The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About830573.tiff EXCERPT OF MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY , COLORADO IN RE: RECONSIDERATION OF APPLICATION OF ROAD 54 E-VAP PARK (ARVIN MARTENSEN) FOR A USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW AND A CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION FOR AN OIL AND GAS WELL PRODUCTION WATER DIS- POSAL SITE MEETING CONDUCTED DECEMBER 12 , 1983 , BEGINNING AT 9 : 00 A.M. TAPES 83-146 , 83-147 , AND 83-148 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: CHUCK CARLSON , CHAIRMAN JOHN T. MARTIN , PRO-TEM GENE R. BRANTNER NORMAN CARLSON JACQUELINE JOHNSON ALSO PRESENT: ARVIN MARTENSEN , APPLICANT KENNETH LIND, ATTORNEY , REPRESENTING ARVIN MARTENSEN LAURA SHAPIRO, ATTORNEY , REPRESENTING TOWN OF MILLIKEN TOM NORTON , FROM THE ENGINEERING FIRM OF NORTON , UNDERWOOD & LAMB , INC . R. RUSSELL ANSON , ASSISTANT WELD COUNTY ATTORNEY ROD ALLISON , CURRENT PLANNER, REPRESENTING THE WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES JEANNETTE SEARS , ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD TOMMIE ANTUNA, ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD 8 3057) Pkcoscy RECONSIDERATION - USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION MARTENSEN EVAP PARK December 12 , 1983 CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: The next item on our agenda is reconsideration of Use by Special Review and Certificate of Designation for Martensen , EVAP Park. RUSS ANSON: Okay , this is docket number 83-72 which is a reconsideration of a Use by Special Review and a Certificate of Designation which previously was denied by the Board on November 16 , 1983 . The applicant, Arvin G. Martensen, 2121 North Lincoln Avenue, Loveland, Colorado. The request is a Use by Special Review and Certificate of Designation for an oil and gas well production water disposal site to be located on Part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26 , Part of the Northwest Quarter of Section 25 all in Township 5 North, Range 67 West of the 6th P .M. , Weld County, Colorado. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: OK. Do you have any comments on this Rod, before we get into it? ROD ALLISON: No, the applicants are here and if they' re going to present information, then they have the floor as far as I 'm concerned. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: OK. Ken. This is , might I add a couple of little things here , we just had this not too awful long -1- ago, so it ' s pretty well fresh in all our memories. We would like to have your new ideas that you have to bring this before us again, present that to us and then you don' t have to go into full detail on the rest of it like you did before. I don' t think we need to get into that. But you can get into detail on your new stuff, whatever it is . MR. LIND: Thank you , Mr. Chairman. My name is Kenneth Lind, 1011 11th Avenue , representing the applicant, Mr. Martensen, as well as the EVAP Park Corporation. Briefly I would like to mention that this is a request for a reconsideration , it is definitely not a request for a rehearing. So all of our evidence that will be presented will be limited based upon our letter of November 22 , 1983 , concerning the proposed operation standards. We will not go into any old testimony because I don' t believe that would be relevant at this time. Basically, what those two proposed operation standards relate to are landscaping and the fact that this would be a limited Certificate of Designation, as well as , I mean, a limited Certificate of Designation and Special Review Permit. We are suggesting that that be limited to fifteen years and that is based upon two factors. The first factor being the concern of some individuals in the community, the Board, the Planning Commission, that this appears to be a growth area in the future. So we believe we have come up with an operation standard that will alleviate that problem, then the second was related to landscaping. Of course, as related to the landscaping that not only involves the -2- procedures or, I should say, the actual perspective, the look of the plant, but then related to factors , odor which was presented and some evaporation. What we would like to point out to you as far as the landscaping, the applicants will provide two rows of trees along the north side of the facility which will border County Road 54 . The northern most row, proposed to be Russian Olive, which of course is a fast growing , good wildlife habitat, excellent screening. The row behind that will be an Evergreen type tree which is a slower growing tree , but much longer life. In our opinion, these two rows of trees on the north side will fully screen the facility and add habitat and possibly will be a substantial benefit to this property in the future if there is development which will take place . Now, in our letter we did not indicate any landscaping or screening along the east and west sides, I am informed though that the applicant will agree to provide landscaping along the east and west sides. Again, that will probably be some type of a shrub or deciduous type tree for fast growing purposes. Again , possibly Russian Olive. But that would probably only be a single row rather than a double row. Now, as related, in addition to the landscaping, specifically getting into the odor and evaporation concerns , a partial scale model of the facility has been prepared for today' s hearing. I believe the Commissioners did have some questions as to the operations of the facility and I would like to ask Mr. Martensen to explain that operation. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay. -3- PIR. MARTENSEN : Thank you , Ken. The model that you see before you was prepared to indicate a major portion of the operation. It is representative of all the operations that would be on the site. You ' ll notice from the plan that' s been prepared here that the table model , because of it' s limitations of scale, has been prepared to have a portion of two ponds and the entire portions of the other evaporation ponds, and showing the two areas of major concern; the entrance control, as well as the actual unloading facilities. This model has been prepared on hobby railroad, (inaudible) inscale, which is one to 160 . It has been prepared to be quite accurate. On this scale, you might keep in mind that one inch represents thirteen and one-third feet. So, we will find that the office residence that we proposed to bring to the site is 1 , 152 sq. ft. , so it is quite accurate. The landscaping, even down to the split rail cedar fence, of the trees , the fence, and so forth. The fence , the representative of slightly more than one-half inch, would represent accurately the eight ft. fence that would go around the entire facility. I ' d like to point out the north arrow, here, so if we can keep in mind the orientation of this particular table model . In this area across the road to the north has traditionally been a wheat field, of course there is an oil well being drilled in approximately this area at this time. This area on this side is under our direct control , it' s a portion of our lease, 35 acres, we propose to put that in barley next year so it would be accurately represented as being the green area. The -4- maintenance for this area as far as the greenery , the landscaping, and so forth, would be maintained through a six inch irrigation water line that would come from the lessors irrigation system, and that line would be connected and brought to the site represented up on the south end. I ' d like to point out that the areas that we see will have only brine water in them. There will be absolutely no oil , crude oil in that area. They are represented as the blue area. There would be 24 inches of brine in this particular area , and you' ll notice that we do have the approximately 30 inches of freeboard in this particular area. I might take you through, just briefly, how the operation might work, with the vehicles coming into this area the drivers would come into the office itself , which would be open 24 hours per day, seven days a week, check in, have to use a credit card inside the building which would trigger the electric gate. As the truck would go through the area it would trigger a magnetic panel and the gate would open. It would immediately close as he goes across another magnetic panel here and goes on up to the disposals , the unloading site. In this particular area, we ' ll see as the vehicle comes up to this area, they would back in on a large concrete pad and back into one of two steel buildings that we propose to put in this area. Now we' ll see that the only crude oil that would be exposed in the entire area would be at this point. These represent 20 by 20 vats and this one here would be two of them so that we can have an excellent cleaning type of operation. The trucks would unload into this particular -5- one , there will be no skimming at this point and then they will go by underground pipes to the first of these three vats . The water will go through this area , we will skim here , we will skim through the second, as well as the third area. By the time it goes from this one to underground piping we will be able to, through a series of valves , put it into any of the four evaporation ponds . So all of this piping can be underground and can maintain a very sightly area. The oil then that we would be extracting from the brine water would go by underground piping to the treater at this point, this is representative of a vertical six by 20 treater, where we would bring the crude oil to 170-180 degrees to remove any of the remaining moisture from it. It would then be stored in a storage tank at this point, you notice the berms here for in case there would be any leakage would be retained, the fluids in that particular area. The white lines here are representative of an evaporation aeration type system, so that we can control it. I might point out that by using a system such as this we can control the amount of aeration that we have, at a time when we may have a great deal of wind or something, we can keep the water from being exposed to great heights in the air so we certainly don' t have any overspray, at times that it' s quiet wemay be able to bring water into a higher arch. (TAPE CHANGE No. 83-147) MR. -MARTENSEN: You will notice that this area that we would be able to unload two trucks at once, as well as be able to close -6- one bay down, stay in operation while we are cleaning either one of those tanks . As Mr . Lind pointed out , that we would propose to put the landscaping along the west as well as along the east side , so the landscaping would go around any place that it is possibly visible from the road itself. The elevation of this particular site would be accurately represented by the table being one inch higher on that particular end, so it is a relatively flat area and would not have to have an extreme amount of elevation to make this exactly accurate according to the topography of the soils. Does the Board have any questions at this point? COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: You' re going to take your skimmed oil and put it in the treater, I ' ll call it a treater, I don' t know if that' s proper terminology. That will be heated to evaporate the water off of that? MR. MARTENSEN: That would be, the crude would have come off of the brine, the water brine vats, and whatever there is, it makes it a higher quality crude. Also, there may be solids and by bringing it to a heat it will melt it down and it will mingle so it makes a higher quality crude so we can then store it in our storage tank. That ' s true. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Now, when you' re heating this oil, what are you anticipating the odor to be there, if any? MR. MARTENSEN: Nothing significant. I think the thing that we need to point out is that the exposure off of the quantity of crude that will be exposed in this area would be only that of -7- seven or eight of the normal type of storage tanks that we see many of them per sections , throughout the area. They all have vent pipes on them as we pointed out, so any odors that they have is going into the air currently. I 'm not knowledgeable of any problems there. So we don' t feel that there will be odors produced from this particular operation. The hazard area that has been pointed out and where some of the other ones, I understand, have produced some area is by having poor housekeeping, in these particular areas where they were not aerated and, first of all, not any oil , crude, allowed to come to this area. So the skimming operation needs to be maintained very well , so that is the reason we are building in our housekeeping plans in that particular area now, so that we 'd never allow that problem to start. Of course there are ways to clean it up. Particularly in soil such as this . We do not have the leaching problems, fortunately, here because of the native qualities of the soil that they do have in other areas. Does that answer your question, Sir? COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yes , thank you. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: So all your skimming and truck dumping and everything is going to be under roof . MR. MARTENSEN: That is correct. I've already ordered those, conditional, of course, those two steel buildings to be coming in. Those are 40 by 50 on the one where the dumping operation takes place, and in the skimming area that is 40 by 76 . You' ll notice that those buildings have been left open on one -8- side so we have no hazard of entr.,pment of any possible vapors. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON : I ' d like to ask our Health Department a question about the odor issue . One of the odor issues has to do with the oil as I understand it. But there is another possible , is there not? process that causes some odor? Could you address that as to how the aeration might affect that? MR. POTTER: There has been quite a bit of talk about the iron sulfide bacteria which , in fact , does occur. The iron sulfide is bacteria that likes to live in the salt water environment, and it does grow quite well in these kinds of ponds. Two types of things that would be used or could possibly be used to inhibit odor coming from the iron sulfide bacteria is either chlorination, using chlorine gas to kill the bacteria, or aeration, which would incorporate oxygen into it, which would reduce the sulfide base smell that comes off of it. It' s our opinion that if they have this as a very aggressive aeration program that they've proposed, and I can see absolutely no reason why there would be any problem with the odor with this much aeration. A much smaller amount of aeration would certainly cover the potential for odors coming off of it. So I think this aggressive of a program of aeration should certainly more than compensate for any odor that would be produced by the iron sulfide bacteria. