest, and it's not going to happen in a coordinated fashion, (inaudible) Thank you.
20 CHAIRMAN: Okay,thank you, Pete. That would conclude the opponents' testimony. We've
21 given about an hour in the twelve to one period, and now from 1:30 to 2:00 another, close to half an
22 hour, so, that,
23 BARKER: There may be other people who would want to testify against, and they're not
24 associated with the Town of Mead or the City of Longmont. You really need to give them an
25 opportunity to speak, if in fact,
49
1 CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll open it up for that at this time,but we have heard so much that I
2 don't know how much more we can hear. Everything I've heard I think I've heard three or four times
3 now. So it's quite redundant on both sides. Is there anyone else who would care to testify who
4 opposes this at this point? Okay, seeing no one, at this point then we would give the proponents, oh
5 (inaudible) minutes on the outside, including questions and answers, to be able to do a short rebuttal
6 just on the evidence that they heard. Please state your name again, and again this would be the only
7 party that I am going to recognize for the purpose of this rebuttal period. Otherwise, we'd be here
8 trading anecdotes all afternoon as well.
9 COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Jim Collins again on behalf of the applicants. I will
10 make this very brief. We've been told this plan is premature. That our engineering says that this
11 alternative is cheaper, more environmentally sound, more certain to have this area served by St. Vrain
12 than by Mead. It is not premature. What would be premature would be if we had no anticipated
13 development in this area. That certainly is not the case. In fact,North Front Range, (inaudible) Mr.
14 DuBois on behalf of the North Front Range has told us that in order for an application to be
15 considered, we need to form a district, or to include into St. Vrain's. St. Vrain has said no thank you,
16 don't want to get into this issue, go form a district. It has been stated that there are no costs for St.
17 Vrain's maintenance as planned. St. Vrain has reviewed this service plan. In that service plan we have
18 provided that service charges will be charged for that maintenance. That's the cost of maintenance.
19 The service plan certainly does provide it, and St. Vrain has signed off on this financial analysis. The
20 Mead treatment plant plan does not provide what this plan does. Collection lines. So we're talking lots
21 of apples and oranges here. This district solely is a collection line district. The tap fees for wastewater
22 treatment for a plant currently in existence with excess capacity right now, and expandable to 15 million
23 gallons per day is now on line. We have formed a service line district. We appreciate that Mead
24 intends to defend and protect the current 208 boundary. We expect that. We are unable to even apply
25 for a change in that boundary which Mr. DuBois has indicated, changes occur at least every two years.
50
1 We are not even able to apply for a change in that boundary without the formation of this district. St.
2 Vrain will not include us,has told us we need to form a district. As concerns the condition of approval,
3 I'd ask Bruce Barker to address that for you. We have reviewed the Statutes that specifically allows
4 conditional approval of service plans as contained in 32-1-203, C.R.S. The condition that we have
5 agreed to, in fact we have proposed and agreed to, in this service plan, should satisfy the possibility that
6 the 208 boundary won't be (inaudible). Even if the 208 boundaries weren't changed, this district would
7 be of some value to Mead. Mead has suggested that it may want to go to St. Vrain. We, once again,
8 offer to cooperate with Mead to build the line to St. Vrain. Again, on that record. Finally, it is
9 (inaudible)that you have powers to deny this plan (inaudible). You also have the powers to approve it.
10 We believe we have made a good case for that.
11 CHAIRMAN: Any final questions then for the applicant? Commissioner Geile.
12 GEILE: Yes, I did. First of all let's make sure for the record even though it's been made
13 several times, if you proceed with this and you go through and the Courts approve the formation of
14 your district, what will you be applying to, show us on the map in front here, as far as the 208 service
15 district. This big one right in front.
