HomeMy WebLinkAbout20042474 •
•
Weld County Referral •
April 20, 2004
C.
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Resource Colorado Water& Case Number 2004-XX
Sanitation Metropolitan
District
Please Reply By April 28, 2004 Planner Kim Ogle
Project Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water& Sanitation Metropolitan District.
Legal Lot C of RE-2066; being part of theNW4 of Section 34, Ti N, R63W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to CR 4; east of and adjacent to CR 67.
Parcel Number 1477 34 200023 •
I
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may
give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be
deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new
information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to
examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) May 4, 2004
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter. �
Comments: acct._ t7�Ze�r � /l
if
Signature qq / Date //2- �/o y
Agency e i'd �O'te, t t y ,5,7 Gf.L//lo917/4 y
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-6' : E X41B I T
2004-2474
•
f}f MEMORANDUM
ft}`r t TO: Kim Ogle, Department of Planning April 21, 2004
VIiDcFROM: Don Warden, Director Finance and Administration
COLORADO SUBJECT: Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water and
Sanitation Metropolitan District
In response to your referral concerning the Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water
and Sanitation Metropolitan District I have the following to offer as it relates to the
financial plan of the service plan primarily. Other subjects of the service plan, such as,
services in the area, compliance to master plan (comprehensive plan), water issues, etc
I will leave for other referral agencies with more expertise:
The financial plan of the service plan is totally inadequate. There is inadequate
information or data to make a professional determination of the district's financial
feasibility. There no information provided to allow anyone to make a judgement as to
whether or not the district can provide service, which is economical and sufficient to
service the users of the district.
Specifically, there is no operational budget or proforma financial information provided to
show any financial plan or estimates. There is no rate study or even a proposed rate
structure to give an indication of the costs of services or likely rates.
The most glaring omission is any detail line item costs for the use of the bond proceeds.
All that is provided is a laundry list of potential expenditures with a total of $324 million
at the end of the list. What makes up the detail of the total is omitted. This debt is
substantial for a district. The $324 million to put it into perspective is 4 to 5 times the
legal debt limit allowed for all of Weld County under state law. The debt limit for Weld
County under state law is 3% of all assessed value in the county or just under $75
million. They are proposing $324 million in debt without any backup information
showing how the debt will be used and how the debt will be serviced. The debt service
on interest only at 4% would require $12,960,000 in interest alone. That would take a
user base of over 40,000 homes at $300 per year in fees for interest only. Again, to put
the debt in perspective the City of Greeley's total debt obligation for its water system is
only $44 million.
Based upon the financial plan of the service plan submitted it is my recommendation
that services plan not be approved because:
1. Due to the lack of any financial detail there is no evidence in the service plan to find
that the proposed District is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to
the area that it intends upon serving.
2. Due to the lack of any financial detail there is no evidence in the service plan to find
that the area to be included in the proposed District has, or will have, the financial ability
to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
•
•
Other comments relate to the proposed intergovernmental agreement (IGA) regarding
the establishment of a policy board. In the event the District is created I would not
recommend that the Board of Weld County Commissioners be party to the IGA or have
members on the policy board of the district for the following reasons:
1. The true "policy board" of the District is the District's elected board of directors.
2. The "policy board' would actually be an advisory board with no authority.
3. County Commissioners have never served in a subordinated role to a metro or
special district board as proposed.
4. Serving on such a board could give the impression to the public that the Weld County
Commissioners have some legal or political authority or responsibility in this District's
governance and administration, when in fact they do not. Thus, creating a potentially
awkward political situation for the Commissioners, and possible legal complications if
problems arise.
Finally, general comments/observations on the structure and model of this District. The
District is modeled after the United Water and Sanitation District (United), but it appears
to be somewhat different in concept and purpose. United is a district created to better
manage a water system with most or all of the interested parties involved, versus a few
developers. United was also created to manage a water system and maintain a steady
state of the water system, versus exporting water. The District also appears to be
serving the sole purpose of accommodating development that will be mostly outside of
Weld County. The structure gives a few developers the advantage of controlling in both
the short and long term a metro district. This gives this small group of developers the
best of both worlds of having a public entity with private control. The question the
Board of Weld County Commissioners, and the District Court will have to answer is this
good public policy and a good governance structure to insure that the public good is
serviced by the autonomous public entity being created?
Resourcecolowaterspecialdistrict
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
rtoa APR 2 3 2004
Weld County RektraNED
' April 6, 2004
�e
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Resource Colorado Water& Case Number 2004-XX
Sanitation Metropolitan
District
Please Reply By April 28, 2004 Planner Kim Ogle
Project Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water& Sanitation Metropolitan District.
Legal Lot C of RE-2066; being part of theNW4 of Section 34, T1 N, R63W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to CR 4; east of and adjacent to CR 67.
Parcel Number 1477 34 200023
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may
give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be
deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new
information may be added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to
examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing (if applicable) May 4, 2004
❑ We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
-g See attached letter.
Comments: _ ha
- !7
-
Signature ' ,�/ G-Z�� Date /-1--./ `s7c 3 {{�
Agency -}'(\ - -1 Fc-AMA¢T\3
❖Weld County Planning Dept. ❖1555 N. 17th Ave. Greeley,co..80631 +(970)353-6100 ext.3540 +(970)304-. EXHIBIT
5
•
re& TO: Kim Ogle, Department of Planning Services
FROM: Bruce T. Barker, Weld County Attorney
DATE: April 23, 2004
c
RE: Service Plan for Proposed Resource Colorado Water and
COLORADO Sanitation Metropolitan District
The petitioners and proponents of the proposed Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation
Metropolitan District submitted a proposed Service Plan to the Clerk to the Board of County
Commissioners and to the Weld County Clerk and Recorder on April 12, 2004. By Resolution of
that date, the Board of County Commissioners accepted the filing and referred the Service Plan to
the Weld County Planning Commission for its study and recommendation. The matter is set for
hearing before the Planning Commission on May 4, 2004. A copy of the Board's Resolution is
attached.
A metropolitan district is a special district which is required by C.R.S. § 32-1-1004(2) to provide
two or more of the following services:
a. Fire protection.
b. Elimination and control of mosquitos.
c. Parks or recreational facilities or programs.
d. Safety protection through traffic and safety controls and devices on streets and
highways and at railroad crossings.
e. Sanitation services.
f Street improvement through the construction and installation of curbs, gutters,
culverts, and other drainage facilities and sidewalks, bridges, parking facilities,
paving, lighting, grading, landscaping, and other street improvements.
g. Establishment and maintenance of television relay and translator facilities.
h. Transportation.
i. Water and sanitation services.
j. Water.
Memorandum, Kim Ogle
April 23, 2004
Page 2
k. Solid waste disposal facilities or collection and transportation of solid waste.
C.R.S. § 32-1-203 requires the Board of County Commissioners to review a service plan for a
proposed special district. Subsection (1) of that statute says that the Board has the authority:
a. To approve without condition or modification the service plan as submitted.
b. To disapprove the service plan submitted.
c. To conditionally approve the service plan subject to the submission of additional
information relating to or the modification of the proposed service plan.
The Board will be looking for a Planning Commission recommendation of one of these three
alternatives, based upon the criteria set forth below.
C.R.S. § 32-1-203(2) requires the Board of County Commissioners to disapprove the service
plan, unless satisfactory evidence of each of the following is presented:
a. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to
be serviced by the proposed special district.
b. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is
inadequate for present and projected needs.
c. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient
service to the area within its proposed boundaries.
d. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the
financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-203(2.5), the Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the
service plan if satisfactory evidence of any of the following is not presented:
a. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through Weld County
or other existing municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing
special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis.
b. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible
with the facility and service standards of Weld County.
