HomeMy WebLinkAbout870073.tiff RESOLUTION
RE: DENY USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW FOR A LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT
OPERATION, 1 ,200 HEAD DAIRY - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION
WHEREAS , the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home
Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the
affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public
hearing on the 4th day of February, 1987, at the hour of 10 : 00
a .m. in the Chambers of the Board for the purpose of considering
the application of Aurora Capital Corporation , 2930 Center Green
Court, Boulder , Colorado 80301 , for a Use by Special Review for a
livestock confinement operation , 1 ,200 head dairy, on the
following described real estate, to-wit:
The SWi , Section 32 , Township 4 North, Range
67 West of the 6th P.M. , Weld County, Colorado
WHEREAS, said applicant was represented by Kenneth Lind ,
Attorney, and the Attorney representing the opposition was Thomas
Hellerich , and
WHEREAS, Section 24 . 4. 2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance
provides standards for review of said Use by Special Review, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners, at hearings
conducted January 14 , 1987 , and January 19 , 1987 , heard all of the
testimony and statements of those present, has studied the request
of the applicant and the recommendations of the Weld County
Planning Commission and the Weld County staff and all of the
exhibits and evidence presented in this matter and, having been
fully informed, Commissioner Johnson moved that this request be
denied. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brantner and
carried with Commissioners Johnson , Brantner and Yamaguchi voting
aye , and Commissioners Lacy and Kirby voting nay, and
WHEREAS, it was determined that this request shall be denied
for the following reasons:
1 . It is the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners
that the applicant has not shown compliance with Section
24 . 4. 2 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows:
The proposal is not consistent with the intent of the
district in which the use is located. Although the
district is zoned agricultural , the use of this land
would be much more intense, and the more intense use of
the land would create problems for the residents.
� r > 870073
Page 2
RE: DENY USR - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION
b. The use of the land as a dairy would not be
complimentary to nor compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses, as the surrounding land uses
are not used in such an intense manner.
c. The uses of the land which would be permitted will
not be compatible with the future development of
the area, because the surrounding land will
probably not be developed agriculturally in such an
intense manner and because of proposed future
development of rural residences in the immediate
vicinity of the site.
d. The proposed Development Standards do not give
adequate protection for the health , safety and
welfare of the neighborhood and the County,
especially in the area of odor control. While the
Corporation has made proposals which are intended
to protect the welfare of the inhabitants of the
neighborhood and the County, the odor problems
inherent in the proposed design are not adequately
mitigated by after-the-fact odor abatement
programs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the application for a
Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement operation , 1 ,200
head dairy, on the hereinabove described parcel of land be, and
hereby is , denied .
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made
and seconded , adopted by the following vote on the 4th day of
February, A.D. , 1987 .
ATTEST: WELDD OF COUNTYi,NTY COLOR COLORADO
Weld County Clerk and Recorder EXCUSED DATE OF SIGNING (NAY)
and Clerk to the Board Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman
1 #,,,/e(-40/
r
/1 c a (NAY)
BY: ytn ,.�lij C. . Kir PrTem
eputy County l�lerk � /
\IpI /V (AYE)
APPROVED AS TO FORM: Gene R. Brantner
4�K �b - (AYE)
Ja que 're Joh s n
4 c c cam- I f 1-, -, -,
�� } �
A
-; - . County Attorney � 4 �G7/ (AYE)
Frank Yam guchi
870073
HEARING CERTIFICATION
DOCKET NO. 86-82
RE: USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW - LIVESTOCK CONFINEMENT OPERATION, AURORA
CAPITAL CORPORATION
A public hearing was conducted on February 4, 1987, at 10:00 A.M. , with
the following present:
Commissioner Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman
Commissioner C.W. Kirby, Pro-Tem
Commissioner Gene Brantner
Commissioner Jacqueline Johnson
Commissioner Frank Yamaguchi
Also present:
Acting Clerk to the Board, Mary Reiff
Assistant County Attorney, Lee D. Morrison
Director of Planning Services, Chuck Cunliffe
Certified Court Reporter, Barbara Billings
The following business was transacted:
I hereby certify that pursuant to a notice dated December 29, 1986, and
duly published January 1, 1987, in the Johnstown Breeze, a public
hearing was conducted to consider the application of Aurora Capital
Corporation for a Use by Special Review for a livestock confinement
operation, 1 ,200 head dairy. Lee Morrison, Assistant County Attorney,
made this matter of record and stated that this hearing was continued
from January 19, to allow County staff members to review the materials
presented. After review, the staff has submitted 5 proposed Conditions
and 19 Development Standards. Also submitted were memos from the
Health and Engineering Departments, with their recommendations and
concerns being addressed in the proposed Conditions and Development
Standards. Considerable discussion was held concerning the proposal,
centering around the problem of odor control. After Mr. Morrison read
the proposed Conditions and Development Standards into the record, Ken
Lind, Attorney representing the applicant, came forward to respond to
them. He stated that these Development Standards are very strict, but
the applicant is confident they can be met, and they expect to have a
pre-approved odor abatement plan. Tom Hellerich, Attorney representing
Citizens Opposed to the Dairy, presented concerns about the proposed
Development Standards. Discussion was held concerning possible changes
to the Conditions and Development Standards. At the conclusion of this
discussion, Chuck Cunliffe, Director of Planning Services, read into
the record additional Conditions #6, regarding submittal of plans for
the french drain; and #7, regarding a pre-approved odor abatement plan,
which were proposed during this hearing. He also read into the record,
changes to Development Standards #1, #8, and #10 which were proposed
during this hearing. Mr. Lind came forward to express his concerns
regarding the limited number of violations proposed to be considered as
cause for revocation of the permit. Wes Potter, of the Health
Department, explained that they can differentiate between odors which
originate on the property under question and those which originate
elsewhere. (Tape Change #87-15) After further discussion,
Commissioner Johnson moved to deny the request for a Use by Special
Review, stating that the odor problem has not been adequately addressed
and she feels there is strong potential of difficulty in enforcing odor
control. Commissioner Brantner seconded the motion, basing his
comments upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Kirby stated that he will vote against this motion,
because he feels that a very diligent effort has been made to mitigate
the concerns and he thinks the proposal can work, saying it is
j - .
J '
Page 2
CERTIFICATION - AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION
necessary that people learn to co-exist with the agricultural
environment. Citing potential odors, Commissioner Yamaguchi stated
that he will vote in favor of the motion. Chairman Lacy stated that he
will vote against the motion, because he feels that this could be a
viable operation, adhering to the well-formulated Development
Standards. On a roll call vote, the motion to deny this request
carried, with Commissioners Brantner, Johnson and Yamaguchi voting aye.
This Certification was approved on the 9th day of February, 1987.
APPROVED:
\/�J �l- __` BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ATTEST: , ' `�LfW WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Weld County Clerk and Recorder EXCUSED DATE OF APPROVAL
and Clerk to the Board, Gordon E. Lacy, Chairman
BY: e71 /e7/1-21L: , . (ed. ,...
` ...
yeputy County Cl kn C.W.difff irb , Pro- em
Ste le
tene R. Brantner
Cv
.
Ja•quel Joh.s. .
/
Frank Yamaguc
TAPE #87-14 & #87-15
DOCKET #86-82
PL0097
,/::...
ATTENDANCE RECORD
TODAY' S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
FEBRUARY 4, 1987 - USR,LIVEST0CK CONFINEMENT OPERATION, AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION
PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC # (as listed
above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending.
NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING` ,Od& In(lGLSon.y ._ ._ Cv 4A/ ba r..+ €r vi )
Q j ii tk
v�
/797/,2 C R. /S ( r
(?)a./�/. +,„„, /o. lel /tie AG ' e 1, //
�/ /.
_� 3 :At ti . QaF,lf� 42 co V��(�J �7114/f
.R nLC�O c)c.4Q�
8 aAiwi ta -73 se si,vk //Aix dh /a 9 it - ,
et I O/Ae C2t2 462.V.47,77A Ai- (C+HG/i Li)2
/'
y !�
i- r ¢; / �' k de-- yy si
e41 peril. f cj9ry in f/a 111e t/ ,,l
_ C° :-r Pc f n)t /1r7 ^^,Eve�-v. it it
Odin L . a .re if 3 King4u-e . TA,ni, r n.1IY 1t '
.-` ./C ere:--„,n/ /G / p�..nor,/c'.�'/..S---✓ ,..i +•',_LrZcyt. /�/ul /' f�7`SV 4u /� 2_,L,„4-7„,,if M C�
/ P 1, r, a /1
P.."i', /(S: - t-l.7. CJ 't�.tdt mac-'
4 c7 / l /
l I/„7-,47 W . !�/ /V ,,//
_� . �• h .i C II0 . 4., . I
• ;1/21/ / p' / i ill ' a / 1 / /
°7 OE, 0 L8 i % .r s..._ 1 / /(
lr Fpern2Ff SI qE lieR Z,, /2 Pinrle,zi1lt „
!KA< . Aii," u. if S 7/ Li )L-, ? 1 - '.i (1)%/`4�'4/' /
`/ «1 / 0 C 6 fit /i , 9A u-f24/
ATTENDANCE RECORD
TODAY' S HEARINGS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
PLEASE write or print legibly your name, address and the DOC # (as listed
above) or the applicants name of the hearing you are attending.
NAME ADDRESS HEARING ATTENDING
,.-r ( ,�V1 PV, C° a 3 6 iJbYJ L C*Y d �``"`.
i
!7.C1nZC+ .- C%' cv ii Ant , ,fr)J 3 LI/ri .--Z, /jisi2,(. //� In ..
4',,4-,a r i1,v✓r-4- ro C, "5 VC if y1) 6 /e..VL _t'Gie-, it //, , �, ,
Chew 74 �-- g,76' er Pr/ aj X74. 2e-/ � 7 (t77
�) I
CA IL.i I U1 1 q 627 (All I S .) C Laic in-c, ,r, Co
EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL SHEET
Case USR, Aurora Capital Corporation
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
A. 12/17/86 George Smith Request to proceed
B. 12/19/86 Planning staff Inventory of items
C. 12/19/86 Planning Commission Resolution of recommendation
D. 12/19/86 Melvin Rehm Letter
E. Planning Commission Summary of hearing
F. 12/24/86 Jake Salazar Letter
G. 12/29/86 Clerk to the Board Hearing date approval
H. 12/29/86 Clerk to the Board Notice of hearing
I. 1/9/87 Nyla Frye Letter
J. 1/12/87 Lorraine & Clyde Hairston Letter
K. 1/12/87 John S. McCahan Letter
L. 1/12/87 Christine Marostica/John & Mary Marostica Letter
M. 1/12/87 Duane Frye Letter
N. 1/12/87 Judith Green, et al. Letters (15)
0. 1/13/87 Surrounding landowners Petition in opposition
P. 1/13/87 Maxine & Steve Koester Letter of opposition
Q. 1/13/87 Milo & Margaret Ballinger Letter of opposition
R. 1/13/87 Ehmann, et al. Letter of opposition
S. 1/13/87 Adrian & Louis Ciancio Letter of opposition
T. 1/13/87 Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Co. Letter re: Request for condition
if application is approved
U. 1/13/87 Steve & Meryl Lee Seewald Letter of opposition
V. 1/13/87 Drew Scheltinga, Engineer Memo re: Haul routes & dust
control
W. 1/13/87 Faye L. Elms Letter of opposition
X. 1/13/87 Joseph Elms Letter of opposition
Y. 1/13/87 Robert B. Willson Engineering analysis & possible
violations of Zoning Ordinance
Z. 1/13/87 Gary & Nanette Adler Letter of opposition
AA. 1/13/87 Greg & Anna Spaur Letter of opposition
BB. 1/13/87 Bennett & Marilyn Spaur Letter of opposition
CC. 1/14/87 Roberta Reichert Letter
DD. 1/14/87 Jo Ann J. Gettlein Letter
EE. 1/14/87 Clerk to the Board Summary of telephone call
FF. 1/14/87 Clerk to the Board Summary of telephone call
Page 2
RE: EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL - USR, AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
GG. 1/14/87 Ken Lind (Applicant) Comp map
HH. 1/14/87 Ken Lind (Applicant) Plot plan map of Phase I
I1. 1/14/87 Ken Lind (Applicant) Petition
JJ. 1/14/87 Ken Lind (Applicant) Letter
KK. 1/14/87 Barney Little (Applicant) Blueprint of facility
LL. 1/14/87 Applicant Map entitled "Aurora Dairy Farms"
MM. 1/14/87 Robert James (Applicant) Diagrams
NN. 1/14/87 Robert James (Applicant) Graphic
00. 1/14/87 Robert James (Applicant) Letter
PP. 1/14/87 Ken Dell (Applicant) Graphic
QQ. 1/14/87 Tom Hellerich Opposition) Letter
RR. 1/14/87 Nanette Adler (Opposition) Map
SS. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Letter
TT. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Maps
UU. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Letter
VV. 1/14/87 Robert Willson (Opposition) Letter
WW. 1/14/87 Robert
Willson (Opposition) Letter
n. //9�? ai4 ,,W S-0,40x/ ct)
ZZ. �19/SI' Q�t i—Al. ,( It,of,)_ Swai - '1 1e R0101 eat � �
li min H Sc, eP4 Ntat ODc - f s
AAA. Vitt/81- D —Stony >P,i qllk)
q I' ,‘ ++M/y1 1 y�
BBB. Sflonet IWUf Simms P9C,Une Ve
;I i
�, ,� £kSR �i'Q(Mhy i- `��Af1u�; _QI�iyA4iraim4
CCC. cc ( n.�
DDD. 1 it
' 1tLvnt4i • QtI$V Sd�WPt�5 d 1 �V5 LOCI d
n ,‘ J J1
klVO\Ac S I Al( 2A .JYVCI
EEE. J
FFF. (��I)0 U'r4r1� P 1 i�I01S�j cci- TICK(
GGG. it y ()cast-rn,s - tA�..'__II Ui tt.. hp 4? ._ i
HUH. I' It
I �veuai re 0ICT . o±" , I t 1,).
III. S"rest,,) rg Owl . .H . 9 CQ ,.-- _
JJJ. ti 4
^ SO:40mA et NA . 2R.1--1 ^L ,
KKK.
SU.v . l vCkIoly
LLL. \ lot& \-1¢\AQ V& �� V rox re ANA .yeeze VA
5if
rte. 'v 61(1e�$ �a� — pre u.:� Oki
NNN. i) t_A 40,ni- q P Ami rk
j y A
000. '' Kak" L,4i. 1iiCtrI) 1 �,r
Page 3
RE: EXHIBIT INVENTORY CONTROL - USR, AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION
Exhibit Submitted By Exhibit Description
PPP. i��q111/�i KphKphIl ( f
r0 AO/NO ) PQ;[ \khkr vt5C,tit
QQQ. ��- {.i P torgV Wk P6/iitt
ARR. ry �� Lp1 - front ��(1r/o�� @.
sss. it LiLectirtS '' P4/k 47'
TTT, i f"(P!f I t hD 'ljJlj 1 UUU. 1N9ip Li flit lit 1-e�tet (
vvv. 1-4 - Oho Lcvyj
wwW.
i
xxx. Joco5 %rem Si � 1��rr
YYY. 1; p i P . &rink ek s 10.
Z �Ai I rnia� �u, 4 / r-tau
AAAA/ 004_ L4J �OJ �/1./JZu' ,4771?7..C2/'
BBBB/ 44 ti //c 8?he)Ae . Z.46
l..46•
G�42LOx
CCCC. r
DDDD.
EEEE.
FFFF.
GGGG. —
HHHH.
IIII.
JJJJ.
KKKK.
LLLL.
MMMM.
NNNN.
0000.
PPPP.
QQQQ•
RRRR.
SSSS.
TTTT.
UUUU.
WWWW.
XXXX.
YYYY.
December 16, 1986
CASE NUMBER: USR-770:86:51
NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation
ADDRESS: 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, CO 80301
REQUEST: A Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement
operation (2,400 head dairy)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SW}, Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld
County, Colorado
LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and
Weld County Road 38
THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE
APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1. The submitted materials are in compliance with application
requirements of Section 24.7 of the Weld County Zoning Ordinance.
2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services staff
that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 24.3 of the
Weld County Zoning Ordinance as follows:
- The proposal is consistent with the intent of the Weld
County Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan
encourages the development of agribusiness and
agriculturally oriented industry provided these
enterprises do not adversely affect the local economy or
environment;
- The proposed use is an agricultural activity and is,
therefore, consistent with the intent of the
agricultural district;
- The uses permitted will be compatible with the existing
surrounding land uses and with future development of the
surrounding areas as permitted by the agricultural zone
district;
- The Town of Milliken does not oppose this proposal;
- No overlay districts affect the site; and
— Use by Special Review Development Standards will provide
adequate protection of the health, safety and welfare of
the neighborhood and County.
USR-770:86:51
Aurora Capital Corporation
Page 2
This recommendation is based, in part, upon a review of the application
submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request
and the responses of the referral entities which have reviewed this request,
and letters from surrounding property owners and other interested persons.
The Department of Planning Services staff recommendation for approval is
conditional upon the following:
1. The attached Development Standards for the Use by Special Review
permit be adopted and placed on the Use by Special Review plat
prior to recording the plat.
2. The Use by Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any
building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the
Use by Special Review plat has been delivered to the Department of
Planning Services' office and the plat is ready to be recorded in
the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder.
3. Within thirty (30) days of final approval by the Board of County
Commissioners, the applicant/operator shall submit to the Colorado
Department of Health, Water Quality Control Division, an
engineering report, prepared by a registered professional
engineer, demonstrating compliance with its Guidelines for Design
of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities. The applicant/operator
shall submit evidence of approval by the Colorado Department
Health, Water Quality Control Division, to the Department of
Planning Services within ninety (90) days of final approval by the
Board of County Commissioners.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Aurora Capital Corporation
USR-770:86:51
1. The Use by Special Review permit is for a 2,400 head dairy livestock
confinement operation as submitted in the application materials on file
in the Department of Planning Services and subject to the Development
Standards stated hereon. The maximum number of cows shall not exceed
2,400 head.
2. The applicant shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining the
runoff retention and containment facilities in accordance with the
engineered report, as approved by the Colorado Department of Health,
Water Quality Control Division. All runoff retention and containment
facilities shall meet and be maintained in accordance with the State
Health Department's Guidelines of Feedlot Runoff Containment
facilities. The applicant shall be responsible for any additional
requirements issued by the Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality
Control Division.
3. All Construction on the property shall be in accordance with the
requirements of the Weld County Building Code Ordinance.
4. All stormwater and dairy operation runoff shall be controlled and
confined within the boundaries of the subject property as identified in
the submitted application materials.
5. No permanent buildings or structures shall be built within Panhandle
Eastern's gasline easement or the Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Company's
easement.
6. The addition of residential dwellings, including mobile homes or
manufactured homes, on the property not shown hereon shall require an
amendment to the Use by Special Review permit.
7. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with
the Design Standards of Section 24.5 of the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance.
8. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with
the Operation Standards of Section 24.6 of the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance.
9. Personnel from the Weld County Health Department, Colorado Department
of Health, and Weld County Department of Planning Services shall be
granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to
insure the activities carried out on the property comply with the
Development Standards stated hereon and all applicable Weld County and
State Regulations.
Development Standards
Aurora Capital Corporation
USR-770:86:51
Page 2
10. The Use by Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown
hereon and governed by the foregoing Standards and all applicable Weld
County Regulations. Any material deviations from the plans and/or
Standards as shown or stated shall 'require the approval of an amendment
of the Permit by the Weld County Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners before such changes from the plans and/or
Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the
office of the Department of Planning Services.
11. The property owner and/or operator of this operation shall be
responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Standards.
Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Standards may be reason for
revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners.
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
USR-770:86:51
Aurora Capital Corporation
The Erkenbeck Lateral Ditch Company submitted a letter of opposition to the
proposed dairy operation.
The Department of Planning Services has received several letters of
opposition and support to the proposed dairy operation. A petition in
opposition of the proposed dairy operation was also submitted.
The Big Thompson Soil Conservation District in its letter of December 3,
1986, has suggested considering planting three-row tree screens and
windbreaks around the property tc mitigate possible problems. It is the
staff's opinion that the proposed design and management of the dairy
facility and the proposed development standards will provide adequate
protection from potential problems identified in the Soil Conservation
District's letter.
Jl arx '11
fis ri
�l!!� To rasa r
Fi t:na t R __-�p-' n.R6.51 Date Decembe�e 15, 19R6
COLORADO From Chucle rnn i ffe
Subject: Milliken Referral Resp ce Peggy Wakeman, Milliken Town Clerk, indicated in our telephone conservation
that the Town reviewed the referral on the proposed dairy and that the Town
did not oppose the proposal. A written statement from the Town would be
forthcoming.
EXHIBIT
PLANNING C0MMISIGN MEETING
1. Ken Dell - , (eLc t�(�ue t / /
A. Introduce Permit
1. Explain function of design _r c 5- /
2. Zoning
3. Homes ect. . .
4. Lagoon locations and why
2. Bob James - fuc k'•r ,1.ouu-rP'U C'oa5UL'rA.v7
f ea ME TCHELC tit; qt275
A. Lagoon functions tvu(cfe,e eo gasp ( 411 0401
B. Perculation, water table ect. . .
3. Steve Rivas - S.P. Rivas Company
A. Lagoon odor
1. Inherited problem vs. new facility
SOt- 5-'0 P/4/ ifie , ;ss GS-6(/
4. Jerry Gray - Anchor Representative
A. Insect Control �', l�`ti a�r •
t---t w\A �S Cc3I � gC S�5
5. Marc Peperzak - President Aurora Capital Corporation
A. Milk Market 251 30 L
B. Land values -11-(4-` z D/
C. Taxes 4'r. 5.0?pi
/7'n- b a'
6. Barney Little - General Manager Colorado Dairy Farms
A. Employment and Payroll / 88 cS7Vi t. /44 v bG vv.S !�
B. Local expenditures c3 p&1 9irvo
C. Truck Traffic 8) S /
7. Invite comments from people in attendance who favor proposed Dairy operation.
2338 S. Hearth
Evergreen, Colo. 80439
December 14, 1986
Weld County Dept. of Planning
915 Tenth St. Room 342
Greeley , Colo. 80631
Re: Glen Anderson Farm Sale
Weld County Rds. 15 and 38
Johnstown, Colo. 80534
Dear Sirs:
Having been notified last week of the possible upcoming
sale of Glen Anderson ' s farm for Cattle Business , Iam writing
to protest this action. The proximity of the many neighboring
rarmers who would endure the water and air pollution, could
certainly devaluate many hundred acres of land.. I am writing
this letter at the request of the owners : Janet, Robert , and
David Hicks.