16 COLLINS: In fact, the, ah,would be applying for an ultimate district boundary 208 service.
17 GEILE: So, when you make an application will part of your filing be Phase I, Phase II, Phase
18 III, or how will you be making that?
19 COLLINS: We will be presenting the exact same plan for three phases.
20 GEILE: The other question I had, and it might be a technical, if I may, Mr. Chairman. There is
21 testimony presented concerning the siphon technology. Could you expand upon that,the siphon
22 technology not being proven technology and could be a problem for St. Vrain, as well as the functional
23 capability of this
24 COLLINS: I'm a simple attorney, I can't. Mr. Ferguson could,but I can't.
25 GEILE: I would like to hear that.
51
1 CHAIRMAN: You're requesting it, Commissioner Geile, and Mr. Ferguson if you'd state your
2 name and answer the question.
3 BURGESON: Yes, John Burgeson, engineer (inaudible). I'm sure most of you in range and
4 farming country know what a siphon is. I prefer to call it the gravity forced main which is different than
5 a forced main from an energy created front loader. We've had these in service for hundreds of years in
6 this country. St. Vrain is constructing a second one now. Albeit a shorter length, they've had one in
7 service for some time. Johnstown has had one that is over a mile and a half for five years. There are
8 provisions for cleaning it (inaudible)much like the gas and oil pipelines (inaudible). We have a
9 difference of opinion. I'm not concerned about it at all.
10 CHAIRMAN: Continue Commissioner Geile.
11 GEILE: But let's just assume that the opposing view of this was correct, and yours didn't
12 work. How would you resolve the issue or what would it take to solve the problem? Would that be a
13 matter of going to a pumping station or what?
14 BURGESON: It can be done with pumping stations, and if, in fact, if Phase III were to be
15 implemented and (inaudible)that line could serve as (inaudible). So, it's just a matter of not
16 implementing it now. (Inaudible)
17 CHAIRMAN: Let me ask you a brief one, too. When Mead says now in a recent letter that
18 they can also potentially provide this service, may they have to go in and provide some of the same
19 tools that the applicant is proposing in order to deliver the service? Just assuming that they would, to
20 be able to actually make their lines run.
21 BURGESON: I can't answer that.
22 CHAIRMAN: But the geography doesn't change.
23 BURGESON: No, it doesn't change.
24 CHAIRMAN: Okay. Further questions? Commissioner Vaad?
25 VAAD: Yes, I don't know if it's for Mr. Collins or John, but I heard the figure $1,750 and then
52
1 a little later I heard and possibly another$5,000 for the plan investment fee or something. Then, I
2 thought I heard another$4,500 or something. But with that in mind, would you respond to the $72
3 Million improvement fee that St. Vrain was going to have to have.
4 BURGESON: I don't know how to react to that because(inaudible). The only fees referred to
5 are $1,500 for this district's capacity, in addition to which there is a$5,500 (inaudible) fee payable to
6 St. Vrain. Mr. Caldwell testified that this district may, in fact, get some rebate on that $1,750 because
7 (inaudible). Those negotiations haven't been finalized in the form of an IGA agreement at this time.
8 COLLINS: I can say that we have, also, let the record to reflect that(inaudible)we have not
9 had, the booklet that you got from Mead on Thursday night. I saw a copy just before this hearing. So
10 we can't answer that question. We have had long discussions with St. Vrain, and they have never
11 indicated anything other than a tap fee for the water treatment facility, and so that tap fee has been in
12 that $5,000 range.
13 CHAIRMAN: Okay, no further questions then for Mr. Burgeson. Were there any further
14 questions for Mr. Collins?
15 VAAD: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if it's appropriate here, but I wondered if you would ask
16 Dave DuBois to come forward. He is with the Association because I had a specific question about the
17 obligation to serve.
18 CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. DuBois. Go ahead and state your name again for the record, Mr.
19 DuBois.
20 DUBOIS: Dave DuBois,North Front Range Water Quality Planning Association.
21 VAAD: Thank you, Mr. DeBois. It's my understanding when a 208 boundary is assigned or
22 given to someone, there is an obligation to serve that area. Is that correct?