Memorandum, Kim Ogle
April 23, 2004
Page 3
c. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to
C.R.S. § 30-28-106.
d. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state
long-range water quality management plan for the area.
e. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area
proposed to be served.
Please let me know if you should have any questions. — %
B e T. Barker -
z eld County Attorney
pc: Clerk to the Board
CDPHE-WQCD Fax:3037820390 Apr 26 2004 14::40 P.02
APR C 23C4
ter faIity Control Division
Weld County Referral
April 6, 2004
Ci
COLORADO
The Weld County Department of Planning Services has received the following item for review:
Applicant Resource Colorado Water& Case Number 2004-XX
Sanitation Metropolitan
• District •
Please Reply By April 28, 2004 Planner Km Ogle
Project Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation Metropolitan District.
Legal Lot C of RE-2066; being part of theNW4 of Section 34, T1 N, R63W of the 6th
P.M., Weld County, Colorado.
Location South of and adjacent to CR 4; east of and adjacent to CR 67.
Parcel Number 1477 34 200023
The application is submitted to you for review and recommendation. Any comments or recommendation you
consider relevant to this request would be appreciated. Please reply by the above listed date so that we may
give full consideration to your recommendation. Any response not received before or on this date may be
deemed to be a positive response to the Department of Planning Services. If you have any further questions
regarding the application, please call the Planner associated with the request. Please note that new
information maybe added to applications under review during the review process. If you desire to.
examine or obtain this additional information, please call the Department of Planning Services.
Weld County Planning Commission Hearing(if applicable) May 4, 2004
O We have reviewed the request and find that it does/does not comply with our Comprehensive Plan
❑ We have reviewed the request and find no conflicts with our interests.
See attached letter.
Comments:
•
Signature f' __ ..__._ Date CY 2i' r/
Agency CDPfbE.— OCX-j> f/
+Weld County Planning Dept. +1555 N. 17th Ave.Greeley,CO.80631 6•(970)353-6100 ext.3540 60(970)304-6498 far
4 EXHIBIT
STATE OF COLORADO
Bill Owens,Governor
Douglas H.Benevento,Executive Director 4e or!:co�4
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado N •
e
4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Services Division *
Denver,Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. « '
Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80230-6928 Jaye•TDD Line(303)691-7700 (303)692-3090 Colorado Department
Located in Glendale,Colorado of Public Health
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us and Environment
April 27, 2004
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
Mr. Kim Ogle APR ? $ 2004
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 North 181°Avenue RECEIVED
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Weld County Referral—Case Number 2004-XX
Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation Metropolitan District
Dear Mr. Ogle:
The Water Quality Control Division(Division)has received and reviewed the referral for the Resource Colorado
Water&Sanitation Metropolitan District(District).
The District should be aware of the requirements of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, the Colorado
Primary Drinking Water Regulations, the Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification Requirements,
the Regulations for the Site Application Process and the New Water System Capacity Planning Manual.
Specifically, the District should be familiar with section 25-8-702 of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act as it
relates to domestic wastewater treatment works as defined by the Act. The District should also be familiar with
section 1.11.2 of the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations as it relates to public water systems as
defined by the Regulations.
Should you have any comments or questions,please contact me at 303-692-3507.
Sincerely,
Bradley A. Simons,P.E.
District Engineer
Technical Services Unit
Water Quality Control Division
BAS/RJF/bas
cc: Kent Kuster,WQCD-TSU
Tom Armitage,WQCD-TSU
Dick Parachini,WQCD-O&A
Betsy Beaver,WQCD-WQP
Trevor Jiricek,Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment
GRAY CARR 3037324078 p. 1
TOWN OF KEENESBURG
RG
INCORPORATED JULY, 1919
April 30, 2004
Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning
Greeley, Colorado
Case# 2004-XX
Dear Kim:
This letter is to inform you that the Town Of Keenesburg is currently meeting with PV Holdings
LLC about conceptual ideas on how we might work together on the Town's water needs in the
future.
The Town of Keenesburg has completed a water study,put together by TZA Water Engineers.
This evaluation concluded that we need to look at water in the Lost Creek Basin. Since PV
Holdings are looking to develop the same basin it make's sense that we at least get together.
It is our opinion that we must all work together to find the sources of water needed to supply the
ever growing development of south Weld.
I believe that PV Holdings will always find it in there best interest to work with the local
communities and to be a good neighbor.
I hope that this helps you in your planning process and if you have any questions please feel free
to call 970-381-5703.
Respectfully:
The Honors le
D. �`
ar D. Gray
Mayor
Town of Keeenesburg
140 SOUTH MAIN P.O. BOX 312 KEENESBURG COLORADO 80643
[ 4. EX. , ,BIT
I �IJ
4( 4/30/2004 14:07 C303-592-4385.5 McGeady Sisneros, PC Julia Dybdahl-)-19703046498 2/2
MCGEADY SISNEROS, R G.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1675 BROADWAY,SUITE 2100
DENVER,COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE:1303) 592-1380
FACSIMILE:13031 5924355
MARYANN M.MCGEADY
DARLENE SISNEROS •N KO WpML4
MARY JO DOUGHERTY KENNETH M. PROWIG3
JACQUELINE C.MURPHY
MEGAN BECHER VALERIE 0.BROMLEY
KATHRYN 5.KANDA
April 30, 2004
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Kim Ogle
Weld County Colorado
Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation District
Dear Kim:
Pursuant to our discussion, the applicant would like to request that the public hearing
before the Weld County Planning Commission on the Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation
District set for May 4, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. be continued until the next Planning Commission
meeting on June 1, 2004, at 1:30 p.m.
Very truly yours,
MCGEADY SISNEROS,P.C.
V V
Valerie D. Bromley
Harvey Deutsch
Joel Farkas
Steven Deutsch
Eric Chekal
Chris Paulson
Shayne Madsen
Sam Sharp
Bruce Barker
;00017473 DOC Y:I) 4. EXHIBIT
f w MEMORANDUM
Wi`Pe. TO:
Weld DA May County
Planning Commission
COLORADO
FROM: Kim Ogle, Planning Manager
SUBJECT: Request for Continuance
District Service Plan
Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District
CASE #: 2004-XX
The Department of Planning Services on behalf of the applicant is requesting a continuance for case
number 2004-XX, the applicant is Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District.
The applicant states "Pursuant to our discussion, the applicant would like to request that the public
hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission on the Resource Colorado Water and
Sanitation District set for May 4, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. be continued until the next Planning Commission
meeting on June 1, 2004, at 1:30 p.m." to address issues associated with this application.
The Department of Planning Services is in support of this request.
(4, EXHIBIT
t
4
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
MAY 1 0 2004
RECEIVED
McGEADY SISNEROS, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1675 BROADWAY,SUITE 2100
DENVER,COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE: (303)592-4380
FACSIMILE: (303)592-4385
MARYANN M. MCGEADY SPECIAL COUNSEL
DARLENE SISNEROS KENNETH M. KOPROWICZ
MARY JO DOUGHERTY
MEGAN BECHER
VALERIE D.BROMLEY
KATHRYN S. KANDA
JACQUELINE C.MURPHY
GEORGE M. ROWLEY
May 7, 2004
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Kim Ogle
Weld County Colorado
Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation District
Dear Kim:
Pursuant to our discussion, the applicant would like to request that the public hearing
before the Weld County Planning Commission on the Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation
District originally set for May 4, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. and continued until the next Planning
Commission meeting on June 1, 2004, at 1:30 p.m; be continued until the Planning Commission
meeting on June 15, 2004, at 1:30 p.m..
Very truly yours,
MCGEADY SISNE ,P.C.