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Any other questions of Wes while he' s here? OK. Thanks , Wes. Ken -9- MR. LIND : Mr. Chairman, I would add that the applicant is prepared in the event the aeration system does not control the odors , he is prepared to add some type of a chlorination system to this . However, the engineering studies , as well as the County Health Department, are fully confident that the aeration system will work and not only contain odors or control odors , it will also help the evaporation. One thing that Mr. Martensen didn' t quite explain, the aeration will be done by a pumping system and will have the ability to either drip from the aeration system into the ponds or more or less , something like a sprinkler, raise it into the air depending upon wind conditions . As far as related to the growth of bacteria in the ponds, of course that' s much more minimized in winter and I ' d ask Mr. Norton if he has anything to add to that aeration. Now that gets us into the third concern which was expressed as this being a future growth area. I would like to remind you that this site is outside the Greeley growth area, as now existing, and is presently being proposed. It' s outside of the Evans growth area , it is outside of the Milliken growth area, as determined both by the Town of Milliken, as well as by the Weld County Comprehensive Plan. Now, I personally don ' t believe that this is a good site for residential or industrial growth in the future due to sewer , water limitations and the fact that the County' s policy has been to encourage growth in designated growth areas. Of course , this is outside of those. Now, in the future , if this would become, or in the vicinity, selected as a site for -10- residential or industrial some type , of course , gets you to an economic decision . Economics would obviously dictate that if this property can be better utilized or utilized in a higher economic manner for either residential or some type of industrial growth, the site can be shut down. It' s very simple to take the brine water out, remove it to another facility if an adequate one exists at that time. So I think you' re looking at economics here. Now, the fact that this permit and designation would be renewable in 15 years , I think gives the County just an excellent means of control . Previously we have heard testimony that this appears to be a growth area maybe in the next 10 to 20 years . By making this renewable in 15 years , at that time the applicant will then have to come back before the Board, will have to basically have designation again for the site. If there is growth in the area, be that residential or industrial , it would obviously not then qualify for a Special Use Permit area, even if it would qualify for a Certificate of Designation. So that is giving a means of control to the County to control future growth in this area, to look at future growth, and to eliminate the facility. The 15 year proposal would then be renewed if we don' t have the residential growth in the area , and we are suggesting that it be renewed for five year periods of time. Again, this gives the Board, the County at the time , a substantial amount of control. Then, of course, this proposal for renewal is substantially different than any review. The facility is under the continuing jurisdiction of the Weld County Health Department, -11- the State Health Department, as well as the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. So the fact that this would be renewed in 15 years , or I should say, looked at for renewal in 15 years , does not take away any power or controls that either the Board, County Health, State Health Department, or Oil and Gas Conservation Commission have during the period of time. Of course, the engineers have presented with you the evidence at the last hearing of the substantial safety of the facility and the site, I still remain impressed by the monitoring wells that are all going in before the operation is commenced. I think the ones in south Weld County, where you've had the problems, have, one; not been engineered to this degree; have not obviously had to meet the new State statute requiring recommendations of the State Health Department and their review and control. In closing, I realize that this is a very difficult decision for you, but I do want to remind you that this is an issue not only of concern to the Town of Milliken, it' s a County-wide issue. It reminds me very much of the landfill at Erie which the Board approved approximately six years ago. At that time , at the same hearing we had basically the Town of Erie show up, I should say at several hearings , we heard the same comments. Groundwater is going to be destroyed, the health problems, the economic problems, the water problems. I think as you have seen over the past six years, none of that has taken place. We heard of the substantial safety concerns that birds do to this facility, would be causing airplane crashes, that hasn' t happened. That facility -12- was engineered and designed for safety and control, much as the Erie facility was done . In fact, since I ' ve had the opportunity to work on that landfill , it' s my impression that this is a much better engineered facility , more design and construction work has gone into it. I think it' s an excellent facility, it' s a facility that' s needed. We've heard many comments that, hey southern Weld County is getting all of these facilities , we don' t need them any more in southern County , we now have the opportunity for a northern facility which is desperately needed. I would ask for your reconsideration and based upon our proposed operation and design standards that you now approve the same. Thank you. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I have a question to ask you. As I reviewed the operation standards, Letter "J" says, "In the event of an odor problem emanating from the ponds an abatement program shall be instituted. " Am I understanding that you are now proposing that initially you will install an aeration system rather than wait for the problem to arise, MR. LIND: Yes , that is correct. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: So that is a change there , in terms of what the, do the operation standards need to be amended to indicate that, or is that, I would like some assurance that that' s MR. LIND: I believe the operation standards would have to be amended to reflect that. It -was my understanding that this was only discussed at the application and was not a definitive part -13- of it. We are now proposing that the aeration system be a part of that and, yes , it would be an operation or design standard. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Then, in the event that you still have a little bit of an odor problem you say that you will chlorinate it? MR. LIND: Right. Chlorination could be injected. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: So we could leave that one , perhaps and add another standard to indicate that there would be , I don ' t know how that' s done exactly, but Rod, maybe you can help me. MR. ALLISON: Well , what we should do is identify exactly the type of aeration system that we' re going to be placing in the evaporation ponds and have that statement submitted on record as part of the application materials. Then we do tie them into development standard number one. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: OK. MR. ALLISON: That would be my suggestion. MR. LIND: Mr. Norton is present and could give you that information, I 'm not able to. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: OK. TOM NORTON: Yes , I 'm Tom Norton, the engineer for the facility, and I would suggest that that operation standard be stated as PVC piping within the pond area with orifaces allowing the pond to pump water through that and; thereby, providing the aeration necessary for odor problems. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Are you gonna pump water through it or air through it, Tom? -14- MR. NORTON: We' ll be pumping water through and letting it go into the air so that we increase CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Oh, ok, so does the spout, or the PVC , will be right at the top of the water and then it' ll go up in the air , then? MR. NORTON: Right, it would be just above the high water level , that way we can operate winter or summer without, because the pipes have to drain down on operation. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Tom, what type of energy are you gonna use to heat that oil in your treating plant? MR. NORTON: You can use propane or natural gas, either one, probably that would be a propane type of facility to start off with. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Any other questions? OK COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I have one other question, it' s again of the Health Department. It wasn' t part of the record when we heard this originally, or at least I don' t recall it being a significant part. Could someone from the Health Department address the issue of illegal dumping , how severe it is in the County, you understand the thrust of my question. I don' t think we ever really talked specifically in our hearing about the extent of illegal dumping in relation to a facility such as this. MR. POTTER: It is our present estimation that as much as 60% of the water that' s generated, the production water that is generated in Weld County, does not make it to disposal sites. Part of the problem is the distance from the northern part of the -15- County to the southern areas . Another problem is the facilities that are there. For example , right now, Road 31 disposal is closed at this point because their ponds have reached the limit where they cannot accept any more. And the evaporation has deterred this time of year. So, the other two disposal sites are attempting to carry the increased load. But it' s a constant on-going problem. We receive between two and four reports a week where we do investigations on brine water dumping, and it' s an increasing problem and it' s constantly requiring our attention. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: In terms of the intensity of that and the increasing nature of it, what are the effects that that would have and why is that, if you will explain for me a little bit, the potential dangers involved? MR. POTTER: The water that is being produced, the average production water , for every 1 , 000 gallons of water there ' s about 100 pounds of salt, and that' s a conservative estimate. It can go as high as 200 pounds of salt per 1 ,000 gallons of water. So for every 1 ,000 gallons of water that' s being dumped out there, we have 100 pounds of salt, or in excess of 100 pounds of salt, getting into our ground water table. This is diliterious to the health and also is very detrimental to livestock and to agriculture because salty water inhibits the growth of plants. As a matter of fact, it is especially detrimental during the springtime because it will totally inhibit the germination of seeds. It will also inhibit the uptake of water, so plants are a problem. In Texas and Oklahoma, where they have not attempted to -16- control this until it was too late , they have literally hundreds of acres of farm ground that is laying idle now that was in production prior to that, but the groundwater became so salinated that they were not able to use the water for production for irrigation. With the increased well drilling that' s going on, I think you see every day there ' s more and more wells being drilled, and also the fact that the older a well gets the more water it produces, is a problem that' s continuing to grow. We will have probably another 1 ,000 to 2 ,000 wells drilled in the immediate area within the next two to three years, possibly even more than that depending on how energy prices go. With the constant increase of brine water that' s being produced we have to have some way to take care of it. And it consistently is being, right now, it ' s being dumped because it ' s practical for them to not go clear back to the disposal sites , and it' s also very difficult as far as the facilities themselves to be able to handle the volume that' s going on. And the volume is increasing, so we can see nothing but gloom ahead because there ' s no place to take care of this. We need other facilities besides this one we need at least one more facility in the northern part of the County somewhere. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Thank you. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: All right, Wes, I 've got a question. Since we got into this thing, I 've gone to Denver two or three times and, two or three times I 've stopped on the way to Denver, I 've been down there several times, but I went past the one there -17- on Road 18 . Just to make sure that the statement that I told the people before that the odor was insignificant, and that isn' t anywhere as near a clean operation as what' s presented here , and I still don' t get an odor from that place to speak of , anything to speak of. MR. POTTER: No, Sir, I hear so much about odors and, well admittedly I don ' t have the most sensitive nose in the Health Department, Millie Turner and Ron Stow do , but I have walked around these facilities and I have heard so much about the problems. Now, in the highest activity of iron sulfide bacteria production of these pungent gases, that would be in the middle of the summertime , and I visit these on a regular basis and walking around Weld Disposal when it was having a problem this spring it was really hot , you could smell, I could smell a slight smell. But if you go over to Road 31 Disposal where they had a very small aeration system at that time, I stood right next to the, walked around the whole facility, I couldn' t smell anything. They have probably one-tenth the aeration system that' s proposed on this one . On this disposal site. And so, I just cannot envision that there' s any way that even running half of the aeration system that they've proposed here that there could be a problem with odors. The biggest problem with odors is, that I could smell , was sloppy housekeeping around the outside and we didn' t have the ability or the expertise to incorporate those into the development standards for the other disposal sites and -18- that' s why we have spent so much time scrutinizing this specific design , to make sure that we have covered every possible aspect that we can of this disposal site. Because we don' t want another problem for us to constantly have to be involved. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: That leads me to another question that I think is really important. Do you believe that the operation standards that are here , number one , are sufficient to protect the health , safety and welfare of the environment and, number two, can you enforce them? Are you convinced that you can enforce them, can we shut the place down if they' re not meeting the standards? Because one of the concerns that I 've heard expressed all through, is they may be fined, but if you don ' t have a good operator, what' s going to happen. All the paper in the world is not going to make any difference. So, will you speak to that briefly? MR. POTTER: Yes . If you compare the development standards on this USR to, for example the Weld Disposal facility, the comparison is just incredibly different. We have spent a lot of time and effort evaluating every aspect of this and tried to write into this every specific safeguard that we possibly could. We don' t want something that we can' t enforce , so we made sure that anything that is even a question of whether we can enforce or not is written into the development standards as far as under the State and local statutes. We have also covered that as far as our ability to monitor the system so that, we have spent a lot of time and effort making sure that what we have in this facility -19- is something that A) is pragmatic and applicable and will work, and B) that we can enforce it. The problem with management in the past, we have incorporated, as you have noticed, a tremendous amount of operational things into these specific development standards so that we can control the management of the facility to make sure , in fact, that it is. We are , as you know, increasing our monitoring program even more aggressively than we were before . So there is no question in my mind that this is workable , and that it is technically feasible, and that it is something that we can control from the enforcement aspect of it. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Any other questions of Wes? COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Wes , you said that these are all just guestimates, wild guestimates , maybe. What percent, you say that 60% you think of the brine water being produced is being dumped illegally. In your opinion, what do you think then, of the 60% will use this facility? I 'm sure there will still be some illegal dumping out there , but will this alleviate that problem somewhat? MR. POTTER: I ' ve talked to the three major water haulers , A & W Water Service, Flint are two of the major ones, Jim' s Water Service is another one that works in the area, I have talked with these people. While they won' t openly admit that they are dumping, they say that they know that it is going on. But they, of course , won' t admit, the management themselves, that the dumping is going on. They have all expressed support for this facility, they say that its location is incredibly good as far as -20- its location in geographical range with the wells that are existing, and they have all said that they would, there ' s no question that they would use it. It is our opinion, then, that would certainly reduce the amount of illegal dumping that' s going on, because it will go into this facility. One of our approaches has been there ' s two ways to enforce regulations. If one guy is to play cops and robbers , and try to run around and be an enforcement agency and we just don' t have the staff to constantly stay on top of all that sort of thing. The other way is to provide a viable alternative where industry can take care of itself. And this we feel is providing that by providing a place for the disposal of this. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: OK. Any other questions of Wes? Thank you. That it, Ken? MR. LIND: Yes , Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Do we have any other comments? MS. SHAPIRO: My name is Laura Shapiro, and my address is 1403 10th Avenue in Greeley. I 'm an attorney, I 've been in Greeley only three years , so this is something new to me. I represent the Town of Milliken. I got a panicked phone call from the Town Manager on Monday and she informed me that she was looking for an attorney. On Wednesday the Town of Milliken retained me and I read the notice that they received of this hearing. I 've done research in some of the areas that I believe are pertinent today, and I can assure you that there are some legal issues that may have to be resolved in another form. -21- Milliken feels that one week' s notice is not enough time to prepare for this kind of a hearing. It certainly isn' t enough time for me. Our first request would be that the Board continue this hearing and hold off on making a decision until we are prepared and we can present our evidence to you. Milliken does not, they understand the problems that are involved in this kind of a situation, they understand the problems of illegal dumping, and Milliken does not want to be unreasonable. However , they, as citizens who are going to be affected by this , feel that they deserve a fair opportunity to prepare for this kind of a hearing. In my discussions with the County Attorney, Mr. Anson, on Friday, it' s my understanding, I have not had time to go through and hear all the tapes and I haven ' t even gone through the entire file. It' s my understanding that Mr. Anson was at the hearing on November 16th when this was initially denied. On Friday we were trying to figure out exactly what was going to happen today. I did not understand on Friday whether this was going to be a rehearing, I hadn' t gotten the letter that Mr. Lind had written to the County, or whether this was going to be a hearing to decide whether it should be reconsidered or whether it was going to be the reconsideration. And I can see that Mr. Martensen has gone to considerable time and expense in preparing for this hearing. And I think it' s only fair that Milliken be afforded that opportunity to prepare for the hearing. His board is very elaborate, he' s got testimony in support of his operation, he has maps and plans and Milliken hasn' t had time to do this. They -22- were not represented as a Town at the November 16th hearing, and as far as they knew after that, they didn' t have to continue preparing. I spoke to a gentleman at Coors . in Johnstown on Friday and he indicated that, you know, on Friday he couldn' t determine if they would be taking a position on something like this , however, they were interested in attending the hearing and I don' t know if they' re here today , I spoke to Mr. Bob Spite and he said that he would try to get somebody out here today to come to the hearing and I doubt that they 've had time to do that. I 've spoken to a couple of people at Chemical Operations who've given me some insight into problems that can occur, but if I 'm representing the Town and I 'm gonna do it properly, I need more time to contact people to determine exactly what is involved in this kind of an operation. We ' re not asking for months or years , we' re asking for a few weeks. I can tell you that the statutes that relate to this , 30-21-12 governs revocation of a certificate once it' s been granted. It demands reasonable notice be given to the person who is operating a system such as this. And that could be given in a situation where operations were going to be ceased because of some problem. And we would contend that if a person had a right to notice in a situation where a certificate was going to be revoked, that we certainly, even though we have received notice, be given time to prepare for this kind of a hearing where there is no emergent situation. I think that due process certainly contemplates that. I 've read a number of cases that relate to this situation. And I think Mr. Anson may have -23- read many of the same cases. And all of the cases say that reasonable notice and opportunity to present evidence must be given . There is a case , specifically, that I can read a part to you. This is a 1982 case and it involves the disposal of solid waste , it involves the same statutes that we ' re dealing with now. And the language says that: "Under the solid waste disposal acts , quasi-judicial action by County Commissioners must be preceded by reasonable notice. " Then it goes on to describe that. It says , "If the notice is ambiguous, the ambiguity should be resolved against the notice. " Now, whether or not the notice is ambiguous , I think would be a matter for the Court to determine, however, whether there ' s enough time to prepare , I think the Commissioners are able to determine that. I think that it' s only common sense that Wednesday to Monday is not enough time to prepare for, I haven' t even met with many of the townspeople yet, they haven' t voiced all their concerns to me. I know the Vetters have voiced concerns for vested rights that they have in this land, in the mineral and gas leases, I think, is that correct? Are the Vetters there? OK. They've expressed concerns because they will not be able to drill , I think they have to go in sideways or they can ' t go in at all, and I think Mrs . Vetter can talk to you more about that, she mentioned that to me before the meeting. I know one of the arguments against our request for more time might be that we've had, and also the notice as I indicated before , I didn' t know what the new evidence was going to be that -24- was presented today. The additional trees and I 'm not even sure the aeration was in Mr. Lind ' s letter that he wrote to you for reconsideration. One argument might be that that information was available to me at the County Commissioners Office if I had gone through the file and everything, but like I said, from Wednesday to Monday that isn' t enough time . The tapes, I think, are three hours , at least. I 'm not sure , there' s three sides, so. In the alternative if the Board isn ' t going to grant us more time , we do have people who will voice some of their concerns for the record, but I think that it' s really in the best interests of all concerned that if we ' re going to do this, we do it right the first time , avoid expense of having to go to Court and litigate things , and just give people an opportunity to be satisfied in their minds that things are going, that their interests are going to be protected. Do you have any questions that you' d like to ask me? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: No. MS. SHAPIRO: I also just want to cite that case, I read from it, it was the City and County of Denver vs. Eggert, and it' s 647 Pacific 2nd, found at 216 . Thank you. MR. LIND: Mr. Chairman, could I have the opportunity to respond? MS. SHAPIRO: I think that some more people from Milliken want to talk before CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That' s all right. We ' ll give him a chance to respond to your -25- MS . SHAPIRO: I think CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: You' re trying to bring this thing out in a Court of Law, and I don ' t think we are a Court of Law. I think we ' re just a hearing. Yes? MS . SHAPIRO: What do you mean by that? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Well, I think I ' d rather listen to everybody and see what they've got to say, I don' t think we ought to continue , I mean stop that at this time. MS . SHAPIRO: I didn' t hear what you said? MR. ANSON: I think, if your question, I know we had discussed this before, and Mr. Chairman, if I might state something? Of course, you recall at the time that you came into the office on Friday that that was approximately the same time that I had just understood that this date had been set aside and probably about two minutes before you came into the office, so both of us were looking at this material at the same time. In all fairness , I think that I did hand you Mr. Lind' s letter at that time, also. MS. SHAPIRO: Um-hum, on Friday. MR. ANSON: The notice, if you consider what is reasonable notice, it ' s notice to the Town of Milliken, not notice to their attorney, but if they delay in hiring an attorney or if there is some circumstances that their attorney is not able to go and review the file before .the hearing or just shortly before the hearing, then that doesn' t obviate the requirement for reasonable notice. Because, I think that the reasonable notice has been -26- met. And one other thing on the notice , which I understand now, which I was not certain of when I talked to you on Friday , but the resolution itself was the notice that was provided and by law, the requirements of notice which I had discussed with you earlier the purpose is to advise the public of the time and place of the hearing, the purpose of the hearing, and the property involved. And this notice provided by the resolution does adequately provide for those. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: OK, the minutes reflect also that we . did attend to the fact that we wanted to be sure proper notice was given, I remember asking the question, and it' s reflected in the minutes , that proper notice be provided, and so I think that every effort was made to do that, I don ' t think there was any intent on our part MR. ANSON: Yes , I think that there was adequate record to show that. MS. SHAPIRO: OK , I think that the issue that I 'm bringing up is that adequate notice involves two things: that it be timely, and that it be explanative enough so that a lay person can understand what' s going on. What I 'm saying is that we haven' t had time, you can' t, even if the statute required only five days, we ' re asking for an extension because we have not had time to contact experts and get any information that we need, so that we can have, give you informed input. That' s the first thing. The second thing that I ' ll respond to that you stated, Mr. Anson, is that the Town of Milliken does have a Town -27- Attorney , that' s Mr. Karowsky, or their lawfirm. Because of a conflict of interest, because Mr . Karowsky ' s firm has hired Marilyn David, who is the wife of the County Attorney, that attorney could not come to this case . They can ' t represent Milliken. Therefore , that is the reason , it is not, it' s something that was unavoidable. There was one other issue I was going to address that I forgot. Well , I ' ll think of it. We' re not trying to make this into an adversary proceeding, we ' re trying to just make sure that the public and the Town of Milliken feels that they have a fair enough shot at what' s going to be decided, and I think, right now, they don' t feel that way. So. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: When we decided to have this hearing that was one of the things , as Commissioner Johnson has stated, and she made it very emphatic that there would be adequate time be given and they said that that is adequate time. So that' s the basis why it was brought before us at this time. MS . SHAPIRO: Um-hum. Well, we ' re just stating that we haven' t had adequate time. I mean it' s just a plain CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Well, that' s your opinion, and MS . SHAPIRO: Well , you can' t contact experts in three days , there ' s no way. I mean it' s just a plain common sense definition of adequate time . There is no way anybody, I can' t even get ahold of people, it took me an hour and a half to get through to somebody -at Coors . There' s no way, there' s absolutely no way to prepare for this in three days. It took them a day and a half to -28- get an appointment with me. I can' t change my calendar for clients that I represent just to come drop everything and go listen to tapes and read files . CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Well , that ' s really not our problem. MS . SHAPIRO: No, it isn ' t, but it is your problem if Milliken feels that they haven ' t had a chance to prepare. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Well, I think the basic thing that we need to do , we need to hear from the ether people and see what they have to say. MS. SHAPIRO: OK. I ' d like to ask Miss Packard-Seeburger to come up. MS. PACKARD-SEEBURGER: My name is Gayle Packard-Seeburger, I 'm the circuit rider City Manager for the Town of Milliken. The Town of Milliken, of course, would concur with our attorney' s request that the meeting be delayed. We simply have not had time to address all the issues that need to be raised. We were not sure until the last two days what issues were to be raised and we did not have adequate access to the information at hand that we heard being presented this morning. What I 'd like to do in this very short time is to address the issue in a very general way. From what I understand, the new landscaping requirement and the reduction in time limit for the permit is supposed to take care of the concerns on siting and land use compatibility. Right now, the land is predominantly agricultural. However, it is within the growth area of Milliken. The Town, for the last two years, has been working on economic development plans. We are within -29- six weeks of adopting an amendment to our Comprehensive Plan, we included this area and we are intending to develop it into residential use. We are within under a month of annexing land, to within one-quarter mile of this particular site. The landowners in question are very serious about developing this land into residential uses . This particular use is clearly incompatible with the residential development plans that are currently underway. We think the land use compatibility issue is a major one, even if the land were in agricultural use and was going to continue that way for the next 10 to 15 years , does not mean that you have mitigated all the adverse environmental impacts. I think the plan as I see it looks very nice, I 'm sure that we ' re going to see, within the next year or two, assuming that that' s at scale , we' re going to see maybe 20 foot trees with foot calibers . It takes time to grow trees. Russian Olives are deciduous, in the winter time there are no leaves on the branches blocking the site. It takes conifers a long time to grow. Clearly by the time these trees are mature, that' s when you have tentatively planned the demise of this particular operation. We think it' s too little , too late. We think the planting of the trees , if it does attract wildlife , we think of the possible problems with the site being next to these ponds , we don' t necessarily accept the applicant' s statement that there will be no oil on these ponds, we think it may endanger the wildlife in the area if these ponds go in. -30- We think that there may be a lot of hazardous material in here , we are not satisfied that that has been addressed properly . We feel very strongly , and I think all of you have received the letter we sent immediately after your decision on November 16th. We' re concerned with this , we agree with the applicant this is a serious problem, illegal dumping is a serious problem, and we do want to see it addressed , however , we feel very strongly that this is not the way to address it. We think that we need to have some guidelines on the siting of this type of plant. We don' t believe this is the first one or the last one of this caliber going in. We think it has a lot of good provisions , we' re saying it' s the wrong location. It' s our understanding at this point your office has received now another application for another site just as large , again placed within the growth boundaries of another town. What we' re saying is it makes no sense to us to, on a hodge-podge basis , simply dump a plant here, dump a plant there. We think that this should be addressed from a State , regional and local level . We feel very strongly, as our letter suggested, that we put together siting policies and this be done jointly with the County, the town, and private industry. To date, we haven' t had a response from you and we feel that this could be done rapidly, it should not involve more than one to two months if everyone got on it right away, we see no reason not to do it and do it properly. We think the magnitude of impact on this County can be immense . We would like to see this done -31- properly , not after the fact, not after problems have become apparent. In terms of the time frame , I ' d like to add one thing to our attorney' s comments. The other reason we ' d like very seriously for the County Commissioners to delay this decision is that the Gas and Oil Commission is in process of developing guidelines for this specific type of site. They have now sent them out and I received it Saturday afternoon, proposed guidelines and regulations which these future sites would come under. This site would not come under those guidelines and taking a brief look at them, it appears that they would not meet all the criteria in the proposed regulations . I think it makes a lot of sense to see what the guidelines are , since they are within one to two months of adoption, and also combine that with siting policies developed jointly between all entities involved. Finally, I ' d like to conclude by saying we would like to work cooperatively with you and we hope that we can work out a satisfactory arrangement. We have some other landowners in the audience, and I think we would like to have them speak. They are landowners that are presently in the process of developing land near and around the site and we think it' d be appropriate for them to discuss with you their future plans and how this site is going to impact it. OK, and I think we' d like to start out with Mr. Sauter. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Just a minute. I 'm not ready for that. I got to call a recess for five minutes , I got a call from Hank Brown, I gotta give him a call. -32- (RECESS) CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON : OK . You wanna give us your name? MR. SAUTER: My name ' s Joe Sauter. and I live right north of Milliken. I requested that I was gonna annex to Milliken for the purpose of building a new home and future developments. (inaudible) . MS. PACKARD-SEEBURGER: Well, I know you' d had, talked to (inaudible) I guess the last yea, and no actual action on annexation was initiated until immediately after your first decision at that time. Mr. Sauter and other landowners said, we are interested in developing now, we realize that there is advantages in going into the Town in order to protect our development rights and at this point he had come to us, he had requested annexation, petitions are drawn and the Council will be receiving those petitions on Wednesday. They meet, the time of their regular monthly meeting. And it' s our hope that we will be able to help Mr. Sauter develop and in conformance with the economic development policies of the Town of Milliken. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: And where do you live? MR. SAUTER: I live at 24650 State Highway 257 . CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: And that ' s between what County roads? MR. SAUTER: It' s on the east side of 257 and the south side of Road 52 . CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: Road 52 , OK. MR. SAUTER: Thank you. -33- COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: How far away from this proposed site is your land? MR. SAUTER: About, approximately a mile . Three quarter of a mile as the crow flies , probably about three-quarters of a mile. CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: It has to be more than that, it' s gotta be a mile. It' s a mile, a mile and a half . MS. PACKARD-SEEBURGER: How many acres do you own, Mr. Sauter? Mr. Sauter, could you tell the Commission MR. SAUTER: My hearing' s gone bad and I forgot my hearing aid. MS. PACKAP.D-SEEBURGER: Could you tell them how many acres you own? MR. SAUTER: How many acres altogether? MS . PACKARD-SEEBURGER: On the annexation. MR. SAUTER: On the east side of the road is 72 assessed acres , it was originally 80 acres but they took off for the ditch and the road. There ' s assessed 78 acres there , on the west side of the road there ' s assessed 38 acres , and one, the other parcel, has 36 acres. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: OK. MS. PACKARD-SEEBURGER: The next landowner in process of annexation is Mr. Littrell. MR. LITTRELL: My name is Keith Littrell. MS. PACKARD-SEEBURGER: Tell them what you plan to do with your land. -34- MR. LITTRELL: I have applied to the City of Milliken , I own ten acres up there , and my place would be the closest. That puts me within, I ' d say less than a half a mile of this proposed site and I do propose to annex it for future development and house buildings . My address is 25456 State Highway 257 . CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That ' s between 52 and 54 , then? MR. LITTRELL: Yes . CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: OK . MR. LITTRELL: It won' t come up final until December 31st, but it has been applied for and tentatively approved. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: OK. MS. PACKARD-SEEBURGER: OK, Mrs. Stroh. MRS. CHARLES STROH: I 'm Mrs . Charles Stroh and our address is 24514 Highway 257 . We have property that adjoins the Blehm regime and we do have plans to have it, what' s that word, well yes we do want it annexed, and we do plan to do something with this ground and we don ' t feel that this is going to be very compatible, as close as it is to our property. MS. PACKARD-SEEBURGER: Our other property owners in process of annexation were not able to be present today, but in general we 'd just like to say that, (inaudible) Oh, she ' s here, great. MR. HALLIGAN: I 'm (inaudible) Halligan and I live right on County Road 52 , just below Mr. Littrell, 10025 County Road 52 . We are also planning to annex into the City. I 'm also, have the property where the two springs come down, right directly underneath this plant. Should this leak down through there it' s -35- going to come right through my property. I 've got livestock in there and they have access to those springs . CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: You have , that' s south of it? MR. HALLIGAN: Yes. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: The water, it' s been proven that the water and drainage will go to the north from this , not to the south. MR. HALLIGAN: Whenever them sprinklers are on it, (inaudible) . CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Well, that' s what the geologists tell us, that the water and everything that goes down in the ground from this thing will go to the north, not to the south. HALLIGAN: What happens if it does go to the south? What is the County gonna do about it? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Well, the geologists tell us that that, but this whole entire setup with clay liners, there will be no leaching. MR. HALLIGAN: What happens if it does leak? What is the County gonna do about it? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: They gotta tear it back out and put it in so it won' t. MR. HALLIGAN: But , what happens to my livestock thats already got access to that water that they got to. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: It won' t go that way. MR. HALLIGAN: What is the County gonna do if it does, though? -36- CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: It won' t. MR. HALLIGAN: OK. I just, I don' t hear an answer of what' s gonna happen if it does. If the geologist is wrong. CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: Well, SOMEONE FROM AUDIENCE: Get a personal guarantee. MR. HALLIGAN: It just don' t answer my question , a personal guarantee. Cause you may not be there when this happens. CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: That' s why we ' re putting up these conditions , that' s why everything' s being put up here. MR. HALLIGAN: I seen the conditions that was put up by the County, just on a pipeline -that went down through the road. I can' t even get out of my driveway hardly now. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That MR. HALLIGAN: Just because of the pipeline that went through there. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: I understand that and . . . MR. HALLIGAN: Now they didn' t make any conditions there, and I wonder what kind of conditions they' re going to look at here. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: There ' s some of that that ' s got to be taken into consideration, we've learned a lot in the last couple of years , and there ' s gonna be some different things happen. MR. HALLIGAN: OK. And I still think, MR. HALLIGAN: When is this gonna happen, though? -37- CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: Well , we 've taken definite steps since last summer on laying all the pipelines , we ' ve put men on there from now on, because we had too many people cheating the County. MR. HALLIGAN: They just cheated them again , past my house. CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: Because we didn ' t feel like we could afford to put those men out there, but now we feel like we have to, we don' t have any choice. Now that pipeline thing is completely separate of this. MR. HALLIGAN: That ' s right, I realize that. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: All right, and I think you deserved an answer on that. I understand. I know what Colorado, or County Road 52 is like . It ain' t that good. MR. HALLIGAN: That ' s for sure. CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: But we've got some work to do there. MR. HALLIGAN: I just hate to see something that small that got away from youse and then we look at something this big that I just wonder if everybody' s got everything together. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: We ' re taking definite steps so this don' t get away. MR. HALLIGAN: But, if we waited a couple of months, we would have a Federal law, possibly, that will put guidelines to this thing. It would sure help us. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: We have guidelines in our County and they' re more stringent then what the Colorado State Gas and Oil Commission has come up with. MR. HALLIGAN: Are we sure? -38- CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON : And it' s not Federal . It ' s State. Yes . Yes , Sir. MR. HALLIGAN : Because I 'm very concerned about this thing, I COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Do you want Wes Potter to talk about those proposals and how they compare to what we have? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: We can do that after they, but, yes. MR. HALLIGAN: I want it on record that I 'm certainly against this thing and I 'm very close to it. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That' s fine. MR. HALLIGAN: I haven' t had a chance to come over here before, but I just want it on record that I am. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay. MS. PACKARD-SEEBURGER: I would also like to have Charles Martin, a member of the Milliken Sanitation District, address the Board. Within our planning we have certainly taken into consideration the availability of water and sewer, and I ' d like Mr. Martin to basically address you on this particular issue. CHARLES MARTIN: I 'm Charles Martin, 100 South Grace, Milliken, Colorado. I have the distinct pleasure of sitting on two boards , the Town Board, as well as the Sanitation Board. And the Sanitation Board has recently had a big building program which has been funded $400 , 000 to upgrade the plant and double the size of it. And Milliken, at the present time, has to pump their sewage uphill to get to that plant. Everything north of town is downhill. Any development out in this area would all be -39- free flowing into that plant, and it would be very feasible to put the sewer into that plant from that area. So we ' ve really looked at this as being a growth area to the north of town, where a few years ago it was south of town. But because of the ownership that has been (inaudible) south of town we realize that that probably won' t happen anymore. So we basically looked at the north side of town. And this is in the area we ' re talking about. Milliken' s water system at the present time has been enlarged, we went into a funding there in ' 76 to increase that by quite a lot, and recently Blehm has put a big pipeline up to his area which can be extended on up to the area we ' re talking about. So as far as the growth area goes , it' s a great growth area and we do have the facilities to handle a great amount of growth up on top of the hill. Thank you. MS. PACKARD-SEEBURGER: OK, I ' d like to conclude by thanking you for your time and hoping that you will consider our request for a delay so we can come to you adequately prepared, so hopefully, you will agree to join with us and put together some adequate siting requirements . We' re not asking for a lot of time, we' re asking for a couple of months at the outside. I think, on a project of this magnitude it pays to take the time and do the job right and we hope that you will assist us in this . Thank you. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Thank you. Somebody else have a comment? -40- MS . VETTER: My name is Clara Vetter , I live on Road 52 , directly south of where this proposed plant is to be. I wasn ' t going to speak on this , but I did hear you say that this was going to seep and go north. Well, if it does go north it' s still going to affect somebody, isn' t it? I mean, regardless of whether it affects us , it' s going to hit somebody , and it probably will come into the City of Greeley. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Well , I , let me go back to one thing. That' s what the geology/topography of that ground tells you, that the drain will go to the north. But the way this is set up, and with the clay liners in these pits, and the checkwells all the way around each one of these pits , we have the facility to stop that. And if there is some leaching, it will be stopped. That' s what the clay liners are in there for. MS. VETTER: OK . I wanted to let you know that I 've been talking to people. I really have been talking to people. I 'm not interested only just for myself, I 'm interested for everybody, Greeley, you name it. I talked to several oil men. I talked to one man that has been in the oil business for 17 years. He said, "I came from Kansas where the oil fields, where they had the disposal sites . " He said, "What is the matter with your Health Department? Don' t they know that this thing is detrimental to people' s health?" He said, "I have yet to see one that didn' t seep, I 've yet to see one that didn' t stink. " He said, "I can' t believe it, have you talked to your Health -41- Department?" I said, "Are you kidding? They ' re all for it. " He said, "I can ' t see how they can be. " I talked to another one and he said , "Who owns the mineral rights up there?" I said, "We do. " He said, "Well , have you contacted the Gas and Oil Commissioners?" I said, "No. " He said, "Do so. " I did. I talked to Mr. Carlson about it. As far as I -know, I cannot guarantee this , but he told me that there has been no approval from the Oil and Gas Commission, that this thing can go through. That this must be approved by the Oil and Gas Commission. We do own the mineral rights , and we didn' t say you can put it there , and this is going to be , our priorities are going to be limited with this thing going in there, naturally. I said, "Well what about this angle drilling they' re talking about. " He said, "Hey, that' s expensive. You guys own the mineral rights , you have priority over the surface rights , what' s the matter?" He said, "We are having a meeting on December the 19th by which we are drawing up new rules and regulations , and until then, " he said, "I cannot really tell you a whole lot. I do know, " he said, "from my standpoint that they have not contacted us for approval of this thing. " So he said, "Bring it out if you like. " There you've got it. OK. I also want to bring out that at the last, the Planning Commissioners hearing which you were not present, one of the speakers for the other side mentioned about the caliber of people in Milliken, that this shouldn' t really matter. You know, I got hot right at the minute they said it, but it didn' t hit me until -42- after I got home . I think that the caliber of the people in Milliken is as high, and probably some higher, than anywhere you can find in the City of Greeley. You know that stung me like a bumblebee. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That statement wasn' t made by the Board. MS. VETTER: But, at the Planning Commission, not at the County Commissioners , at the Planning Commissioner' s hearing. There was a young man who drives an oil truck who got up and said that with the caliber of people in Milliken, I am not going to state this word for word, because I can' t, but it really shouldn' t matter. And that just raised me right off of my seat. I CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: I don' t blame you, I would have got irritated, too. But that wasn' t here and that wasn ' t at the Commissioners, and I think MS. VETTER: Did anybody here hear that? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Well, it wasn' t here. It wasn' t brought before our hearing MS. VETTER: No, not before your hearing, I 'm sorry, but I had to bring this out. I wanted you to know what the caliber of people in Milliken are , they' re good people. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Well, we don' t MS. VETTER: They don' t deserve to be dumped on just because somebody thought that their caliber didn' t count. -43- Another thing, you mentioned that by covering the odors that there was a control . Well if you control the odor with chlorine , chlorine? Well , you've still got an odor, because it stinks. You go to a swimming pool , what have you got? It takes your breath, it burns your nose. Is that really good for health? I wouldn' t think that it would be . And another thing I gotta bring on, is the illegal dumping. It' s gonna go on. I don' t care what you've got there, somebody' s gonna pocket that money. They' re not gonna go in there and dump and pay that big price to dump that any more than our City dump has been provided for dumping. We farmers are forever picking up garbage bags full of tin cans and trash. You know why? They have to pay to dump that stuff. So why not dump it on the road? In one instance, and maybe you' ll say, hey, don' t bring it up at this meeting, but it is an instance. A couple of years ago my brother experienced dumping, dumping south of the Ashton School. There were letters , everything in there that indicated who dumped it. It was a Professor of the University of Colorado, his letters, everything was in there. So when the law was called they came out, looked it over, my brother threatened to take it in and dump it on his lawn and they said he ' d be liable, so he didn ' t do it, he ' s a good guy. He said my little boy did this. OK, can a little boy drive a car? No, he' s gotta be 16 . What kind of thinking have we got? These oil guys that drive these trucks, I don' t know how old they have to be , but if they can pocket that money, they' re -44- gonna pocket this money and they ' re not gonna worry about whether there ' s a place for them to dump it or not. Now, another thing I want to bring out. I ' ve lived there all my life. Don ' t I have a right? Is this America? What is wrong? You know, we ' re sitting there. You people don' t want it, you've indicated at the last meeting I asked you to put up your hands if you wanted it that close to your home. Not one of you raised your hand , not one of you. Why? You don' t want it that close to your home. I 've lived there all my life. My husband' s father provided this beautiful place for us . Three-quarters of a mile , as straight as a crow flies , that dang thing' s gonna be sitting up there on top of my head. And I want to tell you, I believe anyone who cares so much for the almighty dollar that he would abandon all honor and respect for the people could also believe a life dominated by this is hardly worth living. I simply cannot relieve my mind that these people who would approve this and destroy our environment and our happiness that we 've been there all these years could get another good night' s sleep for the rest of their lives . I honestly believe that, and if I were in your place , so help me God, I could not do this to a dog. Thank you. MS. YORK: My name' s Patty York and I live at 215 South Josephine in Milliken. As you can see, it is an emotional question and there ' s been some criticism because people are taking this so emotional. But I don' t think that anyone here would object to anybody being emotional about their home. The -45- question I have is that there was an article in the Tribune yesterday about the possibility of a waste disposal site in the Platteville area. Does that have any influence on this Board at all? What I 'm wondering is if there ' s a need for two, if that were to be approved, if there' s a need for two in that close an area. It seems to me that from the article, the people in Platteville are quite receptive to that. It would only seem logical to me that if they are willing to have that in their area and would be cooperative toward that, unless there are some health problems, what would be the problem with giving two and a half to three months , whatever it would take to consider that site , and holding off on a decision on the Milliken site. Can someone answer that? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: We haven' t heard about it. MS. YORK: In the Tribune article, I believe it said the County Commissioners would address that, probably not address that, until sometime in March. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: The Tribune likes to line up our work for us before we know anything about it. MS. YORK: OK , if this were a possibility would that have any influence on your decision? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That' s not a very central location for the northern thing that' s going on. • MS. YORK: Well , it seems to me as far as location, the people in the oil industry probably can better afford to drive a few more miles than some of the rest of us who live right there -46- all of our lives . And I hope that you would take that possibility in consideration. I know, evidently, you 've not heard of it so it' s probably not concrete evidence to you, but if you can tell by the people here, the majority of whom are against this site, that should be an indication that there' s not going to be an awful lot of cooperation. And if you can get that cooperation in another area, which isn' t that far away, I ' d sure think it would be sensible to consider that. We have to take the word of the Health Department, but when we know that there ' s so much illegal dumping going on now, and I know for a fact that this illegal dumping has been reported and we 've not seen any decrease in it, I feel like that if there are violations with the proposed site, if it is approved and put in, what kind of an assurance do we have that there ' ll be any action against any violations that might occur there? And if there are violations , what recourse is taken? Is the site immediately closed down or do you have to wait, or is there a monetary fine that somebody probably will be glad to pay? Fifteen years is a long time to live with something when two and a half months of consideration right now might save the possibility of us all having to invite you back to a picnic at the dump site 15 years from now and not being very well impressed with what you see . Thank you. GARY WEST: I 'm Gary West and the circuit riding Town Manager for Towns of Firestone, Platteville, Lochbuie, Mead, and Severance. I 'd like to present to the Board this morning, letters from the Towns of Platteville, Lochbuie, Firestone, -47- Gilcrest , and also a letter from the Mayors Coordinating Committee , which represents approximately 11 Weld County Communities. I ' d like these to be presented to you and I ' d like them entered into the record and marked as exhibits for this hearing. Generally, these letters request that the County Commissioners delay action on the Use by Special Review and Certificate of Designation until some definitive, uniform criteria has been developed for such facilities. The Towns have also indicted their willingness to work with the County and to address their mutual concerns on these criteria. Last week, it' s my understanding, that the Weld County Planning Department received a similar site application, or an application for a similar site approximately two and a half miles south of the Town of Platteville. This was the first that we heard about it was through the newspaper, reporters calling us asking us about it. There is some concern about that site. I think that we are seeing that other towns are also being faced with potentially the same kinds of concerns that Milliken has expressed and we would like the opportunity to work with the County Commissioners and develop some specific criteria for siting these kinds of facilities in a manner that will benefit both the oil and gas industry and will also take into consideration the needs and wants of our residents and citizens of Weld County. Thank you. CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: Anybody else? MR. WILSON: My name is Mark Wilson, I'm a Land Man for Barrett Energy Company. I was asked to come up here and read a -48- letter that is addressed to the Board and I ' d like to read that letter now to the Board and to all the members in attendance here: "Ladies and Gentlemen: In view of the proposal by EVAP , Limited, and Mr. Arvin G. Martensen, to construct an oil and gas well production water disposal site in the Northeast Quarter, Section 26 , 5 North, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal Meridion, Barrett Energy wishes to advise Mr. Martensen, the Board, and EVAP, Limited, that Barrett Energy Company presently holds the rights to explore for oil and gas in the Northeast Quarter of Section 26 , Township 5 North, Range 67 West, including all rights of ingress and egress for purposes of exploration. We are granted these rights by an oil and gas lease dated June 16 , 1980 from Gus Vetter, et. al . to Ted E. Ansborough. Said lease was recorded in the County records of Weld County, Colorado on July 22 , 1980 . This lease constitutes a prior vested right in Barrett Energy Company to explore for oil and gas in the Northeast Quarter of Section 26 . We wish to have said rights protected and, therefore , are compelled to voice our objection to the construction of an oil and gas well production water disposal site on said lands to the extent that such disposal site would interfere with our rights to develop lands for the production of oil and gas. In the event that this permit is granted by the Board of County Commissioners, we are hereby notifying EVAP, Limited and Mr. Arvin G. Martensen of our prior vested rights under the abovementioned oil and gas lease and are hereby -49- notifying them that their operations must be conducted so as not to interfere with Barrett Energy Company ' ; rights to explore for oil and gas on said lands . Yours truly, Joseph P. Barrett, Barrett Energy Company . " As it stands right now, we have a producing well in the Southwest Quarter of Section 26 . We have two wells in the Northwest Quarter of Section 26 . It' s our intention to fully develop our acreage up there. We have leasehold coverage on the North Half Northwest and the Northeast Quarter. That lease presently is held by production and will be held for an indefinite period of time. We have future plans to develop that area. We don' t see how we could even go in there and exercise our rights of ingress and egress with something proposed like this . Not to mention all the future revenues that we' ll lose off of production, not to mention the Vetter family who' s gonna lose a lot of money on production, also. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Where' s your production water going from your wells? MR. WILSON: Well , I couldn' t comment on that, I 'm just a Land Man, I ' d have to have a technical person from our company. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: You' re representing your company, we ought to have an answer from you, just like you expect one from us. MR. WILSON: I 'm not an expert in that, I really -wouldn' t know how to address it. I 'm just, you know, I handle the basic -50- oil and gas leases , and I know that it would really create a problem of ingress and egress if this was constructed. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Where is the Section line here? MR. WILSON: Pardon me? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Where is the Section line on this thing? COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: The map is right there. MR. WILSON: Right here is Section 26 , am I correct? BACKGROUND: That' s right. MR. WILSON: Okay, we have oil and gas leasehold coverage on almost the entire Section 26 . CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: I understand that, but where is the Section line on this thing here? According to what I 'm looking at, is you put your things in the middle of 40 ' s , right? MR. WILSON: Well it depends on what kind of formation we want to go to. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Well, basically you start in the middle of the 40 . MR. WILSON: Uhm, not all the time. Not all the time. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Don' t get so evasive, I know better than that. MR. WILSON: If we want to drill adjacent CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: They come out here to our farms and they ' ll go right down the middle of a corn field so they can get in the middle of that 40 acres. -51- MR. WILSON: Oh, are you talking about a five 40 acre window, OK , sure. If we want to drill at Kodel CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: In the middle of the 40 ' s here it won' t even be in either place there. MR. WILSON: I 'm completely lost, I don ' t know what you ' re CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: The Section line is right down the middle of that. MR. WILSON: Is this the Section line here? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: No. MR. WILSON : Okay, I 'm confused. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Right down through the middle of it. MR. WILSON: Right here? COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: No, I think its the east side of it. It' s the right hand side of it. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Well, that ' s all right. Go ahead, that' s fine, I won' t argue with you. But I think you' re off base but that ' s all right. MR. WILSON: I 'd just like to go on record that we firmly oppose any kind of facility that goes up here on the Northeast Quarter of Section 26: CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Yeah, but you understand, this whole operation. This kind of galls me a little bit. Here we ' re trying to aid gas and oil exploration in this County and you're coming up here and diametrically opposing it. It' s something that' s to aid you. -52- MR. WILSON: We have a solid vested interest in Section 26 and you've planned to develop our acres up there . CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: I don' t have any problems with that , but MR. WILSON: That ' s all I 'm saying. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: You know, it just really bothers me that we ' re , here we ' re trying to help out the gas and oil industry and then all of a sudden we get somebody that comes up here and says , well we don ' t want your help we ' re going to dump it on the road anyway . MR. WILSON: No, that' s incorrect. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That' s about what it amounts to. MR. WILSON: Incorrect. All I 'm saying. That' s totally incorrect. All I 'm saying is we are in favor of something like that, that type of a facility. We just don' t want it where it' s located. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Long as it don' t bother you. MR. WILSON: Exactly. BACKGROUND: (inaudible) MR. WILSON: Exactly. We just don' t want it interfering with our production. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That' s what I thought. MR. WILSON: Well , thank you. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Anybody else? MR. SHULTZ : I 'm John Shultz , I live Southeast of Milliken, Southwest of Milliken. I had a few things I was gonna bring up, -53- but we ' re running short on time. I just want to tell you, the Board of Commissioners , that I 'm against this project. Thank you. MS. YORK: Could I have my questions answered? CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: We got some other people that want to talk. MS . YORK: The questions that I asked when I was up there, will they be answered? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: I think they were , most of them. Come ahead. MR. CHUCK VETTER: My name is Chuck Vetter, I live on County Road 52 , approximately half a mile from this site. I 've heard a lot of things today, here , and unlike everybody else , I 'm concerned about it. Now, Mr. Martensen' s went to a lot of trouble here with this nice plaque here. I didn ' t quite have time to get mine together, mine was basically like this, only it had a corn field, tractors , farming operation. Which this land is meant for. Now, none of these people are against what Mr. Martensen wants as far as a dump site. But it doesn' t belong here. Thank you. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Let me get some other people that haven ' t spoken, yet. UNKNOWN: Three words? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Just a minute, let me get the other people that haven ' t spoken. UNKNOWN: All right. -54- CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Anybody else? Yes , and then there ' s another fellow back there. MR. FRANK VETTER: I 'm Frank Vetter from 612 Charlotte Street, Johnstown. Getting back to the way this water drains , did you say it drains to the north? Is that correct? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That' s what the topography tells us , Frank, that ' s all I can tell you. MR. FRANK VETTER: All I know about it, I 've lived up there for 38 years , and those draws have never run as much water as they are now, since Mr. Blehm' s put the sprinkler systems up there. That water has to go to the south, I don' t care what any geologist says . Thank you. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: One more. MR. HANKINS : My name ' s Harlan Hankins, I live at 9508 Weld County Road 54 . I 've been to all the hearings and I suggest there ' s been no new material offered here by EVAP today, other than a renewal factor of 15 years , which I don ' t feel is much of a reason to have this whole meeting, personally. The landscaping was brought up last meeting and also the aeration factor was brought up. So I really think it' s kind of ludicrous that we ' re all here today, hearing the same arguments that we heard before. I do have a couple of questions that I had last meeting, I didn' t bring up, I 'm gonna bring them up this time. The first one is, I know it' s gonna be run by credit cards. Is everyone that has a dump truck had that ability to get a credit card so they can come -55- in and dump or is this gonna be limited to Flint Oil? Could I get a response on that? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Go ahead and ask your other question and then I ' ll ask them to respond. MR. HANKINS: OK. The other statement I had, the other question I had, wasn ' t really a question, it' s a statement. Mr. Wes Potter from the Health Department admitted liner failure in two out of the other three disposal sites that we have now, and those were all engineered and they were all done by people, supposedly knowledgeable people. But I think two out of three , I think for this reason I think the odds and the chance for liner failure are unacceptable , and for this reason I agree with Mr. Al Halligan, his farm being that the water is draining that way, even though the geologists say it drains to the north, his slew will receive contamination. Even though they 've got plans to control it, once there ' s a liner failure, there' s gonna be a certain amount of contamination, that ' s all there is to it. The other think, is I think more towards Greeley, my other statement, I think that once you get a waste disposal site there in the west Greeley, I consider that the west Greeley area, when I start driving towards Greeley it doesn ' t take me very long to get to the City limits. I think that is going to only attract other waste disposal type of things , rather than job producing industries like H-P and Anheuser-Busch, which Greeley of course, didn ' t get. Back to the liner. The only thing I personally feel on that, I think it' s unacceptable to have a clay liner for the -56- reasons I ' ve stated, two out of three have already had liner failure . The only thing that maybe could be done there is if the Board so feels that they have to have this and they have to have it at this site, and that is your contention, I think that it has to have a cement liner so that this will be a true evaporation situation rather than a leach pond, and also it would prevent, help prevent, any type of liner encroachment. Do you have any questions? Thank vou. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Ken do you want to give MR. LIND: Could we answer that, when we finish with the comments? Thank you. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Anybody else? MS . DAMSEY: My name is Barbara Damsey and I 'm on the Milliken Town Board. Repeatedly when Mr. Martensen and them were up they kept saying that the growth in Milliken is gonna take 15-20 years and that ' s why if it was reviewed at 15 years and the growth occurred then we could look at it again and maybe dispense with the site. We don 't see it that way. Our growth is gonna happen in the next five years. Already there ' s plans for condominiums up there and there might be a lot of trees wrote on here, but if you ' re on the second or third floor of a condominium, you might look one way and see the beautiful mountains, but -who ' s gonna buy a home that ' s gonna cost them like $100 ,000 and overlook a site like this? So I think that should be emphasized, that our growth is occurring now. We see that there is already some homes that have been built and the plans, -57- we could bring in the plans and show you how extensive they are up in that area. I ' d also like to comment that Barrett ' s interests are compromised due to the size and his oil wells. We really have to consider not only the town interests , but the oil company and the disposal site. We need to work together with all the entities beforehand to make the policies that will benefit all concerned. And find something that is centrally located that' ll help everyone. The only way I feel we can accomplish this if you delay your decision and give us time to look into all aspects of it. Thank you. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Just a minute. Let ' s see if we 've got anybody else that hasn' t said anything yet. Anybody else? OK, we've got this man then Mrs . Vetter. MR. SAUTER: My name ' s Sauter, again. I didn' t know you had this map here, but I got an aerial map that showed a lot better and it' s too bad I didn' t bring it. But I ' d like to point out something to you. Section 26 and 25 , and 27 . To the west there ' s major draw that comes out, runs from one to two acre feet of water every 24 hours , it starts within three-quarters of a mile west of that side right here and it runs down and empties through Fall Mountain Dairy Farm then into the Big Thompson River, which eventually goes into Federal waters . Then directly south there is a major draw that runs down through our place, down into the Blehm Waterway Estate. (TAPE CHANGE NO. 83-148) -58- MR. SAUTER: Directly to the south there ' s a draw runs down through our place , we have a small lake , and then into Blehm' s Waterway Estate lakes . He has three turbine pumps that he irrigates the golf course with. That there draw starts a half mile from the top of that site. On east, another draw starts a half mile from the top, that goes down through Vetters . He has four or five lakes down there and that empties into the Platte, or to the Big Thompson. Then •-ast of there there' s another major draw comes out, goes down through the Hergenreder and Schneider farm and on down through, oh what' s their names, well anyway, all of these draws run from one to two acre feet of water every 24 hours , and they all empty into the Big Thompson River, which eventually flows into Federal waters. Now our forefathers settled that country and they did it for one reason -- for that water, for their future use and for then. When they first was there they used that for drinking water. And it' s a source of water , and it' s a source of water that should never be taminated in any way, the water does come out from under that at that site, it doesn' t come from China. It' s there, it' s been there , and it' ll always be there. Thank you. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Mrs. Vetter. MS . VETTER: Clara Vetter. I just wanted to speak in behalf of Mark Wilson, who spoke about the mineral rights up there. I would imagine it would' ve been hard to pinpoint him through to something like this. And since I had already mentioned that we do have the mineral rights, he' s only speaking on our, in their -59- behalf as far as the Barrett Oil Company is concerned. That should take care of that without any question, I 'm sure. One last question is , I 'm very sentimental about people. We have what we called a Child Abuse Law, we have an animal abuse law, you know, there are laws that take care of people who abuse anything in this respect. You know, this is about the worst abuse I think anybody has ever laid on these people that live in this area. Why? Why? Ask yourself. Why are we doing this? Why does this have to continue? Why can ' t you end it? Once and for all. Thank you. MR. SHUEY: Ken Shuey, Greeley, Colorado. I 'd like to read a letter into the record from some people that could not be here. From the Aid Association for Lutherans , "December 10 , 1983 , Board of County Commissioners . RE: Road 54 , EVAP Park. Dear Sirs : As a residents of Weld County, we want to state our opinion to the proposed EVAP Park Project. We live at 27250 Hoppi Trail, Indian Head Estates, which is located off of Weld County 15 . We have lived at this address for five and one-half years and consider this our permanent residence. We strongly endorse the EVAP Park Project as vital to our growth and development for the future. It is imperative we provide legal control and accessible places for the oil production waste disposal. We concur fully with the Greeley Tribune editorial of November 19 , 1983 . We have known Arvin G. Martensen for more than seven years. We know that he is a dedicated christian and a concerned citizen. He maintains high standards and ideals on -60- every project as evidenced by the Indian Head Estates Subdivision. He is a man of integrity who will represent that which is right for all concerned. We feel he is well qualified to develop and manage this project. Respectfully submitted, Donald and Patricia Frager. " CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: Ken. MR. LIND: Mr. Chairman, I must admit I 'm rather surprised at Barrett Oil Company' s position. As you've stated, these facilities are for them to help them develop the area. I guess that Barrett' s not capable of drilling wells in an area , such as many other companies that' s open, where they drill in the City, maybe they should sell their lease. As far as these proposed annexations that have all of a sudden come up - I ' d always been under the impression that Comprehensive Plans should first be changed or even submitted, but now we' re finding annexation coming up first. One of the questions that was addressed, we' ll have to ask Mr. Martensen to answer that, concerned the operation of the credit cards. MR. MARTENSEN: Our proposal, with the credit cards is that they would be, any company that would be hauling brine water, that ' s authorized to haul brine water, would be considered for the credit card to use this particular facility. That' s one of the changes that we made from the original proposal is that it would be available to all the brine water haulers. This would be consistent in establishing the record of who is hauling the brine water, and who is disposing through here with the Oil and Gas -61- Commission. We have been down, I 've ralked with Bill Smith personally several times , he ' s had a full package of this , and has definitely expressed his complete support for this particular project. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Who' s Mr. Bill Smith, please? MR. MARTENSEN: Bill Smith is the new director of the Oil and Gas Commission. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Thank you. MR. LIND: Speaking of the statement that was made that the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission would not approve this site , Mr. Potter can give us some information on that, as well as Mr. Norton. MR. NORTON: I 'm Tom Norton and I , in the design of this facility we have discussed with the Oil and Gas Commission , and made them very well aware of what we' re doing. And they' re , and we do have copies of their proposed new regulations, and the site does comply with all of those regulations and is , in fact, in excess of the proposed regulations as they' re stand right now. I might also add that we have agreed with the Oil and Gas Commission, that if they do come up with some regulations that we need to make some modifications on that we will comply with the final regulations when they finally have been adopted. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay. Anybody else. MR. WIEST: My name is Brian Wiest, I live in Milliken. I 'd like to ask Mr. Martensen a question. First of all, is what he -62- is planning to charge, say a truck, to use this facility. Can you answer that? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Just go ahead and make your MR. WIEST: Why I need that on response for the rest of my statement. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Well , he ' ll respond to it, just go ahead and make the rest of your statement. MR. WIEST : Ok.- 1± it ' s , what I 'm saying is if it ' s . _ __ know, an ungodly amount and if that truck driver is 25 miles away from this site , he ' s gonna dump it regardless , and that' s the whole idea behind this thing, is to stop illegal dumping. That' s all I have to say, can you answer the question about price? MR. MARTENSEN: Mr. Brantner asked the same question last time and my response is still the same , is that we will be charging competitive prices with the other sites within the area. AUDIENCE: What ' s that? $10 , $20? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: I don' t think we can answer AUDIENCE: I doubt if that' s enough (inaudible) MR. MARTENSEN: Okay, the other sites within the area, as I understand, have published a letter within the past two weeks , that their charges will be 40 cents per barrel of brine water. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: What do they , what does the oil industry consider as a barrel? MR. MARTENSEN: 42 gallons. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Yes, Sir. AUDIENCE: (inaudible) -63- CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay . AUDIENCE: (inaudible) MR. SAUTER: Recently in the paper is an article in there, and since it brought it out it' s kind of a touchy subject, maybe. It is stated that the thing' s under bankruptcy, taxes haven' t been paid, it' s questionable who even owns it. I don' t see how our County Government can even consider where they don' t even know for sure , actually who owns the thing. CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: Well , I think that was all discussed the last time and pretty well cleared up. MR. SAUTER: Oh? I never heard anything about it. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Yeah, we discussed that pretty indepth last time . MR. SAUTER: Also, I ' d like to know if Mr. Morrison, he' s the head of Arrowhead Estates . I was informed by a reliable sources that he even took out bankruptcy. What' s to prevent them from taking out bankruptcy on this? CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: That, that was before he got ahold of it, got into it, so I think, I don' t have any idea. That' s beyond this and we don ' t have any business doing that. MR. SAUTER: I 'm just pointing out that the track record is there. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: You have a, did you have a comment? MR. DRAGICH: My name is Robert Dragich, I 'm with Arix Consulting , Inc . out of Greeley, which is a consulting firm for several dozen oil and gas companies in the Weld County area. The -64- last meeting I was employed by the largest water hauler, brine water hauler, in the State of Colorado, and I mention that name for the record, Flint Engineering and Construction, not Flint Oil . Okay? As it was said earlier. I 'd like to clarify a couple of things . Just two things, and I didn ' t realize I came here for an emotional situation. I really appreciate the people of Milliken and their stance , but, I 'm going to just state a couple of facts here. One , everybody ' s concerned about the cost of dumping, the amount of illegal dumping, and I ' ll address both of those. The cost is comparative, I don ' t know whether you would call it a balanced situation, but all the disposals pretty much charge the same thing. So, it' s not going to be a point where this particular disposal or any other disposal is gonna try to gouge for a price , because that ' s detrimental to what they ' re trying to do. And I realize if they did gouge, that the water haulers would definitely move their liquids to the most competitive site . Now this brings up the situation with the competitive site. This is a competitive location. And, as Mr. Potter said, it is a viable alternative to enforcement. And I firmly believe, from my past experience and experience from the other side of the fence over the last few weeks since I changed positions here, that most your water haulers are basically competitive , like I brought up in the last meeting, and they want to do one thing. They want to dispose of this properly, at a competitive cost. Okay? Moving it from point A in northern Weld County to point B can ' t be competitive in some, or trucking -65- • companies I , simply because the amount of fluids they have to move and the size of the companies they have. So , that tends to lead to illegal dumping. And the site location is going to be a viable alternative to the illegal dumping situation, I 'm a firm believer, being in the trucking industry several years with this , and still maintaining communications. I know what these truckers are thinking and a lot of you here in Milliken know too. Okay? Some of you may be employed by oil companies. And, they' re out there on an hourly basis , and I want to clarify one thing. This truck driver is not pocketing any money out there. He' s not saving, he doesn' t get paid direct, it' s not his trucks. Okay? Which brings a good point back. Authorized brine water haulers , you' re going to see a lot more of this with the Oil and Gas Commission , one of our biggest illegal dumping, the problems out here is, unauthorized haulers. Okay? That' s the small operator that puts a truck together and gets out there and gets with a small independent company , and hauls his water as best he can. And that' s and that' s an element that' s going to cease shortly. Because the Oil and Gas Commission is going to require authority from the water haulers. And they' re going to have to be permitted as your larger ones , as Jim' s Water Service , and A and W, and Flint Engineering are . So, the Oil and Gas Commission, is farsighted enough to see this problem. And they' re going to eliminate a lot of the little, illegal haulers, simply by requiring most of your independent and major oil companies of reporting what is exactly moved where, how and by whom, and where -66- it was disposed of. And these records must be compatible with their well production . So it' s going to tie in. Okay? And it ' s going to eliminate some of the illegal dumping that ' s happening out there right now. And I 'm quite sure the majors and the small independents that can haul , with authority, will utilize this position. Also, one other statement, and I may put myself in jeopardy here , but I 'm going to say it anyway. Barrett Energy, to me , is one of the best oil companies in the area , working for them. I appreciate the Land Man' s efforts up here. And at one time they were, the company I worked for, and probably still are one of the best, and I 'm saying this not to jeopardize my former employer, okay? But we did haul all their production water. We hauled everything they had. And I don' t know whether they do or not now. It was all hauled to Weld County and disposed of legally. And that ' s to the Land Man' s opportunity here, I just want to let him know that I know where it went, so he knows where it went. It is a legal, very reputable cooperation from the field man to the disposal and I personally monitored it. So I know where Barrett Energy' s waste water went. It went to the disposal, where it belongs . Unfortunately, it was hauled completely to the south. The Platte area, the Platteville area, you' re only five to eight miles away from the disposals that are there. Okay? And I 'm not going to get into that particular argument, but I just want to let you know that I feel that it' s not a conducive site because of the location. I 'm not saying the geology is better or worse but it' s a location system, and we ' re -67- talking about a north Weld County area . One other thing, have any of you been to Weld County over the last two or three weeks , disposal that is , and seen the situation they have, they' re trying to handle all of Weld County' s water. Has anybody in the room been up there? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Oh yeah, Wes has been there. MR. DRAGICH: It' s tough. Mr. Potter, will say you've got eight, ten trucks stacked up. You've got guys sitting there wondering what they' re going to do with their time and, of course they' re getting paid for it. You 've got a situation that breeds illegality, when there ' s no place to dump this efficiently. Thirty-one disposal is closed, probably closed for the winter. I think Mr. Potter will verify that. And maybe in the next year. Just depending on how it can handle the excess water. It couldn ' t handle it with the boom that ' s on. I 'm quite sure it wouldn' t handle it if it were able to, anyway. It just doesn' t have the free board or the facilities to do that, handle the larger amount that' s happening. And Weld County can' t handle it, ladies and gentlemen, you can go up there and look. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That' s true, the more wells that we ' re getting the more of it we have, and we are one of the hottest places in the United States today. MR. DRAGICH: This is it. If you want to know what the Texas boom is like, the people of Milliken are experiencing it. And they, and the people of Weld County are experiencing the boom, and it will continue. And I just wantedto address that in -68- that respect of the illegal dumping. It ' s not up to the driver to pocket the money , they don' t own those trucks . I just wanted to bring that point up. Okay? Thank you. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Chuck, I have one, that answers one of your questions , I believe you, the woman who testified about the either/or nature of another site. Does that satisfy? I would say that that' s pretty reflective of my position. AUDIENCE: You would not be willing to take (inaudible) COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I don' t think that, I don' t think that we ' re in an either/or situation in Weld County. We , from the testimony that our Health Department has given and others have given, I think probably there ' s clearly a need for more than one site. So, I don' t think that that would justify turning one down for another. But the other thing that I think hasn' t been addressed maybe for you, you raised the issue of what we' d do with a site that' s out of compliance and how quickly we can act. And, we have had recent experience with that, and we have been able to act very, very quickly to require and demand the compliance that we have. And I think that you should know that we are able to do that. AUDIENCE: You mean shut down? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yes . CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Yes , ma'm, we shut it down that very day. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Yeah. And that' s frankly, -69- CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: Wes called in on one and we shut it down immediately. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: That' s one of the things that I think has, has a strong influence here, to know that we can do that, and to have seen it happen. AUDIENCE: The Health Department can' t solve 60% of the dumping, how are they gonna solve this? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Well, that' s an enforcement matter. That' s a matter of having enough people to be on all of the roads where trucks are traveling and catch them doing it. And that' s a whole different issue than AUDIENCE: One of the Board members have stated that they have seen illegal dumping and didn' t do anything about it. So, you know. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: One of the Board members? What Board member? AUDIENCE: I 'm not sure. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: It didn 't happen from this Board. AUDIENCE: (inaudible) CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay. We 've had a, I think we 've gone into this long enough and we ' re late , belaboring the situation and getting a lot of repetitiveness . So, have you got any further comments from, no not you, the attorney? Ken? MR. LIND: No, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay. I think that we ' re starting to get into real repetitiveness now and we' re just wasting time. -70- So, any comments of the Commissioners? If no comments , the Chair is open for a motion. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Mr. Chairman, I ' ll make a motion. I would make a motion that we delay taking any action at this time to give the Town of Milliken, to give the other interested parties a chance to prepare presentation to this concerning the Oil Commission Guidelines, I know I 've heard that our guidelines are following theirs , however , they are not final . I think that we need to work with all the towns , not only Milliken. The Mayor' s Coordinating Committee has asked us to do this so we can cite criteria for the siting of these disposal sites. I guess there is some question how much of a question concerning the mineral rights. So I think we ' re looking at some factors that we need to look into. ROD ALLISON: Is there a time frame attached to that motion? COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I 've heard two to three months requested, I ' ll put into my motion two months. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: What' s your motion again? COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: That we delay for two months. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Okay, I ' ll second it. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: It' s been moved and seconded that we continue , you want to continue this , or what do you want to do? COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Whatever is , Russ , do we continue it? MR. ANSON: Okay, well that' s a decision I guess you' d have to make. I would recommend that you continue it to a specific -71- date , so that everyone that is here , if they would wish to return and be here when you make your decision, that they are aware of that date. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: You gonna come up with a date? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That 'd be February first. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Do we have a meeting that day? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Um-huh. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I ' ll include February first as a hearing date , or continue it to that. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: I think that, I don ' t think that we should go through this whole procedure again, I think that motion should be that only new evidence can be presented, and that sort of thing. Because, this could go on forever. MR. ANSON: I think, you know, I don' t know what evidence you may be looking for, but you can continue it for whatever specified type of evidence that you wish to receive, also. Whatever you want to limit the evidence to. COMMISSIONER MARTIN: They were asking for additional time, to prepare what they want to prepare , and then, and I think that we don ' t want them to go prepare a repetition of everything we 've gone over already. If they want to prepare some new evidence, or they want to prepare something that really has a bearing on the case, then I think we ought to give them time to prepare that, but I don ' t think that we want to go back over the whole program that we 've already been over. We 've all heard that two or three times up to now. -72- COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I agree with you , John , and I understood, if I understood the Town of Milliken ' s request exactly it was , they have had time to deal with the original proposal. They had as much time as anyone else , as I understand it, but that it was the proposed revisions to the plan, the proposed new operation standards that you felt you hadn' t had time to address , because the other, it seemed to me they had time to address. And the only other testimony that perhaps might have been given today that would be additional to that might have to do with the drilling, the mineral rights. I think those , am I forgetting something? Those are the major things that I think came forth in today' s meeting. MR. ANSON: I think we only, what we ' re looking at too, is you have to remember that this is not a re-hearing, this is a reconsideration, and reconsideration is based only upon those items that were submitted by the applicant. Because it is his proposal that these additional items that, to become development standards would alleviate or obviate any concerns that the Board had when the Board denied the application on the 16th. So the hearing should always be limited at least to those items, and that' s all. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: I guess in that case, it seems to me that 30 days would be a sufficient length of time to address those items. I think two months is, it begins to look like a stall tactic, when you do it for two months, 30 days, I think, is a legitimate. And I guess I would, I would also say because of -73- the process was speeded up a little bit, because we did hear it right after the Planning Commission, that that would in some ways obviate that circumstance, and I ' d be willing to go for that. So, if you'd be willing to accept an amendment for 30 days , rather than two months, I would propose such an amendment to your motion. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, yeah, I will accept that, Jackie. I would ask the town attorney, can you get this in 30 days? Now also, there was presented to us from the opposition, we heard quite a bit of new plotting, new development proposed, this sort of thing, I 'm not sure if that can be entered into this , but it certainly makes me wonder, are we going to have development up against, or can that be entered? Discussed? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Nope. MR. ANSON: Well , it ' s really, you know, the evidence is before you, but I think that one of the things you ought to consider is the fact that it is not a new hearing, and I think the people that appeared at the last hearing had full opportunity to present all the evidence that they wished, the issues that were before the Board at that time. And, again, you know, this is a reconsideration. A reconsideration is based upon those new submittals made by the applicant. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: How about the thirty days? MS . SHAPIRO: Well , I have some comments to make in that light on resolving. First of all, I need to know, exactly, if we ' re gonna limit it to those issues, I need to know what those -74- issues are , because I heard something about trees , and then I need to know, exactly, if it, was aeration an old issue or a new issue , and chlorination. I mean there' s issues I think that were brought up today that were not initially addressed in that letter from Mr. Lind that I saw. So I think if we' re opening the door to hear those issues , you' re opening the door to hear other issues. So, we need to make that decision. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: I disagree with that because when they called me , Ken Lind called me , they discussed those points at that time. MS. SHAPIRO: Yeah, but, there ' s nowhere in the record that those were reflected for our ability to prepare. MR. ANSON: I think that now you' ll have an obvious time to prepare if you' re waiting thirty days , and there , seems to me there' s only three issues that were really presented and that' s the aeration, landscaping, and the question of a 15 year permit limitation. MS. SHAPIRO: And Ms . Seeburger had a concern she wanted to present. MS. PACKARD-SEEBURGER: Yes , Mr. Brantner addressed it initially. Once you had made your initial decision , we proceeded on that decision in good faith. And at that time we wrote you the letter requesting that siting considerations be made on an area-wide basis and we' d certainly like to have them adopt it in the interim, which we feel we could do in 60 days, and have that enter into the decision. In addition to that, after you made -75- your decision, we , we initially alluded to the fact that this was in our growth area , that we were growing towards this site , and after your decision we did initiate changes , we undertook annexations and other items which does affect the land use within our community. We 've simply followed up what we initially said we were going to do at that hearing. So we now have other factors, I think, in terms of land use that should be considered in applying. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Gayle, I think you' re bending, I think you' re bending the stick here just a little bit farther than you ought to be bending it, and you agreed to that. MS . PACKARD-SEEBURGER: No, I don ' t agree. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON : I agree, I really believe so. And I think you' re, I think that there ' s a lot of things that ' s here that you brought in, that weren ' t even thought about at the time of the initial hearing. And as our lawyer has pointed out, we came here to understand the aligning of the trees, the aeration of the system, and the 15 year compliance to be reconsidered in 15 years. And that ' s here basically what we were discussing today. MS. SHAPIRO: I think this is something, maybe, I don' t know if Russ and I can resolve it, but I 'm not sure that what has happened since the last denial , as far as what the town has done is irrelevant. And, because, when they started doing their planning they had no way to know that this reconsideration was up. I think it' s gonna be based on new circumstances, it' s new -76- circumstances that occurred since the denial date which November 16th. was MR. ANSON: I don ' t know. One of in the the requirements , I guess, Use by Special Review Standards is, and this is what I think everybody is speaking towards, is "That the the Standard that says, uses which would be permitted will he compatible with the future development of the surrounding area , as permitted by the existing zone and with future development. " And this; is what you ' re speaking toward, I assume, "with future development as projected by the Comprehensive Plan of the County and the adopted Master Plans o£ the a££ected know municipalities. " And I guess, you . I assume the Town of Milliken had an opportune time at the first hearing, and the main hearing, to present evidence on their Master Plan. MS. SHAPIRO: Right, but I 'm saying once they relied on the denial, okay, I think it ' s only common sense, once you rely on the denial and situation changes from that day on, that ' s relevant. Because they did not know what changes were going to occur up until the reconsideration. So if they proceeded and relied on that denial, I think that what happens since that day is relevant. MR. ANSON: Have they amended their Master Plan? MS. SHAPIRO: I haven ' t talked to Gayle about that. MS. PACKARD-SEEBURGER: It' s scheduled for December 11th, I mean on January 11th. -77- MR. ANSON: No, I guess , you made all that information and the Chairman and the rest of the Board can make a decision as to whether or not that would be right. MS . SHAPIRO: Well , I think that' s a legal question. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: I think that to come forward with that argument is just a little bit out of hand, because the distance between the two is only a matter of a few days. Very few days. And you can' t say that they just dropped it and completely forgot about it, because that was not the case. Okay. AUDIENCE: Why would that not be the case? And you dropped it, but it was dropped because it was dropped at your Board. We dropped it at that time because we ' d been told it would not be built there. CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON: That' s all right. Ken. MR. LIND: Mr. Chairman, I would object to allowing any additional matters other than the three operating standards which were proposed as stated. This was only on a reconsideration basis. To now allow additional information to come in would just prove allowable for any community that comes in with something that they think may be objectionable, to change their plans and ideas after an item is submitted. I think that' s very clear, that' s what has happened in this case. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That' s right. MR. LIND: I would also like to object to continuing this for thirty days . It gets into a notice question. The reconsideration was done , I believe, five days after the original -78- vote. The Tribune had that immediately notified in the paper, the Johnstown Breeze took notice of it, the letters were on record talking to or addressing all three of the issues. To allow another thirty days to go on, by that time new evidence then, we may have new evidence, I just don' t know what will happen at that point in time. I think it ' s merely a matter to delay a decision, the evidence is here, the evidence cannot be changed according to the rules of law from the first hearing , the only thing that can now be done is based upon the reconsideration. I think it would be a mistake to continue that on for another month. It' s very obvious that the Town of Milliken had notice , they came here well prepared today. To now allege that they were not prepared or didn' t have time seems to me to be rather ludicrous . Mr. Karowsky knew well ahead of time who his employees were in the firm. He was here at the first hearing of November 16th, there has been over two and a half weeks from the date you voted to reconsider that it was available. I think the notice is more than adequate, as far as the mineral rights I , again, do not believe that is a proper issue to bring up. It' s really not even an issue. You can lease property for anything. If they want to come in and drill on the site, fine. That' s what the matter of surface damage is related to. So I don ' t think mineral rights should be considered. The other thing, here . I think you' re looking at a real problem in this County. The drilling is not stopping, the sites are filled, if we get into January, we've delayed it another month from -79- November, we ' re now two months past that to get in gear and commence construction of something would just take longer and further delay. For the town to state they didn' t have an opportune time to review this , I just can ' t see that. The standard was there, the proposed standards were proposed, the resolution was out, and I 'm very concerned about additional delay. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Any other discussion? COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Russ, legally, then, we can only take those three considerations , in your opinion? MR. ANSON: That' s right , because this is a reconsideration, and the applicant has proposed this as a reconsideration. Stating, in effect, that these additional development standards would obviate or alleviate any concerns that the Board may have when they denied this particular application on the 16th of November. MS. PACKARD-SEEBURGER: May I ask one question? CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: No, it' s closed, to the outside, it ' s just for the Board. Everything' s closed to the outside. UNKNOWN: Mr. Chairman, there is a motion on the floor, it was seconded, the opposition CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Yes , we understand that, but we' re taking care of this up here, just forget it. AUDIENCE: Well, you' re letting everybody else speak, UNKNOWN: (inaudible) -80- CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: We' re just talking to the two lawyers from the sides , now that' s it. You understand? AUDIENCE: No. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay, now. Did anybody else have any comments? COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Well, I think we ' re discussing the amendment to my motion at this point , and according to our legal staff , that we are , we can only discuss the three redevelcr.ment items , and so, therefore , if you can only approach those three, is thirty days sufficient for that? MS. SHAPIRO: Well , thirty days is better than none, so . . COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, I will agree to the amendment. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Anybody, second, agree to the amendment? COMMISSIONER MARTIN: I ' ll agree to the amendment, yeah. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Any other discussion? All in favor say "aye" , COMMISSIONERS BRANTNER AND JOHNSON: "Aye" CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Opposed, no CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON, COMMISSIONERS N. CARLSON AND MARTIN: "No. " CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Motion does not carry, two "ayes" and three "no' s" . Chair is open for another motion. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Who can legally make that motion? MR. ANSON: Anybody can. MS. SHAPIRO: Can you call a vote on that last motion? -81- COMMISSIONER JOHNSON : It was no, no , and no; two ayes , Gene Brantner and myself . COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Anybody can make a motion. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Anybody can make a motion now? MR. ANSON: Yeah, it' s open for any motion right now. I don' t know what you may have in mind, whether it' s a continuance to a further point or making a decision right at this point in time. I want to make sure that you understand that the issues that are before the Board, that this is , in fact, a reconsideration, and even this point it' s not a re-hearing, but a reconsideration . And I want to point out that the Board did deny, on the 16th of November, and the reasons for the denial , let me indicate that for the Board, is that the uses which would be permitted, the applicant failed to demonstrate that the uses which would be permitted would be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses , and failed to demonstrate that there was adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. And, of course, the applicant which initiated the request for reconsideration proposed additional development standards to alleviate the concerns of the Board. And you are guided by the Use By Special Review Standards. The same as the initial application. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay. Chair' s open for a motion. -82- COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Now, on the reconsideration, do you make a motion to approve that reconsideration , or you make approval to approve the site based upon the change of MR. ANSON: No, you already approved the reconsideration. Now, the merits of the entire case is before you -- whether or not you will approve this particular site for that particular request for the applicant. CHAIRMAN C . CARLSON : Whether the change here was enough to make the thing work or not. That' s basically what we ' re trying to do. • MR. ANSON: That' s right. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Mr. Chairman, I would move that, in base of the new development standards that they proposed as far as the landscaping, the aeration, and the time limit on the life of this , I would move that we still deny the designation of that and the Use By Special Review. I still feel that the comments that I made in the original hearing, I can appreciate what they have done, I can appreciate how hard they are working to get this much needed dump site approved, there ' s no question about that, there ' s no question in my mind that it' s well engineered, all safety aspects , I feel, have been met. But I still contend that it is not consistent with the intent of the district in which the use is located. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Do I have a second? COMMISSIONER MARTIN: I ' ll second it. -83- CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: It' s been moved by Gene , and seconded that this continuation and this USR, Use By Special Review, be denied because there was not enough evidence to make enough of a change to make this as a dump site , a waste , brine waste water site . Is there any discussion on that? All in favor say "Aye" COMMISSIONER BRANTNER, COMMISSIONER MARTIN: Aye CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Opposed, "No" CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: , COMMISSIONERS N. CARLSON AND JOHNSON: No CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: The motion does not pass because you have two "Ayes" and three "No' s" . We' re still. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the Use By Special Review for the 54 EVAP site , based upon the evidence before us , that the proposal is consistent with the Weld County Comprehensive Plan, and it is consistent with the intent of the district in which the use is located, that the uses which would be permitted will be compatible with the existing surrounding land uses, and that the use which would be permitted will be compatible with the future development of surrounding areas permitted by the existing zone , and with future development, as projected by the Comprehensive Plan of the County and the adopted Master Plans of the affected municipalities , and that the uses proposed, that there is adequate provision for the protection of the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood and the County. It' s a very difficult motion for me to make because I know that the people in this area feel -84- very strongly that this is not a proper site. I think that, in my own mind, the basis for a proper site have been met. No one wants a site anyplace , and yet the need is so intensive, so, so prevalent. The benefits of oil and gas development that many of the residents of the area who are here today are feeling, in terms of their tax dollars , in terms of the fact that because we have this kind of development, our tax base is broader and we have more revenues coming in. That ' :' the up side. The down side is that we have to deal with some of the problems that this kind of an industry brings to us . And that' s true with whatever kind of development you have, there are problems as well as benefits. I am well satisfied that this project has been designed with the health and safety and welfare of Milliken and that area, very well , looked after. I believe that you will find that we can, and will, enforce these standards to protect your concerns with regard to health, and safety. I think that the testimony that I have heard with regard to the need for this facility, the fact that it will be used, that it will affect, and limit, and decrease illegal dumping, which I think is the greater threat to all of Weld County , and I think that we must represent all of Weld County in this decision, I think that those reasons speak very strongly for the existence of this particular proposal. Those are my reasons for making the motion. MR. ALLISON: So the motion contains the operation standards prepared by the staff , as well as the three standards -85- COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: The additional , that ' s correct, and I should have said that in my motion. You, do you have some language there , or MR. ALLISON: Yes , I do. This would be Operation Standard 7-J, "an aeration system shall be installed and operated on the four evaporative ponds . In the event of an odor problem emanating from the ponds an odor abatement program shall be instituted" . Operation Standard No. 17 , "Prior to starting the operation, the applicant shall plan and maintain the following landscaping and shelter belt, the northern boundary of the Use by Special Review area shall contain two rows of Evergreen and/or Russian Olive trees , the east and west boundaries shall contain one row of Evergreen and/or Russian Olive trees . All trees shall be spaced a minimum of ten feet apart and a minimum of ten feet from the chain link fence. " Development Standard No. 18 , "In the event the Use By Special Review area is still in operation at the end of a 15 year period from the date of final approval by the Board of County Commissioners , the applicant shall submit a new Use By Special Review and Certificate of Designation application. Use By Special Review and Certificate of Designation application shall be presented to the Weld County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners . Use By Special Review and Certificate of Designation would require approval by the Board of County Commissioners in order to continue the operation for a period -86- longer than 15 years from the date of approval by the Board of County Commissioners. " The only other item you might want to consider, under 17 would be a minimum height limitation for the trees at the time of planting. But other than that, that' s what the staff has prepared. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: I think in order to get their shelter built and their outlying areas to grow pretty gcod , they' re gonna have to get a tree that' s pretty healthy and pretty well on its way in order to make the thing work. And I think that was understood when we discussed that with them last time. MR. ALLISON: Okay. COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: I would second that motion. I know that this is a very controversial issue, I 've had many people come to me who are opposed to this . I 've also had many people in the Milliken/Johnstown area who are in favor of it. And then I ' ve had a lot of other people who could care, either way. I know it' s an emotional issue , we've had other issues very similar to this , and where the people surrounding the project were very much opposed to it. The other projects have developed as they were planned to be developed and we don' t get any complaints from those. And I , I know that this is being engineered right and this will be compatible with the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay. Anybody else? -87- COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: I ' d like to make a comment, that I 'm going to go ahead and vote against Jackie ' s motion, but I really have a problem going against this. Because I have no doubts in my mind how it' s engineered, how it' s going to be run , I think it ' s a very reputable company. The only problem I have is where it is located. I think you' re gonna find, I think the people in that area can rest assured that the Health Department' s going to monitor this very closely, we've got a wonderful Health Department and they ' re sharp and they know what they are doing. And I think that you can rest assured, if this passes, we' re definitely gonna keep an eye on it, cause I know I am. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Okay. Any other? All in favor say "Aye" . CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: , COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: Aye. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Opposed, "No" . GENE BRANTNER, COMMISSIONER MARTIN: No. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: The motion carries , and let there be known there was three "ayes" and one "no" , I mean two "no' s" . Motion passes. Anything else? MR. ANSON: Oh, yes , there' s also before the Board a Certificate of Designation which should be acted on. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Pardon? COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: We have to do a Certificate of Designation. -88- MR. ALLISON: We need a motion on the Certificate of Designation. COMMISSIONER N. CARLSON: I would make a motion we grant a Certificate of Designation for the EVAP Park. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON: Second. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: It' s been moved by Norm, seconded by Jackie that we authorize the Certificate of Designation for the EVAP Park. Is there any discussion on that? All in favor say, "Aye" . ALL FIVE COMMISSIONERS VOTED AYE CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: Let the record show that was a unanimous vote to authorize this Certificate of Designation. MS . SHAPIRO: I would like to request at this time that a transcript be prepared for a Court action. Because Milliken has indicated to me that they want to proceed with that. CHAIRMAN C. CARLSON: That' s fine. MS. SHAPIRO: And also, can I have copies of what you have in your file? MR. ANSON: You want a copy of the complete record, or MS . SHAPIRO: The original denial. -89- Hello