23 DUBOIS: That's the objective, yes.
24 VAAD: Are there time limits that you have to perform to meet that standard?
25 DUBOIS: No, there are not time limits. Those 208 boundaries are established in the plan, is
53
1 the vehicle to eventually serve that area whenever service is needed. We've established those, our
2 Association established those limits and boundaries in the past based on what any community and of
3 our Association or a larger County area,they said they would like to have included the 208 areas.
4 That's basically the reason, they asked and they were given. (Inaudible) We'd like to show that area
5 eventually and there is no other community who has indicated and are willing to serve or hope to serve
6 that same area (inaudible). There's also no reason when these are established that they can't be
7 changed. They're established as a planning tool (inaudible).
8 VAAD: If I may, and in that instance, if two parties come together with a proposal of changing
9 the boundary, such as you did in '93 I guess it was or '91 or whatever it was, and you just consider
10 their proposal and acting accordingly. Is it one-sided?
11 DUBOIS: The Association Board makes the decision based on (inaudible). If we have a
12 proposal such as the one in '93 when Mead asked for their area to be expanded, there was no
13 opposition to it and no other entity in the area that would be capable of potential services,the
14 Association said fine. If there was an entity that came in and said we'd like to extend our service area
15 boundary and another entity that was adjacent said well no, we want to serve that area, then the Board
16 would have to make a decision as to who would be the appropriate entity to do it.
17 VAAD: Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Geile.
19 GEILE: I have nothing else.
20 CHAIRMAN: Thank you,Mr. DuBois.
21 GEILE: I did have one other question for their lawyer.
22 CHAIRMAN: Okay, Mr. Collins would you come back up. Commissioner Geile has a
23 question for you.
24 GEILE: I want to make sure that I understand that within this area that you would be filing or
25 would be your metropolitan district, did you say 100 percent of the landowners had petitioned to do
54
1 this?
2 COLLINS: No,there's 100 percent, the initial district boundaries are these property owners.
3 And you've heard there are other property owners interested in joining,but, ah,not obligated to joining
4 until now. So this is the initial district boundary. This is the ultimate in the service plan, and the
5 proposed ultimate district(inaudible).
6 GEILE: Thank you.
7 COLLINS: The district boundaries can be served by the collection (inaudible).
8 GEILE: That would be in essence, your Phase I?
9 COLLINS: Phase I actually runs out of here.
10 GEILE: Thank you.
11 CHAIRMAN: Any further questions for Mr. Collins? Thank you.
12 COLLINS: Thank you.
13 CHAIRMAN: We'll go ahead and conclude the testimony and bring it back to the Board then
14 for determination and action. Commissioner Vaad.
15 VAAD: I'd like to start by making a statement publicly. Mr. Moss started his testimony by
16 saying that he had kept me informed, and that indeed is the case. Since this is a quasi-judicial process,
17 I hope it is understood that when I say that he received no advice from me. He only told me about the
18 timing of what they proposed. I listened and gave him no advice or no intention of how I might
19 ultimately act.
20 CHAIRMAN: That's a good disclosure to make, I think, at this point. Commissioner Geile.
21 GEILE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to reference and give this question to our attorney
22 down there. There's some statements made by one of the representatives from Mead that we don't
23 have, that we're not allowed by Statute, to in essence do what we're doing today. Could you expand
24 upon that? He went through it in about three different ways, and I wonder if you could maybe bring it
25 all together and give us an understanding of what our authority is or isn't today.