V a V v
Valerie D. Bromley
VDB/kc
c: Harvey Deutsch Shayne Madsen
Joel Farkas Sam Sharp
Steven Deutsch Bruce Barker
Eric Chekal Chris Paulson
11. EXHIBIT
(b
{00017473.DOC v:1)
MEMORANDUM
Wg`Pe. TO: Weld County Planning Commission
COLORADO DATE: June 15, 2004
FROM: Kim Ogle, Planning Manager Yib
SUBJECT: Request for Continuance
District Service Plan
Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District
CASE #: 2004-XX
The Department of Planning Services on behalf of the applicant is requesting a continuance for case
number 2004-XX, the applicant is Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District.
Previously, the applicant stated "Pursuant to our discussion, the applicant would like to request that
the public hearing before the Weld County Planning Commission on the Resource Colorado Water
and Sanitation District set for May 4, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. be continued until the next Planning
Commission meeting on June 1, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. be continued until the Planning Commission
meeting on June 15, 2004 at 1:30 p.m."
The applicant has met with the appropriate referral agency and is in process of amending their
application for staff review and comment, therefore, on behalf of the applicant, staff requests one
final continuance of this case until August 3, 2004. This request is evidenced by letter of request
from the applicant.
The Department of Planning Services is in support of this request.
EXHIBIT
Weld County Planning Department
GREELEY OFFICE
JUN 0 9 2004
MCGEADY SISNEROS, R C. !!l���
ATTORNEYS AT LAW RECEIVED
V
1675 BROADWAY, SUITE 2100 1`C V u
DENVER,COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE:13031 592-4380
FACSIM I L E:13031 592-4385
MARYANN M.MCGEADY SPECIAL COUNSEL
DARLENE SISNEROS KENNETH M.KOPROWIC2
MARY JO DOUGHERTY
MEGAN BECHER
VALERIE D.BROMLEY
KATHRYN S.KANDA
JACQUELINE C.MURPHY
GEORGE M. ROWLEY
June 7, 2004
VIA E-MAIL AND REGULAR MAIL
Kim Ogle
Weld County Colorado
Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation District
Dear Kim:
Pursuant to our discussion, the applicant would like to request that the public hearing
before the Weld County Planning Commission on June 15, 2004, on the proposed Resource
Colorado Water and Sanitation District be continued until the Planning Commission meeting on
August 3, 2004.
Very truly yours,
MCGEADY SISNER.c,P .
Vl V
Valerie D. Bromley
VDB/kc
c: Bruce Barker Eric Chekal
Harvey Deutsch Chris Paulson
Joel Farkas Shayne Madsen
Steven Deutsch Sam Sharp
[4. EXjIT
{00018732.DOC va}
' 6/15/2004 16:52 (303-592-4385.5 McGeady Slsneros, PC Kathy Copeland-+19703046498 2/3
McGEADY SISNEROS, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1675 BROADWAY,SUITE 2100
DENVER,COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE: (303)592.4380
FACSIMILE: (303)592-4385
MARYANN M MCGEADY SPFCIAI r011N5F1
DARLENE SISNEROS KENNETH M. KOPROWICZ
MARY JO DOUGHERTY
MEGAN BEGHER
VALERIE D.BROMLEY
KATHRYN S. KANDA
JACQUELINE C. MURPHY
GEORGE M. ROWLEY
June 15, 2004
VIA E-MAIL AND FAX
Bruce Barker
Weld County Colorado
County Attorney
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation District
Dear Bruce:
On June 3, 2004, the petitioners of the proposed Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation District
("District") met with Don Warden to discuss his comments regarding the Service Plan filed by the District
with Weld County. As a result of that meeting, the petitioners requested that the public hearing before the
Weld County Planning Commission on June 15, 2004, be continued until the Planning Commission
meeting on August 3, 2004, to allow the petitioners to provide supplemental information and a revised
Service Plan for staff review.
The supplemental information will set forth an example of a rate study for an extension of service
to a hypothetical community so that the process referenced in the Service Plan as to how the District will
evaluate and set rates related to a financing of specific improvements can be illustrated for review.
The revised Service Plan will delete the reference to the intergovernmental agreement establishing
a policy board and will incorporate within the text the commitment of the District to do the following: (a)
establish an advisory board; and (b) offer seats on the advisory board to the County Commissioners,
should they choose to so participate directly or by appointment of nominees. In addition, the revised
Service Plan will incorporate the reporting requirements which were previously set forth in the
intergovernmental agreement.
In addition, we would like to provide for your consideration a tentative schedule of the hearing
and publication dates, necessary for meeting the statutory deadlines for a November 2004, election.
{000[9534.DOC va
= EXHIBIT
' I
6/15/2004 16:52 0303-592-4385.5 McGeady Sisneros, PC Kathy Copeland->19703046498 3/3
Bruce Barker
June 15, 2004
Page 2
1. The first schedule anticipates an August 3, 2004,Planning Commission hearing with a
final recommendation:
(a) August 3, 2004, Planning Commission hearing with a final recommendation
(b) August 4, 2004, publish for August 25, 2004, Board of County Commissioners
hearing
(c) August 16, 2004, Board of County Commissioners sets a hearing date of
August 25, 2004
(d) August 25, 2004, hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
2. The alternative schedules anticipates an August 3, 2004,Planning Commission hearing and
allows for a continuance if necessary to an August 17, 2004,Planning Commission hearing with a final
recommendation:
(a) August 3, 2004, Planning Commission hearing with a continuance to the
August 17, 2004, meeting
(b) August 11, 2004, publish for September 1, 2004,Board of County Commissioners
hearing
(c) August 17, 2004, Planning Commission hearing with a final recommendation
(d) August 30, 2004, Board of County Commissioners sets a hearing date of
September, 1, 2004
(e) September 1, 2004, hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
Thank you for your assistance in the continuance of the Planning Commission Hearing. Please
feel free to contact our office with any questions regarding the proposed schedule.
Very truly yours,
MCGEADY SISNEr iS,P.C./
Valerie D. Bromley •
VDB/kc
c: Don Warden Eric Chekal
Kim Ogle Chris Paulson
Harvey Deutsch Shayne Madsen
Joel Farkas Tom Bishop
Steven Deutsch Sam Sharp
[00019534.DOC v.1
06/?.5(04 TUE 16:56 FAX 970 356 1111 LAO 6001
•
LIND, LAWRENCE & OTTENHOFF LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
THE LAW BUILDING
1011 ELEVENTH AVENUE
P.O.Mc 328
GREELEY,COLORADO 80931
WEB PAGE;LLOLAW,COM
GEORGE H.OTTENHDFF TELEPHONE
KENNETH F,LIND (970)356-9160
KIM R.LAWRENCE (970)353-2323
TELECOPIER
P.ANDREW JONES
(970)359-1111111
LIPUNRICHARD T.STER 95�0Ua15�.,.Can
KELLY J.CUSTER
BRADLEY C.GRASMICK
June 15, 2004
Kim Ogle VIA FACSIMILE NO. 304-6498
Weld County
Department of Planning Services
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metro District
Dear Kim:
As you know, this office represents the Lost Creek Ground Water Management District.
The purpose of this letter is to provide the District's comments on the proposed
Resource Colorado Service Plan.
The District has recently concluded long and difficult litigation with the applicants by
settlement and does not wish to take any position with regard to the creation of the
metro district per se, however, in the event the Board of County Commissioners does
approve its formation, the District believes the following issues should be addressed:
1, The District is concerned with the proposed Metro District's powers of
condemnation. While statute makes it clear that such a District could not
condemn water rights directly, it does not prohibit condemnation of farms for
Metro District purposes, or structures like canals- This eventuality is unlikely, but
nevertheless, the District believes that the Metro District's condemnation powers
should be limited to condemnation for the purposes of installing pipeline and
associated structures, and then in locations in proximity to a county road, so that
farms would not be disturbed for the installation of a pipeline.