Sincerely ,
45,,.., I 7.4444
(Petty S. Hicks)
Mother
Hicks Farm
7790 Weld CO. Rd:'s& 17
Johnstown
rn) i 5-F.;01v-ii)4r.,
"E C 1( 1986 di
u-- __..r,�
Weil CO. Nan IILV ir!!RI:11ZOI'
Dec. 1 . 1�8a
Weld County Piannino Comn1 __1onere
G_ :5 i Dth. Str=st
Greei v. Colorado 8'.►S7''
. Count•. F•? annina C mmiezioner::
This letter is to :ntorm nu that . =C.�='ect to the orno:sec new rair''.
bei nc sO'_i]nt ' _=l orano `'=i . .arms •*•;t_ ors a:-: = !_.Oru on to _
no'rtr:=_a- - =�r-e'- Di* 6'ay1 : .cL._- - a^r, vJ a�_Olint :nac here
are a'i umn r of �_.= - - n i.i�ch _=Cc ,n_tr nOM = r• the ar-a. L..aseo_or. _re
present en` =r„rten` ' 'te aoni o.n of : nairy of the sine beina
arnocsed will :i:arioee Wr13_ we smell as well - - = amount Ot 't ► a.
There : s ^:o .J y " n m • e-' on mat tn- = cart''" -ontr__ le.'.".� ana meet=e= tine
reoul cements of t. P.Ao•
. I ne present ouslit'. pi- Fle tin at I presently
en ;O'. can not a`. =io ❑e:no imoactso bv t'.'1: - ca: • r_:eaE aireao
snow tne' lacI.: of maintenance ano tnis oa:r . will
onlv increase the
problem.
It is naro tor me to unserstano now Brie over orDaun on o+ Otialr'
nroounts can C.5e nei peo uv suss a oairv. ire nave an Dt 11 OEti on _c also
ensure treat the present small cc`l• lr` trarmer :car: c.cntinue to operate.
There has airecacv peen ennuorr OroblemTic created +or tne• small 't . t-cn r.
41
1711
ca teat this arcooeal be cenied.
lit
c
Sa'nuaro Ct.
Jonestown. Lo. 8C:57.4 •
•
• ,,,,,
C`C1C1986
"�' Weld Ca Hlanninq commission
( i
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS - USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
- Application Fee
- Recording Plat Fee - Later
- Plot Plan and Vicinity Map 20 copies
- Lagoon system design details
- Completed Application
- Written materials - 20 copies
a. Description of proposed operation and existing uses.
b. Relationship to Comprehensive Plan and existing uses .
c. Lagoon System Design - Appendix 1
- Proof of water supply. Can serve letter from Little Thompson
Water District.
- Letter from Public Service Company
- Letter from Johnstown Volunteer Fire Department
- Copy of deed showing ownership
- Certified lists of names and addresses of owners of property
within 500 feet .
- A certified list of names and addresses of mineral owners and lessees .
USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW APPLICATION
Department of Planning Services, 915 Tenth Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631
Phone - 356-4000 - Ext. 4400
Case Number Date Received
Application Checked by Mylar plat submitted
Application Fee Receipt Number
Recording Fee Receipt Number
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT: (please print or type, except for necessary
signature)
I (we) , the undersigned, hereby request a hearing before the Weld County
Planning Commission and Weld County Board of County Commissioners concerning
the proposed Use by Special Review Permit on the following described
unincorporated area of Weld County, Colorado:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT AREA: SW 1/4 Section 32
T 4 N, R 67 W
LEGAL DESCRIPTION of contiguous property owned upon which Special Review
Permit is proposed: SW 1/4 Section 32 T 4 N, R 67 W
Property Address (if available) 18426 Weld County Road 15
PRESENT ZONE A Agriculture OVERLAY ZONES
TOTAL ACREAGE 161 acres
PROPOSED LAND USE Dairy Farm
EXISTING LAND USE Farm Crop Production
SURFACE FEE (PROPERTY OWNERS) OF AREA PROPOSED FOR THE USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
PERMIT: — — —Name: Aurora Capital Corporation
Address: 2930 Center Green Court City Boulder Zip 80301
Home Telephone l/ Business Telephone #
Name:
Address: City Zip
}Lome Telephone I1 Business Telephone #
APPLICANT OR AUTHORIZED AGENT (if different than above) :
Name: Barney Little, Vice President
Address: 18426 Weld County Road 15 City Longmont Zip 80501
Home Telephone II Business Telephone # 535-4626
List the owner(s) and/or lessees of mineral rights on or under the subject
properties of record. •
Name: See Attached
Address: City Zip
Name:
Address: City Zip
I hereby depose and state under the penalties of perjury that all
statements, proposals and/or plans submitted with or contained within the
application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
COUNTY OF WELD )
STATE OF COLORADO ) /-5 c-tvnteci /7
l
Signature: Owher or Authorized Agent
VICE-PRESIDENT AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION
Subscribed and sworn to before me this J�'�j�'1l,�Lday/] of n/ /fn///�n ye/A �s 19 84
NOTARY PITC
F`1 Ccn rr :hn L pires .H177 7, 1990
My commission expires _
AURORA DAIRY FARMS
Mineral Rights Owners
Aurora Capital Corporation
2930 Center Green Court
Boulder, CO 80301
Marilyn Anderson
4959 West 9th Street Drive
Greeley, CO 80634
Harold W. and Marie H. Anderson
621 23rd Street, Apartment No. 2
Greeley, CO 80631
i
AURORA DAIRY FARMS - USE BY SPECIAL REVIEW
This is a request for approval of a commercial dairy operation on the southwest
one-quarter of Section 32, Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th Principal
Meridian. This property is approximately 161 acres bounded on the south by
County Road 38 and on the west by County Road 15. The property is zoned A
(Agricultural ) District and is the site of former Anderson feedlot and barn.
The property address is 18426 Weld County Road 15.
DAIRY OPERATION AND TIME TABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION
The proposed dairy operation will be built in two phases. The first phase is
planned to be under construction April 1, 1987 with completion September 1 ,
1987. Phase 2 is planned to be under construction April 1, 1988 with completion
September 1, 1988. The first phase includes a barn housing the milking equip-
ment, 5 feeding corrals with half shelters , 2 holding corrals for dry cows, a
maternity-hospital area with a half shelter and a pen for loading and unloading
cows. This operation will handle approximately 1,200 head. The second phase of
the dairy will be identical to the first phase also handling approximately 1,200
head.
There is an existing house and shop on the property. The house will be used for
the manager's house and office and the shop continued for maintenance for the
dairy. The house is on an existing septic system and Little Thompson Water
District provides potable water. In addition to the office and shop, two mobile
homes will be added for living quarters in the first phase and one mobile home
will be added in the second phase. Septic systems will be installed for the
mobile homes and it is planned to tap onto the Little Thompson Water System.
-1-
EMPLOYEES, VEHICULAR TRAFFIC, ACCESS ROUTE AND STORAGE
The total dairy operation, when both phases are complete will have approximately
35 employees. The dairy must operate around the clock so the employees will be
on 3 shifts. At full operation, the dairy will generate 3 truck trips per day.
These trucks will have a maximum weight of 80,000 pounds.
One of these trips is hay and commodities delivery and the other two are milk
shipments. Feed will be stored in a silage pit (approximate dimension 200' x
60' ) and a commodities building (20' x96' ) . Small farm trucks, 35,000 pounds
gross , will be used to fill the pit silo with corn. This occurs in September
with approximately 40 trips per day for 2 weeks. During full operation,
approximately 800 to 1,000 tons of hay will be on site. Manure is removed from
the site once a month. The hauling is done with a standard dump truck at 60,000
pounds gross weight. The site is bordered on the west and south by County Roads
15 and 38 respectively. Access to the dairy facility will be from County Road
15 at the present driveway location.
SANITARY SEWER AND STORM WATER DETENTION
Sanitation facilities for employees and on-site housing will be septic systems
properly sized and designed to meet these demands . Sheds are cleaned daily and
corrals are cleaned each month. The milking facilities are continually cleaned
to meet Health Department Standards. Runoff from the dairy facility will be
kept separate and treated independently. This waste will be treated through a
series of lagoons. The first and smallest of the ponds will retain most solids .
These solids are removed from the pond on a regular basis and sold for fer-
tilizer. The quality of the water is improved as it progresses through the
lagoon system. Water from the last pond in the system will be used to irrigate
crops on the remainder of the property. Using this water for irrigation during
-2-
the growing season reduces the pond level leaving capacity in the lagoon system
to handle all runoff during the non-irrigating season (November 1 through March
1). This allows for a closed system of treatment and use on site. The lagoon
system is sized to handle storm water runoff in addition to runoff from the
dairy operation.
Each dairy is 1,460 feet long and 400 feet wide. The dairies are separated by a
30 foot wide service road and are surrounded by a 20 foot wide access road. The
total area including the roads is 30 acres . Runoff will be controlled by a
system of ditches and dikes. Runoff from the area north of the dairies up to
the Erkenbeck Ditch Lateral will be prevented from entering the dairies by a
dike and ditch along the north side. The access road along the north side will
be raised (dike) and divert runoff west in a ditch away from the dairies .
Runoff from the dairies will be contained by (dikes) raised access roads on the
east and west sides and directed to a collection ditch along the south side of
the dairies. The collection ditch will carry all runoff to the lagoon system.
The proposed ponds are immediately south of the dairies. They include two 200'
x 50' solids sedimentation ponds in parallel and a series of three storage
ponds . The first two storage ponds are 200 feet square with a water depth of 10
feet and a total depth of 15 feet. The third storage pond is 285 feet square
and also has a water depth of 10 feet and a total depth of 15 feet. The sedi-
mentation ponds are designed with a capacity adequate for both dairies and will
be installed in the first phase. The first two storage ponds will also be
installed with the first phase. The third storage pond will be installed with
the second phase. The design of the lagoon system is based on "Guidelines,
Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities" , Colorado Department of Health,
Water Quality Control Commission, May 1978. These design standards are based on
-3-
a 25 year runoff event and require one foot freeboard in pond design. This
lagoon system is designed with a five foot freeboard on the ponds.
Please see Appendix 1 for a detailed description and design calculations.
WATER SOURCE
Little Thompson Water District is the planned water source for the dairy opera-
tion. A separate one-inch water service is planned to serve the dairy opera-
tion.
SURROUNDING PROPERTIES
The surrounding properties are farming operations producing alfalfa, corn and
beans. In addition, there are 3 residential uses near this site. The house
near the southeast corner of this site is 1,650 feet from the nearest point of
the dairy and 1,650 feet from the nearest pond. The residence southwest of this
site is 1,450 feet from the closest point of the proposed dairy and 1,100 feet
from the closest pond. The house northwest of this site is 650 feet from the
closest point of the dairy and 1 ,650 feet from the nearest pond. The mobile
homes to be placed on site will be 100 feet from the dairy and 1,100 feet from
the nearest pond.
EROSION CONTROL
The area around the dairy operation will be planted for crop production which
will control any potential erosion.
FIRE PROTECTION
Fire protection will be provided by the Johnstown Rural Fire Department. Fire
extinguishers will be located in the electric rooms of both barns and in the
maintenance shop. All fire extinguishers will be 10 pound halon.
_4_
RECLAMATION PROCEDURE
If the dairy operation is terminated, the improvements will be removed and the
land returned to farm crop production use.
WELD COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Weld County Comprehensive Plan contains policies regarding the protection
and expansion of agriculture uses in the County. These policies were developed
to guide the growth and development of agri-business and agriculture oriented
industry. Two of these policies are directly applicable to this request.
Policy No. 2 which states, "The expansion and development of agri-business and
agriculturally oriented industry will be encouraged 'ded these enterprises
do not adversely affect the total economy o environment." The proposed dairy
operation is a highly efficient and producti agr' business which will enhance
the local economy. Approximately 35 new jobs will be created when the dairy is
in full operation. The dairy operation will generate approximately $2,000,000
in annual feed purchases . In addition, initial equipment purchases, ongoing
maintenance costs and higher tax revenues to Weld County will all have a
favorable impact on the local economy.
Policy No. 5 states, "Because water, air and surface pollution are of vital con-
cern to all residents of the county, the state and the nation, it will be the
policy to encourage only those developments that show that they will not contri -
bute adversely to pollution; or if they do contribute to the pollution problem
of the area, that they are prepared to either build appropriate control devices
at their own expense or will pay sufficient revenues to the existing pollution
controlling districts or agencies to insure proper treatment without increasing
the cost to existing uses of the system."
-5-
The dairy and associated office and living units will not contribute adversely
to pollution in this area. The septic systems will be properly designed to avoid
pollution of soils and groundwater. Runoff from the dairy will be treated in a
lagoon system and used for irrigation of on-site crop production. The lagoon
system will have an impervious lining to avoid land and groundwater pollution.
The dairy operation including corrals and pens will be cleaned at frequent
intervals to eliminate the potential for air and surface pollution.
ZONE DISTRICT
This property is zoned A (Agricultural ) District. That part of the A District
intent statement that applies to this request states, " . . . .The A District is
established to maintain and promote agriculture as an essential feature of Weld
County. The A District is intended to provide areas for the conduct of agri-
cultural activities and activities related to agriculture and agriculture pro-
duction without the interference of other, incompatible land uses. The A
District is also intended to provide areas for the conduct of Uses by Special
Review which have been determined to be more intense or to have a potentially
greater impact than Uses Allowed by Right. The A District regulations are
established to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the present and
future residents of Weld County."
It is clear that the intent is to allow not only agriculture use by also more
intense uses such as the propsed dairy. The Use by Special Review process is
intended to promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the
present and future residents of Weld County.
-6-
CONSERVATION OF PRODUCTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND
The dairy and lagoon system are designed in a compact manner to be located in
the center of the site. This arrangement will allow for approximately 100 acres
to be used for growing crops .
SURROUNDING LAND USES
This property is surrounded by farms and three residences are near the property.
There is a home on a relatively small acreage northwest of this property, a
residence on a small acreage southeast of this property and a residence south of
County Road 38. Design for the dairy has considered the locations of these
residences. The dairy facilities and the lagoon system are located in the
center of the property. The dairy is 300 feet from the nearest property line.
The lagoon system is 700 feet from the nearest property line. The area around
the dairy and lagoon system to the property line will be used for crop produc-
tion. The intent is to provide a distance buffer between the proposed facili-
ties and the surrounding land uses . The dairy is an agricultural land use
replacing a former feedlot at this location. The dairy will be purchasing feed
from surrounding farms.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - FUTURE LAND USE
This property is part of a large area zoned for agricultural uses. The Weld
County Comprehensive Plan projects continued agricultural land uses in this
area. The proposed dairy is designed to be compatible with agricultural uses
and residences on adjacent sites.
FLOODPLAIN, GEOLOGIC HAZARD AND AIRPORT OVERLAY DISTRICT
This property is not within a floodplain, area of geologic hazard nor an airport
overlay zone.
-7-
WATER SUPPLY
Water is available from the Little Thompson Water District. A letter from the
District is attached.
The health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and county residents will not
be adversely affected by this use. The impacts of the dairy use are minimal .
Traffic generated by this use will not create congestion nor overload any County
roadways . Design and operation of the dairy have adequate measures to eliminate
ground, air and water pollution. The dairy will not place an undue burden on
utility system and will be a positive contribution to the local economy.
SOILS INFORMATION
4 - Aquolls and Aquipts , flooded
38 - Nelson Fine Sandy Loam, 3 to 9% slopes
42 - Nunn Clay Loam, 1 to 3% slopes
93 - Atera Sandy Loam, 5 to 9% slopes
65 - Thedalund Loam, 3 to 9% slopes
82 - Wiley-Colby Complex, 1 to 3% slopes
83 - Wiley-Colby Complex, 3 to 5% slopes
Soils classification information per the soil survey of Weld County, Colorado.
Prepared by U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service.
-8-
AURORA DAIRIES
WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN
Prepared for:
AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION
2930 Center Green Court
Boulder, Colorado 80301
Prepared by:
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC.
500 Coffman Street, Suite 107
Longmont , Colorado 80501
November 1986
AURORA DAIRIES WASTE DISPOSAL PLAN
I. GENERAL
The proposed dairy site encompasses the SW1/4 of Section
32 , T4N R67W, 6th PM in Weld County, Colorado. The site slopes
gently (approximately 2%) to the south. Currently the site is
almost completely cultivated. Its west and south borders are
County Road 15 and County Road 38 , respectively. The site is
surrounded by other farms on all sides . Other evident land uses
nearby include petroleum extraction and a gas transmission
pipeline crosses the site.
II. SITE INVESTIGATION
Our site investigation included drilling 4 exploration
holes, located as specified on Plate 1. The southeast
drill hole was completed as an open well piezometer, screened
between 16 feet and 40 feet below the surface. The holes were
drilled on October 9 and 10, 1986 and an additional water level
observation was performed on October 28 , 1986 .
III . SITE CONDITIONS
A. Location and Direction of Residences
The surrounding properties are farming operations producing
alfalfa, corn and beans. In addition, there are three
residential uses near this site. The house nearest the SE
1
corner of this site is 16, 050 feet from the nearest point of the
dairy and 16, 050 feet from the nearest pond. The residence SW
of this site is 14 , 050 feet from the closest point of the
proposed dairy and 1100 feet from the closest pond. The house
NW of this site is 650 feet from the closest point of the dairy
and 1650 feet from the nearest pond. The mobile homes to be
placed on this site will be 100 feet from the dairy and 1100
feet from the nearest pond.
B. Soil Profile - Groundwater
The site surface consists of 6 to 9 feet of loose to medium
dense clayey brown sand. In one test hole and a test pit a 2 to
3 foot layer of white dry caliche was observed. Below the
surface soils lies moderately well cemented to well cemented tan
sandstone bedrock. Within the bedrock a medium stiff to stiff
sandy claystone member about 10 feet thick was observed, its top
about 16 to 19 feet below the surface.
During drilling, water was observed 4 to 8 feet below the
surface. After the holes stabilized the water surface dropped
about 4 feet. We believe that this water is perched water
induced by irrigation. Ground water observed during
construction of storage ponds will be controlled by providing
french drains to insure the ponds remain above the ambient
ground water elevation.
2
C. Prevailing Winds
The dominant wind direction is from the south on the Front
Range. Wind events over 10 knots are likely from the north or
from the south. Wind events over 16 knots are generally from
the northwest, see Figures 1 through 4 . Stapleton Airport data
was used because it is the nearest station with reliable
records. Because it lies in the same major drainage as the site
and no significant obstacles separate the site from Stapleton,
the wind data is considered suitable for this investigation.
D. Proposed Dairy Facility
The proposed dairy facility includes two identical units.
The general location and configuration is shown on Plate 1.
The first unit is planned for immediate construction and the
second may be constructed immediately or in the near future.
Each dairy is 1460 feet long and 400 feet wide; 13 . 4 acres .
They are separated by a 30 foot service road and are surrounded
by a 20 foot access road. The total area including the roads is
30 acres. Proposed waste disposal facilities are immediately
south of the proposed dairies. They include two 200 foot by 50
foot solids sedimentation ponds, in parallel and a series of
three storage ponds located south of the solids sedimentation
ponds . The first two are 200 foot square, have water depth of
10 feet and a total depth of 15 feet. The third pond is 285
feet square and also has a water depth of 10 feet and total
depth of 15 feet. The sedimentation ponds are designed with a
capacity adequate for both dairies. The two smaller storage
3
041
NE 19% At
�12 ,Yl
4,14 `Ay1n
in
' I
/
14,
„pip 4'
sSw SSE
S
WIND ROSE DISTRIBUTION
DENVER STAPLETON ( 1975- 1980)
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC.
500 COFFIAAN ST., SUITE 107
LONGMONT, CO. 80501
(303) 772-5282 (MEMO) 665-6283
JOB NO.: 8-5613 NOV. 1986 FIG. I I OF I
3,0%
NNE.
NN
L
ID
( ( i/
CD
•
55E-
S
WIND ROSE DISTRIBUTION
FOR WIND> 10 KTS AT
DENVER STAPLETON (1975-1980)
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC.
500 COFFAIAN ST., SUITE 107
LONGMONT, CO. 80501
(303) 772-5282 (ME1H0) 665-6283
JOB NO. 8-5613 NOV. 1986 Fl G. 2 I OF I
N
tiF
.4
0.3
'.i
oz �Z
0.1
( ( 7.
CO
SSW SSE
•
S
WIND ROSE DISTRIBUTION
FOR WIND > 16 KTS AT
DENVER STAPLETON (1975-1980)
ROCKY MOUNTAIN CONSULTANTS, INC. MANNISC
500 COFFMAN ST., SUITE 107
LONGMONT, CO. 80501
(303) 772-5282 (METRO) 665-6283
JOB NO.: 8.5613 NOV. 986 FIG. 3 I OF I
•
•
N
NNE AN.
0.20
O.IS
OU
Zia
•
44,
WIND ROSE DISTRIBUTION
FOR WIND>ND> 21 KTS AT
DENVER STAPLETON (1975 -1980)
ROCKY 00C MOUNFFMAN T SUITECONSULTANTS,1 INC. C
500 COFFMA,N ST., SE 107
LONGMONT, CO. 80501
(303) 772-5282 (VALIH0) 665-6283
JOB NO.:8-5613 NOV. 1986 FIG. 4 I OF I
ponds are designed with a capacity adequate for one dairy and
the larger storage pond is designed with a capacity adequate for
the second dairy. It is proposed that both sedimentation ponds
and the two 200 foot square storage ponds be built when the
first dairy is constructed and the larger (285 foot square)
storage pond be built when the second dairy is constructed.
Runoff will be controlled by a system of ditches and dikes.
Runoff will be prevented from entering the dairies by a
dike-ditch constructed along the north face of the dairy. The
dike will actually be the access road raised to divert the 25
year storm event. West of the proposed access road the diverted
runoff will be conducted away from the site in a ditch with a
slope of at least 1/2% .
Runoff from the dairies will be contained by dikes, again
raised access roads on the east and west sides and a collection
ditch on the south. All dikes and ditches are designed to
convey the 25 year runoff event with at least one foot of
freeboard.
E. Design Events
The design events were selected in accordance with
"Guidelines, Design of Feedlot Runoff Containment Facilities" ;
Colorado Department of Health, Water Quality Control Commission,
May 1978 . The design event for the solids retention pond is the
4
..v
10 year runoff event (volume = 20% of the 10 year runoff) and the
design event for all containment and storage facilities was the
25 year runoff event. Process water flows were estimated by the
owner as 25 , 380 gpd based upon their actual experience in other
similar facilities. The storage ponds were sized to accommodate
the design storm runoff at the critical time (April 1st) when
the maximum accumulated process waste was contained in the pond
and the average precipitation between November 1 through March
31 is completely stored. A summary of these values is shown on
Table 1.
Design details are in accordance with state criteria. The
solids sedimentation ponds are 3 feet deep and liquid will be
pumped between units to permit cleaning about every three
months.