55
1 BARKER: Sure, I think the best way to do this would be to take a look at the comments that
2 were made by Kim Ogle, and you can read along with me when I go through the Statute. The Statute
3 really provides two things that you look at. One is that it says, this would be 32-1-203 subparagraph
4 2, says that"The Board of County Commissioners shall disapprove the service plan unless evidence
5 satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented." So that's subparagraph 2 and there are
6 four things, and I'll go through those,that deal with a "shall" disapprove. In Section 2.5 it talks about
7 "may" disapprove, and that, I think, is tempered by subparagraph 3 which allows the Board of County
8 Commissioners to conditionally approve,basically like you did with land use decisions where you
9 require certain things to happen before it is finally approved. So, specifically,the question that you're
10 referring to, I think had to do with the reference to the requirement that the Plan be in accordance with
11 local, I can take a look at the Statute. This is under one of those "may" requirements. It says: "The
12 proposal is in substantial compliance with any generally adopted county, regional or state long-range
13 water quality management plan for the area." So in essence, what it's saying is that the ah, it's a "may,"
14 and so you can conditionally approve if that "may" requirement is taken care of by a certain date. I
15 would disagree to a certain extent that in fact it doesn't require you to disapprove of it. It's just not one
16 of those that fits within that category. Let me go back to just the ones that, where it says "shall"
17 disapprove, and talk about those real quickly. The first one is, it says: "There is sufficient existing and
18 projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district." I think
19 you've heard testimony on that. I think probably the majority of that goes back to currently what the
20 zoning is,but I think also,what the projected need is. It's primarily the question in that point. B says:
21 "The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present
22 and project needs." C is: "The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and
23 sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries." And then D is: "The area to be included
24 in the proposed special district has or will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed
25 indebtedness on a reasonable basis." I think for all four of those you've heard testimony on both sides
56
1 basically of the issue. I think there were some that said yeah they can be serviced in the area that
2 would be served by the proposed special district but it's inadequate. Also, there is the Will Serve
3 Letter that is provided by Mead that says "We can serve." So they are saying the service is not
4 inadequate. "Receipt of proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient
5 service to the area within its proposed boundaries." You've heard both sides on that with respect to the
6 financials. In D the area to be included in the proposed special district has or will have the financial
7 ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. And, again,that goes to that
8 financial question. That's the extent of the "shalls." Now when we get into the "mays" which you may
9 disapprove if you don't find one of those. A says: "Adequate service is not or will not be available to
10 the area through the County or other existing municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including
11 existing special districts within a reasonable time and comparable basis." I think the testimony from
12 Mead has been that, the fact that they think they can serve the area in a fairly short period of time. The
13 second thing would be"The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are
14 compatible with the facility and service standards of each County within which the proposed special
15 district is to be located in each municipality, which is an interested party." In Section 32-1-204,
16 interested party there is that they actually have part of their area being serviced by the proposed special
17 district, and I don't think we have that in this situation. So,really it gets down to, is it compatible with
18 the facility and service standards of each County within this proposed special district to be located.
19 And I think you've heard evidence to that effect on both sides. C: "The proposal is in substantial
20 compliance with the master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28- 106,"that's our Comprehensive
21 Plan, and you've heard testimony on both sides. Kim Ogle has gone through quite a few of the goals
22 that are stated there, and also there are some written evidence that has been presented by Mead. D
23 which is the fourth of those five, "The proposal is in substantial compliance with any duly elected,
24 adopted county, regional or state long-range water quality management plan for the area." And that is
25 the one we just talked about. And then, finally, E: "The creation of the proposed special district will be
57
1 in the best interest of the area to be proposed to be served." So, again you've heard evidence probably
2 on both sides of that. The condition that Mr. Collins referred to, and given that, I don't think you have
3 your computers in front of you, I'm going to pass this down. It will be in Section 4 of the proposed
4 resolution, and what that will say is the following: "The service plan of the proposed district be and
5 hereby is approved subject to the following condition: Any petition to the Weld District for
6 organization, ah, Weld District Court, of the organization of the East I-25 Sanitation District shall
7 request that the Order declaring the district organized shall provide that unless extended by action of the
8 Weld County Commissioners, the district be dissolved if within 12 months after the date of said Order,
9 the 208 boundary in the area is not amended by the North Front Range Water Quality Planning
10 Association to follow the boundaries of the district and to allow for its operation therein. The applicant
11 shall provide the Weld County Attorney with the opportunity to review and comment upon said petition
12 and any proposed Order prior to them being filed with the Court." So that's the proposed condition.