2. The primary purpose of the Metro District is to finance a pipeline or pipelines to
be used to export water from Lost Creek Designated Ground Water Basin.
Though the parties who propose the District own a number of wells that will
export water, there remain many wells and farms that may, at some date in the
EXHIBIT
FAKIM\Lost Creek GMD\Last Creek GMDt99CV0097\CF\Corresp\Ogle Weld Cnty Planning 040615.doc
=
06/15/04 TUE 16:56 FAX 970 356 1111 LL(40 1002
Kim Ogle
Weld County
Department of Planning Services
Re: Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metro District
June 15, 2004
Page 2
future, wish to deliver water outside the boundaries of the basin. The District is
concerned that the proposed Metro District, controlled by private entities, would
have a monopoly over the means of export, and might exclude others from use,
or charge exorbitantly high tolls. Again, the likelihood of this scenario occurring is
perhaps small, considering the current parties involved in the proposal.
Nevertheless, some means should be put in place to prevent these abusive
practices from occurring in the future. The County should charter the Metro
District in such a way that farmers who are currently not involved in the project
have an equitable means to access the pipeline and related structures. A public
works project of this size should be truly 'public,' and available for use by Weld
County residents at a reasonable rate.
3. Finally, the District believes that a District Board member should sit on the
advisory board contemplated by the proposal. The District has discussed this
concept with the applicant, and found that it is not adverse.
Sincerely,
LIND, LAWRENCE & OTTENHOFF LLP
pigmy Sod by P.hAdNw Jones
oN:CN=P.Andrew Jenne,C=US.0=
f• Lind,uwmno..S Oeemoff,LIP
_ Mori
.1.2014.Ub 1t5 ef-01004rwn
Onto:4CM.p8.151&55:06-06 V P
P. Andrew Jones
PAJ:mt
cc: Lost Creek GMD
•
F:\XIM\LOST CREEK GMD0.OST CREEK GMD\99CV0097\CF\CORRESP\OGLE WELD CNTY PLANNING 040615.DOC
McGEADY SISNEROS, R C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1675 BROADWAY, SUITE 2100
DENVER,COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE:13031 592-4380
FAC51 M I LE:13031 592-4385
MARYANN M.McGEADY SPECIAL COUNSEL
DARLENE SISNEROS
MARY JO DOUGHERTY KENNETH M. KOPROWICZ
MEGAN BECHERV p
KATHRYN ATHR 5.BROMLEY A June 18, 2004
CEL C.MURPHY
GEO GEL M.E OWLE
GEORGE M.ROW LEY
VIA FEDEX
Don Warden
Weld Cou
915 10 treet
Gre , CO 80631
Re: Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District
Dear Don:
Enclosed, pursuant to your request at the June 3, 2004, meeting regarding the Service Plan for the
proposed Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District ("District"), is the following
information:
1. A revised Service Plan incorporating the establishment of an Advisory Board and deleting
the intergovernmental agreement between the District and Weld County regarding
establishment of a Policy Board;
2. A Hypothetical Financing Plan for the District as well as a letter from Kirkpatrick Pettis
regarding such Hypothetical Financing Plan;
3. A chart showing the hypothetical use of bond proceeds; and
4. A cost analysis for Phase 1 of the Resource Colorado Water System.
Please feel free to contact our office with any questions regarding the enclosed information.
Very truly yours,
MCGEADY SISNEROS,
vcL
Valerie D. Bromley
Kim Ogle Eric Chekal
SNIIINIP Jack Reutzel
Bruce Barker Chris Paulson
Harvey Deutsch Shayne Madsen
Joel Farkas Tom Bishop . EXHIBIT
Steven Deutsch Sam Sharp
{00020045.DOC v:1)
. ,
ii"t-is-,ii ,
ilipe, MEMORANDUM
COLORADO To: Kim Ogle, DPS
alftAl
From: Don Warden 1/4) di (IV
Date: June 21, 2004
Re: Service Plan for Resource Colorado Water and
Sanitation Metro District
I have reviewed the resubmitted service plan for the Resource Colorado Water &
Sanitation Metropolitan District (District) dated June 18, 2004. I also met on June 3,
2004, with the representatives proposing the District. The resubmittal was in partial
response to the discussion of June 3, 2004, regarding the "advisory board" and the
financial plan for the District.
The changes proposed for the structure of the "advisory board" address many of the
concerns I raised. The bottom line is for the Board of Weld County Commissioners to
make a policy decision regarding this matter that they are comfortable with if the District
is created.
The financial information resubmitted provided a hypothetical plan to demonstrate the
feasibility of one phase of the project financing contemplated by the District. The
hypothetical plan goes a long way in clarifying how the financial plan will work as it
relates to the bonded indebtedness and the servicing of that debt. I am comfortable that
the bonded indebtedness plan would probably work as hypothetically proposed. In its
simplest terms the bonds fund the infrastructure of the water delivery system so the water
can be sold to developments. The proceeds from the sale of the water provides the funds
to liquidate the debt over a seven-year period. The water will be sold on a per acre-foot
basis, much like a municipality sells a tap for a capital development fee.
The part of the financial plan that is still not presented is the operational budget at the
user level for the end consumer to pay for the treated water. The treated water may be
provided by a municipality or another water and sanitation district independent of the
District. Rate studies would have to be done to determine the affordability of the services.
Another part of the financial plan missing is how will the infrastructure of the District
that delivers the water to the developments that purchase the water be maintained over
time and at what cost. This question goes to the heart of a major policy question that
i j. EXHIBIT
1
3
8
ie
needs to be answered prior to approving the service plan. What is the long term viability
of this District once the infrastructure is build and the handful of private individuals that
asked for this District to be created have marketed and sold the water to developments?
Do they have a long-term interest in maintaining the district? The end users are going to
be relying upon the water for perpetuity, but will the handful of developers proposing this
plan have a commitment to the long-term viability of the district. The question is what
happens in a worst case scenario where the developers proposing the district do the
improvements, sell all the water they have to various developments, contract through
IGA's to have the water delivered, and the debt is paid off in seven years? What happens
at that point if the Directors of the District, who are not residents, have sold off their
interest in the water to the District or other developments, lose interest in the district, die,
grow tried of having the district, or just walk away from it leaving a 154 acre parcel
unmanned? They will have no personal liability, and could leave the end users
scrambling to find a service provider to operate and maintain the infrastructure. In this
example county government will be the likely entity that will have to get into the water
business by default, not by choice.
The inevitability of agriculture water being converted to domestic or municipal use to
accommodate growth exists in the Front Range of Colorado, and probably makes
economic sense. The caution we all must have is that it is done in way that the members
of the public are protected, and knowing get into situations they desire, and not into
situations through crisis or default.
The biggest problem with this service plan is the provision found on page 7 paragraph 2
that reads: "Any change to either the Phase I Plan or additional phases shall not be
considered a material modification of the Service Plan and shall not require a Service
Plan Amendment." This provision for all practical purposes means there is not a service
plan. In short it creates a metro district with a blank check and blank easel with $324
million in bonding capacity to paint the future picture of the district service plan as a
handful of developers desire with no accountability to anyone once the District is created.
The plan if approved as proposed gives the District authority, discretion, and license to
facilitate the exporting of the water in Weld County for development primarily in Adams
County without any conditions, if the District Board so chooses. The proposing parties of
the District argue that the District is "entrepreneurial" and therefore, needs the latitude
and flexibility in the service plan, so it can be responsive to opportunities to sell water
without having to go back and amend the service plan. It appears to me that this
flexibility is provided at the risk of having a lack of accountability to the public of what
services are to be provided by the District.