The storage ponds have a maximum total depth of 15 feet and
a pool operation depth of 10 feet. Ground water will be
controlled by french drain 5 feet below the pond inverts. Pond
bottoms shall be sloped at 1/2% to the irrigation pump
locations. All side slopes are 2 : 1 and crest widths between and
around units shall be 15 feet. All storage ponds will have 5
feet of freeboard. The ponds shall be provided with perimeter
fences and all embankment slopes shall be planted with turf type
grass to minimize possible erosion. The grade of spillway
surfaces between units in series shall be protected by concrete
knee walls at the upstream edge of each receiving unit. The
5
Table 1 , Aurona Dairy Design Parameter Summary
EVENT P RO AREA VOLUME
ZONE (Recur Int) ( In) ( I:) (S&2t) (CuFt)
Both Daxies 25 3 . 8 3. 22 1 , 305,000 350 , 175
Solids Ponds 25 3 . 8 - 20 ,000 6, 333
Storage lords 25 3 . 8 - 181 , 225 51 . 055
Total Runoff 25 407 , 563
Total Process Water 499 , 045
Storage ( 1 Nov - 31 Mar)
Total Avg 2rec±2 323, 254
Storage ( 1 Nov - 31 Mar)
1 ,229 , 862
Total Storage
Total Available Stowage 1 , 612, 250
Total Avail Stor
Factor of Safety = ------- - = 191 . 09%
Total Eeg' d Stor
!
entire operation shall be under constant surveillance and
appropriate maintenance shall be accomplished as problems are
observed. Land application of liquid shall be accomplished by
two or more pumps with capacities of at least 150 gpm. Disposal
of liquid at 150 gpm will result in decanting the 25 year runoff
event in 14 days with an application rate of 0 . 17 inches per day
to the irrigated area.
6
LITTLE THOMPSON WATER DISTRICT
DIRECTORS. Telephone 532-2096
Carey J.Salomonson, 307 Welch Avenue
President
Drawer G
Charles Allen Berthoud,Colorado 60513
Leo Bakel
Pat Dorsey
David McGee
E.Thomas Ricord
Dean Anderson
MANAGER
John M.Gruner
August 15 , 1986
Mr. George Smith
Aurora Dairy Farms
7388 State Highway 66
Lonumont, CO 80501
Dear Mr. Smith;
This letter is in response to our telephone conversation of August
11 , 1986 .
Your request that the District commit to serve a proposed dairy
operation to be located in the SEa of Section 31 , Township 4N ,
Range 67 West of the 6th PM, has been approved under the following
conditions .
1) The District will commit to serve domestic water via a 1"
water tap. The current tap fee for a 1 " water tap is $8000 . 00
and is subject to change without notice . The current usage fee
is as follows . The minimum quarterly fee is $112 . 50 for 105 , 000
gallons , any usage above the minimum is figured at 45 per 1000
gallons . These rates are subject to change without notice .
2) The committment for this tap is limited to having the tap
installed west of Weld County Road 15 along Weld County Road
38 , on our existing 4" main.
3) This committment will expire one year from the date of this
letter if a tap has not been purchased and installed by that date .
If you have any questions , please contact our office .
Sincerely ,
c c(„:„cbay.s.r.
Barry Dykes
Operations Supervisor
BD/ek
4 �
Public Service Public Service
Company of Colorado
422 Main Street
Windsor, Colorado 80550
August 22, 1986
Aurora Dairy Farms
Attn: George Smith
7388 State Highway 66
Longmont, CO 80501
Dear Sir:
Public Service Company of Colorado has electric lines adjacent
to the SW of section 32 of 4N 67W and would be able to serve
the propsed Aurora Dairy operations. The necessary extension
would be in accordance with our extension policy that is on
file with the Public Utilities Commission of the State of
Colorado.
Sincerely,
/ e �p
6.
Glenn E. Anderson
Windsor District Manager
GEA:sf
Johnstown Volunteer Fire Dept.
P.O. Box F
Johnstown, Colo. 80534
To whom it may concern; 8-29-86
I,Jim Anderson, Fire Chief of the Johnstown Fire protection
District,have been asked by the Aurora Dairy Farms for my
recommendations and go ahead to put a dairy with building
expansion at 18426 WCR 15•
After giving consideration and talking this over with the
Johnstown Fire protection District board about the fire and
safety aspects of this request , I find no significant problems
with the Aurora Dairy Farms request as long as these 3
requirments are followed :
1 ) All electrical and buildings are up to code according
to the NFPA National Electric and Building code books and
will be inspected by Weld County inspectors,
2 ) All Alfalfa and Straw stacks will be kept safely apart
as to not cause one another a fire hazards ,
3 ) Every building hereafter constructed shall be accessible
to fire department apparatus according to 82 uniform fire code
book pg.40 sec . 1Q207 arts . a-f. Also fire extinguishers will
be placed in locations throughout the dairy according to the
relative severity of probable fire , including the rapidity with
which it may spread. Such extinguishers shall be of a type
suiable for the probable class of fire associated with such
buildings or premises and shall have approval of the chief.
7
Jim Anderson
Fire chief r"'"
AttQo4'64't, — B 1123 364649 08/11/86 16 : 4 $3. 00 1/001
F 1324 MARY ANN FEUERSTEIN CLERK & RECORDER WELD CO, CO
WARRANTY DEED II
Glen R. Anderson
Gr.morts1
whose address is
*County of Weld , State of
Colorado , for the consideration of
--Three Hundred Fifty Thousand and No/100---
dollars, in hand paid, hereby sell(s)
and convey(s) to THE AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION . an Idaho corporation
whose legal address is post Office Box 2469 , Twin Falls . Idaho 83301
County of Twin Falls , and State of Idaho
the following real property in the County of Weld , and State of
Colorado, to wit:
he Southwest Quarter of Section 32 , Township 4 North, Pange 67 West
f the 6th P .M.
State Documentary Fee
Date tit, t,* a4
Qt
3 \Y
5
also known by street and number as 18426 Weld County Road No. 15 , .Tohstown, Color do
with all its appurtenances, and warrant(s) the title to the same, subject to taxes and assessments for
986 and subsequent years . and easements and restrictions of record,
eservinq to the Grantor 75% of the mineral rights in and to the subi ct
roperty, but conveying to the Grantee 25% of said mineral rights.
Signed this 7th day of August , 1986
•
GL .N R. ANDERSON
•
STATE OF COLORADO,
ss.
County of Boulder
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me in the County of Weld
State of Colorado, this 7th day of August , 1986 , by Glen R. Anderson.
My c04 * s 3 is�• {l}/1 /4, ( j . Witness my hand and official seal.
St2..e.
3525Yatrerisat Dr.
:0�,• °• f +,'',�o "� BUMF' CO 80302
A "If in IswiZni• viEts(*444/
�r ►E1tcuM��jbY
No.84'8.ke, 344. •N:ARRAXrY'DEED(Short Form) Bradford Publishing,5825.W.6th Ave.,tale+cod.CO 80214—(303)233-6900 1-85
AR2D1f4b4 D 112 RF O2O64648 O8/11/86 1 0 $3. 00 1/001
F 132., MA..s ANN FEUERSTEIN CLERK & RB.,JRDER WELD CO, CO
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, That}4
H. W. A. & CO. , a partnership
of the County of Weld , and State of Colorado, for the consideration of
--Ten Dollars and other good and valuable consideration XIXAKNW•
in hand paid, hereby sell and convey to
Glen R. Anderson
whose legal address is
of the County of Weld , and the State of Colorado,
the following real property, situate in the County of Weld and State of
Colorado,to wit:
The SW; of Section 32 , Township 4 North, Range 67 West of the 6th
P .M.
CORRECTION DEED- No Documentary Fee required--This Deed is given
to correct those Deeds recorded October 24 , 1979 in Book 885 as
Reception No. 1807204 and recorded January 18 , 1980 in Book. 893 as
Reception No. 1814684 in which the names of the partners were incorr' ctly
acknowledged.
with all its appurtenances.
also known as street and number 18426 Weld County Road No. 15 , Johnstown, C lorado
•
•
Signed and delivered this 28th day of July 19 86
In the presence of
H . /fl. A. O. , a Partnershi[REAL]
B4--_�r [SEAL] .
Harold W. Anderson, General Par ner
By• Y)Z .6 �'� ��.�_ / [SEAL]
Mdrie H. Anderson, General Part er
STATE OF COLORADO,
ss.
County of Weld
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 28th day of July
1986 ,by Harold W. Anderson and by Marie H. Anderson as General partners of
H. W. A. & Co. , a Partnership.
My commission expires ,19 .Witness my hand and official seal.,,.''
uX09 .0
A
PublIr
My Con misiioa expires !March 21, \' 4/VIZh
I Address: 1115 Eleventh Avenue '. : .. .,
Gain,
eeley, CO 80631 i d ll
0 ..,
`\C No.9&L PARCAINAVD SALE DEED.—sMulory Form.Bredford Publi,hin¢Co..,C W mh Ave CU x0!14—(]01)!]}6900- 5.83
or,
AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS
SURFACE ESTATE
Application No.
Subject Property SW 1/4, Sec. 32, T4N, R67W, of 6th P.M.
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF WELD
THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his
or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names,
addresses and the corresponding Parcel Identification Number assigned by the
Weld County Assessor of the owners of property (the surface estate) within
five hundred (500) feet of the property subject to the application. This list
was compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor, or an ownership
update from a title or abstract company or attorney, derived from such
records, or from the records of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder. The list
compiled from the records of the Weld County Assessor shall have been
assembled within thirty (30) days of the application submission date.
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this /4P-1
✓L. 19S' ( .
day of_L1.-C�u � >
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires: 3 /S/?(/
Notary Public
r
NAMES OF OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET
Please print or type
NAME ADDRESS, TOWN/CITY, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
STATE AND ZIP CODE IDENTIFICATION #
Gary Thelma 8381 WCR 44, Johnstown, CO 80534 105932000 018
Phillip E. Camenisch 10504 WCR 7, Longmont, CO 80501 105932000 025
Phillip E. Camenisch 10504 WCR 7, Longmont, CO 80501 105932000 023
James V. and
Mary C. McFaffic 7571 WCR 38, Johnstown, CO 80534 105932000 024
Dwayne and
Lyla Frye 113 King Ave. , Johnstown, CO 80534 105931000 029
Henry A. and
Lila M. Seele 1
Douglas K. and
Diane L. Seele % 21941 WCR 17, Johnstown. C0_80534 105931000 022
Union Pacific Land
Resources Corp. P.O. Box 2500. Bronmfipl y CO 80020 105931000 014
Lois E. Booth Rt. 1 . Box 386. Ault. CO 30510 120205000 025
James L. Brewbaker
Ann Aorenson 7688 N. 41 St. , Jnngmont. CO 80501 120905000 012
Albert H. and
Pearl F. Jeffers 2125 Glenfain Rd. , Greeley,C080631 120905000 011
AFFIDAVIT OF INTEREST OWNERS
MINERALS AND/OR SUBSURFACE
Application No.
Subject Property SW 1/4, Sec. 32, T4N, R67W, of 6th P.M.
STATE OF COLORADO )
ss.
COUNTY OF WELD
THE UNDERSIGNED, being first duly sworn, states that to the best of his
or her knowledge the attached list is a true and accurate list of the names
and addresses of all mineral owners and lesses of mineral owners on or under
the parcel of land which is the subject of the application as their names
appear upon the records in the Weld County Clerk and Recorder's Office, or
from an ownership update from a title or abstract company or an attorney.
The foregoing instrument was subscribed and sworn to before me this /,;.1
day of '')''n¢—m�-4'ti , 19.Yb
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
My Commission expires: 3 /3-/37
Notary Public
•
•
MACY• PRESCOTT
500 COFFMAN / LONCMONT CO / 80501 / 7762334
October 13, 1986
Mr. George Smith
Colorado Dairy Systems
7388 State Highway 66
Longmont, Colorado 80501
Dear Mr. Smith:
Enclosed is a Ratification and Rental Division Order and a copy of the Oil and
Gas Lease and Rider.
Aurora Capital Corporation has taken ownership of Glen Anderson's one-fourth
interest in the minerals.
Glen Anderson's ex-wife, Marilyn Anderson, owns one-fourth and H.W.A. & Company,
consisting of Harold and Marie Anderson -- Glen's parents, own one-half.
S
iinccereely.
Frank Prescott
FP/sb
Enc.
Jo 13-6t
C2-28- 7
AURORA DAIRY FARMS
Mineral Rights Owners
Aurora Capital Corporation
2930 Center Green Court
Boulder, CO 80301
Marilyn Anderson
4959 West 9th Street Drive
Greeley, CO 80634
Harold W. and Marie H. Anderson
621 23rd Street, Apartment No. 2
Greeley, CO 80631
V.
i \ —.or/ „ __ a . .0 Z.+ u.i cu 11 u:i./LA,T _---
1 y
CI- �0�0•r !,-, , ��'\�\�.— . i r1-``-,r :.a�I-.o i■ v-I. ■ on al.".V1,, / • _ iQ iu r ■>
b
pl .A l ( 1❑rn
r �, Alt Fi,t ;r ;�'.:�il i 110
y
7'
2 \1`--ll •'-•=4.*Ci
1O
t, 1.1) "1 ♦9' Ow N�. • .F i' n• * ° /1101
p
.•1',.fl
•
�i • ,A I x iii ' - -
n V
ti 4•.,,,41/0//4",41'
Utz .. o� fit,. v, _ •) ' • n ,a
•
1.ec 't1 L• Sr
'N. r�' - i.._�.. 1 _ - ••1 -; . n; ��
R, u■ u
• • /* 1. •
❑ , •:
n\ • •
■1
'ki .(1;) fillii,.. '
v
ic
•
S ❑ ilft,ti
! ;o f h',. ► ^fin❑i■ • rl ■ n '■❑ ❑ •
in
4
4• •v 10 ' ■' #r ° 4 •°
'1 l I • i • •
• c
�, i' ,., l / 1. ro ■! gilli —.— ._ •'71' ..IJ..
I •
,'S 1n� �� • 4) n• I• -• ,v
n M , W pyj ' ! I , E •
• J 1M1■ Iv N "o� :\,.l .,&I4. t9 .■t r r • /I
.,_uu_.i ❑in-_I. :i :J a J.yju u u u u.- :-Al,...4 AJ.:�._ NAN •■❑` •';
LAi '1
_ S
' • .m ■ •■ _• • m i,1• x J ❑ • - • .11 • °
l„ x 1 N ■_ m '
n ❑ n / ❑ i ''..w. n ■
Q •I,
11
dt ❑ ❑ • , ■�•° na ., •'n •
�J n (�) n� ' c1, of •
�-u 1 1 u..0 :J-� u J 4:CC..0� a u, -L 4 u u fv- -'1k`u u..�_ r • • 1 ■ u Ii• LE t ■ n■
�/�'J ■ •i' • n \ • t../ •T■.. ''C)rn • n • 7 .J ••� '� in■ n a.I....3.-1.41
■
Lt
',, .A .�'u r6��ru_ .__.t a u.a 1-r= I ■ Oc
•
r • o r' o J
J
2
i
i-11 l. .'J ,u. . a J u u iu :J u-.0 - 14 .4.u1s z r :r..� .l- �
z
z ,.iit i*Ii'.....
N fl 0 � b W I d I h
( 133HS )
o+ • oy
_i_.4 A Vv v-• N 0 CO llpp rNj R
FIELD CHECK
FILING NUMBER: USR-770:86:51 DATE OF INSPECTION: December 9, 1986
NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation
REQUEST: Use by Special Review for livestock confinement operation (2,400
head dairy)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The SW} of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld
County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Roads 15 and
38
LAND USE: N Agricultural
E Agricultural
S Agricultural
W Agricultural
ZONING: N Agricultural
E Agricultural
S Agricultural
W Agricultural
COMMENTS:
The property has been in irrigated crop production. Accesses are existing
to Weld County Road 15 and Weld County Road 38. Weld County Road 38 is a
paved surface and Weld County Road 15 is a graveled surface. One residence
is located on the west side of Weld County Road 15, directly across from the
proposed dairy property. Two residences are located at the southeastern
edge of the property. A fourth residence is located at the southeast corner
of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and 38. The Use by Special
Review plat has been submitted and correctly identifies the existing
improvements and ditches located on the property. The property slopes to
the south and southeast.
By: Casy.04
Chuck Cunliffe, Director
Department of Planning Se ices
ERKENBECK LATERAL DITCH CO.
2125 GLENFAIR RD.
GREELEY, COLO. 0631
The Weld County Planning Comminssion
Greeley, Colo. 80631
In regards to case number USR 770;86;51 from Barney Little
Aurora Capitol Corparation.
The board of directors are vev much opposed to thi change
of zoning.
Tirst it will take a lot of water out of the system.
Second it will run the cost of oreration up.
Third it will be taking a very good farm out of production.
Signed.
ERKENBECK LATERAL DITCH CO.
ALBERT H. JEFFERS SECRETARY
lJ'L z6& /b/ �
�`'
8i i
a, �J
s ` ' Weld Co. Plammnk �nmmissmn
OF COL
RICHARD D. LA MM !'V =MI JERIS A. DANIELSON
Governor * -., o State Engineer
* 1876
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER
DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES
1313 Sherman Street-Room 818
Denver, Colorado 80203
(303) 866-3581
December 10, 1986
Mr. Chuck Cunliffe
Weld County Planning Department
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: Barney Little/Aurora Capital
Corporation
SW1/4, Sec. 32, T4N, R67W
Dear Mr. Cunliffe:
This is to acknowledge receipt of material for the above referenced
livestock confinement operation. The Little Thompson Water District has been
designated as the source of water and a letter of commitment for service has
been submitted. Information available in our files indicates that the
District has sufficient water resources to serve this development and we
recommend approval .
Sincerely,
Yid 1.1 . Jm34a-Er-r-
Hal D. Simpson, P.E.
Deputy State Engineer
HDS/JRH:ma/8977H
cc: Alan Berryman, Div. Eng.
L'el9 La. Planning Commission
Weld County Planning December 5, 1986
To Date _
Health Protection Services ( � ' I1�
COLORADO From v�+ 11�
Case Number: USR-770:86:51 Name: Barney Little/Aurora
Subject:
Capital-Corp.—
Health Protection Services has reviewed this proposal and recommends for
approval, subject to the following condition:
1. Applicant shall comply with all State Health Department
requirements for construction and operation of a dairy.
Run—off retention and containment facilities shall be designed
by a registered professional engineer and constructed in
compliance with state statutes.
By Direction of Ralph R. Wooley, M.D.
_ �-
Ali
I111. i
l;li. "1'n{iallo: m�lll{BI$"uu
BIG THOMPSON SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
2625 Redwing Road , Suite 250
Fort Collins , Colorado 80526
Phone ( 303 ) 223-0960
December 4 , 1986
Mr . Chuck Cuncliffe
Director
Weld County , Colorado
Department of Planning Services •
915 10th Street
Greeley , Colorado 80631
Dear Mr . Cuncliffe :
As requested , we have reviewed the proposal by Aurora Capital
Corporation to build a 2 , 400 animal dairy in the southwest quarter of
Section 32 , T. 4 N. , R . 67 W. in Weld County . The current land use is
agriculture .
If the waste storage ponds are built to meet the county standards and
if there is adequate stormwater control , we do not see a conflict with
our interests from this type of land use . Without adequate stormwater
and sanitary control , a large dairy such as this will create odor ,
visual , and runoff problems for adjacent landowners .
A suggestion would be to consider planting 3-row tree screens and
windbreaks around the property to mitigate possible problems .
51 cerely
zk-cA__-
n Lebsack
District President
-op rarl 1 LIA.Iii c.:11•J',1 il"\11/3T
\ 86
• 1 tkinii to. Ptannin1 Cnmmis$ino
18683 Weld County Road #15
Johnsown, Colorado 80534
303-587-2773
December 6, 1986
Weld County Planning Commissioners
915 - 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Weld County Commissioners
P 0 Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Dear Commissioners:
I 'm writing this letter as myself and family are concerned about the
possibility of a large dairy farm operation being able to operate on
the former Glen Anderson Farm on the Corner of Weld County Road #15
and Weld County Road #38.
The Colorado Dairy Farm has an operation South about five miles on
Colorado Highway 66, West of Plattvelle, Colorado, and it has be be
one of the smelliest operations that I ' ve ever seen. Your could be
blind-folded and you can smell this place two miles away. The thought
of having to live within a couple thousand feet is sickening. The
smell would be so bad that it would get into the drapes and carpet
and you 'd never get it out. You 'd be sick to your stomach and you
just could'nt live this close to a mess like that.
Besides from the smell the value of our home would depreciate greatly,
then the moving in of house trailers is going to down grade the entire
area tremulously; and what about the traffic, rates, insects, stagnant
ponds, noise, etc. etc.
We now live in a beautiful home and love to see prosperity in the area
but this stinken deal belongs out by the Monfort Feed Lot where there
is no residential living.
We want you to stop this operation - it just don ' t make sense.
Yours truly,
Avery concerned citizen,
'
Joe Elms
Q � �n, �nJ 1 /
r
� 1986
i721n Co. Planai,nmoussian
//
MIN-AD, INC. • 1630 25th Avenue • Greeley, Colorado 80631
(303) 352-5232
WEU CT,,,,_, r . .,,..,,v.t
December 5, 1986 c�ILnIaall • ,,,.y
`
I: DEC 1.01988 •i
!..
— Jackie Johnson, Chairman eAtErta. c&c.
WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Commissioner Johnson:
I am writing you on behalf of Colorado Dairy Farms' request for a new
addition to their dairy operation which will be considered at the
commission meeting December 16, 1986.
Our company is a specialty mineral and livestock buffer producer based
in Greeley, Colorado. This dairy operation has been a very good and
important customer of MIN-AD, INC. for sometime now.
I have known Barney Little, the General Manager at Colorado Dairy Farms,
since 1967. I have found him to be a man of honesty and integrity. He
showed me the proposed dairy plan December 2, 1986. They have taken
every precaution from the aesthetic as well as the practical and functional
requirements of a dairy operation.
This new addition will provide more employment and increased income in
Weld County. From our point of view this not only benefits MIN-AD, but
the entire Greeley and Weld County area.
Reg Whitson, who is President of MIN-AD, INC. , joins with me in urging
that you support Colorado Dairy Farms in this expansion.
With best regards,
•
r uee Haflicch���
Sales Manager
BEH:kf
ILI 711 , '11
Ili
I� e- a —_�-
Ce Reid Co 9t;biLIP U ,;u0hniSgiai,
pr•----••
December 8 , 198x,
+9
r !:0
-i
teld Co. Fi3i
Louis J . Rademacherir]Iti 1dl{1I7li�S�.'(ie
13184 Weld County Road 1;=
Longmont , CO 8Q1,'°"'s01
Dear Commissioner Rademacher:
i am writing this letter on behalf of myself and the other
neighbors and residents in the Johnstown area. We all live
in the vicinity of the proposed expansion of Colorado Dairy
Farms Aurora Capital Corporations project located at Weld
County Road #38 and Weld County Road t15. As you might
realize should such a business be '.:ry i no to locate in your
"!' - reservations r- s and -
..)::i(�f':`./et!"C� "! .�.��!'Jt' i:t;V_? many r ��r�•a�� ,...�rl fears.
As our political i'-eoresentat.I de we need your assistance and
suppor"t in haloina to protect our individual and personal
interests £Ipai nst Corporate inconsiderateness. I am asking
you to exercise your- promise as a political official and
vote for us, the people you truly represent , by denying
permission for this corporation to expand its operation in
this location located North of its present operation.
I believe if you will consi der the following reasons you
will better understand the concerns of all of us living in
this area. ( 1 ) A corporation operating as a single
landowner is a masquerade. You I::now. as we all do. that the
purpose of setting up a corporation is to remove personal
liability, responsibility and accountability from all
persons carrying out the business operations. This does not
fit in at all with the constituents you represent. We are
all personally involved and thus responsible for our actions
and what effect they have not only upon ourselves but our
neighbors as well .
