HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042480 HEARING CERTIFICATION
RE: CONSIDER APPROVAL OF SERVICE PLAN - RESOURCE COLORADO WATER AND
SANITATION METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
A public hearing was conducted on August 25, 2004, at 9:00 a.m., with the following present:
Commissioner Robert D. Masden, Chair
Commissioner William H. Jerke, Pro-Tern
Commissioner M. J. Geile
Commissioner David E. Long
Commissioner Glenn Vaad - EXCUSED
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Carol A. Harding
County Attorney, Bruce Barker
Director of Planning Services, Kim Ogle
Director of Finance and Administration, Donald D. Warden
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice published August 12, 2004, in the Fort Lupton Press, a
public hearing was conducted to consider the filing of a Service Plan by Resource Colorado Water
and Sanitation Metropolitan District. Bruce Barker, County Attorney, made this a matter of record
and stated this is the submittal of a revised Service Plan to the Board of County Commissioners.
He referenced a memo he sent to Kim Ogle, dated April 23, 2004, which explained the criteria for
a metropolitan district, as well as the findings the Board must make. Chair Masden informed the
applicant that,with only four Commissioners present and in the case of a tie vote, Commissioner
Vaad will listen to the taped record and cast the tie-breaking vote. Harvey Deutsch, co-applicant,
stated they would like to proceed at this time. Mr. Barker stated a metropolitan district, pursuant to
Section 32-1-1004(2), C. R. S., is required to provide two or more of the services which are
enumerated in his April 23, 2004, memo. He stated Section 31-1-203(2) requires the Board of
Commissioners to review the service plan and either approve or disapprove the service plan. Mr.
Barker stated that approval of the Special District follows three separate processes. Mr. Barker
stated the first step is submitting the service plan to the Board of County Commissioners, which
approves it without condition or modification;disapproves it;or conditionally approves it subject to
the submission of additional information relating to,orthe modification of,the proposed service plan.
He stated the second step is the District Court setting it for election, which in this case will be the
November general election; and third, the landowners vote either for or against the district. Mr.
Barker also reviewed the criteria under which the Board approves or disapproves the service plan,
and stated the Board must make findings of those criteria. He stated that Kim Ogle, Department
of Planning Services,and Don Warden, Director of Finance and Administration, have also reviewed
the service plan. Responding to Chair Masden regarding the resubmitted plan, Mr. Barker stated
the first plan was submitted in May orJune; however,staff requested additional information and the
applicant resubmitted the plan in July. At that time Mr.Warden and Mr. Barker requested several
modifications,and the current proposal includes the requested changes in Section X, as well as the
additional language requested.
2004-2480
SD0122
co '. FL CA oq -0.1/ -v y
HEARING CERTIFICATION - RESOURCE COLORADO WATER AND SANITATION
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN
PAGE 2
Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services,presented a brief summary of the proposal and entered
the favorable recommendation of the Planning Commission into the record as written. He stated
the application was continued at Planning Commission several times at the request of the applicant;
and that, pursuant to Section 32-1-1004(2),sanitation,water,and mosquito control services will be
provided. Mr. Ogle stated the historical use is agricultural with a center pivot, and he indicated the
location of the property,which is within a three-mile referral radius of Adams County. Mr Ogle stated
the Towns of Keenesburg and Brighton received courtesy referrals,and Keenesburg responded that
it is currently meeting with the applicants to ensure future water requirements; however, Adams
County and Brighton did not respond. Mr. Ogle stated the property is within the Lost Creek Basin,
which is a closed basin. He referenced a memorandum to Bruce Barker dated March 22, 2004, in
which the applicant's attorney stated that,". . .although Weld County may discourage transporting
the water out of a closed basin aquifer, the owners are not prohibited from transferring the water
and using it for developments in otherjurisdictions." He further stated that litigation was concluded
earlier this year in the Adams County District Court, with a Stipulation, which clearly allows the
owners to export water out of the Lost Creek Designated Basin for certain uses, which are listed
in the memorandum to Bruce Barker, as well as how the water may be changed in use. Mr. Ogle
stated a sign was posted ten days prior to this hearing by staff, and he presented photo evidence
of said posting,marked Exhibit G. He stated thirteen agencies reviewed the proposal,nine of which
offered comments which have been integrated into staff comments. He stated no surrounding
property owners submitted comments. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr.Warden stated the
projectwill be funded by general revenue bonds,which will be repaid through the proceeds from the
sale of water and user fees; and no property tax may be assessed without a return to the Board of
County Commissioners for an amendment to the service plan. Responding further to
Commissioner Geile, Mr. Barker stated it is his understanding that the applicant already has some
decrees for the movement of water out of the basin, which express the amount of water, and the
Court has already determined that no one would be injured as a result. Mr. Barker stated with those
decrees already in place, the service plan is a matter of setting up the means by which the water
will be exported.