If the District is approved, the Board of Weld County Commissioners should consider
conditions that require the District to have a specific service plan for each phase, and at
each phase the District must come back with an amended service plan covering the new
phase, once details are known. Also, as each phase of the service plan is approved
evidence should be provided that the service is affordable, and assurance that the IGA's
associated with the District and the end users have some provisions that the service plan
demonstrates that a service provider has long term viability and responsibility to service
the end users long term. Short of these conditions there is a risk that end users could find
themselves with poor service, costly service, or in the worst case no service. At that
point the county would be called upon to help solve the problem. Conditions and
safeguards need to be put into the approval of the service plan to insure a worst case
scenario like the one cited does not materialize.
If the current or future Board of Weld County Commissioners get into the water and
sanitation business it needs to be a policy decision made by choice, and not by default
due to inadequate conditions and safeguards in approving the District's service plan that
has no firm promises of service requirement, and that gives a few private parties
requesting the creation the District total latitude to do whatever they like once the District
is created. If the private parties proposing the District want the total latitude called for in
the service plan, then it should be a private enterprise doing the project. If they want the
benefits of a public entity(metro district) then they need to have the conditions,
safeguards, and a detailed service plan that tells the public what exact services are going
to be provided to the public, at what cost, and what they are going to be held accountable
to the public for as the service plan is executed. I do no think the state statute
contemplated the creation of a metro district that does not have a more specific service
plan than proposed here, and with the latitude of once created to be able to change it in
anyway desired without some of the changes being considered a material modification,
and requiring an amended service plan where there is public input and review.
metrodi strictserviceplan
Kirkpatrick Pettis
A Mutual of Omaha Company
June 15, 2004
Don Warden
Director of Finance and Administration
Weld County, Colorado
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District
Hypothetical Financing Plan
Dear Don,
We have prepared the attached hypothetical financing plan to demonstrate the feasibility
of one phase of the project financing contemplated by Resource Colorado Water and
Sanitation Metropolitan District (RCW&SMD). The proponents of the District have
provided us with the estimated project costs for the water pipeline installation ($24.6
million) and the estimated annual and total acre-feet (2,661) of water sold for delivery
through the pipeline. It is contemplated that the District will impose a one-time system
development charge per acre-foot at the initial delivery of the water sold.
Based on our experience and expertise at structuring and underwriting previous non-rated
project based financing of this nature, we have recommended the following additional
assumptions to include within this hypothetical plan: 1) One year of capitalized interest
during the construction period, 2) A debt service reserve fund equal to 10% of the par
amount of bonds, 3) Underwriting and other costs of issuance estimated at 4% of the part
amount, 4) Interest rates estimated at 6% and, 5) Bonds callable upon payment of system
development charges.
We are engaged with RCW&SMD pursuant to a Letter of Intent, and will serve as
underwriters for the District's proposed debt. For this hypothetical financing and any
other subsequent non-rated bonds issued by the District, we expect to market the bonds to
institutional investors in denominations not less than $500,000. This hypothetical bond
financing is consistent with our view of the requirements from the market place for this
type of project financing.
Please be advised that bonds will be marketed only at a point in time when we as
underwriters have determined that there are water purchase contracts in place based upon
1600 Broadway,Suite 1100* Denver,CO 80202-4922 * 303-764-5737 * 303-764-5768* 800-942-7557
FAX 303-764-5770 * Home Office: 10250 Regency Circle,Suite 400 * Omaha, NE 68114* 800-776-5777
Member NASD&SIPC * ssharp(5 kpsp.com*tbishop(a)kpsp.com
system development charges that will provide sufficient revenues necessary to support the
debt service.
We hope this letter helps to clarify the hypothetical financing plan for the RCW&SMD.
Please call if you have any questions or require further clarification.
Sincerely,
Thomas R. Bishop
Senior Vice President
Enclosure (1)
TRB/llm
Cc: Harvey Deutsch
MaryAnn McGeady
Kirkpatrick Pettis
A Mutual of Omaha Company
RESOURCE COLORADO WATER and SANITATION METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
HYPOTHETICAL FINANCING PLAN for Ser. 2004 Revenue Bonds, 7-year amortization
Based on 2,661 acre-feet of water
System Less Ser.2004
Annual Development Net Revenue $30,630,000 Par
Acre-Feet of Charge per Ac-Ft Available [Net$24.625 MM]
Water Inflated for Debt Service Net Debt Annual Cumulative
YEAR Sold @ 2.0% Service Surplus Surplus
2004 0.00 0 0 0 0
2005 0.00 0 0 0 0
2006 665.25 $12,084 8,038,809 8,035,595 3,214 3,214
2007 532.20 12,326 6,559,668 6,557,295 2,373 5,588
2008 399.15 12,572 5,018,146 5,019,995 (1,849) 3,739
2009 399.15 12,824 5,118,509 5,116,195 2,314 6,053
2010 266.10 13,080 3,480,586 3,482,295 (1,709) 4,344
2011 266.10 13,342 3,550,198 3,550,895 (697) 3,647
2012 133.05 13,608 1,810,601 1,811,795 (1,194) 2,453
2013 0.00 13,881 0 0 0 2,453
2014 0.00 14,158 0 0 0 2,453
2015 0.00 14,441 0 0 0 2,453
2016 0.00 14,730 0 0 0 2,453
2,661.00 33,576,518 33,574,065 2,453
6/14/2004 B RCWSMD Rev Plan 04 Rev Plan 7 Prepared by Kirkpatrick Pettis
SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS
RESOURCE COLORADO WATER&SANITATION METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
HYPOTHETICAL SERIES 2004 WATER REVENUE BONDS
7-yr principal amortization
Dated Date 12/01/2004
Delivery Date 12/01/2004
Sources:
Bond Proceeds:
Par Amount 30,630,000.00
30,630,000.00
Uses:
Project Fund Deposits:
Project Fund Deposit 24,625,000.00
Other Fund Deposits:
Capitalized Interest Fund 1,714,504.82
Debt Service Reserve Fund 3,063,000.00
4,777,504.82
Delivery Date Expenses:
Cost of Issuance 612,600.00
Underwriter's Discount 612,600.00
1,225,200.00
Other Uses of Funds:
Contingency 2,295.18
30,630,000.00
Jun 14,2004 9:54 am Prepared by Kirkpatrick Pettis Quantitative Group—MK (Resource CO W&S Met Dist 04:BJUN1004-047YR) Page 1
BOND DEBT SERVICE
RESOURCE COLORADO WATER&SANITATION METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
HYPOTHETICAL SERIES 2004 WATER REVENUE BONDS