Corporations take no thought for the preservation of the
lifestyle and environment of the people around them. They
may :indicate otherwise but their track record across this
country proves differently. Their sole purpose is turning a
dollar for their investors. This is not wrong. We, too, are
trying to make a buck . But we are the investor and thus have
more than just an interest in a profit. We live in and on
this land. We live with our investment.
The investors who are supporting the Aurora Capital
Corporation do not live hare and may not even he resi dents
of Colorado. So how coul ci and why should they take any
interests in us or our ntei ghbood As investors they will be
more interested in an adequate return on their money no
matter what. And because of this subtle and not so subtle
pressure this proposed operation will be much more inclined
to yield to outside power than to "inside" considerations no
matter what they indicate to the contrary.
(2) Another consideration must be the removal of some of
the best productive farm 1 and in Colorado from its prime
service. There are other counties and cities where ground
is not of premium quality and thus might be more appropri ate
for this kind of business purpose. Th.tt certainly not ground
in this area of Weld County.
Some of you in positions of authority and power must put a
stop to the big city politicians and big corporations from
looking only at Today. You must not allow them to push you
and us around in the name of immediacy and of the
illusionary monetary gain. Remember there is always
tomorrow. And the future is now !
( .-•) Yet another reason for voting NO to this business
proposal is the horrible, noxious stench which it produces.
The odor .from a family operation is tolerable but one twenty
hies in size is unbearable. Not one cii yot..t commissioners
lives in or near the xicting Colorado Dairy Farm .Located at
7729 HWY 4.66, Platteville, Colorado, and thus you can not
realize how detestable the smell coming from this operation
is. We all know that no corporation can control which
direction the smell will travel and no one cari give wet
manure a p1 esant aroma. Such an unpleasant atmosphere is one
I am certain you would not desire to engulf your own
personal residence.
I am equally certain that you realize such an odor not only
I mpacts anyone living "down wind" for miles and thus tends
to devalue our land proportionately. We all need you to
help us hold on to the things for which we have been working
and striving. And many of us have been here for several
generations. So please consider the nature of the
constituents which you have promised to represent rather
than the seductive promises of the impersonal corporation
which will say anything to gain its way.
(4) This particular area has three big corporations already
making havoc upon its citizens. The one I have just alluded
to and the smell and other problems which go hand in hand
with big business should he sufficient to refuse its
expansion. But there are other corporate mistakes which
heighten our fears. Fort. Saint Vrain Tor instance.
Obviously the Commissioners who approed this operation were
not wise to representing the will of the people. Here is
standing testimony to corporate impracticability. This
fiasco is not three miles from the proposed dairy. While it
no longer functions as promised all of the terrific
<advantyes for building in our area have vanished into
extinction. And the Commissioners who voted for this
"wonderful opportunity" can they remove this hideous
structure? Do they even care?
And the third corporate problem is the Coors plant in
Johnstown. Whatever else they contribute to our community
again it is the terrible stink which the rest of us must
endure. No matter what the corporate big shots promise to
add to the community. you don 't see them living and smelling
the residue their fobs create. We residents do live with
our work. But it is ours we choose to live with. Must we
again be pushed into paying for the. mistakes of previous
commissioners whose judgment was as unwise as their promise
to represent their neighbors was forgetten once they
attained office?
So p 1 ese don 't . c::l l ow the steps of your predecessors. The
promises made by corporate heads has little reliability as
they must. answer to those who back them financially not
those of us who merely live around them. They have no stake
in our community so they have no true concern either. As to
the amount of dollars they may spend to carry on their
r
operation they sure aren 't buying rrom the local farmer.
The nature of their business demands that they buy from
another big time operator who too has financial backing.
Thus they can under cut ti-tir :Little man.
I trust you will not be won over by mere paper arguments.
Facts always look better and believable in print. But the
actual living experience proves otherwise. We as a nation
have too often , and mostly too late, realized the true
nature o; the r.:or-'porate machine. How sad that whenever our
environment is excessively polluted and maligned the
culpable party is the corporation. A corporation that
successfully argued its way into the planning commission
agenda and emphatically stated that the local residents "had
them all wrong.
Three times the residents in this section of Weld County
have been betrayed by their representatives in political
office. Three times political officials have been deceived
by the corporate promise that their- business would not
result in any degrading effects upon the local community.
And all three times the corporation has lied and won. Are
you going to join this defeat? Will your vote permit your
constituents to come back to you in several years and show
you what you refused to accept?
I 'm aware that the existing dairy has claimed that they have
removed the smell . Well just yesterday I drove by it and
they have lied again. It still stinks.
We residents believe in this area and we believe in you. We
are not trying to buy you off with great prophetic promises
of community contributions if . . . We fear because of the
track record of failed corporations of verifiable
consequence. The Aurora Capital Corporation does not have
an e'x'emplary record. I urge you to vote against the
proposed dairy and save the land -from one more demeaning ,
unreliable acquisition. "
My sincere thanks -for taking time to read this letter and to
consider the view cif . the people who will be victims rather
than the beneficiaries if such a proposal is passed.
Sincerely ,
lr Lam- /I/L ,. -
�� hn S. McCaha
JSM!_tm
Rouentbet 28, 1986
19650 Road. 15
jahrnotown, Coto. 80534
HeLLo,
Th.i_a Le.tten 44 to expteaa my oppod-L.tinn -to -the new da-ttt; peopaaed
to be -Located on L.TeLd Country Roads 15 and 38, bit Colorado Daittq Tatma
Ruto-ta Capi.tat Cotnotat.ion. Ltuing onLf. 1?z mitea Etna the peopoaed -oLte,
oat pteaent Liutag condi.tiana wootd be changed foe the wotot: ex.--ameLL,
no-i.4e, .in.ctea4ed fly. and ma4¢ut_to population pnd/ot exce.00 pe-oticide toe,
and -inc-teaaed traffic. hie don't want out aten changed in th. o wary.
/1nothet road teaaon fon onno.oition in the -Lack of need .fat onothe-t
dci-tu. The goue.znment h04 -opent aLnt of money. LateLlt cutting the hetdo of
dn-Lttrmen becau-se of a q-Lut of daitu ptoduct4, plus dry-btu ouboidiea that
have gone on fat iyeata. f'htt -ahoutd the euo-Litv.. of my. -Ufe change .fat
poot bua,ine-e, rtactice to make a cotpotation Null;-ti. %.4 5 undet-stand it,
pteaent neguiction4 don't aLLote thi-s 4L3e dninu. %n out onto. 5t make4
•
no oen-oe to n_tnn-t a vatiance .to an unneeded baoine-sa that w-iLL couae
dfo-tuption -to the pre-sent community.
Rnothet conce-tn of nine i4 -the ptax.Lmi,ty of chiteLe- to n n.uc-Lea)t
facititty. Redietion .ice teadittt. ab.00tted .bt1. md.LJ:_, .then ab-sorbed by out
Lone-s with of tenLacing caLciur. The track -tecatd of Toet St. Utain
apeoka .for itaetf, and hauine any datny -so cla-se aeem-j aen-seLe-o-a.
5 tegtet that 5 cannot attend the TLanniing Coon-toaion meeting on
Dec. 1E, 40 5 u-tce you -to iten-se vote againot app./taunt of tii° deity.
Thank you. 5''inccc�e.nett-,‘tiTIcP—
D� lz1 . • 1 1r-i.7� I
` I
II r
CO. 'F'Ififld!h� ^;Ilr!iiS!;t=;i'
USR-770
To
Date It-1Z— Time 7—% \ S
WW E VOW WERE OUT
r- r M V Y?R) '-M O Qo \ APo.'1
of %? o
Phoned. A'�+,.�aA
Area Code Number \ Extension
TELEPHONED PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU WILL CALL AGAJN
WANTS TO SEE YOU URGENT
R . L.RETURNED YOUR CALL I
Message Lis t A) -
s. ppMnt.�Nrww. . A_ _o.kc. Q�e.a a
-
rtkk. 1„,,,,,Nk `{ice Ai,
Wave, Sokv,a
` Operator
$s-tA1 VtAJ1A v.. ed, .
tikAMPAD 23-000 50 SHT.PAD
EFFICIENCY® 23-001 250 SHT.DISPENSER BOX
A-1 MECHANICAL INC. FY'r
nr
P.O.Box 207
Niwot, Colorado 80544
Weld County Commissioners 12-10-86
P.O.Box 758 mamas:
Greeley, Colorado. 80632
I am writting to you in support of Colorado Dairy Farms for the development of the
Anderson farm. Colorado Dairy are a real asset to the co+'nty of Weld. They have a very
clean operation now existing on Highway 66.
They spend a large amount of money in the local area for feed grains - hay - insulage,
motor vechicles and in the payroll of their company.
They are a very good company to so work for. I have done the plumbing for three barns.
they are pleasant to work for and they pay their bills prompty.
The Anderson farm would be an asset to Weld County for the taxes it would pay and the
grains and feed ti would buy from Weld County farms.
I hope in your serving on the planning commission that you can support this Dairy
operation on the Anderson farm.
Thank You for your time and consideration.
Vern H. Vinson
A-1 Mechanical Inc.
Niwot, Colorado
652-2794 or 573-1087
PLATTEVILLE ELEVATOR, INC.
400 PLATTE STREET
PHONES: 785-2241 • 785-2242
December 12, 1786
Weld County Planning Commissioners
715 10th Street
Greeley , Colorado 80631
Dear Weld County,
nr es_dor.t QC '1. _. _ =evil1e Elevator Incorporated . _ am
L-•;r i.1' i.nC.; regJrdind the proposed.'d ex .an'� i c" r.. the C,_�
p _ � of _� Iorad_:
)al'-; r.':r m near l :ittr_vi l le, rill uradu.
Platteville Elevator Inc . is a 1oc-ally Awned company that
provides feed c nmoditie= to farmers, feeders, dairymen and
similar business enil individuals within Weld county. In
addition , to selling to local business ' , we buy a significant
quantity of locally grown crops from the area farmers and
fellow feed dealers, in accomplishing the buying and selling
volume we employ approximately twenty local citizens.
Colorado Dairy rarm is one of our major customers that we
conduct business 'iith on a daily basis . It has been our
experience and observation that Colorado Dairy Farms is a
duality well managed business that has had a definite
positl\.e impact in our community , as with our company, and
• other local business' . I would like to point out that the
economic effects made by the Colorado Dairy Farms is made
clearly obvious by looking at the number of individuals and
business ' that deal directly with them. The "trickle down"
affect of those dealings is even more far reaching into the
health of the local community .
I urge that further ;:are'ful consideration be riven to the
proposed expansion of Colorado Dairy Farms . Should you have
any questions or comments please feel free to call .
Sincerely,
441 4eLl.
Robert M. Jehorea;
President
Platteville Elevator Incorporated � .Ir.
_+.., 1:i 1986
RJ/ep
I✓
cc . Colorado Dairy 17 ,-ms Weld Co. Plannint 1;nminisSion
Weld County Planning Commission riember=.
Weld County Commissioners
�'-,; +Johnstown, Co .
DEC 15 IQS@ bec. 10 , 1986
L
Dear 7n t . ,1,„..7
This is to confirm my opposition to the Aurora Capital
Corporations proposed 2,400 head dairy at Held County road
33 and 15, or legal discription S.W. oof Sec . 32-R67 W.
We own the N.E. of Sec. 5-3N-67 which borders the
S.E. side of the proposed dairy.
Our reasons for opposition are numerous , first being the
seepage from five holding ponds or .lagoons , on the site.
Lr. Pepperzak of Aurora Capital Corp. admitted at the Sekich
Co. meeting :,'ednesday, Dec. 3 that there would be some seep.
Shale in this area is from five to fifteen feet below ground
level, and this being on a south slope would destroy two
farms on the south and ours on the east border.
Second dr. P'eppersak stated that three thousand dollars
in County taxes are being paid now on the farm and would
increase to thirty thousand when new facilities are completed.
Thin is not true . It is implied that putrifying odors that
come from the Colorado Dairy on Hwy 66 are the fault of
previous (-Amer Al Kurtz and Renolds Feed lot to the west.
This also is not true . Plain and simple you do not have a
(airy without flies and solid manure holding ponds without
rotten and offensive oilers. Just 1600 feet from proposed ponds
live two little girls , age 10 months and 4 years- one has a
imature larnyx and one takes medication for Asthma. I don' t
think it' s fair to expect them to breath this.
Third , we have been told that this facility would decrease
the value of surrounding farms . In view of the economic crisis
farmensface , we cannot deal with this negative impact.
Fourth, it was stated that :we are approaching a shortage of
milk in Colorado. This also is not true , according to Mountain
Empire Dairy Assoc. , and other dairy owners in :field County.
I would also state I am not opposed to a dairy on this farm
limited to four head per acre as stated in the field County
statutes .
In conclusion I would appeal to you to consider how you
would feel if the proposed facility were built adjacent to
your homes or farm.
Thanking you for your judgement in this matter.
Sincerer,
J
Bennett and Marilyn Spaur
18547 Held County goad 13
Johnstown, Colo . 80531:
1 .l
4200 Weld County Road 38
Platteville, Colorado 80651
December 10, 1986
'iJeld County Commissioners ,
P . 0. Box 758 i����n t;'::.�•,�
Greeley , Colorado 80632 -
1 I
RE : Case Number USR-770 :86 .51 `'4 DEC 21985 z;
ATTN : CORDON LACY
COLO.
Dear Commissioner,
We farm along Weld County Road #38 just east of 1-25 and have done
so for the past 12 years.
Since both of our farms and our home uses Road ##38 solely for
access , we have very grave concerns about your possible approval of the
"Use by Special Review" Permit requested by Aurora Capital Corporation ,
Case ## USR-770 :86 :51 .
This area is zoned Agriculture ; and historically , as well as today ,
consists of mostly 160-acre farmsteads , with a sprinkle of single-family
residences. To change this to a Commercial high volume confinement
operation of 2400 milking cattle , plus dry cows , plus calves , there
must be some benefits to the people of We.d County , particularly the
folks directly affected within a two or three mile radius.
What could these benefits possibly be?
1 . Taxes? - Current assessments of the former Anderson Farm
"as is " is in the $3000.00 range. The Assessor ' s Office indicates only
a possible increase to the $6000. 00 range, which will do nothing to
repair the vastly increased road damage on Road #15 and #38.
2. Employment? - Aurora Capital Corporation indicates most
employees will commute - primarily from Brighton and Longmont - so again,
no help to Weld County. Even if they came from Greeley or Johnstown,
what overall benefit is 10 to 15 jobs?
3. Expenditure in Weld C❑unt'y? - The businesses that currently
supply Colorado Dairy Farms on Highway 66 have publically stated their
support for this permit - but why not? It will double the volume.
Interestingly enough , none of these high-volume suppliers are in Weld
County.
4. Cash Flow into Weld County? Outside of taxes , there is
no cash flow of significance in Weld County by this out-of-state
corporation. Employment checks, water payments , dairy and veterinarian
supplies , and most significantly , cattle feed , are all currently spent
either out-of-county or out-of-state , according to data given by Aurora
Capital Corporation or their suppliers.
5. Local Banking? Very doubtful they will change their
current banking operation to include a Greeley , Johnstown, or Windsor
Bank .
-2-
6. Enhancement ❑f the Farming Community adjacent to the
proposed dairy ? I think the following paragraphs cover most ❑f the
problems this proposal will create.
It would be interesting to see what possible benefit would result
from this proposed operation except for financial gain to the Aurora
Capital Corporation.
Since the proposal appears to offer n❑ benefits t❑ the people of
Weld County , what detriments would be created by granting the requested
permit?
1 . High-Volume , High-Weight-Feed- Truck traffic ❑n Weld County
Road #15 and , most specifically Road #38, which is gravel from I-25 to
Road #13 , and the route hay trucks from Wyoming and Nebraska would take.
This road always drifts badly in the winter and is routinely closed for
three or four days at a time during heavy ❑r blowing snow. Will Weld
County keep snow plows and graders ❑n standby t❑ keep Road 38 accessible
for this dairy - all for the small amount ❑f increased taxes that will
be paid? Wh❑ pays for the road damage?
2. Open Sewage Lagoons - What good c-an be said about lagoons ?
The existing Colorado Dairy Farm Lagoons (formerly Kurtz Cattle Company
Effluent Ponds ) are a dismal failure and continue to be a steady source
of high-insect population , vermin and rodents , terrifically bad odors
spread by the winds , and a general health hazard. We have n❑ way of
knowing if the pollution is seeping into the adjacent St. Vrain River ,
contaminating shallow wells , or other adverse effects. The insecticides
used ❑n and around the cattle and buildings are effective but prove
useless in the open air near ❑r ❑n the lagoons.
Even the dairy operation of Colorado State University , with
all their resources , has the same problems with insects , odors , and
pollution. They are currently being sued by residents of Fort Collins
for these very problems.
The Hayden Dairy , which is located ❑n Weld County Road #38 ,
just two miles west of this proposed dairy , was granted a USR Permit
about three years ago for a 250-cow dairy. The lagoons required were
designed by Longmont Soil Conservation Service , inspected by all required
parties , approved and placed into operations , still ❑n warm days , the
smell alone will drive you to your knees. Our home is one mile from
this lagoon and with a north eastern wind , the smell is rank ! Thank
Heavens , the Hoydens participated in the Federal Governments ' Dairy
Buyout and are n❑ longer in business - BUT, the lagoons remain and
still breed insects , rats and vermins , and , above all else , still emit
horrible odors even after no use since August 1986.
Please ask yourself - If 250 cattle , with their specified
lagoon size , cause a stench one mile away , will a 2400 cattle stench
cover ten miles?
3 . Discharge Effluent - The proposal indicates that the
balance ❑f farm land not occupied by dairy and lagoons will still be
farmed but may be irrigated , in part , by pumping liquid from the
lagoons thru sprinklers ❑r possible flood irrigation. In the case of
the sprinklers , this can only make the odor problem more intense ,
witness the spreading ❑f treated sewage on farmland adjacent t❑ Long-
mont by spray trucks. A center-pivot sprinkler system will be several
magnitudes greater in odor creation.
-3-
If rowcrop flood irrigation is performed with lagoon
effluent , it will be impossible t❑ prevent escape of waste water from
the end of the fields which will flow directly into irrigation ditches
of adjacent farms , polluting their systems , fields , and crops.
4. Milk Surplus - It is the U. S. Government ' s expressed
policy to reduce the surplus production ❑f milk and milk products in
this country through the use of programs designed to reduce dairy
herd volume. Toward this end , many Colorado Dairies were bought out
in 1986 by the Government. This proved to be a slight boost to the
remaining Colorado dairies , including Colorado Dairy Farms ❑n Highway 66.
Now comes Aurora Capital Corporation with a proposal to bring
in a new dairy of a size that will negate a significant portion ❑f the
millions ❑f dollars spent by the Government in Colorado alone to reduce
the milking population and combat the high-milk surplus .
Why would Weld County want t❑ go against this concept and
permit another huge dairy to begin?
5. Potable Water - Apparently Little Thompson Valley Water
District has indicated they will be able t❑ supply treated potable
water to the proposed dairy in requested quantities . For this size of
operation , it is estimated that 200 , 000 gallons per day could be the
minimum. The water district has yet t❑ indicate if their plant capacity
must be enlarged to meet this need. The last expansion to accomodate
the town ❑f Mead and other high-volume users caused a drastic rate
increase for all users of the system. Put another way , the proposed
dairy ' s daily water consumption would supply eight farmsteads ❑r
residents for three months - yet the Metro Denver Water Districts are
continually crying "wolf" for lack ❑f water. We only have t❑ look at
the Ault area to see what unlimited money can do to devastate a farming
area in terms of water.
As a minimum, with this volume ❑f water use by the proposed
dairy , all downstream taps would suffer drastically reduced pressure
and water volume - yet our water tap contracts specify a minimum of
45 psi delivered to the water tap . Do all neighbors then have t❑ suffer
insufficient water delivery and more probably increased water rates for
another expansion?
In conclusion, the following summarizes the major significant
problems the proposed dairy would create :
1 . Health and environment hazards t❑ the farming and resi-
dential community within a 3 ❑r 4 mile radius.
2. Huge quantities of liquid sewage stored long term over a
shale strata close t❑ the ground surface. Leaching , as a result ❑f
lagoon membrane rupture or separation would not be detected until
well/river contamination occurs.
3. This out-of-state corporation , Aurora Capital Corporation ,
has demonstrated its policy of out-of-county , out-of-state purchase
of goods and services with n❑ significant business dealings with Weld
County Banks , suppliers , or more particularly , local farmers for
cattle feed requirements.
-4-
4 . No tax base t❑ compensate Weld County for vastly increased
costs due t❑ gravel and paved county road degradation from heavy feed
and milk trucks and increased demand for snow removal.
5 . The disruption and permanent damage t❑ a small , well-designed
local farming area.
6. Creation of a greater influx ❑f milk t❑ the ever increasing
glut ❑f milk in this country - to the detriment ❑f small , local dairies
whose only livelihood is their dairy.
Since the stated goal of Weld County in its Comprehensive Use Plan
issued in 1973 and currently being updated for 19.86, is t❑ "support and
preserve the agricultural industry and farming as a way ❑f life" , I
implore you t❑ very carefully weigh the many disadvantages which would
be caused by this primarily commercial ❑peration and ask yourself if
there are any benefits t❑ be attained by the people ❑f Weld County -
and specifically the neighborhood farms and residences surrounding the
proposed site .
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. All of
this information has been brought out by the many friends and neighbors
of " Citizens Opposing Dairy " through several meetings held since ❑ur
original November 2 , 1986 letter to you expressing our deep concerns.
Very truly yours ,
CAo_si7
r,
\,,
i9eo
December 9,1986 field Cu, Philoi4 cumoiissiuif
Dear Mr./Ms.Commissioner,
We are writing this letter to express our collective opinion concerning the proposed dairy farm
to be located on Weld County Roads 15 and 38,by the dairy organization of Colorado Dairy
Farms Aurora Capital Corporation.
While you may know of the specifications of the dairy farm (2,000 to 4,000 dairy cattle
confined in corrals in a limited amount of space),we would like to make you aware of the
detrimental effects that such a large operation would have in this area. We believe such a
large herd would cause problems for neighboring residents—problems in the form of increased
insects,noxious air and water pollution,and the devaluation of property surrounding the area.
In addition, as pointed out by many analysts,the development of a dairy farm of this size
seems contrary to the economics of the nation's dairy situation—i.e., the dairy products surplus
that has spawned the federal government's dairy buyout.
Please give serious consideration to the objections of area farmers and residents who are
opposing this corporate development. Remember,our concerns are those of family farmers who
have lived and worked in this area for generations—as opposed to the interests of a large
outside corporation.
Sincerely,
797 /(v .; ,2t 0__.-1.-A--
-
? 0 7744 , --r.247 - -o
,4174- I /11-7 " 1r7 /
Mrs. D.I. Spaur
Mr.and Mrs.Delbert L.Spaur
Mr. and Mrs. Frank Botello
. December 5, 1986
r
:L I 1w1/ rC_1 �^
DEC 1.1,198- 'Li________ a
� ,,F
GREELEY. C0LO1
Dear Jackie Johnson,
This letter is in regard to the request by the Aurora Capitol Corporation
for a special use permit for the property they have acquired adjoining our
property. We would hope you see fit to turn down the request.