Harvey Deutsch,co-applicant and organizer of the district,introduced the individuals involved in the
project,and stated he and Joel Farkas formed Gateway American Properties in 1992, under which
they acquire land,zone it, plat it, bring utilities to the property, install parks, streets, and walls, and
provide for major builders to buy lots for homes. He stated they do not actually build the homes, but
sell the lots to major builders. Mr. Deutsch further described his business, and stated their
company has become the second largest land development company in Colorado, and it has
operated primarily in the northern Adams County area. Referencing Planning Commission
Exhibit 34, Mr. Deutsch indicated the properties outlined in yellow along 1-76 which are involved in
this development, primarily in Commerce City, Brighton, Thornton and unincorporated Adams
County. He stated they have been involved with some of the properties since his company began,
and several years ago it became apparent that they needed to bring water resources to the cities.
Mr. Deutsch stated he acquired a package of water rights, including ditch shares for Fulton Ditch,
Lupton Bottoms, Lupton Meadows, and Brighton Ditch, which were taken for completion of
adjudication to South Adams County Water and Sanitation District,which serves Commerce City.
In exchange they received water taps for their projects. Mr. Deutsch stated they have used up all
that water and, in order to continue business, had to seek another source of water. He located a
water development project,known as Eagle Peak Project near Prospect Valley,which had been in
2004-2480
SD0122
HEARING CERTIFICATION - RESOURCE COLORADO WATER AND SANITATION
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN
PAGE 3
Court for nine years, mainly because those in charge of the project did not have a specific use for
the water. Mr. Deutsch stated they spent the next three years, while in Court, seeking necessary
approvals by compromising with the governmental agencies which were involved. He stated they
ended up settling with the State of Colorado and the Ground Water Commission, by agreeing to a
smaller amount of water to be exported,using the historical consumptive use amount,and approval
of the change in use. He stated the Settlement was then entered as a Court Order in Adams
County District Court. Mr. Deutsch stated they then began working with the Lost Creek District,and
entered into a Settlement with the Ground Water Management District,whose prerogative it was to
determine whether the export would cause injury to the water rights of any others in the basin. He
stated a number of studies were completed,which found that the company would be taking out less
than the historical consumptive use. Another part of the settlement agreement, he stated,was to
meter every single well for monitoring,with monthly reports being submitted to the district and to the
State. He stated they also agreed regarding the management of the farm as they transitioned from
irrigated to non-irrigated farmland. Mr. Deutsch stated there are now approximately 5,000 acres of
land to manage. He stated they agreed on weed control, use of good farming practices, hiring a
local farm manager to supervise the farmers,or to farm some themselves. He stated the company
was adjudicated 4,565 acre feet of water for export,and they also agreed to work with the Henrylynn
Ditch Company to hire an independent consultant to determine whether the Henrylynn facilities could
be effectively used for returning augmentation water to the aquifer at Lost Creek Basin and
recharging the aquifer. Mr. Deutsch described the Prospect Valley Lost Creek Basin,which is east
of Hudson. He stated the regulated area encompasses a small portion of a very large drainage
basin which runs south of the Town of Bennett. He stated the irrigation wells take out approximately
44,000 acre feet every year, and 44,000 acre feet of recharge is returned to the aquifer through
drainage, precipitation, and other sources. He emphasized the wells are not depleting water from
the aquifer,and they are not contributory to the Platte Basin. Mr. Deutsch stated his company now
owns approximately ten percent of the farms,ten percent of the water through irrigated wells, and
ten percent of the Henrylynn Ditch Company. Mr. Deutsch stated that, after three years, his
company finally settled with everyone,and they are ready to proceed. He stated that one-half of the
farms are in Adams County and one-half in Weld County, and they desire a good working
relationship to the Board of Commissioners. He stated a metropolitan district is the best choice to
allow for perpetuity of the water for all those involved, including the various municipalities,
development projects,and water users,and it will provide continuity of management and operations.