7-yr principal amortization
Annual
Period Debt Debt
Ending Principal Coupon Interest Service Service
12/01/2004
06/01/2005 918,900 918,900
12/01/2005 918,900 918,900 1,837,800
06/01/2006 918,900 918,900
12/01/2006 6,305,000 6.000% 918,900 7,223,900 8,142,800
•
06/01/2007 729,750 729,750
12/01/2007 5,205,000 6.000% 729,750 5,934,750 6,664,500
06/01/2008 573,600 573,600
12/01/2008 3,980,000 6.000% 573,600 4,553,600 5,127,200
06/01/2009 454,200 454,200
12/01/2009 4,315,000 6.000% 454,200 4,769,200 5,223,400
06/01/2010 324,750 324,750
12/01/2010 2,940,000 6.000% 324,750 3,264,750 3,589,500
06/01/2011 236,550 236,550
12/01/2011 3,185,000 6.000% 236,550 3,421,550 3,658,100
06/01/2012 141,000 141,000
12/01/2012 4,700,000 6.000% 141,000 4,841,000 4,982,000
30,630,000 8,595,300 39,225,300 39,225,300
Jun 14,2004 9:54 am Prepared by Kirkpatrick Pettis Quantitative Group-MK (Resource CO W&S Met Dist 04:BJUN1004-047YR) Pape 2
NET DEBT SERVICE
RESOURCE COLORADO WATER&SANITATION METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
HYPOTHETICAL SERIES 2004 WATER REVENUE BONDS
7-yr principal amortization
Capitalized
Total Debt Service interest Net Annual
Date Principal Interest Debt Service Reserve Fund Fund Debt Service Net DIS
06/01/2005 918,900 918,900 918,900
12/01/2005 918,900 918,900 918,900
06/01/2006 918,900 918,900 53,602.50 865,297.50
12/01/2006 6,305,000 918,900 7,223,900 53,602.50 7,170,297.50 8,035,595
06/01/2007 729,750 729,750 53,602.50 676,147.50
12/01/2007 5,205,000 729,750 5,934,750 53,602.50 5,881,147.50 6,557,295
06/01/2008 573,600 573,600 53,602.50 519,997.50
12/01/2008 3,980,000 573,600 4,553,600 53,602.50 4,499,997.50 5,019,995
06/01/2009 454,200 454,200 53,602.50 400,597.50
12/01/2009 4,315,000 454,200 4,769,200 53,602.50 4,715,597.50 5,116,195
06/01/2010 324,750 324,750 53,602.50 271,147.50
12/01/2010 2,940,000 324,750 3,264,750 53,602.50 3,211,147.50 3,482,295
06/01/2011 236,550 236,550 53,602.50 182,947.50
12/01/2011 3,185,000 236,550 3,421,550 53,602.50 3,367,947.50 3,550,895
06/01/2012 141,000 141,000 53,602.50 87,397.50
12/01/2012 4,700,000 141,000 4,841,000 3,116,602.50 1,724,397.50 1,811,795
30,630,000 8,595,300 39,225,300 3,813,435.00 1,837,800 33,574,065.00 33,574,065
Jun 14,2004 9:54 am Prepared by Kirkpatrick Pettis Quantitative Group-MK (Resource CO W83 Met Dist 04'.BJUN1004-047YR) Page 3
•
BOND SUMMARY STATISTICS
RESOURCE COLORADO WATER&SANITATION METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
HYPOTHETICAL SERIES 2004 WATER REVENUE BONDS
7-yr principal amortization
Dated Date 12/01/2004
Delivery Date 12/01/2004
First Coupon 06/01/2005
Last Maturity 12/01/2012
Arbitrage Yield 6.000000%
True Interest Cost(TIC) 6.516366%
Net Interest Cost(NIC) 6.427629%
All-In TIC 7.047761%
Average Coupon 6.000000%
Average Life(years) 4.677
Duration of Issue(years) 4.023
Par Amount 30,630,000.00
Bond Proceeds 30,630,000.00
Total Interest 8,595,300.00
Net Interest 9,207,900.00
Bond Years from Dated Date 143,255,000.00
Bond Years from Delivery Date 143,255,000.00
Total Debt Service 39,225,300.00
Maximum Annual Debt Service 8,142,800.00
Average Annual Debt Service 4,903,162.50
Underwriter's Fees(per$1000)
Average Takedown
Other Fee 20.000000
Total Underwriter's Discount 20.000000
Bid Price 98.000000
Par Average Average
Bond Component Value Price Coupon Life
Term Bond 30,630,000.00 100.000 6.000% 4.677
30,630,000.00 4.677
All-In Arbitrage
TIC TIC Yield
Par Value 30,630,000.00 30,630,000.00 30,630,000.00
+Accrued Interest
+Premium(Discount)
-Underwriter's Discount -612,600.00 -612,600.00
-Cost of Issuance Expense -612,600.00
-Other Amounts
Target Value 30,017,400.00 29,404,800.00 30,630,000.00
Target Date 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 12/01/2004
Yield 6.516366% 7.047761% 6.000000%
Jun 14.2004 9:54 am Prepared by Kirkpatrick Pettis Quantitative Group—MK (Resource CO W&S Met Dist 04:BJUN1004-047YR) Pape 4
Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District
Hypothetical use of Proceeds Based on Description of Facilities
Delivery of potable water per diagram submitted herewith $25,000,000
(includes wells, collection, storage and distribution)
Delivery of irrigation water(includes wells, collection, $30,000,000
storage and distribution)
Future water treatment facility, if required $20,000,000
Participation and purchase of capacity in regional sewer $78,000,000
treatment facility(includes associated facilities)
Aquifer recharge and storage program including Henrylynn $30,000,000
system improvements
Future delivery systems for potable water to local jurisdictions $25,000,000
i.e. Hudson and Keensburg et al.
Future delivery systems for delivery of irrigation water to local $25,000,000
jurisdictions
Future facilities for use of return flows from South Platte River $35,000,000
basin
Engineering expenses and construction contingency $56,000,000
Total hypothetical expenditures by District Water System $324,000,000
improvements (potable and non-potable) and sanitary water
system improvements
(00020015.DOC v:I(M:Vackye\Harvey\Prospect Valley\Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation District Memo 6-11-04
Resource Colorado Water System June 15, 2004
Cost Analysis DRAFT
The following is a summary of the cost analysis for Phase 1 of the Resource Colorado
Water System. The current available potable water consists of 2661 acre-feet per year
with a combined TDS of 465 mg/l. The potable water system as conceptualized consists
of two well fields, A and B. Figure 1 shows the conceptual design.
A Water CAD model was developed to determine pipeline sizes and pumping plant
parameters.
Cost and Design Assumptions
Assumptions used in developing the costs are as follows:
• The delivery system is approximately 24-miles in length and 24-inch pipe.
• The potable system is designed to deliver the peak day demand of 1.6 times the
average flow.
• The collections system (from the wells to the main storage) is designed for flow
of 5 times the peak day to allow for flexibility of well pumping and maintenance
downtime.
• Backup generators will be installed at the main storage tank and three of the high
capacity wells for the potable system only.
• All wells are equipped with variable speed pump motors.
• No contingency is added to the costs herein.
• The engineering fee is estimated at10%.
• Operations and maintenance costs will be performed by the water provider,
therefore they are not included in this estimate.
• Chlorination costs have been included in this estimate; no other treatment has
been identified.
• No interim or head storage is included in the transmission line. The water
provider will supply transmission storage.
• The existing electrical infrastructure for each well will be utilized.
• New, or additional, electrical service for each collection station will be required
this cost is included in the estimate.
• This cost estimate does not allocate a cost to acquisition of future sources of
water.
• This cost estimate does not provide for easement acquisition.