13 CHAIRMAN: Did that give you plenty to chew on, Commissioner Geile?
14 GEILE: It gave me more than I wanted to know, I tell you.
15 CHAIRMAN: There's no shortage of words today, is there. Commissioner Vaad.
16 VAAD: Can I request a two-minute recess while we have this, these two pages copied. I
17 think it is important for all of us to have these. Agreed.
18 CHAIRMAN: We'll recess until 2:30 p.m.
19 (RECESS)
20 CHAIRMAN: Okay, we'll come back to order again. Let this, we had a request from
21 Commissioner Vaad to basically get a piece of the resolution here to take a look at so we can have
22 further determination. Commissioner Vaad.
23 VAAD: As I've gone down the lettered items in Section 3, that's on Page 2 of the resolution. I
24 had a question on letter D, as in"dog". Maybe I don't understand this, I thought the idea of the district
25 was to have a debt to build the thing. So I, could I ask counsel to expand on that.
58
1 CHAIRMAN: Yeah,Bruce, go ahead.
2 BARKER: I'll ask Mr. Collins to talk about that.
3 COLLINS: The, item D should have said"general obligation indebtedness".
4 VAAD: Okay, thank you.
5 COLLINS: Also, I see that- if I may -
6 CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
7 COLLINS: In Section 4, second line, it should say: "In petition to the Weld District Court...."
8 CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Commissioner Vaad did you have other points that you wanted to
9 bring up at this point then?
10 VAAD: Well, if I may, I'll just rehearse my opinion on those lettered items in Section 3, A
11 through H, as best I can, to start the discussion any way. I believe the case is made regardless of which
12 side we listen to, the opponents or the proponents of this. There is a need for services in this area.
13 Mead proposes to do it at some time in the future, and the applicants propose to do it supposedly
14 sooner. So, I find in the affirmative on A. On B the existing service in the area to be served in the
15 proposed district are inadequate for the present and for sure the projected needs of the area. I agree
16 with the goals as I understand them of the Water Quality Agency, and that's to stop the proliferation of
17 septic systems. So,that is the alternative. So, I find in the affirmative on that. On C the proposed
18 district is capable of providing economical and sufficient services to the area within the proposed
19 boundaries. Now, I've heard from Mr. Caldwell, I also heard reference to Inhoff, or whatever, I'm
20 sorry, Imhoff,that reported to discredit or disavow those comments, but it sounded like it was an
21 economical and sufficient, to provide an economical way to provide sufficient services. So I find in the
22 affirmative there. Now, I understand on D, and that, also, I find as a yes, that this does not create
23 general obligation indebtedness, which I understand the down sides of that, for all of our constituents.
24 In E, it comes down to reasonable time and on a comparable basis. The way I reckon the time, it's
25 been nine years now since I went to that Water Quality Meeting, well it's been seven years since I went
59
1 to that Water Quality Meeting where there was discussion and debate over whose water quality or 208
2 area the north I-25 Business Park was in, and I heard what went on there. That's nine years to the
3 2007 projected build out if Mead does it, and according to the original we heard 2009. So, it's 9 to 11
4 years, so reasonable time I don't find there. I would find in the affirmative on E. On F, the facilities that
5 service the proposed district are or will be compatible with the facilities and service standards of Weld
6 County and each municipality and each district which is an interested party hereto, and I think, since
7 that comes under State purview as to what ultimately the condition that water has to be when it goes
8 into an amicable waterway, I think the terms is, is decided by someone else. Now in G,the service
9 plan is in substantial compliance with Weld County's Comprehensive Plan, and it was pointed out I
10 believe by Mayor Kraemer and maybe others, that our Comprehensive Plan right now shows that as
11 agricultural area and in fact, we don't have urbanized areas in unincorporated Weld because of the lack
12 generally of municipal sanitary sewer and water facilities. But that is being addressed by the proposal.