Our property corners the farm they own and we are sure their-installation
would do nothing but deflate the value of our land.
We sold off a choice building site last year and the people who bought it
will be getting rid of it if the dairy permit is approved because of odor and
insects.
People from the surrounding area of the proposed dairy are being invited
to their present dairy to inspect their facilities. I am sure things will be
in excellent order and there will be no odors with the cool temperatures we
experience in December, but how about a 90° day in July or August. We have
passed their dairy many times in the summer and can tell you the smell is
awful.
In an editorial in the Johnstown Breeze, M.B. Peparzak, President of
Aurora Capital Corporation wrote of the'economic impact the dairy will have
c- on the area. The sixty jobs it would generate, we concede would be an economic
'benefit, but we are sure if you checked you would find that very little of the
four million dollars spent for feed was purchased in Weld County.
We feel that if our feed crops are not good enough for them to buy, we
should not be subjected to the odor, insects, traffic problems, and all the
inconveniences the dairy would cause in the area.
Let them build their dairies where they are buying their feed.
e_c_e_a_27/en.e.---*--c--„,
•
etez--Cu2-19---
r),!,
\il �, i
.i U
e
i % :! ran. tH imiu ^..'N$$i Gli
•
COLORADO CATTLE SERVICES,INC.
607 MAIN STREET POST OFFICE BOX 610 PLATTEVILLE, COLORADO 80651 303-785-2212
December 9, 1986
Mr . Jack Holman
28236 W.C .R . 581
Greeley, CO . 80631
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Recently Colorado Dairy Farm has announced plans to develop an-
other dairy operation on the Glen Anderson farm at Rds . 38 & 15 .
There have been articles in the local papers and there have ap-
parently been some neighborhood meetings to discuss the proposed
dairy operation , although I have been unable to find out when
and or where the meetings have taken place .
I have done business as Colorado Cattle Services , Inc . in Colo-
rado for the last 152 years . I cover the entire state and visit
a large percentage of the dairies in our state . I must say un-
equivocally that Colorado Dairy Farms is the cleanest and poss-
ibly the best managed dairy in our state . I service Colorado
Dairy Farm on a weekly basis and am continually amazed that they
are able to keep their corrals and cattle so clean. In August
and September I am plagued by flies on most dairies but not at
Colorado Dairy Farm. Not only do they keep the outside of the
Dairies clean but they also keep the parlors and milkrooms spot-
less .
The new dairies as proposed will provide jobs for approximately
45 people . This is truly_ one of the- Very few alternatives for
people who want to work in agriculture in our area.
The new dairies will increase the tax base in Weld County. As
past president of the Weld RE-1 School District Board I am a-
cutely aware of the diminishing tax base in our county. Colorado
Dairy Farm was a welcome addition to our school district .
Colorado Dairy Farm provides the farmers of the immediate area,
and in fact state wide , a viable market place for their hay and
Grain . Colorado Dairy Farm provides an alternative for direct
sales from the local farms . Colorado Dairy Farm spends several
million dollars per year in Colorado for Feed stuffs and services .
j : J \` 5i
�i c r
\4^1d to- ?Maw. i;u.lmnIssiou
Page 2
December 8 , 1986
Weld County Commissioners
Additionally Colorado Dairy Farms will be a definite advantage
to our county and our state .
Would you kindly support their proposed expansion.
Sincerely,
Rog r B. Olsen, President
Colorado Cattle Services , Ira
RBO%co
i9to
Li"\ I
ileltl ge. 41an;uue wnumux:w
G`tE'SING
TIRES
REPAIR SERVICE
GAS AND OILS - TUBES
BATTERIES
Q . . ACCESSORIES
164
YOAKUM TIRE & OIL CO.
45 SOUTH MAIN STREET PHONE 776-2600 11 �
19 6
LONGMONT.COLORADO V
P.O.BOX 1197
4O
9 December 1986 eo
Jackie Johnson
Weld County Commissioner •
P. 0. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Dear Jackie :
We would like to express our views on the matter of
Colorado Dairy Farms . They are a very productive
operation that Colorado can be very proud of .
Colorado Dairy Farms ' engineers assures us the en-
vironmental issues of this production organization
are -well above the standards set by the County and
State . This is an Agricultural area , and with the
economic factor right now facing us , this can only
help the economy situation grow.
Yoakum Tire & Oil Company is a very reputable tire and
oil dealership in Longmont , Colorado . We do a very high
volume of business with Colorado Dairy Farms . We are
very proud to be acquainted with this organization and
would like you to know we support their endeavorship
in every way .
Sincerely ,
J. Harvey kum
President , Yoakum Tire & Oil Co .
LI D"7 1t :;!C�Y��( •n„.•„
1113
weld Cn. ?brow i;Ilm;mssinp
December 9, 1986
: � 1 Weld County_Commissioners +f-\\7/ ;15)-r�J
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632 DEC 1.111986 ±j
OREELEY. COLO.
Dear County Commissioners:
We are writing you to protest the plans for a large dairy farm to be located
on County Rd, 38 and County Rd. 15, by the Colorado Dairy Farm Aurora Capital
Corporation.
We are part-owners of a family farm located adjacent to the proposed dairy.
Along with our neighbors we have many concerns and questions regarding this issue.
Our family farm has been owned and inhabited by the family since 1936. During
this period of time many seasonal rains have caused flooding from the site of the
proposed dairy onto our property. As the proposed plan shot sewage ponds across
the road this flooding is a big concern to us.
Other concerns include the following:
• Appearance of the area with numerous mobile homes lined up to house
the labor force of the dairy, and the increase in population this
causes. Along with the problems of various types of people living
this close together.
. Increased truck traffic on our usually quiet country roads.
. The problems of odors and flies from the sewage ponds and the chemicals
used to control them.
. Devaluation of our property due to all the above concerns. This
beautiful country area is not the proper place for this 'type operation.
Based on the information the Citizens Opposing Dairy group obtained about the
existing dairy operated by the Colorado Dairy Aurora Capital Corporation located
at 7388 Hwy 66, Platteville, Co; they have been in violation of enivironmental laws.
Although they claim these problems have been corrected, we seriously doubt that a
two to four thousand dairy can ever control the flies and othdr3 to the satisfaction
of those who live across the road from the operation.
So far the only persons in favor of this operation are the few who sell feed
or other products to the dairy. These persons do not live in the immediate area
and we wonder how they would feel if the dairy were to he located across thbLrord '
from them.
We beg you not to approve this special use permit of the Aurora Capital C .Cottip.
Your vote against this is very important to us and our neighbors. _. c 1Lrd.
C•3
N Thanking you for
your consideration in this matter. 4 ,
W o
Sincerely,
December q, 1286
r1
Dear C_eYnryfl..,ruc-Pl tea)
We are the operators of the farm on the Southeast corner of Weld
County Roads 15 and 38. Our residence sets on the corner of Roads
15 and 38. We are strongly orposed to the application from the Aurora
Capital Corporation, ( case no. UPI! - 77286:5' ", to build a 2,400
head dairy located on the Southwest of Section 52, P67W of the
6th P.V. , Weld County, Colorado.
farm 48'° acres directly South of the proposed new site for the
dairy. We as well as our landlords, James 4rewbaker and Ann Sorensson,
are totally amainst this type of Corporate operation ping placed on
prime agriculturel land, and are deeply concerned about what effects
an operation of this magnitude will have n -,r lifs Lyle s we Ith,cte
known it for the oast 14 years.
This dairy operation has very few, if any, advantages to our com—
munity! It will not improve in any way our market for farm products.
The existing Colorado Dairy has made this very evident.
The devaluation of land and deterioration of our environment is
of major importance! It is your responsibility as elected officials
to protect our individual rights and investments.
The air pollution at the existing site is unbear?ble! Eventhough
we have been informed that this will not be a problem in our area it
has existed at the present site and is not improving. The wait and
see attitude about this disgusting odor is not acceptable in any way!
The proposed catch Fonds are a very big concern of ours. Not only
the stagnate water causing problems with odors but the year round water
in these ponds seeping into the soil c. ;t . r,ss oLd seepdi `pots
on the farms south of the proposed site. Steps have been taken in the
past on these farms to eliminate these problems such an cement ditches
and pipelines. The problem with underground water is very evident in
our own basement where a sump pump is required to pump water out. It
is our belief that any further increase in underground water will damage
these farms' production and value.
Under the current dairy buyout program there is no justification
for an operation of this size to be implemented. This program was not
designed to buyout family dairies and open the doors for large corporate
dairies. If a Government program the size of the Whole Herd ?iuyout
is net supported by the County and State Governments, the tax dollars
of all the United States citizens have been wasted.
At the meeting with the Colorado hairy the majority of their sup—
porters were businessmen who have no investment in the land or homes
near the proposed site. In our opinion they showed no concern for the
many neorle who have invested their time, none:, ani . .rd ',;-rk into the
Yard 5c.ur.t r fsrms and home+ surround'_n.z the new site.
We do hone in makir.r your decision •aou will o^^sider the objections
of the people who own and overate the land nearby. We urge you to vote
NO on this Proposal!
Thank you for your time and consideration.
!-incer�aly, k�(�
V/a r a.' Liui
Cary and Nanette Adler
\r - \
r�,..6
S- "
�D a 161-!i arirlr r l
.v -� I���G
Weld lla. ?Wont 6omnuss#an
,;l December 9, 1986
O-Fr
1986
WEId co. PIa!UHr,�� fil�rt��.
Weld County Planning Commissioners
915 10th . Street
Greeley , Colorado 80631
Dear Members of the Weld County Planning Commission ;
This letter is to protest the application of a dairy
permit for 2. 400 head that is being considered by the Aurora
Capital Corporation Colorado Dairy Farm. Case Number : USR -
770 : 36:51 ,
We purchased a smoll krreege .1 year eon dire„t_l '.r across .
from (within 500 feet ) this proposed si to . The acreage was
intended for a ou i l di na =_.i to . We are very discouraged that
a commercial operation of this magnitude would locate
directly across from a piece of land that we searched five
years to find . In addition , we have been told by a real
estate agent that our property could decrease in value by
one—half if the dairy builds and is permitted to operate .
We have not built a home on the site because we have many,
many questions and concerns. They are as follows:
1 . ODOR PROBLEMS This is a mojor concern in a day
when cities are issuing fireplace burning restrictions,
eliminating smoking in public places and the state is trying
to reduce car pollution . The odor this operation emits is
twice as bad for one' s health than the others mentioned.
2. INSECT CONTROL Our personal health and well being
would be in jeopardy when insect sprays are used to control
the insect population that breed from waste products from a
population of cows as described above .
3. MILK OVERSURPLUS Why is a large investment
corporation allowed to operate 2,400 head when small local
dairies are cutting herds - choosing buy-out programs and
decreasing overall production of milk in the United States?
Are there State and Federal laws to enforce oversupplying
products that tend to lower the price and wipe out the
average independent dairyman?
4 . WATER AVAILABILITY Is there enough water now and
/ in the future to supply a herd of 5, 000 cows, especially
when a cow requires at least 35 gallons of water a day?
IWli 1 1 there be enough water to supply growing commercial and
residential growth within the area without condemning farm
irrigation water to supply the need.
5. WASTE WATER Will water in storage ponds seep into
the ground or evaporate or be irrigated over farm crops--all
to eventually run into our main rivers in the area? What
are the Environmental Laws that regulate this type of
problem. Wasn' t the other Aurora Capital Corporation Dairy
on Highway #66 fined several thousand dollars for not
complying .with health and environmental standards?
6. CREATING ADVERSE CONDITIONS TO FAMILIES LIFESTYLE
A dairy cow operation of this number would need to operate
24 hours daily with continual truck traffic on the roads
hauling milk products, feed, manure , etc . Noise from the
truck traffic , cows, machinery and human traffic would be
constant day and night . Lighting would need to be on
continually to provide lights for the workers to operate at
night .
7 . H'+ COMMUNITY OR COUNTY ADVANTAGE Do dairy cow
operations such as this offer much revenues to state and
county funds? Wi l l the county be able to maintain the roads
in the area . which '.''ill be continually traveled by large ,
heavy trucks? Will people in the area be hired as labor or
do they bring in their own work force? Do area oUsinesses
within the area profit that much from this corporation or do
they do their business outside the county?
We feel it is totally unfair for a dairy cow operation
of this magnitude to move to such a prime agricultural spot
in Weld County when we question the odor problems , insect
problems, need of milk products, water ava.i l abi l i ty , waste ,
control , -no community or county advantage and the adverse
conditions it would create for all . We also feel robbed of a
chance to build a home and retain our investment in the land
we purchased before the dairy purchased their property .
Please vote no on this and not allow this large
corporation to locate on the proposed site at SW 1/4 of
Section 32 , T4N, R67W of the 6th P .M. Weld County , Colorado .
We have lived in the Johnstown area for 16 years and
lived in Colorado all of our life . Lie have been active
voters and are continually working to make our community a
better place to live . We want to continue to make this our•
home . Please don' t force us to lose our investment and
relocate outside of the area and state .
Sincerely ,
&el/122_ 4)2--
Duane Frye
113 King Avenue
Johnstown , Colorado 30534
� t
December 9 , 1986
Weld County Planning Commissioners
915 10th . Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear• Members of the Weld County Planning Commission ;
This letter is to protest the application of a dairy
permit for 2, 400 head that i s oe i ng considered by the Aurora
Capital Corporation Colorado Dairy Farm. Case Number : USR -
770 :86 :51 .
We purchased a small .acre.aoe a year ago directly acro_•=
from (wi th i n 500 feet) this proposed site . The acreage was
intended for a building site . We ar•e very discouraged that
a commercial operation of this magnitude would locate
directly across from a piece of land that we =•earthed five
'rears to find. In addition , we have been told by a real
estate anent that our• property could decrease in value by
one-half if the dairy builds and is permitted to operate .
We have not built a home on the site because we have many,
many questions and concerns. They ar•e as follows:
1 . ODOR PROBLEMS This is a mojor concern in a day
when cities are issuing fireplace burning restrictions,
eliminating smoking in public places and the state is trying
to reduce car pollution . The odor this operation emits is
twice as bad for one' s health than the others mentioned .
2. INSECT CONTROL Our personal health and well beino
would be in jeopardy when insect sprays_ are used to control
the insect population that breed from waste products from a
population of cows as described above .
3 . MILK O'JERSURP'LLIS Why is a large investment
corporation allowed to operate 2 ,400 head when small local
dairies are cutting herds - choosing buy-out programs and
decreasing overall production of milk in the United States?
Are there State and Federal laws to enforce oversupplying
products that tend to lower the price and wipe out the
average independent dairyman?
4. WATER AVAILABILITY Is there enough water now and
in the future to supply a herd of 5,000 cows, especially
when a cow requires at least 35 gallons of water a day?
Will there be enough water to supply growing commercial and
residential growth within the area without condemning farm
irrigation water to supply the need .
5 . WASTE WATER Will water in storage ponds seep into
the ground or evaporate or be irrigated over farm crops--all
to eventually run into our main rivers in the area? What
are the Environmental Laws that regulate this type of
problem. Wasn' t the other Aurora Capital Corporation Dairy
on Highway #66 fined several thousand dollars for not
complying with health and environmental standards?
6. CREATING ADVERSE CONDITIONS TO FAMILIES LIFESTYLE
A dairy cow operation of this number would need to operate
24 hours dai l y wi th continual truck traffic on the roads
hauling milk products , feed , manure , etc . Noise from the
truck tra.ff i c . cows , machinery and human traffic would be
constant day and night . Lightino would nee' to be on
continually to provide lights for the workers to operate at
night .
7 . NO COMMUNITY OR. COUNTY ADVANTAGE Do dairy cow
operations such as this offer much revenues to state and
county funds? Will the county be able to maintain the roads
in the area, which will be continually traveled by large ,
heavy trucks? Will people in the area be hired as labor or
do they bring in their own work force? Do area businesses
within the area profit that much from this corporation cr do
they do their business outside the county?
We feel it is totally unfair for a dairy cow operation
of this magnitude to move to such a prime agricultural spot
in Weld County when we question the odor problems, insect
problems, need of milk products, water availability , waste ,
control , no community or county advantage and the adverse
conditions it would create for all . We also feel robbed of a
chance to build a home and retain our investment in the land
we purchased before the dairy purchased their property .
• a
Please vote no on this and not allow this large
corporation to locate on the proposed site at SW 1/4 of
Section 32 T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. Weld County , Colorado .
We have 1 i ved in the Johnstown area. for 16 years and
lived in Colorado all of our life . We have been active
voters and are continually workinci to make our community a
better place to live . We want to continue to make this our
home . Please don' t force us to lose our investment and
relocate outside of the area and state .
Sincerely,
/7/itia ,t214.(d_e_
Nyl a Frye
113 Kina Avenue
Johnstown , Colorado 80534
i—‘ 1-6ii-lif01/- :- 1
11.A1
.>g f'Ael6 CO. 71aHailik t lllill!Si O t
'
December 9 , 1986 O ' r. : jJ '' ',25^' 7 1 VI l! ;9w �
J
;Vn:r3 Co. i'g390m „ ,vnisspp
Dear ill-t Z C�c-+� Id(rY-Loin
This letter is in regard to the Aurora Capital Corporation
to obtain a special use permit for a livestock confinement
operation for 2,400 head of dairy cow at the intersection of
Weld County Road 15 and 38.
We are located on the South-East corner where the dairy
is proposed to be built on Weld County Road 38. We are very
concerned over this type of operation being situated in a place
that - in the opinion of nearly all people in that area - would
have a definite negative impact on this area.
It was our understanding that the intention of the Federal
Government Dairy Buyout program was to decrease the oversupply
of milk product in the country: So this not only affects us but
also the small family dairy operation. What is to happen to them?
Is it fair to the people that are in this area or to the small
family dairy farm to subsidize another dairy herd when we really
don' t need it?
There are other factors which must be addressed with this
size of operation are smell- The proof of this can be found
on the large dairy operation of the same proprietors of this
proposed dairy West of Platteville on- Hwy1.66. - Increased volume
of heavy truck traffic to haul feed , milk and manure; which
would contribute to further deterioration to road conditions
in the surrounding area. Also , drainage and seepage problems
from the corrals and catch ponds Could pollute irrigation water
and shallow wells , and the flys.
In conclusion, the negative aspects (as mentioned above )
could result from this type of operation. We are not opposed
to a dairy operation in the ordinances of Weld County, but we
don' t want an operation of this size to be built in the proposed
area.
I would also like to ask you to consider how you would
feel if proposed dairy were built adjacent to your homes?
Sincerely,
Cizens Opposing sing Dairy
Citizens p
Greg an a Spau 'P
rr AL l V\
December 9, 1986
WELD COUNTY PLANNING & COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
915 10th Street
Greeley, CO 80631
SUBJECT: Aurora Capital Corporation' s Special Use Permit
We are writing to ask you to deny the special use permit that has
been applied for at the location of WCR 15 amd WCR 38 for a livestock
confinement operation for 2,400 head of dairy cows. We are well
aware of what such an operation can do to the quality of life in the
area one is located. The same type of operation on Highway 66 causes
such a stench it permeates the air for miles around it, and makes
living near such an area unendurable for the average person. We
moved to our home on Weld County Road 17 ten years ago for the
quality of life it afforded us and our five children. And if our
quality of life is ruined by a neighbor such as the one that is
planning to move near us, our home which we love will go up for sale
and we will move out of Weld County.
We know of no reason why you would approve this operation as the tax
gains are minimal , they do not hire local labor, their trucks would
cause more frequent road repairs, land around the area would be
devaluated, they do not purchase their hay or feed locally but ship
it in from Nebraska, and it would be extremely detrimental to the
small dairy farmers' income in the area. AND most important is the
fact that the pollution from drainage from their corrals and ponds
would pollute irrigation water, shallow wells and eventually river
water. The poisonous sprays required for insect control would
pollute the air we breath.
o '557,T
L 91 " 1986
Weld Co. Wallah% Commission
-2—
We have been told by Weld County residents that you as a group
approve everything that comes your way with no regard to the
environment — I truly hope this is not the case and you will NOT
approve this special use permit.
Sincerely,
Mr. & Mrs. Chuck Stieff
17666 Weld County Road 17
Platteville, CO 80651
587-2500
cc: Jackie Johnson
Gordon Lacy
Bill Kirby
Gene Brantner
Frank Yamaguchi
Lydia Dunbar
Doug Graff
Lynn Brown
Paulette Weaver
Louis Rademacher
LeAnn Reid
Jack Holman
Ivan Gosnell
Ann Garrison
Bill Claus
17896 W.C . R . 7
• Platteville , Co.
80651
Weld County Planning Commission I '
915 10th . St . ;J
Greeley , Co . 80631 I ' - - -- _ 793- III
LU i
1'o Whom It May Concern :
En, 2him:§v oua 7JBS,•i,u
In regards to the pending Colo . Dairy Farms application for
a new dairy on the corner of W. C . R . 38 and 15 , I for one am
in favor of its passage .
I am in the custom hay business and I have done business with
Colorado Dairy Farms ever since they opened their dairy on
Highway 66 . They have proven to be tough negotiators , but
always fair and they have always paid their bills on time .
I buy and sell them several tons of locally grown alfalfa ,
oat hay , and straw annually .
While it is true they do not buy everything locally , it is
partially because of the lack of the big one ton bales that
are put up in this area . Colorado Dairy Farms has encouraged
me to purchase a ton baler , which I have done , so they can
use more of the local feed available to them.
•
In the course of hauling hay into their dairy , I have found
the corrals to always be clean and freshly bedded . I think
they do as much as possible and more than a lot of other local
daicys to keep their place at or above state and local regulations .
While I can understand the neighboring landlords and tenants
objections , 1 believe that in a tough agricultural climate we
need to seek every possible means to improve the market place
for locally grown feeds .
I feel that if Colo . Dairy Farms has done their research and
their plans meet state and county requirements, then they should
be alloweu to go ahead with -a project that will benefit our
community .
Sincerely ,
(1-5— ill /
Bill Claus
A-1 MECHANICAL INC.
P.0.Box 207
Niwot, Colorado 80544
Weld County Planning Commissoness 12-10-86
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80632
I am writting to you in support of Colorado Dairy Farms for the development of the
Anderson farm. Colorado Dairy are a real asset to the county of Weld. They have a very
clean operation now existing on Highway 66.
They spend a large amount of money in the local area for feed grains - hay - insulage,
motor vechicles and in the payroll of their company.
They are a very good company to so work for. I have done the plumbing for three barns.
They are pleasant to work for and they pay their bills prompty.
The Anderson farm would be an asset to Weld County for the taxes it would pay and the
grains and feed ti would buy from Weld County farms.
I hope in your serving on the planning commission that you can support this Dairy
operation on the Anderson farm.
Thank You for your time and consideration.
Vern H. Vinson
A-1 Mechanical Inc.
Niwot, Colorado
652-2794 or 573-1087
rliP)FP)ON.r.
1\ %`E 15 '?8g
Field Co, ?Ianaim; ,as.,o•ua:ri,
1S683 Weld County Road 15
Johnstown, Colorado 80534
303-587-2773
December 11, 1986
Weld County Planning Commissioners
915 - 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Weld County Commissioners
P 0 Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
[Dear Commissioners:
I'm very concerned about the possibility of a large dairy farm
operating on the former Glen Anderson farm, on the corner of Weld
county Road #15 and Weld County Road #38.