Potable Cost Estimate Summary June 15, 2004
Resource Colorado Water System
DRAFT
Wellfield Description Cost
Well Installation (Drilling/Casing),well
A ,pump stations, controls and equipment $2,865,879
B $1,505,689
A Collection pipelines $1,567,574
B _ $1,775,777
Storage Tanks
Main Potable Collection Tank $1,275,000
Potable Head Tank $0
Wellfield B Potable Tank $255,000
Pump Stations
'Wellfield B (25 HP Pump) $150,000
Main Potable1 T $1,725,000
Transmission Lines III
Potable Line !$11,260,240
Subtotal $22,380,158
Engineering 10% $2,238,016
TOTAL $24,618,174
June 15, 2004
Potable Phased Cost Approach DRAFT
PHASE I -Wellfield A
Wells and Pipelines $4,433,453
'1.5 MG Head Tank $0
1.5 MG Main Tank I $1,275,000
24"Transmission Line $11,260,240
Main Pump Station $1,725,000
Engineering $1,869,369
SUBTOTAL $20,563,062
PHASE II -Wellfield B
Wells and Pipelines $3,281,466
300K Tank $255,000
Pump station I $150,000
Engineering $368,647
SUBTOTAL' $4,055,112
TOTAL POTABLE SYSTEM $24,618,174
Potable System Cost Estimate June 15,2004
Resource Colorado Water System DRAFT
Well Designation
Wellfield (Permit No.) Item No. Description Quantity Unit Unit Price Cost
A L2-1 (14860-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 163 Ft $450 $73,350
Well Completion(Pump/20 hp Motor) 1 Ea $30,000 $30,000-
L2-2(31643-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 160 Ft $450 $72,000
Well Completion(Pump/25 hp Motor) 1 Ea $35,000 $35,000
M-1 (31640-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 176 Ft $450 $79,200
Well Completion(Pump/75 hp Motor) 1 Ea $55,000 $55,000
N1-1 (14861-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 182 Ft $450 $81,900
Well Completion(Pump/10 hp Motor) 1 Ea $25,000 $25,000
N1-2(14862-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 190 Ft $450 $85,500
Well Completion(Pump/50 hp Motor) 1 Ea $45,000 $45,000
N1-3(14863-FP) Well Installation (Drilling/Casing) 183 Ft $450 $82,350
Well Completion(Pump/30 hp Motor) 1 Ea $35,000 $35,000
J-1 (8873-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 181 Ft $450 $81,450
Well Completion (Pump/15 hp Motor) 1 Ea $25,000 $25,000
J-2(8874-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 178 Ft $450 $80,100
Well Completion(Pump/15 hp Motor) 1 Ea $25,000 $25,000
J-3(9321-FP) Well Installation (Drilling/Casing) 179 Ft $450 $80,550
Well Completion(Pump/15 hp Motor) 1 Ea $25,000 $25,000
N2-1 (6419-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 179 Ft $450 $80,550
Well Completion(Pump/60 hp Motor) 1 Ea $50,000 $50,000
N2-2(6420-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 174 Ft $450 $78,300
Well Completion(Pump/30 hp Motor) 1 Ea $35,000 $35,000
N2-3(9175-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 175 Ft $450 $78,750
Well Completion(Pump/50 hp Motor) 1 Ea $45,000 $45,000
Building 1200 Ea $300 $360,000
Electrical control cable 15973 Ft $4.5 $71,879
SCADA 12 Ea $10,000.0 $120,000
Controls,fiowmeters,valves 12 Ea $70,000 $840,000
4"PVC Pipe 217 Ft $14.50 $3,147
6"PVC Pipe 4380 Ft $16.50 $72,270
8"PVC Pipe 2667 Ft $20.50 $54,674
12"PVC Pipe 9468 Ft $29.50 $279,306
16"PVC Pipe 15890 Ft $41.00 $651,490
20"PVC Pipe 0 Ft $63.00 $0
24"PVC Pipe 6032 Ft $84.00 $506,688
Backup generators 3 Ea $30,000 $90,000
Wellfield A Well Cost $2,865,879
Wellfield A Pipeline Cost $1,567,574
TOTAL Wellfield A $4,433,453
B Al-1 (464-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 83 Ft $550 $45,650
Well Completion(Pump/7.5 hp Motor) 1 Ea $25,000 $25,000
Al-2(467-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 72 Ft $550 $39,600
Well Completion(Pump/5 hp Motor) 1 Ea $25,000 $25,000
A2-1 (8533-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 103 Ft $550 $56.650
Well Completion(Pump/7.5 hp Motor) 1 Ea $25,000 $25,000
A2-2(8534-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 91 Ft $550 $50,050
Well Completion(Pump/7.5 hp Motor) 1 Ea $25,000 $25,000
A2-3(8535-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 91 Ft $550 $50,050
Well Completion(Pump/10 hp Motor) 1 Ea $25,000 $25,000
C-1 (31518-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 91 Ft $550 $50,050
Well Completion(Pump/15 hp Motor) 1 Ea $25,000 $25,000
C-2(31519-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 95 Ft $550 $52,250
Well Completion(Pump/15 hp Motor) 1 Ea $25,000 $25,000
C-3(31520-FP) Well Installation(Drilling/Casing) 91 Ft $550 $50,050
Well Completion(Pump/20 hp Motor) 1 Ea $30,000 $30,000
Building 800 Ea $300 $240,000
Electrical control cable 5853 Ft $4.5 $26,339
Collection and Trans Pipe Cost Pot only 6-15-04.xls 3
SCADA 8 Ea $10,000.0 $80,000
Controls,flowmeters,valves 8 $70,000 $560,000
4"PVC Pipe 1268 Ft $14.50 $18,386
6"PVC Pipe 5267 Ft $16.50 $86,909-
8"PVC Pipe 1550 Ft $20.50 $31,775
12"PVC Pipe 2779 Ft $29.50 $81,981
16"PVC Pipe 0 Ft $41.00 $0
20"PVC Pipe 24710 Ft $63.00 $1,556,730
24"PVC Pipe 0 Ft $84.00 $0
Wellfield B Well Cost $1,505,689
Wellfield B Pipeline Cost $1,775,777
TOTAL Wellfield B $3,281,466
TOTAL Well Cost $4,371,567
TOTAL Pipeline Cos $3,343,351
TOTAL Well and Pipeline Cos $7,714,918
Storage Tanks I Main Potable Collection Tank 1,500,000 Gal $0.85 $1,275,000
Potable Head Tank 1,500,000 Gal $0.85 _
Wellfield B Potable Tank 300,000 Gal $0.85 $255,000
Total Storage Tank Cos $1,530,000
Pump Stations 1 Ea $150,000 $150,000
Wellfield B(25 HP Pump)
Main Potable' 1 Ea $1,725,000 $1,725,000
Total Storage Tank Cos $1,875,000
Collection and Trans Pipe Cost Pot only 6-15-04.xls 4
Transmission Line-Potable
---FURNISH&INSTALL WATERLINE 24"PVC 124,900 LF $84 $10,491,600
--_FURNISH&INSTALL 24"HORIZONTAL BEND 7 EA $2,500 $17,500
FURNISH&INSTALL 24"VERTICAL LOWERIN ea EA $10,000 $220,000
---FURNISH&INSTALL 24"VALVES 25 EA $5,000i $125,000
_
■_.FURNISH&INSTALL TEES 3 EA $5,000 $15,000
AI FURNISH&INSTALL AIR-VAC ASSEMBLY 20 EA 500 r r $90,000
FURNISH&INSTALL 24"PLUG 1 I EA $1,200 $1,200
---FURNISH&INSTALL 2"BLOW-OFF ASSEMBL 1 EA $1,500 $1,500
---ASPHALT PATCHING FOR ROADWAY CRO551 240 SY $45 $10,800
---GRADING FOR GRAVEL ROADWAY RESTORAI 52,300 SY $0.80 $41,840
SILT FENCE 111,000 LF $1 $111,000
--_CLEARING AND GRUBBING 16 AC $700 $11,200 •
SEEDING AND MULCHING 16 AC $850 $13,600
TRAFFIC CONTROL 1 LS $110,000 $110,000
Total Potable Transmission Line Cos $11,260,240
Total Transmission Line Cos $11,260,240
TOTAL $22,380,158
Engineering 110% 1 0.11 Ea $2,238,016 $2,238,016
GRAND TOTAL $24,618,174
One 2500 gpm pump with spare and backup generator,includes headquarters building with SCADA
2 Two 2500 gpm pumps with spare,no backup generator
Collection and Trans Pipe Cost Pot only 6-15-04.xls 5
POTABLE
WELLFIELD B
491 GPM AVE. Tan
860 GPM PEAK 300K
793 ACRE FEET
804 TDS
POTABLE
WELLFIELD A
1.5 MG 1158 GPM AVE.
24" PIPELINE 2661 AF 2030 GPM PEAK
(24 MILES) 2890 GPM 1868 ACRE FEET
465 TDS/ 320 TDS
Note: No change POSSIBLE FUTURE
to main storage or POTABLE
transmission line 465 GPM AVE.