13 So, the jury is still out on that one for me. But I know that we allow minor subdivisions and other PUD
14 arrangements to allow our landowners to use their property as best they can. Finally, in the creation of
15 the proposed district would be in the best interest of the area proposed to be served. If Mead could
16 do it right away that would serve the area right away. The applicants propose to do it right away. I
17 read over the letter to the landowners dated last Friday, which I suspect a lot of those landowners
18 hadn't received that until today or probably are receiving it while they sit in this meeting. I was at a loss
19 to understand by reading the second paragraph in there just when they could expect it, even though it
20 says it is a will serve commitment. I don't find that comforting to the landowners. That's where I'm at
21 right now,but I'm anxious to hear what my colleagues have to say.
22 CHAIRMAN: Any further colleagues like to go? Commissioner Masden.
23 MASDEN: Listening to what Commissioner Vaad has to say on this, I am virtually in
24 agreement with him, and looking down through this resolution that we have before us, and Section 3 on
25 A talking about the sufficient existing and projected need for organized services, there definitely is in the
60
1 area. Talking about B the existing services in the area proposed district are inadequate. I totally agree
2 with that there because there are services over on that east side,but not proposed for Mead - or that
3 Mead has at this point in time. C the proposed district is capable of providing economic and sufficient
4 services to the area within its proposed boundaries. On E adequate services are not and will not be
5 available within a reasonable time because Mead has been studying this for, I thought it was like nine
6 years or something like that they have been looking at doing some of this, and by the time you get
7 (inaudible) it's a long time. The district says they can be up and running in '06, and Mead would be
8 another three years past that. So, I'm in agreement with, ah, it cannot be served by Mead in a
9 reasonable time. With facilities on F and service standards proposed by the District are compatible
10 with the facilities in the area. G the service plan is in substantial compliance with Weld County
11 Comprehensive Plan. And H the creation of the District will be in the best interest of the area proposed
12 to be served. And, I'm in agreement with the Planning Commission on the approval for passage to the
13 County Commissioners. I'm looking at the cost, I think the cost would be beneficial as the district
14 would phase it in. That's my statements on this.
15 CHAIRMAN: Any other findings? Commissioner Geile.
16 GEILE: Sure, I'll be happy, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I pretty well concur with what
17 Commissioner Vaad and Masden have said,but I have a couple of other things I want to put into the
18 record. I do have concerns about the economics and the financing or the indebtedness. And this
19 becomes very complicated, especially when you are taking a look at certain fundings and grants and
20 everything else that come in or that can come in to an organization, but to be able to get something like
21 this done because it is not only a very expensive project,but it also, and I want to say it has a lot of
22 uncertainties as far as cost, but certainly there can be cost overruns which have to be dealt with blah,
23 blah, blah. And I'm not sure there's enough space in all of that so to speak to be able to deal with that.
24 Even then, there's been some pretty significant testimony concerning Mead's ability to do this
25 wastewater treatment plant. But I get back to the fact that this has been in the 208 planning process for
61
1 a long time. Granted there has not been any dates specifically stated in the plan as to when these
2 projects would be done because it depends upon growth. Now we have growth, now growth is here
3 what are we going to do, where are we going to go? And the fact of it is there has been a lot of
4 testimony presented by property owners in the area concerning frustrations and getting anything done
5 with Mead,which leads me to believe that the frustrations will continue and the confrontations will
6 continue as far as getting anything annexed or done with Mead. I think there has also been testimony as
7 I referenced, by the City Manager at the Planning Commission, which more or less talks about our
8 Comprehensive Plan as their way of controlling growth, which tells you it is going to be very
9 complicated in getting, could be very complicated, maybe impossible, getting any of these projects
10 approved by the Board even though the Mayor did give some evidence today that they are more open
11 to looking at that than they have been in the past. All of that aside,the thing that probably concerns me
12 the most is what would be the reaction of the North Front Range Water Quality Control Association
13 when this application is made. And the reason I say that is because usually it's these applications for
14 changes or upgrades or whatever they might be are made by members of the Association. This might
15 be the very first time, I don't know if it is or not, but I would assume it's probably the first time that a
16 metropolitan district or anything like this has come in and said we want our own service area, and end
17 up be opposed, probably violently opposed,by the Town of Mead. So it might be a very difficult
18 application for them to get through. So, having heard all the testimony, I can agree with the application
19 moving ahead,but I caution the developer that getting this through the North Front Range Cold Water
20 Quality Association is going to be a very, very difficult task, and that's the reason why it's important to
21 have that included in the, ah,with the Courts as this goes on to District Courts, and have there with their
22 deliberation. So, I will be supporting the application, but bear in mind this is going to be a very,very
23 difficult application to get done.