The Colorado Dairy Farm Aurora Capital Corporation has an
operation on Colorado Highway 66, west of Plattville, Colorado.
This operation has to be the smellest I'v ever seen. Having the
operation only a few thousand feet from my home sicken me. My
family moved here from a large city for the peace and quiet of
the area.
I'm concerned about the smell, the value of my home, noise,
traffic, insects, ponds, etc. ,etc..
I want you to put a stop to this operation,it just makes no sense.
Yours truly,
A concerned cit-
Fay Elms
Please make copies of this letter for each commissioner.
G iii 7):,,JNIO5%'
i
i • - 7986
Weld Co. Pianwn¢ Lumnnsz;ur
LAND-USE APPLICATION
SUMMARY SHEET
Date: December 9, 1986
CASE NUMBER: USR-770:86:51
NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation
ADDRESS: 2930 Center Green Court, Boulder, CO 80301
REQUEST: Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation
(2,400 head dairy) .
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Part of the SWI of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th
P.M. , Weld County, Colorado.
LOCATION: Northeast corner of the intersection of Weld County Road 15 and
Weld County Road 38.
SIZE OF PARCEL: 160 acres ±
POSSIBLE ISSUES SUMMARIZED FROM APPLICATION MATERIALS:
The criteria for Planning Commission review are listed in Section 24.3 of
the Weld County Zoning Ordinance.
The applicant has the burden of proof to show that the Standards and
Conditions of Section 24.5, 24.6, and 24.3.1 of the Weld County Zoning
Ordinance are met.
Our office has received several letters in opposition and support to the
proposed request.
To date, referral agencies that have responded to the referral have no
objections to the proposed request.
54. . . r... : .. .
yy�� k .ic • \s, ,4
11 >A .
49
52 . . . _ --4'. • _
•
3.
1 _ 5 71 41 9p • • •' 5 gi ., •' i;
P •n r it 17221"--‘Ill I ./ ¢
50 . re.r..,.r �� _ p,rsr lic
rin 1^ �++.hh to,r • refAll•48 l— �di- — 2 : w, L • I ° L
Z . , • 53 sr4r L srE,v5 I nr'a 6 r- f, ••. 5 l'Gi�- +.at. LI•• Lt
„u^ �. 'L II .. . 6-fib re's.
• i.46 O r � r_`— °x •�\• •.i • °.I '• ..
� LY y I I,
r L R $
o.
•o • Los p. 5 iu l ' '.- . ev+_. - -•- -'!-•. i4N. I• = _ �� •[q• _ k� Nor+ is I
--
...-_1 ••1'i/ii�e - EST 5 •
mr • • �.. 5 4'
• •42 - • ) :0 • III ` I • •�'p • • ° -
.. n 25 I 'tie F ... * • _ r
- �" L r I r/ iEf)( P • .. " .
a vi-c_., L � i ��•_. P'
JLi -
. 5x1 �4 5 i •
>. x51_^j J 5. • s' tt 55 �. • e•/r•�• Sa 5• 4
38 •• -- — = IL ii
36 °.5— ° 5 ••
-°•,... if 3 't I.r('-_`ter s••k
c AA
—^4 •*a. m om, .oast 1• • 'yl '• •- 'f' .. '
i - - G s . 5 I , . Y 5 q• .- 67
13N — 5f8 r‘ �L,�I ( /� /[/ 4 p �..
• • -° L M •G Y o• • . •
L ., Oile .Ig. ,& — Ya° Y
x• L sd%amh '-"R•So r • G _ Sr //,k[' ry x� 5 •u z5](\
28 - ------.--,—.--..---;---
•
eP
} • ii�p 2 .8„,„ P.04,35 Sr Yra^ •5 • /{� 1 ° • Y ..
• f• : LIf 1 R_C. . i A �,� „"
26 — AES — r�
•
—C: L — — • a 5 l 5 • I�le {':
•
•„C/VSrr/ — •40 •• . i5. •• • f( l• 1 HILLS
.F....o r o t.‘,1--,.,_
U - - . _ es .ry •,_ _„ ,• . ma •• i r
T2N. �_ — 'y _ .. 1
,,,-..q I• • L. C
18 ��+
I L f PON 570 4, ° .\
`�:r • G _ - c... • L ° C NST { • k • xx• Y
_ r�r ■ L� }M..
1 6 e i ;.:f �!!! •N c/.-----
'„
°• i a �' pp 5 • : i
14 m°ru. Y • Lo s,ezl 5� k ��tat.4444 i •e ' / ^• 3 °Ch •,�I:
i .• r •. 2 5 ' •' �✓5 c •I_ 5. / .. . L • .. . L \ 41,45.
,c,'F°1.
C '0. 4884/' 0684 7-"�4N'• / 9 _ i - 6. 6n ry•
, O00 .
ti
/ p9`"' ob2B' �
< 493/ ( / () (cd,•
4895
.
li
y6.
•
/T(1. __ • 4965 "/7/F 9//
v Banyan SP'!^9—
6T
4886
o 1.
°
_______/ I
ii I
4 Imo'
e
�2 e
0,-,0.-.
30 -- 47 a96al•
� . 4999 • �.I49zB I
�
0
/
•
t ENS1oN
Ex
Fir+^' � �50p0 � co
o
� o
_ X4990 so § e
• 9,I —
'- 4959 BM �'�
• 990 4rj6 _
_— pF
5031x�
� 495
A 4900 ,II �� �� -^
/
•\\.,0 _ / ..
A -\ r.J V�'
li
to '
Vgou "rt.-
',
-%.\,.
�" it '.'.,1 ° t
m r�
- 4922 -fir Bhp °1
I 90
49/6 `, o . . . by f . 484/ 6JfiJ
). 4$6j
III
, )(- /‘)--÷,9 lii ,:///-?\j,,
A900� ,s 1Wildcat II
•
Gaging S'.
.e7a 489s' g t Vr '�� �J,
475 I
il
ai50N__J
(� 1� �'v _ o • o 1
• I.'
..:',;41;;;‘..\,
:/ .rdt
1 4.ax -:5:::,...,-,f
x Iyn'M' 4�y f'1y4\ -
T� ��h 0 -- L 1 rr
,,,; k11
. ,(
ty 1 F
ry q
SRS"+ fy Y Y^' A. !.. ` 1, i. t t j't ' .
Ai
• .,r _ .
e } 4 {+
a'M 1 •A
,,ii .1''''',/,,,-;‘:'%1',', ;‘' ,••
�r y
xl Y 1 1 4 lr
» {${
c7Z7 I i tip'
- 3
ky
t .yri..:.0.' ;S r
f '�r.;t j
"�' 'k`v^x n lea.,'._ a< .tyc,,:a5 ^'°' .!...,.§�,m.e ,>w...: s-�.. �... .-'` _•
� '1-' 7 ft
t.•
s i
S
'� .i ; �d.(5
1 �#- - rt4x . ' 4d �,v
ii}YF {1 sk�' r ¢'•;' i ;$• 3` `''• '.. .; '.w.
P 1} ' x t. 1,\\
v t
Seicin
•
ri /rF 1M
yY(J���y �g 1 Z ,q s.:46,1,4".$`it." 1 ,k:f:"y 1 * 44 p{Vry 5,Wt "4t$�^ :;•
t `s* p • ',.:.•••41‘;4"
` ,�,,,y,�.� * ' ,- ri
utt
't • ! rt �TZ i £tv p }S tAk ''),:ti.., .p. + I•.
fj,,� 1
,r5 > T 1 yy 1 M .µ 4 y {" y g•ad, K.
• G{ E.i i i.; � V . nt f tlin 4
�I o� �. � p j .:, Coil
/C- Colorado
Dairy Farms
AURORA CAPITAL CORPORATION
7388 State Highway 66 • Longmont, Colorado 80501
(303) 535.4626
November 26, 1986
4
WELD COUNTY
Department of Planning Services
915 10th Street
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Dear Mr. Cunliffe
This letter is to confirm our conversation in your office
on November 26, 1986. As I pointed out a mistake was inadvertently
made on the map and property owners list turned into your office
on the Aurora Dairy Farms project. The property directly West of
our farm is actually owned by Anderson Farms and not Union Pacific
Land Resources Corporation. Anderson Farms address is:
Anderson Farms
C/0 Mrs. Harold Anderson
621 23rd Street 112
Greeley, CO 80631
I am sorry about this mix up. If you have any questions please
contact me. Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.
Sincerely,
George A. Smith
f i
i
i, Il
uEll CL 2hluilHk GniIIIN\ Go-
REFERRAL LIST
APPLICANT: Aurora Capitol Corporation CASE NUMBER: USR-770:86:51
SENT REFERRALS OUT: REFERRALS TO BE RECEIVED BY: December 8, 1986
NO SR NR NO SR NR
X Weld County Health Department
X Engineering Department
X County Extension Agent
X State Engineer
Division of Water Resources
1313 Sherman St. , Room 818
Denver, CO 80203
X Town of Milliken
Margaret Wakeman
Milliken, CO 80543
X Louis Rademacher
13184 Weld County Road 13
Longmont, CO 80501
X Fort Collins Soil Conservation District
Suite 25
2625 Redwing Road
Fort Collins, CO 80526
X Johnstown Fire District
John Shultz
21475 Weld County Road 19
Milliken, CO 80543
X Ekerkenbeck Lateral
Albert H. Jeffers
17475 Weld County Road 17
Platteville, CO 80651
NO-No Objection
SR=Specific Recommendations
NR=No Response
FIELD CHECK
FILING NUMBER: rtsp-770:86:51 DATE OF INSPECTION: / -7-- S6'
NAME: Aurora Capital Corporation, Barney Little
REQUEST: Use by Special Review permit for a livestock confinement operation
(2,400 head dairy)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: part of the SW1 of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M. , Weld County
LAND USE: N
E '
ZONING: N t 9
Cr-r---4.C.,
LOCATION: Approximately 2 miles southwest of E
rI
Milliken; east of Weld County Road 15 and south S
; r
of Weld County Road 40 W
COMMENTS:
AGENDA ,TE December 16, 1986
NAME
Aurora Capital Corporation ADDRESS 7388 State Highway 66, Longmont
Barney Little
L o C A T 1 0 N Approximately 2 miles southwest of Milliken; east of Weld County Road 15 and
south of Weld County Road 40
LEGAL DESCR IPTION Part of the SW1 of Section 32, T4N, R67W of the 6th P.M.
IYPE OPERATIO N Livestock Confinement Operation (2,400 head dairy)
COMMENTS. ��/
A� c. /
,`Y_�✓ J L ' 1 , ' / �/i��`���'CC
att.
�yl �lr�ti -_ j��(y-2C—'�
Li
Weld Cu. Pi;innui WIIndfiSSitle
WELD COUNTY EXTEN TO:! ¢ RVICE
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
THE JOHNSTOWN BREEZE
STATE OF COLORADO
ss
COUNTY OF WELD
1, Clyde Briggs, do solemnly swear that I
am publisher of The Johnstown Breeze; ,
that the same is a weekly newspaper
printed, in whole or in part, and published
in the County of Weld, State of Colorado,
and has a general circulation therein; that
said newspaper has been published
continuously and uninterruptedly in said
County of Weld for a period of more than
NOTICE OF PUBLIC NEARING fifty-two consecutive weeks prior to the
The Weld County Planning first publication of the annexed legal notice
Commission will conduct a public or advertisement; that said newspaper has
hearing on December 18, 1986,
at 1:30 p.m. to review a request been admitted to the United States mails as
far approval of a livestock con- second-class matter under the provisions fit
finement operation 2400 head
dairy) from Aurora Capital Cor- the Act of March 3, 1179, or ally
pOratio n the parcel of land is
described as part of the SW/of amendments thereof, and that said
Section 32, T4N, R67W of the newspaper is a weekly newspaper duly
6th containing 11d 61C acres,more doe
less. The property is located qualified for publishing legal notices and
approximately 2 miles southwest advertisements within the meaning of the
of Milliken, at the northeast laws of the State of Colorado.
corner of the intersection of Weld
County Road is and Weld That the annexed legal notice or advertise-
County Road 3a. ment was published in the regular and
The public hearing to be held by entire issue of every number of said weekly
the Weld County Planning Corny-
mission for the consideration of newspaper for the period of / consecu-
the above referenced request will five insertions; and that the first
be conducted in the Weld
Roomy FlCommis iowem cooing publication of said entire was in the issue of
Centennial Center, 9r15t Tenth said newspaper dated/tine.��:�.U. 190..6,
Street, Greeley, Colorado. Com- and that the last publication of said notice
thentaboveo requests shouldd be
was in the issue of said newspaper dated esubminetl in writing to the Weld A.D. 19
County Department of Planning
Services, 915 Tenth Street,
Room 342, Greeley, Colorado In witness whereof I have hereunto set
80631, before the above date or my hand !)JI1lls 2 day of .-CTt
presented at the public hearing A.D. I9, '!
on December 16, 1986.
Copies of the application are
available for public in inspeection in
the Department of Planning
Services, Room 342, Weld6),)
County Centennial Center, 915 Publisher
Tenth Street,Greeley,Colorado,-
Phone - 356.4000, Extension
4400.
Jack Holman, Chairman Subscribed and sworn to before me, a
Weld County Planning Notary Public in and for the County of
Commission W •ld, State of Color❑palto, this day of
To be published in the Johns-
town Breeze bTo a rpublished one (1) time by - IIH Notary November 27, 1986 C)1:11-11)-I\
r� Cr
......�S3 1.--� tary 1 ublic.
My commission expires
PRODUCERS WESTOCK MARKETING ASSOCIATION
December 3, 1986
Dear Member of Weld County Planning Commission,
This letter is to inform you of our support for Colorado Dairy Farms in
Longmont, Colorado, in their efforts to develope a dairy operation on the
Corner of Rd. 38 and Rd. 15.
Colorado Dairy Farms has sold as well as bought thousands of dollars worth
of dairy livestock through Greeley Producers each year. Their business is
consistent each week and is a valuable asset to our employees as well as to
our Company and this community.
Greeley Producers business is dependent on the farmers, ranchers and dairy-
men of Weld County and local areas. When our business improves as well
as when other agricultural business ' grow, then all in Weld County benefit.
We hope this information will be of some help to you -in your decision,
Respectfully yours,
•
Lonnie Dunn
Greeley Producers
Dairy Sales
- 1986 I
Lifp L
HIGHWAY 85 NORTH OF GREELEY PO BOX P GREELEY, COLORADO 80631 TEL(303) 3.53-av[t ------/(��
Ca. Planninx Gamnussian
{ ; t
yr• f'~, y 11'l'
0E0 81985 I
C«,cE_i.C.Y. COLZY.
December 3, 1986
•
Weld County •
.Commissioners
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am writ.i.n_a this letter in opposition to he proposed "Colo :;air-`. Farm
Aurora Capitol 1.t.o.l Corp". Hy name iG Glenn Sp_ and I ocin on: quarter inter-
est in the farm directly_ 'y to the: South East o.4.: t:.nF? ;'i^oposed ':fairy..
First ,, it is my interest in the f'':?:.r.r" future to build ;a. house '•`..ti"1 .! portion
on
4f my ground and retire there. don "1:. think it would 7.' . "'I c',s i nci
_ all
of the stench , road noise . et that this dair'..... INoii
live there with � y '_F"._ ....�:r�_ •t• •'
Also.
I 5 concerned ,c i .... 1+ ,...
bring. f1.1. �>^. ::.r'1 1,•:1i%�t�_ 4..�•1:.. :': 14.t1.A,.!..� '..1'.` "f i.;, r..lr-C::pi; r-'1.'! values. It is (fly
belief that an operation of this size r:oi.!i d be planned ::.or n area far
•1 rom tlk l l.I c:!t.E.'?CI
I 'h^.,
!o + f strongly r.rl:!E:? YOU to vote no .. r'. this ].°:•?z;_�F�-. Than }'{.iI.I. r i.r" your time.
P.S.
Would You Please See That Copies Are Made And
Given To Each Commissioner.
Sit'
•
ED tun t-,;;nS;nSrco
['^ ��ci.
Dec . 3, 1986
(Ciir � 4326 Oxford Road
Longmont, CO . 80501
Dear b o 4 OEC 81986
_7;c/be Va i7SonJ
LI
My brother, (Dr. James L. Brewbaker,cU: =oFHaaii , Dept . of Horticulture)
and I co-own 320 acres of land which lies immediately south of the
proposed Colorado Dairy Farms operation. This is the previous Glen Ander-
son farm, located at the juncture of Weld County Roads #15 and #38 . Our
father purchased this land many years ago and diligently worked to bring
it into top agricultural status . Since his death we have worked in the
same tradition and are most proud of the splendid quality of this acerage .
These past 12 years we have had an outstanding farm-oriented young couple
to tenant the land and they, we know, wish to continue and perhaps see the
land eventually fall into the caring hands of their sons .
We have , therefore, a deep personal interest in all lands which lie in
this vininity.
We have very serious concerns and valid objections to the above take-over
by a huge dairy cow operation and urge that you become as well informed as
possible before hearings take place before your boards. This transaction
would create a high density dairy cow operation of from 2 to 4 thousand
head and placed on prime agricultural farm land. If established, we can
easily foresee many ugly conditions arising that could definetly affect
the lifetles of the many persons who have chosen to live and work there .
Neither of us had received any information at all from the CO . Dairy Farms
save a brief letter, which arrived the day before Thanksgiving, inviting us
to an informational workshop which happened today. As we are both employed
neither of us could attend .
However, since we both wished to be as fully informed as possible and since
Jim was here briefly for the holiday, we visited the mother company , which
is located on Highway 66. We visited for almost 2 hrs . with the assistant
general Manager, Mr. George Smith. We approached the facility from the
east on this chilly Nov . afternoon--pausing briefly to survey the facility.
The odor was, in a word, horrendous . I ask that you do as we did, before
you consider making any judgement. Stop by the facility on highway 66 and
then ask yourself, would you willingly have a beautiful home immediately
across the highway from that? The home of our tenants lies exactly that
close . I asked Mr. Smith if it were his home , would he have any concerns?
He answered very honestly that he would have the same concerns as do we .
There are other, yjor concerns above and beyond the odor problem:
1) Increased volume of traffic to daily haul feed, milk and manure .
2) Increased traffic by those employed ., We are told 30 + will be
needed to work the operation. If they shall be housed as those
are on the mother facility, then I pity these people .
3) Stagnating water in the necessary catch ponds create odor plus
an inviting environment for insects . Think, too , of the poisonous
sprays which must be used to control such a population and what
about underground water seepage which could, in time, very much
affect those people who live nearby?
d •
Page 2
4) As I am, sure you are aware the Federal Government recently
inaguzated a massive Dairy Buyout Program in order to de-
crease the oversupply of milk products in this country. I
• thought this action was also taken to protect the small and _
independent dairyman from takeovers by large corporations ,
which is exactly what this would be .
5) There are many other concerns but I shall mention only , in
closing, that should this operation be allowed there is
absolutely no question but that land values shall drop and
rapidly so . And that is an enormous pity for the many fine
folk who have loved this prime agricultural region, worked
its soil and harvested its bounty with gladness .
Surely the dedicated farmers and ranchers in America today are beset
by enough problems . Anything that any one of us can do to make their
way of living just a little bit easier should , in my judgement , be
doing just that .
I ' m sure you will agree with me that Weld County claims some of the
richest , most productive agricultural land in all of Colorado . I
sincerely hope it shall remain that way .
Sincerely yours ,
Ann Bre:ebaker Sorensson
`� Lc
, .
December" 5, 1986 ,'December 81986
i1ft'Q
Weld County Commissioners `ta COLA
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 806.2 - - ,
Dear Jackie Johnson ,
i would like to take this opportunity to introduce myself .
My name is Jim Flynn. I live west of Longmont and own a
small acreage and a welding shop. Currently I have no
employees.
I have been doing business with Colorado Dairy for the past
two years. During this time I have done some welding and
fabrication work for them. I also buy calves from them on a
regular basis
Barney Little, the general manager of Colorado Dairy and his
employees have been very honest and straight with me in all
the dealing that we have had over the past two years.
Colorado Dairy is a very big supporter of the 4-H clubs and
individuals in the area that are interested in agriculture.
They purchased several Weld County 4-Hers livestock this
year at the annual 4-H livestock sale.
I see no reason that the new dairy they are proposing should
not be allowed. This would be an asset to the local farming
community and woul d add tremendously to an already depressed
agricultural market.
Thanks for y ur time,
�fri241
s T. Flynn
sr
December 3, 1986
DEC 81986
To: Weld County Commissioners & Planning Commissioner
RE: Colorado "Diary Farms
7388 State Highway 66
- Longmont, Colorado 80501
Proposed Site: Rd. 38 & Rd. 15
Itis my understanding that a group of people are opposing the building of
another dairy farm by Colorado Diary. It seems they are concerned with the
stench the farm may cause, that they employ out of state persons and that
they do not buy the products locally that are necessary to maintain their
operation.
I have been an electrician for a firm in Longmont for the past 15 years and
our company has serviced serveral dairy, cattle, chicken and turkey farms in
the surrounding area. As the main serviceman for our company assigned to
Colorado Dairy when called for-service, I feel that I am quite qualified to
express my opinions to you in this matter as follows based on personal ex-
perience and from information I have gathered through inquiries.
1 . Colorado Dairy is one of the cleanest run dairy farms in the State
2. There are less flys there than any farm I have been on due to the
spraying by approved methods for dairy farms
3. They buy all of their feed locally except for cotton seed which is
not available in this State
4. Their present operation employees 50-55 people of which only 2 came
from out of state. The new operation is expected to employee 30-35 more
5. They spend thousands of dollars . on chemicals for their cesspool to
control ordor
6. Their company has spent between 7 - 8 million dollars locally & in
the state annually.
7. After construction is completed, approximately 4 trucks a day will be
additional traffic to the road surrounding the proposed site
Please consider these points very carefully in your decision for Colorado
Dairy. If the opposition continues to press this . issue, perhaps they wish
to buy the land for themselves. Then they could pay for Colorado Dairy to
find another location satifactory to both parties since Colorado Diary has
already made one ,purchase.
• Sincerely, lP\
Orval Hedger
206 Mumford Ave.
g7' Longmont, Colorado 80501
Gordon D. Brown,DVM Fort Lupton (303) 857.6671
Robert O. Dull, DVM Greeley-Platteville Area (303) 785-2104
John R. Ewing,DVM
Glenn S.Cook, DVM
r1
ANIMAL CLINIC
232 First StreetEC $ 'gshI
Fort Lupton,Colorado 80621 D
11
GREELEY. COLO.
December 5, 1986
Dear Bill:
I am writing you as regards the proposed dairy to be built by Aurora Capital
Corporation at county roads 38 and 15. I have had the opportunity over the
last four years to work with Colorado Dairy Farms providing veterinary
services for them. I have been impressed with their abilities not only in
managing their dairy operations, but also the great effort they have-put-forth
to be good neighbors and to handle the difficult problems such as waste
disposal and odor control.
As far as economic impact, they provide jobs directly and indirectly in a
part of the county which can only benefit from such employment. Colorado
Dairy Farms have utilized local services-and suppliers a great deal; this
includes feed, medication, equipment, etc. These advantages aside, it is
good to see positive investment in agriculture at a time when the tide seems
to be running the other way.