He stated there would also be opportunities for public input, through reports submitted to local
entities, and all relevant information will be available. He stated the advisory committee will be
comprised of people appointed from Weld County;however,the Board of County Commissioners
may appoint four of the seven designees. He stated the financing advantages, which include
municipal bonds available at lower rates to pass on affordability to the customer, which is a city,
town or district. He stated the district will not impose ad valorem taxes,and it cannot provide water
directly to consumers without an amendment to the service plan. Mr. Deutsch stated bonds will not
be issued until the advisory committee is appointed and a rate study has been completed to
determine how to provide for maintenance and future improvements, and there is also funding
included for an additional study to answer any concerns of the County. He stated the bonds may
also be used in cooperation with other governmental entities, such as Henrylynn or Lost Creek
Basin,which cannot issue bonds. He stated the objective of the District is to create a workable and
affordable water treatment and delivery system, which is a Title 32 District. Responding to
CommissionerGeile regarding the district boundaries, Mr. Deutsch stated that although the District
2004-2480
SD0122
HEARING CERTIFICATION - RESOURCE COLORADO WATER AND SANITATION
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN
PAGE 4
will provide water over the expanded area shown on the maps, for control purposes,the 160-acre
parcel of land, which is owned by the Board members, is used as the District home base, from
which all services and facilities are provided and operated. He further stated the District will have
a long-term life and, in this manner, the District will maintain control of the water system.
Joel Farkas,co-applicant,stated the primary business of their company is to develop communities,
including not only land use applications, but schools, bridges, infrastructure, and water and sewer
resources. However, he stated, they do not operate those systems. He stated they develop the
major infrastructure resources in order for the municipal and county jurisdictions to actually operate
the systems. Mr. Farkas stated their company will not be the retail provider of sewer or water taps,
and the District will be the wholesale provider, in cooperation with other jurisdictions through
intergovernmental agreements. He stated the 208 plans are effectively generated through the
various jurisdictions with whom they are working. He reiterated their company is not involved in
house by house provision of services;however,they are interested in ensuring communities have
adequate resources for the future,and their primary business is the development of the community
to turn over to the jurisdiction for its operation. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Farkas
stated the developments will either be annexed in or approved by the County. He stated they have
approved decrees for water, which is a component of developing the community, and the large
municipalities are the easiest to work with. He stated it sometimes takes 20 years to develop the
communities, and he stated they currently remain involved in communities where lots and retail
areas were sold two or three years ago to ensure all promises made through the approval process
are completed. Mr. Farkas stated when they are developing intensive infrastructure nearby, it is a
unique opportunity to work with the smaller municipalities. He stated there are water quality issues,
which they can assist the jurisdictions with. He also stated that multiple small sewer systems could
be coalesced to bring down costs of those systems. Mr. Farkas stated that schools and bridges
do not only serve this project, but this allows the opportunity to bring small jurisdictions the benefit
of their larger resources. He stated if agriculture will benefit from their activities,they will pursue the
ways and means, and they do not want to develop without addressing the needs of agriculture.
