HomeMy WebLinkAbout20050619.tiff Page 1 of 1
Carol Harding
From: Myrna Folsom [myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 5:27 PM
To: Carol Harding
Subject: E. I-25 sanitation district
Dear Commissioners: It is my understanding that during the Board's recent hearing relating to the
service plan for the proposed East I-25 Sanitation District reference was made to my
vote recommending that the Board approve the application. To clarify: my vote was based on the belief
that the application met all of the requirements of the County Code, which I believe should be tie prime
consideration of a planning commissioner in making a decision. My vote does not necesS jly represent
my personal approval of a case. In this case, personally, I do not recommend approval off* service
plan for the reasons stated in my recent communication. - r'.
John Folsom - -
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My_Yahoo! —Get yours free!
cc;kt_S
ca 3-t2.5" 2005-0619
2/16/2005
Page 1 of 1
Carol Harding
From: Myrna Folsom [myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 9:20 AM
To: Carol Harding
Cc: Monica Mika; Lee Morrison; Bruce Barker c. -
Subject: E 125 San Dst
February 15, 2005 n
To: The Weld Board of County Commissioners C)
Dear Board members
The Board's approval of the service plan for the East I-25 Sanitation District is the first step in
the all too familiar scenario leading to the Board's support of urban scale development in parts of the
County now restricted by the County Code to only non-urban land uses. Based on the Board's past
performance, on application, the MUD district will be amended to include those lands in the sanitation
district not presently in the MUD district. In fact, at build out, the extent of the future MUD district
lands in the sanitation district will approach that already in the MUD district!
Interestingly, the Board has finally come to realize the chaos and burden to surrounding
municipalities and special districts in supplying services to these urban developments in the County,
now and in the future. Their proposal of having metropolitan and special use districts supply these
services is just a device to give the impression that county government is recognizing its responsibility
to not burden local municipalities with supplying these services to county residents. However, the
burden is in reality only being shifted to the districts, not the County. This results in a lack of
coordination of funding and facility construction to meet the increased demand for services [ie: schools,
etc.] resulting from the future approval by the Board of urban projects in the County. The goal should be
to have municipalities control urban growth and eventually provide the services now provided by special
districts. The numerous services provided by the City of Longmont are a good example of this.
The Municipal Annexation Act [31-12-102][1] states: "The general assembly hereby declares
that the policies and procedures in this part I are necessary and desirable for the orderly growth of urban
communities in the State of Colorado, and to these ends this part I shall be liberally
construed." [underlining mine]. It goes on to itemize the benefits of growth controlled by municipalities.
In contrast, counties are nothing more than agencies of the state, not independent governmental entities
existing by reason of any sovereign authority of its residents, and do not possess a complete local
government [annotations to 30-11-101]. The County does not have restrictions placed on it, as do
municipalities, to assure orderly and responsible growth. One example of this can be seen from the
chaotic County approval of widely separated urban developments in the Mud district, that display no
sense of community.
There is little hope the Board will not continue its errant philosophy, but at least they have been
made aware of it.
John Folsom
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib_Jab's 'Second Tenn'
2/15/2005
Hello