In conclusion, I would like to say that the record established locally by
Aurora Capital Corporation at Colorado Dairy Farms should lay to rest any
concerns that people in the area have. I recommend that they be given the
opportunity to proceed with their proposed development plans for the new
dairy.
Since y,
John R. Ewing, DVM
JRE/cbh
Colorado Animal Health, Inc.
1351 Sherman Drive
Longmont, CO 80501
(3 0.3) 772-2616
December 2, 1966 .
Jackie Johnson
F.O. Box 758 1.•! r,
Greeley, CO 80632 r .
DEC 81986.
Dear Commissioner Johnson, CJI�
The purpose of this letter is to give the Weld Lbunty COLO.
Commissioners and the Weld County Planning Commissioners some
information about the Colorado Dairy Farm located on Hwy 66
west of Platteville, Colorado. Hopefully it will aid in
clarifying some concerns and/or statements about the
operation.
To qualify the statements, let me briefly inform you about
Colorado Animal Health, Inc. of Longmont, Colorado. It is a
business which is involved in servicing and selling of
biologicals, pharmaceuticals, and equipment for the beef ,
dairy, swine, equine and small animal pet industries. It is
owned and operated by James Martin who resides in Weld
County. Colorado Animal Health employs eight people. The area
serviced by Colorado Animal Health includes the State of
Colorado, southern Wyoming and western Nebraska. The large
number of dairies and feedlots which we service on a weekly
basis give some merit to the evaluation made.
A. Patronizing Local Businesses.
Colorado Dairy Farms started doing business locally with
Colorado Animal Health , Inc. in 1981 . As their operation
increased in size, so did their purchases.They spent •
$218,808.00 in 1985 and have thus far in 1986 spent
$259,430. 00. This indicates a very strong commitment to do
business locally.
In addition to their purchases, they buy much of their feed
from the local area. Many of their cows are purchased
locally. Vehicles, equipment, fuel and machinery purchases
are all made from the area businesses.
B. Corral Management.
The corrals are scraped on a daily basis and much effort is
put forth in maintaining a clean environment for the cows.
Several indicators of a good job being done in this area are
low incidence of mastitis, excellent herd health, production
of milk and fly control in summer months.
C. Fly Control . '
The farm spends $12,600. 00 annually on products for fly
control . It is a high priority as it directly affects how
well the cows produce. As a result of their efforts, the fly
control has been excellent at Colorado Dairy Farm. The
product they use is cleared for use in dairies. It does not
,, ,,ha.ye an odor.
r
D. Odors.
They had experienced some difficulty in this area initially
because it was an existing system on the property when it was
purchased. They are spending the time, effort and money to
correct the situation. Their commitment to the problem is
evident with the progress that has been made.
E. Community Support.
Colorado Dairy Farm employs fifty-eight people. All but three
were hired from the local job market. They also have an
office in Boulder , Colorado which employs fifteen people.
Colorado Dairy Farm has shown their support to the youth in
the area by purchasing animals at the 4-H livestock sale.
Last August they purchased six animals at this sale.
In summation, Colorado Dairy Farm spends millions of dollars
annually on feed, cattle and services locally. An additional
2500 cow dairy would provide more local employment, demand
for agricultural products and a need for more local services.
Above all it would put about ten million dollars annually
into the local cash flow.
The excellent management of the existing Colorado Dairy Farm
should be the best indicator that their new operation would
meet or exceed all of the standards set forth by the County
and the State. Some concerns are normal , but a visit to the
existing facility should put these concerns at rest.
Five years of observation and business association with the
farm have convinced Colorado Animal Health 's entire staff
that their intent is to be a first class operation. Colorado
Dairy Farm wants to do an outstanding job producing milk and
maintain the best environment possible for their cows and
employees.
Colorado Animal Health, Inc. was awarded a trip to Maui by a
manufacturer which is December 10th through December 17th. I
personally would like to attend the December 16th Planning
Commission meeting in Greeley, but due to the trip I will be
out of town. A company representative will be there on my
behalf.
If there are any questions and you feel that I can be of any
assistance, please feel free to call me at 772-2636 or at
home which is 772-0692.
Respectfully,
C
James H. Martin, President
,Colorado Animal Health, Inc.
y �-�• -y.
r.
December 1 , 1-936 3 1986 ti 1
•
C rr/
?tom,}
• coLo li
Dear i:12Y,
This letter is in reg: rd to the 1::.rge dairy operation
being considered for the forcer Glen Anderson farm which is
located on held County road 115 and road
).y :locieTnd and ny aif, a: well as mppl/ of the surrounding
neighbors, have auo:tion6 and concern ocjaraing an operation
of this size to coi.'.e to our area.
.7e feel that land value will go down, yet further,
•
Nearby established dairies, as large or larger than this
operation, donot and havonot sought out to purchase food oro-
duced in this immediate arca.
Local peocle are not hired on, they bring poocie in from
elsewhere, still limiting jobs for the area.
The schools re already crowded, as well as the trans-
portation to and from school.
The roads in the area are already under serviced and we
feel heavy truck traffic will further detoricate then.
The taxes raid by this .Duration rill be mini::;al compared to
the overall effects an operation of this size will afford .field
County.
The catch conds on dairy operations create stagnated water
and very undesirable odors, causing iro.:cih in _risect ncoul.:.tions,
not to mention the added air ,ollution.
Clutter to the area, when multi- a:..ily homes are :oved onto
the land to hcu :e the labor force, thus using additional water
taps where we are already at a minimum.
The surrounding country is peaceful and quiet. ;iitih an addi—
tion of this magnitude to our area it will be like :::JVing to tow.f.
My husband and myself also G,_ree that because this is prime
agricultural farm land, that an operation of t.i's size should consider
mowing cut to eastern Colorado ':!here mere is L.._e room. for this type
of business.
Ile also question the need for such an. o,—ration. U'dr so.:corn is
the effect on establl_wed small dairies in future years.
.fie ask that you consider and think about our c ncerns and
that you NOT approve the ap.plication from the Colorado Dairy _arcs
Aurora Ca,ital Corporation.
Thank you for your cenai_.rcticn in this attar of jIsat _ surtance
to us . Cie -Jill appreciate a vote -''_nithis.
innceroly,
Melvin and Barbara Lein::ober
1693i '.i. C. Road 15
Platteville, CO. 30631
535-4373 g,,.
Y'EL3 c;• ..,,e
November 2, 1986 DEC 41986
JEAN EIREWHAKER
7688 N 41ST ST
LONGMONT CO 80501
This letter is to inform you of the Colorado Dairy Farms
Aurora Capital Corporation buying and expanding their operation
to the location of Weld County Road #38 and Weld County Road #15,
the Glen Anderson Farm.
We have many concerns and questions regarding this transaction.
According to information that we have obtained, this transaction
would create a high density dairy cow operation of from two
thousand to four thousand head of dairy cattle placed on prime
agricultural farm land. Once this operation is established, we
foresee it creating many undesirable conditions that would affect
everyone ' s lifestyle within a very large surrounding area.
Major concerns include the following:
. further devaluation of surrounding land once a dairy
as described above is operating
▪ minimal local and county tax gains as compared with
the adverse conditions it would create for all
. stagnating water in catch ponds thereby causing
very undesirable odors and creating an environment
for large insect populations
. poisonous sprays that are required for insect control
. increased volume of heavy truck traffic to haul feed,
milk and manure
. deteriorating road conditions , due to heavy truck
traffic , in the immediate and surrounding areas
l . drainage problems from the corrals and ponds that
could pollute irrigation water, shallow wells and
' • eventually river water
. alteration of the farm atmosphere when many multi-
g), family homes are moved onto the land to house the
o> labor force
I�— —
. destruction of the general peacefulness of the area
with continual heavy traffic and constant pollution
of the air which create contrary conditions to the
interests and welfare of the seven families whose
homes are within 500 feet of the site
We also question the need for such an operation. It appears,
based on the Federal Government ' s dairy buyout program, that an
operation such as this would be discouraged. We also question
the legality of a large investment corporation increasing the _
number of dairy herds, while small independent dairymen in
the surrounding area are choosing to sell dairy cows and
discontinue production of milk products . There is concern as
to the magnitude of a large commercial dairy operation and its
effect on small dairies in future years .
Based on information we have obtained about the existing
Colorado Dairy Farm located at 7388 HWY #66, Platteville ,
Colorado, they have been in violation of environmental laws and
have shown limited patronage of local businesses, farm products
and local labor. We seriously question the construction of
another operation.
We are asking for your support to not approve the
application from the Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital
Corporation because the lifestyle of the families in the area
will be greatly altered.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration in this
matter of great importance to us . Your vote against this is
vital.
Sincerely,
/\
/ 1115'. 7,./1 x- tefilsJ 7 ' -OZ`fI' l�t `F5tn.�lan.t 4,,„:,,,,444
53S-,37_,
Ci zens Opposing Dairy
/
!z\ G ry \3/4/ /
vv
2� n c W -0 c". ( _�. 1`;
S44-S I QM/ h \ N. ,1'.\\:.3,I _- t, _z V b o 7/l. ' 7l/ai )li K71 i
( JQ
L y )Aj'Vk-,--.i ''- -- ✓1Y "V 7'.
-
ia t l LcMLZ' �1c(E[cJavl
777 ; z; fiat
s�7 zz7y
iy J_\ ;
y''.•-C r—nea, CIiGLvli'
4 ' s 3:a Tl/�� zAd stt 7r / " � ;) / - , ,,f,--„,/
6-8/-2.071
l
LtuipatoekExithemule4 int.
P.O. Box 218 Telephone 842.5115
BRUSH, COLORADO 80723
November 28 , 1986
Weld County Planning Commissioners
915 10th. St.
Greeley, CO 80631
Dear Ladies & Gentlemen:
I am aware of Colorado Dairy ' s plans for a new
facility in your county. I am writing with the utmost
enthusiastic support for this project. It hardly needs
to be mentioned that agriculture dependent areas have taken
an economic beating the past few years . Counties such as
our own Morgan County have spent thousands of dollars pur-
suing businesses to locate in our area hoping to stimulate
the economy. My congratulations to you for being an area
desirable enough to attract such an outstanding addition
to the economic scene. We are envious of you.
In our dealings with the Colorado Dairy organization
we have found them to be very professional and ethical .
These people would be a fine addition to the business
community. The effect of the dollars generated by agri-
cultural commodities consumption, labor force usage and
taxes will be enormous .
If I can be of any further assistance as a reference
for Barney Little and his organization, feel free to con-
tact me.
Sincerely, ��
cc,���--{{{{ i (.(fit aA-Z 4 r`a'
Gary odgson Willard Hartnagle
GH/kv
�1
r ) P
11
iji
?;11 i't. %Ini:n4g -. 9lalus.:Eu,
A c
AAELECTRIC COMPANY INC.
24 South Main, P.O. Box 345 ) r-t.,,;, '
Longmont, Colorado 80501 ••-', - °• ?,.o`rliyi ,s
7
Telephone 776-6031
Metro 444-2989 r : ,- -'�J -�y/ r.l
g' DEC 1'1g8 I
November 26, 19861_
Ta`-=zr co.
To: Weld County Commissioners
RE: Colorado Dairy Farms
7388 State Highway 66
Longmont, Colorado 80501
Proposed Site: Rd. 38 & Rd. 15
I would like to purpose the following reasons and considerations I feel you
should examine seriously as to why Colorado Dairy should be permitted to con-
tinue their upcoming project as per plans and specifications which they have
submitted. They are as follows :
1 . Local business expenditures
2. They are an asset to the community - not a liability
3. Employment for the area
4. Tax revenues
5. Payroll of which a major portion is circulated in the surrounding area
6. A market for area farm products (grain, silage, etc. )
7. They bought property in the appropriate area for opeations
8. The zoning conforms with the proposed operation
9. Once the criteria is met, why should anyone deny one' s project on one ' s
own property
10. The owner has met the criteria at the present proposed location, they
should not be required to incure the same expense a 2nd time
11 . If Colorado Dairy is not allowed to proceed as submitted, I see only one
option to follow - Let the opposition buy the property and relocate the
owner to the satisfaction of both parties at the oppositions expense.
In summary, I feel you, as a commissioner, should consider all the positive
aspects of this project and vote for the approval of Colorado Dairy' s request
to proceed. as per plans and specifications.
•
Sincerely,
LA
. Melvin H. Rahm, President,
MA Electric Company, r it zi! '�„� = I (,1,�i,� ` -1
f; 1985
l9ell Cn. Planning Umnmtssian
779
1Z..,, Cdr`' Critiminin
November 25, 1986 57-117i.. C1 J_fl7�
Weld County Commissioners 16 l�
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to you in regard to the proposed expansion
project of the Colorado Dairy Farm, and would appreciate your - -
careful consideration in this matter .
As a business man in the community I have enjoyed having the
opportunity of working with the Dairy. As you are aware
often times odor is associated with an operation such as
their ' s, however Barney Little, general manager, and I got
together in June of this year and I told him that my company
marketed products that will dramatically reduce offensive
odors from their system. Being concerned , he was willing to
try ! After investing over $3000. 00 worth of product into the
system I ' m happy to say that the odor is substantially less
than before we started , just ask the neighbors ! Currently we
are on a maintenance program to keep control of the odor
causing affluents in the system. Also we designed a system
to inject the product at the new dairy at road 38, and will
use the product from inception to insure manageable odor
levels .
Other concerns of mine, as the Mayor of Platteville, are the
economic development of the surrounding community. Many
people do not really realize the amount of money a dairy
organization of their size contributes to the area. The Dairy
currently employs 9 people from the Platteville area alone .
Not mentioning , of course , the amount of money spent by those
individuals in the community . The proposed dairy by the end
of phase 2 will no doubt employ an equal number just in my
community. In the softening farm economy an organization
such as this becomes a major concern , it ' s ability to consume
in the millions of dollars in products produced by the local
farmer, giving them the opportunity to market those products ,
which in these times is a BIG plus !
Many times change is difficult to accept , and there will
always be the nay sayers , often the ones who are the least
informed . I urge you to take the responsibility to
thoroughly research the facts in this issue before you cast
your vote.
Since Ply ,
.gdot /e:A4- . _
Stephen P . Rivas I1J: c, :,!_ �i
I; I
SR/ms I.
;1 °i+
cc . Colorado Dairy (AL�'
Nov. 22, 1986 NtV2 51986
�I
606 Ululani St. GHEE z-Y, . •
t_._. coLO
Kailua, HI 96734
Memo to: Weld County Planning Commissioners, 915 10th St. , Greeley
Weld County Commissioners, P. 0. 756, Greeley
RE: Dairy proposed for property on Glen Anderson Farm
We wish to register our objections to the proposed dairy of the
Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital Corporation (CDFACC) , on the - -
Glen Anderson Farm, corner of Weld County Rds. #15 and #38.
We write as University Professor in Horticulture and Biological
Statistician , resp. , over the past 30 years, and as landowners of
property neighboring the Anderson Farm. Our obj-ections parallel
those stated to you by the group "Citizens Opposing Dairy" , with
emphasis on following:
• Use of prime agricultural land for such operations is
unwise, notably in a county that has vast areas of marginal
agricultural land that are well suited to such use. F'ri me
farmland remains Weld County 's most priceless posession , and most
fragile
• National and local dairy economy, with strong federal
opposition developing to buyout and support programs, should urge
extreme caution in permitting such developments without careful
review of economic credentials and venture capital encouraging
this holding corporation to expand its operations in Weld County
. CDFACC has already established a bad reputation in the
Platteville region for environmental pollution and apparent
violation of local statutes
. The CDFACC proposal must be carefully studied for its plans
regarding labor housing; these requirements have been understated
in the past , and would unquestionably result in increasing needs
for homes on the land
. The Glen Anderson farm is located in a pastoral farm area
that would be impacted severely by the heavy traffic , high
density housing , and environmentally polluted catchment ponds of
a huge commercial dairy.
Sincerely,
evlL
James and Li l i a E rewbak:er
711r1. qF1`
198b'+ield Co. 91anatia i;amrrss;mi
�. .. l..
7 t!) C' !T1 C "!"t'""'aS y 7!CUs F'ilIr `�
] t >1: h L
NQVf9I986IÜ November 17, 1986
1,
GrtccL£Y. COW.
Dear ,
RE : Colorado Dairy Farms proposed expansion to the
Glen Anderson farm at WEld County Roads 38 & 15 :
Our concerns to allow this expansion are the adverse
effect to the surrounding area, ie :
( 1) Air pollution from the catch ponds
(2) Increased traffic to the area
( 3) Deterioration to our roads
(4) Large density cow herd on prime agricultural
land
(5) Drainage problems from corrals and catch ponds
polluting the water and ground in the surrounding
areas
(6) They have not helped the agricultural business
of the area, as they purchase only a very minimal
amount of feed from area farmers
Allowing expansion of this size to take place when
locally the dairies are selling off herds in the govern-
ment buy out program does not seem needed.
We do not feel the proposed tax money generated will
be enough to offset the deteration of the life style to
the existing area.
We therefore urge you not to allow the proposed ex-
pansion to take place.
Sincerely,
\
Paul & Janice Hopp
16212 W.C .R. 13
Platteville, CO 80651
I 1986
� C
$ '""'' ,_-0, Weld Co. Planainq CamwisElu .
( c .
Nov. 22, 1986
606 Ululani St.
Kailua, HI 96734
Memo to: Weld County Planning Commissioners, 915 10th St. , Greeley
Weld County Commissioners, P. 0. 756, Greeley
RE: Dairy proposed for property on Glen Anderson Farm
We wish to register our objections to the proposed dairy of the
Colorado Dairy Farms Aurora Capital Corporation (CDFACC) , on the
Glen Anderson Farm, corner of Weld County Rds. *15 and #38.
We write as University Professor in Horticulture and Biological
Statistician , resp. ,, over the past 30 years, and as landowners of
property neighboring the Anderson Farm. Our objections parallel
those stated to you by the group "Citizens Opposing Dairy" , with
emphasis on following:
. Use of prime agricultural land for such operations is
unwise, notably in a county that has vast areas of marginal
agricultural land that are well suited to such use. Prime
farmland remains Weld County 's most priceless posession ,, -and most
fragile
. National and local dairy economy, with strong federal
opposition developing to buyout and support programs, should urge
extreme caution in permitting such developments without careful
review of economic credentials and venture capital encouraging
this holding corporation to expand its operations in Weld County
. CDFACC has already established a bad reputation in the
Platteville region for environmental pollution and apparent
violation of local statutes
. The CDFACC proposal must be carefully studied for its plans
regarding labor housing; these requirements have been understated
in the past , and would unquestionably result in increasing needs
for homes on the laid
. The Glen Anderson farm is located in a pastoral farm area
that would be impacted severely by the heavy traffic , high
density housing , and environmentally polluted catchment ponds of
a huge commercial dairy.
Sincerely,
f/.f
/ James and Li l i a Brewbaker
'7ZIi) U. ?Tali iui ;;6?rUMS!."t.l
SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS
#USR-770:86:51
Aurora Capital Corporation
Gary Thelma
8381 Weld County Road 44
Johnstown, CO 80534
Phillip E. Cameniach
10504 Weld County Road 7
Longmont, CO 80501
James V. and Mary C. McFaffic
7571 Weld County Road 38
Johnstown, CO 80534
Dwayne and Lyle Frye
113 King Avenue
Johnstown, CO 80534
Douglas K. and Diane L. Steele
Henry A. and Lila M. Steele
21941 Weld County Road 17
Johnstown, CO 80534
Union Pacific Land Resources Corp.
P.O. Box 2500
Broomfield, CO 80020
Lois E. Booth
Route 1, Box 386
Ault, CO 80610
James L. Brewbaker and
Ann Aorenson
7688 North 41st Street
Longmont, CO 80501
Albert H. and Pearl F. Jeffers
2125 Clenfair Road
Greeley, CO 80631
Anderson Farms
c/o Mrs. Harold Anderson
621 23rd Street, #2
Greeley, CO 80631
(Mailed December 1, 1986)
( t
SURROUNDING MINERAL OWNERS
#USR-770:86:51
Aurora Capital Corporation
Macy-Prescott
500 Coffman
Longmont, CO 80501
Marilyn Anderson
4959 West 9th Street Drive
Greeley, CO 80534
Harold W. and Marie H. Anderson
621 23rd Street, Apartment #2
Greeley, CO 80631
ASCS 1985-86 DAIRY PRICE UnitedStates
Department of
• Agriculture
Commodity SUPPORT PROGRAM Agricultural
Fad Sheet Sonservatiotabilization and
conservation
service
April 1986
With a Summary of Activities for the 1985-86 Marketing Year
* * * * * * * * * * *
* NOTICE : Due to space limitations , the expenditure data *
* on Table 8 begins with FY 1971 . For data
* between FY 1961 and 1970 , the December 1984
* Fact Sheet should be maintained . *
* * * * * * * * * * *
Basic The basic provisions of the Agricultural Act of 1949
Legislative ( 1949 Act ) required that the price of milk to
Authority : producers be supported at such level between 75 and
90 percent of parity as would assure an adequate •
supply of milk , reflect changes in the cost of
production , and assure a level of farm income to
maintain productive capacity sufficient to meet future
needs . However , since October 21 , 1981 , the support
price has been established by Congress at specific
price levels , rather than parity levels .
Background : High support levels with guaranteed semiannual price
increases required by law from 1977 through 1980 and
declining feed prices in 1981 and 1982 encouraged
dairy farmers to produce more milk than the commercial
market could absorb.
In 1983 , the support price remained at $13 . 10 per
hundredweight ( cwt . ) with reductions in the price
received by producers for their milk marketings of
50 cents per cwt . effective April 16 , 1983 , and
$ 1 . 00 per cwt . effective September 1 , 1983. These
reductions were established in accordance with
legislation enacted in 1982 and were superseded by the
reductions which were authorized in 1983 legislation
( see below) . However , milk production and Commodity
Credit Corporation (CCC) purchases continued to
increase to record levels .
The Dairy and Tobacco Adjustment Act of 1983 amended
the 1949 Act to establish the support price for milk
at $12 . 60 per cwt . effective December 1 , 1983 . Under
the provisions of the 1983 Act , the Secretary of
Agriculture reduced the support price to $12 . 10 per
cwt . on April 1 , 1985 , based on the projection that
CCC' s net purchases of milk and milk products would
exceed 6 billion pounds milk equivalent in the
-2-
succeeding 12 months . The Secretary reduced the
support price a second 50 cents to $ 11 .60 per cwt . on
July 1 , 1985 , based on the projection that CCC ' s net
purchases of milk and milk products would exceed
5 billion pounds milk equivalent in the succeeding
12 months .
Other provisions of the 1983 Act included a 50-cent
per cwt . reduction in the price received by producers
for milk marketed for commercial use within the
48 contiguous States for the period December 1 , 1983 ,
through March 30 , 1985 . The 1983 Act also provided ,
for the 15 months beginning January 1 , 1984 , for a
voluntary diversion program in which payments
of $10 per cwt . would be made to producers who
contracted to reduce their milk marketings between
5 percent and 30 percent below base period levels .