24 CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Long.
25 LONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with all the statements my colleagues have come
62
1 up with. I give my background or basis on why I agree with them in a couple of ways. `Cause we've
2 heard a lot of repeated testimony regarding there's not a need for any kind of service in this area at this
3 time or hasn't been in the past. Yet, I'm seeing two distinct lines that almost cover each other saying,
4 by both Mead and the proposed district,to say yeah we think there is going to be a need in the future
5 and we want to be able to put our footprint or at least be able to service that area. So I think there has
6 been a need from both sides projected. And the reasonable time, there was some testimony regarding
7 its known that growth is going to occur and in order, this testimony was from Mead, saying that it was
8 going to occur and we need to have it occur in a rapid, I shouldn't say rapid and don't want to put
9 words into it, but the presumption that it needed to occur in a consistent and constant timely fashion to
10 be able to service the debts on the service itself. And, I think that would be a problem being able to do
11 that being that the annexations have to be approved by the votership. Should the annexations not be
12 approved, and service is completed out to those areas,how would they be able to be paid for. I'm
13 sure there's lots of different mechanisms, not to suggest that there's only one, but one of them would
14 have to be by raising the fees of those people that are actually using the system that is in existence, and
15 that would be an unfair burden to them. So I think with the opportunity for it to be paid for and
16 approved in an equitable fashion rests easier with the East I-25 Sanitation District.
17 CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Geile.
18 GEILE: Mr. Chairman, I apologize but I have another point here. When you take a look at
19 what we're beginning to realize and the amount of growth that is going to be in this area all the way from
20 the County line up to south of Berthoud, Boulder County line even over to 17 and even further to the
21 west, and we've already come to the determination that over the next years, and that might be shorter
22 than we think, there will be over 200,000 people in this area in addition to what is there now. It's going
23 to require a whole assortment of pretty creative methodologies to fund the kind of infrastructure that is
24 going to be needed to support these communities. The other thing that I forgot if I could, Mr.
25 Chairman, is the importance of metropolitan districts as we saw in one other area that we went and
63
1 looked at. Metropolitan district could very well be the way of the future to fund these. So for me to all
2 of a sudden say I can't agree with this metropolitan district,when in fact we're going to have others in
3 front of us in the future, would be, I think it would be kind of a remiss at least in my responsibility. I
4 apologize for missing that point, but thank you for letting me do it.
5 CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Commissioner Geile. I do concur with my colleagues about the
6 proposal. Their findings are basically my findings as well. I think that a couple of things give me some
7 confidence about this. One thing,the Planning Commission process is a good process that we have.
8 And the fact that they came back unanimous, I guess is very encouraging. When I look at some of the
9 Planning Commission members too, we have people from southwest Weld and some on the left and
10 some on the right, politically. People that may not necessarily see eye-to-eye on a lot of things in
11 planning and yet they came back unanimous in favor for this. So that is helpful in my thought process.
12 Really, the main thing that I look at on this whole thing, and I looked through the letters and all the
13 criteria, and yes, I find that those things are accurate,but the thing I find most encouraging I guess is the
14 fact that we've got people or property owners who want to have a level of self-determination. They
15 feel for whatever reason somewhat stalled in the process, of being able to potentially develop property
16 further. They are located very, very well, right on the Interstate, and they see that in time they simply
17 want to be able to have that capability and they are willing to go ahead and invest many of their own
18 hard-earned dollars to go ahead and achieve that end. Through this entire process, through bonding,
19 through the investing of these hard dollars that come when you attempt to go ahead and do something
20 different with the land. That role of self-determination, I think, is what helps build the west so to speak.