Maryann McGeady,Attorney,stated she worked extensively with Kim Ogle,Don Warden,and Bruce
Barker, and revised the Service Plan to address their concerns. She stated provisions in the Plan
require the District,at the time of consideration of issuance of bond financing,to provide a rate study
and Intergovernmental Agreements(IGA)with various service providers to the County for review,
and to publish a notice in the paper of the fact that the District will be issuing bonds. She stated it
also provides that when the rate study and IGA's are submitted to the County,the applicant would
pay for any outside consultants determined necessary for review of those documents by the County.
She stated the function of the rate study is to evaluate the cost of repayment of the debt, as well as
the cost of operation,repair,maintenance,and depreciation of the facility. Ms. McGeady stated the
IGA's with municipalities and other special districts will provide for the eventuality of a deficiency in
service by the current board. She stated another provision deals with the possibility that, because
of the small district area and a limited number of candidates,if there are not enough board members
to serve,who would run the facility. Ms. McGeady stated a section provides for review procedures
and remedies for the County to stop construction of the facility and issuance of bonds for debt in
certain cases,and stated the District will comply to avoid any limitation in the ability to function. She
stated that any amendment to the boundaries of the 160-acre tract would have to be approved by
the Board of County Commissioners,although expansion of boundaries would require approval if
2004-2480
SD0122
HEARING CERTIFICATION - RESOURCE COLORADO WATER AND SANITATION
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN
PAGE 5
something new were happening,or if the intention changes regarding service to the end users. Ms.
McGeady stated the statutory findings have been detailed in the Service Plan,which is sufficient as
submitted. Responding to Commissioner Jerke,she stated on the Phase I proposed project plan,
which is included in the Service Plan,the areas shown by yellow squares are the service area. She
further responded that,through the function of the advisory board,they will continue to provide three-
year capital improvement plans,and when pursuing financing,they will submit copies of all required
information to the County, although it is not anticipated that County approval will be necessary for
the varying steps in between. She stated that,if a review indicates problems,an objection could be
asserted and financing would not go forward until the problems were addressed. Responding to
Commissioner Jerke, Ms. McGeady stated that the Service Plan allows the District to incorporate
additional water rights without receiving further approval from the Board of Commissioners.
(Changed to tape#2004-37). Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Farkas stated that none of
the properties proposed to be within the service area of the District would require land use approval
by the County. He stated there is only one currently located in Weld County, and it is within the
Brighton city limits; however, in the future,additional acquisitions might be located in Weld County.
Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Farkas stated the properties indicated in green are not
contemplated for development at present. Responding to Chair Masden, Ms. McGeady stated the
assets are located outside of the 160-acre tract boundaries; however, the District would own the
assets. Mr. Farkas stated the District would only allow for the provision of water and sewer services
through an IGAwith a municipality or other district. He stated that if the District were to be used for
a community in the future, that particular development or community would have to follow the
County zoning requirements for approval, and the water and sewer providers of the development
would be the District. He reiterated no direct services will be sold. Responding to Commissioner
Jerke, Ms. McGeady stated the responsibility of the District is to provide only to the service area,
whether or not it is within the 160-acre tract. She stated the financing of infrastructure is facilitated
by this type of structured plan, and it takes ten to twenty years to complete.
Tom Bishop, Financial Advisor, stated he is an investment banker, and is advising the District on
the type of municipal bond structure that will best be marketable. Mr. Bishop reviewed his
background, and stated his advice has been included in the Service Plan in narrative form. He
reiterated these are not tax-based bonds, they are revenue bonds which will be sold project by
project. He stated there are many projects which could be completed. In the example given for a
pipeline to service an area where there is a demand for water,the bonds would be repaid through
tap fees,which is a normal structure of capitalized interest and reserve funds. He stated the District
will wait for the rate study, service provider agreements, and developer/home builder guarantees
to purchase the properties. Under those circumstances, Mr. Bishop stated, the bonds would be
sold,although State statutes prohibit marketing to other than institutional investors. He stated they
cannot sell the bonds to retail customers through brokerage firms. He stated control will be
maintained through setting the minimum bond at $500,000. He stated the market place is the
control,although the interest will fluctuate,and this type of bond has been successful for 25 years.