when adding future 815 GPM PEAK
potable water 750 AF
FIGURE 1
Resource Colorado Potable Water System
Conceptual Design
J'R ENGINEERING
6/15/2004
McGEADY SISNEROS, R C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1675 BROADWAY,SUITE 2100
DENVER,COLORADO 80202
TELEPHONE:13031 592-4380
FACSIM I LE:13O31 592-4365
MARYANN M.McGEADY SPECIAL COUNSEL
DARLENE SISNEROS
MARY JO DOUGHERTY KENNETH M. KOPROWICZ
MEGAN BECHER
VALERIE 0. BROMLEY
KATHRYN S.KANDA
JACQUELINE C.MURPHY
GEORGE M.ROWLEY MEMORANDUM
Weld County P!arni,g C„artment
To: Sheri Lockman C 1'
JUN `- kiJ4l
From: Valerie Bromley
Date: June 22, 2004 REC ' Lai
Re: Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan District
Enclosed are 13 copies of the Resource Colorado Water and Sanitation Metropolitan
District Service Plan which you requested. If you have any further questions, please do not
hesitate to call me.
_ EXHIBIT
6firirg MEMORANDUM
WI` G TO: Referral agencies
•
COLORADO DATE: June 24, 2004
SUBJECT: Resource Colorado Water & Sanitation Metropolitan District
In order to address concerns voiced by referral agencies, Resource Colorado Water &
Sanitation Metropolitan District has updated their application. If you should have any comments
regarding the new information please respond accordingly.
4. EXHIBIT
Weld County Planning Department
GREET Ey ncr•ICE
1/
ii1N 3 0 2004
4t \(' MEMORANDUM RECEIVED in\' TO: Kim Ogle, Planner DATE: 29-June-2004
W� Q FROM: Peter Schei,P.E., Ci 1 gineer,Public Works Department
C.
COLORADO SUBJECT: 2004-XX Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation(2)(Metropolitan District)
Weld County Public Works Department has reviewed this metropolitan district. Comments made during this phase of
the review process may not be all-inclusive, as other concerns or issues may arise.
Comments
The Public Works Department received on June 28, 2004 an updated referral for the Service Plan For Resource Colorado Water &
Sanitation Metropolitan District prepared by McGeady Sisneros,P.C.dated June 18, 2004
Public Works fmds no objections to the materials submitted for the proposed service plan.
Recommendation
❑ The Public Works Department finds no objection to this metropolitan district.
The applicant shall address the comments listed above at the specific step of the review process stated. The review process will
continue only when all appropriate elements have been submitted. Issues of concern must be resolved with the Public Works
Department prior to recording the change of zone and final plats?
PC: 2004-XX Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation(2)(Metropolitan District).doc EXHIBIT
Email &Original: Planner
Page 1 of 1 �-.`
aWe
CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
July 1, 2004
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: Resource Colorado Water& Sanitation Metropolitan District
Dear Mr. Ogle,
The District has reviewed the information submitted to date for the referenced project.
The current Central Weld County Water District service area does not conflict with the
proposed area to be served by the proposed district. However, there may be a potential
overlap in Districts in the future.
Please provide any additional information as it becomes available so we can properly
evaluate any impact on our District.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please advise
Sincerely,
CENTRAL WELD COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
ohn W el
Genera Manager
JWZ/rg
EXHIBIT
I 22-
2235 2nd Avenue • Greeley,Colorado 80631 • Phone(970)352-1284 • Fax(970)353-5865
John W.Zadel,General Manager
STATE OF COLORADO
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER Weld County Planning Department aF ` i
Division of Water Resources 6
Department of Natural Resources �RFFi Y OFFICE I� F� �, �$`.,
1313 Sherman Street, Room 818 JUL 0 9 2004 '� ���
Denver, Colorado 80203 tees'
Phone(303)866-3581 �+ a J --
FAX(303)866-3589 R E „:s E
i6. y¢ti D Bill Owens
www.watecsYate.co.us Governor
Russell George
Executive Director
July 7, 2004 Hal D.Simpson,P.E.
State Engineer
Weld County Planning Dept.
do Kim Ogle
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Service plan for Resource Colorado Water&Sanitation Metropolitan District
Dear Kim:
Pursuant to the State Engineer's August 7, 1995 memorandum to county planning
directors, this office is no longer providing comments on land use actions that do not involve a
subdivision as defined in Section 30-28-101(10)(a), C.R.S. This referral does not appear to
qualify as a "subdivision".
If you have any questions in this matter please call Joanna Williams in this office.
Sincerely C;11
Kevin G. Rein
Water Resource Engineer
Enclosure
El EXHIBIT
Weld County Planning Dery trnent
GREFI F1 rY ICF
JUL 15 2004
STATE OF n DO
Bill Owens,Governor
Douglas H.Benevento,Executive Director 44;oC-cozot
Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado ye:
4300 Cherry Creek Dr.S. Laboratory Services Division
'
Denver,Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd. .1876*
Phone(303)692-2000 Denver,Colorado 80230-6928
TDD Line(303)691-7700 (303)692-3090 Colorado Department
Located in Glendale,Colorado of Public Health
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us and Environment
13 July 2004
Mr. Kim Ogle
Weld County Department of Planning Services
1555 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Weld County Referral — Case Number 2004-XX
Resource Colorado Water & Sanitation Metropolitan District
Dear Mr. Ogle:
The Water Quality Control Division (Division) has received and reviewed the referral for the
Resource Colorado Water& Sanitation Metropolitan District (District). This system was referred
to the Division in April of this year and Brad Simons initially responded in a letter dated 27 April
2004.
Specifically, there are regulatory requirements that must be met before drinking water or
wastewater (sewage) treatment facilities can be constructed and operated. The District should
be aware of the requirements of the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, the Colorado Primary
Drinking Water Regulations, the Water and Wastewater Facility Operators Certification
Requirements, the Regulations for the Site Application Process, and the New Water System
Capacity Planning Manual. The District should be familiar with section 25-8-702 of the Colorado
Water Quality Control Act (http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wgcc/wgcchom.asp) as it relates to
domestic wastewater treatment works as defined by the Act and permitting requirements in
Regulation 61. The District should also be familiar with section 1.11.2 of the Colorado Primary
Drinking Water Regulations as it relates to public water systems as defined by the Regulations
(http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/reqs/waterqualitvcontroldivision/100301 primarydrinkingwater.p
df and http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/Drinking Water/Drinking Water Program Home.htm).
For a new water system a Construction Approval Application and information as outlined in the
New Water System Capacity Planning Manual must be completed by the District and approved
by the State prior to construction. Some of the items required are provided in the referral,
however, additional information is needed for a proper review.
11 ElBIT
`//'MITT
For water and wastewater systems design standards must be followed and copies of the
standards are available on the Division's Technical Service Unit's web page,
http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/tech/techhom.html.
The project appears to be located primarily in Adams County. Therefore, Adams County and
Tri-County Health Department must be informed of this project as well.
Please contact me with comments or questions at 303-692-3545 or e-mail me at
thomas.armitage(a)_state.co.us. Once again, the requirements of the various regulations listed
above must be addressed before any construction commences.
Sincerely,
f,,
Thomas R. Armitage, P.E.
District Engineer Technical Services Unit
Water Quality Control Division
TRA/RJF/tra
cc: Kent Kuster,WQCD-TSU
Brad Simons,WQCD-TSU
Carolyn Hermann,WQCD—O&A
Dick Parachini,WQCD—O&A
Betsy Beaver,WQCD-WQP
Trevor Jiricek,Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment
Warren Brown,Tri-County Health Department
Hello