21 When I think about Mead, I kind of get a kick out of that because if you rolled back a couple hundred
22 years ago, I don't think that the Indians found that we were probably very needy. They probably
23 would not have approved of any of our 208 permits and boundaries. But, we have that kind of system
24 now, and indeed even though the need isn't there today, certainly the desire is to go and develop. That
25 desire is certainly paramount to my way of thinking on this that people who have that rule,that
64
1 self-determination to want to get something done should have that ability to go ahead and get something
2 done. So, that leads me to buy into the proposal, as well as what my colleagues have said today.
3 CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Barker.
4 BARKER: Mr. Chairman,just one thing I wanted to make clear. This is a sanitation district. I
5 think there was just some mention about a metropolitan district. Sanitation district is a different section
6 of the Code, or the Colorado statutes,but it deals only with that issue. Metro districts actually can deal
7 with sanitation, but they can also deal with pest control, roads, and a variety of different other things.
8 But just so that you are perfectly clear on this sanitation only here.
9 CHAIRMAN: Yes, I think we understand that and I think it is clear that the potential contracts
10 and marriages between metropolitan districts and sanitation districts are things clearly that three people
11 can engage in at a certain point as well. Any further discussion, if not we're just looking for a motion.
12 Commissioner Masden.
13 MASDEN: I just want to make one further comment that I forgot to make earlier, too.
14 Through this application for this district, as their attorney stated earlier, if the 208 boundaries are not
15 changed and set for the district, it will dissolve in a year. That gives me some comfort level, too,
16 because it is holding their feet to the fire if they don't get their due diligence done from now until next
17 February, boom-they are dissolved. So, you know, things will roll along and will happen one way or
18 the other.
19 CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Vaad.
20 VAAD: If I may make one comment then I'm prepared to make a motion. I just wanted to
21 state that I fully respect the honorable intentions of the officials from Mead, and my interpretation is
22 based on a land use issue, and they stated that. That's fine,but the decision I have to make is the need
23 for the system and the viability of the proposal and that system being brought forth as soon as possible.
24 So, for that and the reasons I stated before, and my comments - I move the approval of the Service
25 Plan for the East I-25 Sanitation District.
65
1 MASDEN: Second.
2 CHAIRMAN: It's been moved by Commissioner Vaad and seconded by Commissioner
3 Masden,to approve the East I- 25 Sanitation District. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner
4 Masden.
5 MASDEN: Yes, I would like to thank everybody that has come out today and the members of
6 Mead's Town Board and everybody coming out and spending the time and doing and giving their
7 testimony and everything else. There was a lot to listen to and a lot for all of us to absorb and deal
8 with. I do appreciate them doing a very good job of that and I have enjoyed this.
9 BARKER: Mr. Chairman,just to make clear, that your motion does include the condition that
10 is included in Section 4, is that correct?
11 VAAD: It does.
12 CHAIRMAN: Yes. We are also assuming that is with the amendments that were earlier
13 suggested as well, that were typo type things. Any further discussion. Seeing none, all in favor the
14 motion say "Aye."
15 LONG: Aye.
16 GEILE: Aye.
17 MASDEN: Aye.
18 VAAD: Aye.
19 CHAIRMAN: Opposed, say "Nay". Motion carried unanimously. Thank you and we do
20 appreciate your diligence in this. We're adjourned.
66
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss. CERTIFICATE
COUNTY OF WELD )
I, Carol Harding, Deputy Clerk to the Board, do hereby certify:
That the foregoing proceedings were transcribed from a digital recording and thereafter
reduced to typewritten form under my supervision, and that the same is, to the best of my ability, a true
and correct transcription of the proceedings as I was able to hear them on the recording made available
to me for transcription;
That I am not related to or in any way associated with any of the parties to said cause of action,
or their counsel, and that I am not interested in the event thereof.
In witness whereof, I have affixed my signature and seal this 5th day of May, 2005.
Carol Harding, Deputy Clerk to the.Board
67
Hello