Mr. Bishop stated that half of the municipal bonds for Special Districts marketed in the last five years
have been handled at his firm. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Bishop stated he is
comfortable with the project financing nature. He stated that projects are identified,and the District
will have a monopoly of the service provision of water in that area for the first projects, although the
projects will not dilute each other, and each will stand on its own.
2004-2480
SD0122
HEARING CERTIFICATION - RESOURCE COLORADO WATER AND SANITATION
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN
PAGE 6
Tim Buchanan, Water Attorney, discussed the nature of water rights the District will utilize,which
is different than what is commonly used. He stated that in 1965,the Legislature recognized areas
of the State where wells predominantly used the water; and it authorized designated basins, with
a series of criteria and rules which have no dealings with the Water Court. He stated the District
is dealing with only designated basins and not with the Water Court. Mr. Buchanan stated that in
1967, the Groundwater Commission designated Lost Creek Basin as a renewable water supply.
He explained that the water withdrawn from the Basin recharges the acquifer on an annual basis,
through precipitation, snowfall, and the Henrylynn irrigation system, which percolates into the
acquifer. He stated water levels in the Basin have increased since 1950, and there is more water
currently available than at that time. Mr. Buchanan stated there are 1.3 million acre feet of water in
storage in the designated basin, and the District is allowed approximately 44,000 acre feet of
withdrawals from the Basin and 44,000 acre feet of recharges per year. He stated there are no new
permits for withdrawals within this Basin, and there will not be a rush to acquire new water rights,
since this is a closed Basin. Mr. Buchanan stated the Basin is administered by the Colorado
Groundwater Commission, which determines rights within the Basin, and the Lost Creek Water
Management District, which is the local board that can establish rules and policies for use of the
water. He further stated that all water rights have historically been used for agricultural purposes
and, by State law,the owners of the rights cannot change the usage of the water. However, under
a process begun in 1994,the applicants filed a request with the Groundwater Commission and with
the Lost Creek Groundwater District for export of water. Mr. Buchanan stated both entities reviewed
the applications, both denied the applications, and the applicants appealed to the Adams County
District Court. He stated the various parties engaged in settlement discussions over appropriate
terms and conditions to prevent injury due to export and change of rights,and the applicants entered
into Stipulation Agreements with both entities. He stated the Stipulations were approved by the
Adams County District Court,and they authorized both the change in use and the exportation of the
water, therefore, no other approvals are needed at this time. Mr. Buchanan stated the District,
Commission, and Courts looked for adverse affects, with terms and conditions, and determined
there will not be any injury to any other party. Mr. Buchanan stated the water rights will, therefore,
be incorporated into the District and used as the source of supply for delivery to the water
customers of the District. Responding to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Buchanan stated the District
has permits for water rights which authorizes the withdrawal of 2.5 acre feet per acre, or 12,000
acre feet per year. However, by changing the water rights and agreeing to the tipulation,they have
been limited to only the historical consumptive use, or what the plants actually consumed over
approximately the last ten years, which is 4,565 acre feet. He stated the consumptive use was
higher; however, as part of the stipulation process, they agreed to 4,565 acre feet. Responding
further to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Buchanan stated the District is not proposing any change to
Henrylynn water or the Henrylynn District, although they will utilize the water the same as before.
He stated there has been discussion regarding operational options to enhance the aquifer from
Henrylynn. He also stated the practice under Henrylynn has been to aggregate water onto a parcel
of land to allow crops to continue growing on that parcel; however, they normally only irrigate half
of the property. He stated the applicants work with farm managers to develop good strategies for
those properties. Responding further to Commissioner Jerke, Mr. Buchanan stated the water being
pumped out is only the historical consumptive use, which came from several sources, although
Henrylynn is the smallest resource. He stated the actual water supply is not dependent upon
Henrylynn to recharge into the valley, and there is substantially more Henrylynn water coming into
the valley and recharging the aquifer than the small amount owned by the applicants. Mr. Buchanan
2004-2480
SD0122
HEARING CERTIFICATION - RESOURCE COLORADO WATER AND SANITATION
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN
PAGE 7
also responded to Commissioner Jerke that there is no water making its way to the South Platte and
that,once designated,the Basin became separate from the South Platte River. He stated the Basin
is not required to go to Water Court,submit plans for augmentation or any other operational issues
which are required of others. Mr. Buchanan stated the Water Commissions were created before
Water Courts, therefore, they were carried over from the 1965 Act, and any appeals of decisions
by the Commission is directed through the local District Court. He stated the law was modified so
that, where the Basin overlaps more than one county, the Supreme Court appoints a designated
water judge, and Adams County District Court is the appointed Court for Lost Creek Designated
Basin. Commissioner Jerke reiterated for the record that the Adams County District Court is the
proper jurisdiction, and filing through that Court was not a way of avoiding Water Court in Weld
County. Responding to Commissioner Geile, Mr. Buchanan stated the total water rights approved
in Court is 4,565 acre feet for export. He stated the District owns other rights associated with the
Henrylynn District; however, they are not subject to changes or export at this time. In the event of
a change, they would need to go to Water Court for Henrylynn. Responding to Chair Masden, Mr.
Buchanan stated as part of the agreement with the Lost Creek Water Management District, the
applicants agreed to revegetation and maintenance,to minimize soil erosion and weeds. He stated
the farm managers have been asked to develop a plan for every parcel to include evaluation of the
vegetation plan and sources of water. Mr. Buchanan stated that some of the farms will continue
with crops for a period of time until the water is needed, and he anticipates the overall plan is to
incorporate Henrylynn into it to establish cover crops to prevent erosion. Mr. Buchanan stated some
of the properties were historically in the Crop Rotation Program, and some may return to it.
Wood Eplesteimer,from the Berthoud area,stated he has two farms which adjoin these properties.
He stated he has been in the valley for ten years, and he has spent a great deal of time with the
applicants,and found them to be extremely professional and considerate;however,as it relates to
changes in the valley, he supports a public utility. He feels it needs to be a long-term, on-going
public utility.
Mark Garnish,from the Keenesburg area,stated he is a third generation farmer,who has a row crop
operation of nine crops. He stated agriculture is his livelihood, and he has survived by continuing
to add value to his property. He stated he has trimmed the return on investments to a manageable
threshold. Therefore, water export was not desired, and it threatened their future. Mr. Garnish
stated more people want to live in a smaller community, and it is not possible to keep people out.
He stated the key issue is right of ownership. He stated one does not own the water, but the right
to pump it. Mr.Garnish stated that,while use is important,the water balance in the aquifer must be
maintained. He stated value will be added through increased land costs, opportunities for
commercial development,and the added value of agriculture. Mr.Garnish reiterated water balance
is key, and export must be planned, managed, and maintained to the benefit of all users. Mr.
Garnish stated that, after review of the proposal, he believes it may be a turning point in the
community. He feels there is a great deal of inclusion in the document,through the advisory board,
which will allow community involvement, and he appreciates that.
Mr. Garnish stated he would like to see more of a plan in the area of bringing water back for
recharging, including water banking. He stated it could be an area of community participation,
irregardless of whether the residents in the area decide to lease or sell their properties to the
applicants. Mr. Garnish stated the entities must communicate, cooperate, and collaborate to
2004-2480
SD0122
HEARING CERTIFICATION - RESOURCE COLORADO WATER AND SANITATION
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN
PAGE 8
maintain the agricultural legacy. He feels the family farm will probably not be there to pass along
to future generations; however this can be a legacy.
Mark Gray, Mayor of Keenesburg,stated he has been involved in meetings with Basin officials and
the applicant, and the Town has been conducting a water study to ensure the future potential and
to sustain residents. He stated the Town is interested in being involved in this project to ensure it
does not pollute, deplete, or change the aquifer and,therefore, interrupt use. He stated the Town
is also exploring this as a future use of water for the Town, and there is no objection to this plan.
Commissioner Jerke stated this is a good proposal. Responding to Chair Masden, Mr. Deutsch
stated there will not be monitoring wells placed around the District; however, as part of the
settlement, funds to study the potential of the Basin for recharge and storage are included. He
stated the proposals requested the consultants to include monitoring, and rather than new
monitoring wells, wait and see the experts opinion of the best locations for monitoring wells. He
stated they are currently in the process of selecting the engineering consulting firm,and the firm will
address recharge and water banking. Responding to Chair Masden, Mr. Deutsch stated the 4,565
acre feet could increase if historical levels increase, or if more water is brought in, which belongs
to those parties which bring in the water. The District would charge a fee in dollars or in water left
in the aquifer,which could then be brought out into wells. He stated the District can store, recharge
and water bank for other entities if the Lost Creek District gives approval.
Commissioner Geile stated he finds that there is sufficient existing and projected need for organized
service in the area;more than two of the services required by Section 32-1-1004(2)will be provided;
existing service is inadequate for present and projected needs;the proposed district is capable of
providing economical and sufficient service to the area; and the area to be included will have the
financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.Commissioner Jerke
stated that the negative impacts of the plan have been mitigated,and the applicant has worked with
area residents and municipalities cooperating with the applicant on the plan,agreements have been
completed, and he is in support of the plan. Commissioner Long stated he concurs, and this is a
good example of the way things could be done. He stated he appreciates the experience and
outreach provided to the area,and he is excited about the future. He stated he has full confidence
that the people in the area are knowledgeable,they see growth as something that will happen,and
this plan will expedite an efficient process for that to happen. Chair Masden stated the applicant has
shown due diligence in working with the existing districts,and Courts,through stipulations,and have
provided opportunity for community involvement. He stated it is a big change in the area;however,
the plan meets all the criteria.
Commissioner Geile moved to approve the Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water and
Sanitation Metropolitan District, based on the findings as previously stated and as provided in the
Draft Resolution and based on the recommendations of the Planning staff and the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Jerke seconded the motion, which carried unanimously.
There being no further discussion, the hearing was completed at 12:15 p.m.
2004-2480
SD0122
HEARING CERTIFICATION - RESOURCE COLORADO WATER AND SANITATION
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN
PAGE 9
This Certification was approved on the 30th day of August 2004.
APPROVED:
E4co BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1861 ( �igo � WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
1/49
4/0 Robert D. Masden, Chair
Runty Clerk to the Board
William H. J e, Pro-Tern
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the Board
M. ile
TAPE#2004-36 & #2004-37
David . Long
EXCUSED
Glenn Vaad
2004-2480
SD0122
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case SD0122 - RESOURCE COLORADO WATER AND SANITATION METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. Planning Staff Inventory of Items Submitted
B. Planning Commission Resolution of Recommendation
C. Planning Commission Summary of Hearing (Minutes 08/03/04,
06/15/04, 06/01/04, and 05/04/04)
D. Clerk to the Board Notice of Hearing
E. McGeady Sisneros, P.C Letter re: Revisions to Service Plan
(08/06/04)
F. McGeady Sisneros, P.C. Updated Service Plan Received 08/18/04
G. Planning Staff Sign Posting Certificate
H. Bruce Barker Memorandum Dated April 23, 2004
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
S.
T.
U.
Hello