The reductions in the price received by producers
for milk marketed for commercial use during the period
December 1 , 1983 through March 31 , 1985 , as authorized
by the 1983 Act , totalled $875 million. Approximately
one-fifth of the commercial producers participated in
the milk diversion program and about $955 million were
paid as milk diversion payments to producers .
Recent Price Although the 1983 Act expired on September 30 , 1985 ,
Support the $11 . 60 support price was continued through 1985 by
Legislation : special legislation : P.L. 99-114 through November 15 ,
P.L. 99-157 through December 13 , and P .L. 99-182
through December 31 .
The Food Security Act of 1985 amended the 1949 Act
to continue the support price at $11 . 60 per cwt . in
calendar year ( CY) 1986 , and established the support
price at $11 . 35 per cwt . during the period January 1
through September 30 , 1987 , and $11. 10 per cwt .
during the period October 1 , 1987 , through
December 31 , 1990. However , on January 1 of 1988 ,
1989 and 1990 , the Secretary would be required to
reduce the support price 50 cents per cwt . if the CY
price support purchases are projected to exceed
5 .0 billion pounds milk equivalent or increase the
support price 50 cents per cwt . if purchases are
projected at not more than 2 . 5 billion pounds milk
equivalent . The reductions in the price support
levels permitted on January 1 , 1988 , 1989 and 1990 are
-3-
conditional upon the milk termination program ( see
below) achieving a reduction of production by
participants in the program of 12 billion pounds or a
certification by the Secretary that reasonable offers
to achieve that reduction were made by the Secretary ,
but not agreed to by producers .
Other provisions of the 1985 Act include a 40-cent per
cwt. reduction in the price received by producers for
all milk produced and marketed for commercial use
during the period April 1 through December 31 , 1986 ,
and a 25-cent per cwt . reduction in the price received
by producers for all milk marketed for commercial use
during the period January 1 through September 30 , 1987 .
Also , the Secretary is prohibited from considering the
market value of whey in calculating the CCC purchase
prices for dairy products . The Secretary is further
required to offer at least 1 million pounds of nonfat
dry milk annually on a bid basis for manufacture into
casein , to establish a program to encourage additional
exports of dairy products and to establish an 18-month ,
milk production termination program beginning
April 1 , 1986 . Under the milk production termination
program, producers may enter into contracts with CCC by
submitting bids to dispose of their entire dairy herds •
and terminate any interest they have in the production
of milk for a period of 3 , 4 , or 5 years . The
implementing regulations specify that the nonproduction
period will be 5 years . The Secretary also has the
option to establish a milk diversion or milk
production termination program in CY 1988 , 1989 ,
or 1990 , as necessary, to avoid burdensome supplies .
The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985 ( the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act) and
President Reagan' s February 1 sequester order issued
pursuant to that Act would have required a
4 .3 percent reduction , effective March 1 , 1986 , in
fiscal year ( FY) 1986 Department of Agriculture (USDA)
outlays under the milk price support purchase program.
This was scheduled to be accomplished through
4 . 3 percent discounts in the announced purchase prices
effective on all offers of dairy products received on
or after March 1 , 1986 through September 30 , 1986 .
However , the Food Security Improvements Act of 1986
further amended the 1949 Act , to provide that in lieu
of the 4. 3 percent discounts , producer reductions are
to be increased during the period April 1 , 1986 through
September 30 , 1986 , by up to 12 cents per cwt . CCC
announced that the increase in producer reductions
during that period would be 12 cents per cwt .
-4-
Support Support prices for milk since 1949 , and other
Prices : pertinent information , including support prices for
milk with a milkfat content of 3 . 5 percent , may be
found in Table 1 .
Method of In carrying out the program, CCC offers to buy carlots
Support : of butter , cheese and nonfat dry milk in bulk
containers at announced prices , thus providing a floor
for milk and dairy product prices .
Recent Prices received by • farmers for manufacturing milk for
Situation: marketing year (MY) 1984-85 which began
October 1 , 1984 , averaged $12 . 08 per cwt. for milk
containing 3 .67 percent milkfat . This was 14 cents
below the average support price of $12 . 22 , and
compares with $12 . 38 a year earlier when the average
support price was $ 12 . 72 . Milk production for
MY 1984-85 totaled 139 . 9 billion poun7, up
,3 . 1 billion pounds _fr_om_ a year earlier. The increase
in milk production is attributed partly to the end of
the paid diversion program and partly to improved
milk-feed price relationships which more than offset
the lower support levels . The increase in milk
production exceeded the increase in the consumption _of
milk and dairy products resulting in an increase in
•
Government purchases of dairy nrod1tcts . During
MY 1984-85 , CCC ' s removals under the dairy price
support ro ram increased 1 . 1 billion pounds milk
equivalent to 11 . 5 billion_p_guIlds_n.f__milk-'thfilth
consecutive ear that CCC remova _1xceeded 10 billion
pounds_ omilk.,_._.Rovals exceeded _"10billion pounds
only twice during the first 3.4 year& of. th .p_.ri__.ce
support -program_ CCC' s_ et cost for the dairy price
-_�
support program in MY 1984-85 totalled $^ .2l billion.
Milk Production CCC accepted bids from 13 ,988 d___ airv _fFmers who
Termination market 12 . 3 ill-ion pounds of milk in CY 1985 .
Progra �� a accepted bids ranged from $3 . 40 _to .$22. _per
-
\y� out. averaged $14 . 88 . CCC_yeisars
of tee_ to pram.
'out $1. 8 billion during the5dearsof the program.
b\- Ls).A.\a-
�� \ 3 ® O"- ��a�
V, k N* V #\S
9 J
`,�
- l
•
Table 9--CCC gross outlays for dairy products under the price support program, FY 1971 to dace
(In thousands)
FY FY FY FT FT FT FY FT FT FY FY
Product 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
Butter d •
Butter Products:
Purchases :$200,001 :$189,534 :$ 96,764 :5 13,917 :5 64,486 :5 2,224 :$240,067 :$154,205 :5 74,479:$ 326,067 :$ 527,550
Storage 6 Handling 3,257 : 3,343 : 2,438 : 329 : 526 : 321 : 2,274 : 5,902 : 4,984: 6,499 : 15,017
Transportation 3,148 : 3,035 : 4,027 : 1,657 : 1,182 : 519 : 3,557 : 2,287 : 2,665: 6,550 : 11,531
Processing '
6 Packaging 3,708 : 2,216 : 3,708 : 2,426 : 1,262 : 391 : 623 : 2,361 : 1,784: 4,195 : 4,921
other expenses .
or outlays 5 : 1 : 21 : 119 : 18 : 16 : 15 : 28 : 60: 21 : 40
Total Outlays : 210,119 : 198,189 : 106,958 : 18,448 : 67,474 : 3,411 : 246,536 : 164,783 : 83,912: 343,332 : 559,059
Cheese •
Purchases 34,202 : 43,820 : 8,229 : 78 : 90,664 : 16,041 : 167,632 : 51,156 : 16,801: 442,916 : 767,922
Storage 6 Handling 46 : 56 : 3 : --- : 28 : 123 : 671 : 1,351 : 343: 1,994 : 12,482
Transportation 1,022 : 1,194 : 270 : II : 2,138 : 668 : 3,003 : 2,469 : 1,918: 7,125 : 17,991
Processing : : : : : : : :
6 Packaging : 248 --- --- --- : 2 : --- : 307 : 7,886 : 1,281: 2,496 : 14,616
Other expenses .
or outlays II : 14 : 18 : 27: 78 : 367
Total outlays 35,529 : 45,070 : 8,502 : 89 : 92,832 : 16,832 : 171,627 : 62,880 : 20,370: 454,609 : 81
NOM
Purchases : 149,181 : 151,760 : 53,163 : 12,694 : 320,635 : 158,612 : 313,086 : 239,614 : 155,393: 493,403 : 695,185
Storage 6 Handling 481 : 513 : 244 : 37 : 2,418 : 5,765 : 4,743 : 6,419 : 5,030: 5,338 : 8,595
Transportation 5,074 : 4,155 : 2,444 : 244 : 4,768 : 2,077 : 6,227 : 6,806 : 8,244: 13,100 : 20,337
Processing : : : :
6 Packaging --- : --- : 170 : --- : --- : 954 : 4,714 : 3,137 : 16,804: 15,434 : 4,389
Other expense,
or outlays 29 : 1 : 4 : 865 : 47 : 2 : 30 : 49 : 57: 6 : 5
Total Outlays : 154,765 : 156,429 : 56,025 : 13,840 : 327,868 : 167,410 : 328,800 : 256,025 : 185,528: 527,281 : 728,511
Grand Total : 400,413 : 399,688 : 171,485 : 32,377 : 488,174 : 187,713 : 746,963 : 483,688 : 289,870: 1,,3332``5_,222 ; /2,,190,948 (1
•
FY 99 98 98 I `V\\ /-/�[Ik' \3;
Product 1902 1993 1984 1985 J VV
•
Butter 6 •
Butter Products:
Purchase, :$ 564,979 :$ 614,440 :$ 359,978 :$ 405,782 .
Storage 6 Handling 18,752 20,975 : 19,390 11,244 .
Transportation 12,369 14,352 : 15,249 11,528
Processing '
6 Packaging 4,254 19,378 : 24,850 25,034 .
Other expenses
or outlays 16 30,834 : 60,036 138,435 .
Total Outlays 600,370 699,979 : 479,503 592,023 .
Cheese
Purchases 874,423 : 1,173,172 : 892,169 748,911
Storage 6 Handling 25,835 38,358 : 41,422 33,850 :
Transpiration 21,322 31,777 : 34,719 28,843 .
Processing
6 Packaging 20,093 45,795 : 75,048 65,979 .
Orb>r expenses
or outlays 181 279 : 401 193 .
Total Outlays 941,854 1,289,381: 1,043,759 877,776 .
NDM .•
Purchases 843,044 928,413 : 731,012 665,059 .
Storage 6 Handling 13,467 19,876 : 18,490 16669 .
Transportation 20,994 23,973 : 27,116 27,049 .
Processing '
6 Packaging 5,974 9,391 : 14,203 13,718 .
Other expenses .
or outlays 7 893 -186 63 .
Total Outlays 883,486 982,546 : 790,635 722,558 .
Other :
Refunds --- --- : 15,866 : ---
Other expenses .
and outlays •
. ___ ___ ___ q5
.00010001. 7.112
Diversion Payments --- 335,552 630662 .
Total Outlays --- --- 351,418 630,58]
Grand Total : 2,425,710710 10 : 2,971,906 : 2,665,315 : 2,8222,944 .
/2/Q
Note: Fiscal years (FY) 11 to 1976 Sr or July thr ugh June. 1976 includes Transition Quarter (July-September 1976).
Thereafter, FT h bed to October hrough Sept her. C
2-`1b-\\ 2 .9itt a -` b, .2.86`,i\ s '
held by the Government were up almost a fifth probably will be near the_ 10 billion pounds,
from a year earlier. milk equivalent,.blready bought. Purchases in
1987 may total 4-7 billion pounds.
Recent net removals by CCC have been
quite small. The total net purchases for 1986
Table I.--0.S. dairy situation at a glance
Unit Quarterly data
tam Or
Mse period 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 1st 2nd
1985 1985 1985 1985 1986 1966
Production and coo numbers:
Total milk Mil. lb 33,745 37,499 36,833 35,590 36,232 38,517
Milk per cow Lb 3,118 3,410 3,316 3,186 3,251 3,519
Number of milk cows Thou. 10,824 10,997 11,108 11,171 11,144 10,945
Prices received by farmers:
All milk, sold to plants, 100 pounds Dol 13.63 12.53 12.17 12.60 12.37 11.97
Percentage of parity 1/ Pct 57 55 52 52 52 53
Manufacturing grade milk, 100 pounds Del 12.60 11.60 11.17 11.73 11.43 11.07
Parity equivalent Dol 21.53 21.56 21.34 21.31 21.64 21.28
Fat content Pct 3.78 3.59 3.56 3.86 3.77 3.61
Minnesota-Wisconsin (3.51 fat), 100 pounds Dol 12.19 11.43 11.10 11.19 11.06 10.99
Milk eligible for fluid market, 100 pounds Dol 13.83 12.67 12.33 12.70 12.50 12.07
Price ratio and dairy ration value:
Milk-feed price ratio Lb 1.81 1.68 1.68 1.76 1.73 1.71
Value of concentrate ration fed, milk cows Dot 7.54 7.48 7.43 7.10 7.23 7.03
Farm cash receipts fran dairy products Mil. dol 4,560 4,673 4,457 4,455 4,444 4,575
Production of factory products:
Butter Mil. lb 327.3 319.9 276.9 324.1 375.4 329.7
American cheese, whole milk Mil. lb 652.0 792.7 722.2 687.6 730.0 809.0
Cheese other than American MI!. lb 506.3 535.8 538.7 589.7 557.3 591.6
Canned milk, unskim,ed Mil. lb 145.2 177.5 163.5 149.1 136.8 156.2 Dry whole milk Mil. lb 29.3 28.4 31.2 30.1 31.4 27.5
Frozen products 2/ Mil. gal 266.4 357.8 370.1 255.4 274.8 367.4
Creamed cottage cheese Mil. lb 176.5 188.4 186.4 164.4 173.6 181.3
Total (milkfat basis) 3/ Mil. lb 19,271 22,375 21,119 19,744 21,345 23,178
Nonfat dry milk, human use Mil. lb 281.5 408.5 379.2 320.8 366.5 417.8
Wholesale prices:
Butter, Grade A, ChIcago, pound Ct 141.3 141.9 141.1 140.1 138.3 138.9
Cheese, American (40-pound-blocks), f.o.b.
Wisconsin assembling points, pound Ct 154.3 128.2 124.4 124.0 123.8 125.4
Evaporated milk, case Dol 22.37 22.36 22.24 22.24 22.24 22.24
-Nonfat dry milk, pounds f.o.b. Central
States, high heat Ct 90.4 84.2 81.0 80.5 81.0 80.8
Dairy products (BLS) 1967100 254.2 250.3 247.0 246.1 246.0 246.7
Retail prices (BLS):
Consumer price index 4/ 967=100 317.4 321.2 323.6 326.5 327.3 326.5
All food 4/ 967=100 308.8 309.3 309.7 311.3 315.4 316.7
All dairy products 4/ 967=100 259.0 258.2 257.7 257.0 257.1 257.0
Fluid milk and cress 2/77=100 140.6 139.9 139.1 138.4 138.0 138.1
Whole milk 967.100 229.7 228.8 227.6 226.2 225.7 225.7
Other 2/77=100 141.2 140.3 139.3 138.7 138.5 138.7
Manufactured dairy products 2/77=100 154.6 154.4 155.0 155.1 155.6 155.4
Butler 967=100 265.1 261.7 262.7 262.3 261.6 260.5
Cheese 2/77=100 150.5 150.2 151.3 151.0 150.8 150.6
Frozen desserts 2/77x100 162.3 162.4 162.3 162.9 164.4 163.7
Other 2/77=100 152.9 154.6 154.8 155.6 157.6 158.7
Margarine 967100 297.5 299.0 306.1 300.5 301.2 297.1
Stocks, beginning of quarter:
Creamery butter Mil. b 296.5 291.7 286.8 247.0 205.5 283.3
Cheese total 5/ Mil. b 1,061.9 975.3 1,032.4 1,032.6 944.3 934.4
Canned milk, unsklmmed Mil. b 42.0 50.7 96.3 118.9 63.3 73.8
Dry whole milk Mil. b 5.4 7.8 6.3 6.9 6.5 7.0
Total-(milkfat basis) 6/ Nil. b 16,704 15,768 16069 15,437 13,695 15 401
Nonfat dry milk Mil. b 1,247.6 1,112.4 1,006.0 1,032.2 1,011.1 908.0
Commercial disappearance:
Creamery butter NII. lb 200.0 203.9 241.5 272.9 193.7 224.4
Cheese, American Mil. lb 511.5 569.2 587.2 610.5 565.2 592.9
Cheese, other than American Mil. lb 563.0 593.5 616.0 688.1 622.4 634.7
Canned milk, unskim,ed Mil. lb 132.9 125.6 140.5 199.1 125.5 124.0
Milk in all productsMil. lb 29,517 32,717 34,775 34,141 30,881 33,964
Nonfat dry milk MI1. lb 101.4 88.9 129.6 115.1 119.4 93.4
USDA net removals:
Butter Mil. lb 128.7 107.9 45.4 52.2 171.2 110.5
Cheddar cheese MI!. lb 145.8 201.9 168.4 113.0 152.4 196.5
Nonfat dry milk Mil. lb 177.6 290.6 263.4 209.1 251.6 314.0
Evaporated milk Nil. lb 7.1 7.0 7.3 5.4 5.0 6.2
Total (milkfat basis) Mil. lb 4,113 4,237 2,617 2,206 5.052 4,233
I/ Seasonally adjusted prices as percentage of parity price. 2/ Ice cream, ice milk, end sherbet. 3/ includes manufactured
products for which current data ere available. 4/ For all urban consumers starting January 1978. 5/ Natural plus processed Merican
cheese held by CCC. 6/ Excludes cream and bulk condensed m11k.
4
C. O. N
i
AGRICULTURAL OUTLOOK REPORTS
COLORADO DAIRY PRODUCTION AND OUTLOOK will have to deduct 40 cents per hundredweight to fund
the buyout herds. The deductions lower to 25 cents
BY per hundredweight after September 1. Concern exists
whether the remaining producers will expand their pro-
ROBERT LEWIS duction to offset the deductions which amount to
between $50 and $60 per cow per year. If expansion is
made to cover these costs, the expansion could elimi-
The whole herd buyout participation announced by nate the milk supply reduction achieved under the
the United States Department of Agriculture indicates program. •
bids of 13,988 producers were accepted. Accepted bids
ranged from $3.50 to $22.50 per hundredweight. The Although the buyout herds produced 11 percent of
goal of the program was to reduce milk production 12 1985 Colorado production, remaining herds are produc-
billion pounds by taking units out of production for ing 15 percent more milk on an annual basis in 1986.
five years through the slaughter or export of cows and his is due to higher milk production per cow and
replacement heifers. Participation in the program existing herds expanding cow numbers. Producers must
exceeded the target amount as the herds with accepted consider production efficiency per cow along with total
bids represented 12.28 billion pounds of milk and an pounds produced to determine profitability. Forty cows
overall reduction in milk production of 8.7 percent. milking 16,000 pounds will generate the same income as
70 cows milking 12,000 pounds. Increasing herd effi-
The buyout will result in slaughter or export of ciency is more profitable than adding more cows to the
1,549,773 head of dairy cattle. Originally, two-thirds operation.
of the animals were to be sold under the first period
from April 1 to August 31, 1986. Due to objections by The national dairy promotion fund in effect for
beef producers, the first period accepted herds were three years has increased per capita consumption 10
allowed an extension into the second period to lessen percent nationally. This reverses a long-term decline
the effects of increased cattle on the beef market. in per capita consumption. Public awareness to nutri-
Dairy animals provide 20 percent of the beef consumed tion and importance of calcium in the diet has in-
in the U.S. creased interest in dairy products.
Producers remaining in production will have 40 Removal of buyout herds combined with the drought
cents per hundredweight deducted from milk checks to of the Southeast resulted in the first production
finance 38 percent of the buyout program costs. For decrease from previous years production since the
producers desiring retirement or highly leveraged pro- diversion program ended in 1985. As a result, farm
ducers wanting to lower debts, the buyout provided a milk prices had the first increase in two years in
unique opportunity to remove production capability from July 1986.
the industry for five years. Accepted herds are to be
slaughtered or exported by August 1987.
Buyers in foreign countries have a unique oppor-
tunity to take advantage of the genetics of U.S. cattle
at very reasonable prices. However, present economies
in the lesser developed countries may limit the capa-
bility for them to import cattle despite a unique COLORADO TURKEY SITUATION
situation created by the buyout program. Due to dif-
ficulties involved in transporting lactating cows, dry BY
cows and heifers are the most likely to be exported.
As of early September, 45 percent of the accepted buy- BYRON F. MILLER
out herds were taken out of production.
�- There were 69 Colorado dairy herds accepted on Historically, a 10 percent increase in turkey
the Whole Herd Buyout program. The average bid price production has been financial suicide for the turkey
for the state was $14.88. This represents 8,382 cows, industry. In 1986, the turkey industry increased pro-
3,313 heifers, and 2,138 calves. The production re- duction by 10 percent; yet, the market price is better
presented by the 69 herds is 11 percent of total than ever. The holiday season is going to increase
Colorado production. Producers remaining in business demand so turkey prices are expected to continue strong
through the holiday season. Feed prices have been held
low with good yields throughout most of the nation.
Consumer demand for turkey and turkey products has
exceeded all expectations.
After January 1 it is difficult to predict turkey
prices. Traditionally this is a slow period for tur-
key as consumers change to chickens and other meats
after the holidays. High prices and abundant feed
supplies will encourage the placement of more poults.
The size of the breeder flock may be a limiting factor
in any plans turkey producers may have for expansion
of production. Turkey poults became scarce in the
summer of 1986 because the hot weather slowed egg
(� t� Q production significantly. This limitation maybe a
N 111'q a.�S Ovw�
Hi.r‘ u- - 1Q gt
I
• i
9 i l •
,` �•
® �
: •,
NATIONAL CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION Vol. 10, Number 13 December 5, 1986
Check-Off Moves Ahead Off Into the Red Meat Yonder
Committees responsible for national check-off operation and As previously reported in the BBB, the Air Force willsoon
for expanded promotion programs met this week in Chicago. label certain foods in its commissaries with "Healthy Heart"
The executive committee of the Beef Promotion and Research stickers. In the case of beef, the Air Force is refusing to use
Board received reports that collections of the$1 check-off con- the new nutrient composition data released by USDA last Jan-
tinue to go well. Two thirds of the states had reported October uary. If the Air Force persists in using the old data (based on
collections, and the amount they sent to the Beef Board for fatter animals and beef), fewer beef cuts will qualify for the
strictly national programs was more than $2-1/2 million. (An "Healthy Heart" sticker. As a result of the previous BBB news
equal amount was retained in the states for use at state discre- on the problem, NCA member Duty Rowe of Oklahoma con-
tion for state and national Beef Industry Council programs.) tacted-Rep. Dave McCurdy(D.-Okla.), a member of the House
The committee was notified that a veal producing firm which armed services committee, who took up the industry cause.
had filed suit challenging the check-off was dropping the suit McCurdy has been told, "Sufficient resources are unavailable
and was complying with the check-off. In order to reduce cer- for the Air Force to adequately use the nutrient data available '
taro paperwork, the committee decided to implement an in- from the USDA." Meat Board nutritionists estimate that it
voice stamp as an additional way to certify non-producer status. would take less than 2 hours to extract the necessary infonna-
This will be an alternative to use of a special printed form. tion on beef from the new Handbook 8, and the Meat Board
The Beef Promotion Operating Committee reviewed 34 offered to do the work for the Air Force. With$12 billion bud-
proposals for funding of promotion programs. Approvals went geted for payroll alone, you'd think that the Air Force could
to several BIC merchandising, food service and national adver- squeeze 2 hours out of somebody's schedule in order to ensure
tising programs, including $12.7 million for production and that its nutrition/health program was sound(and that beef got
purchase of national TV ads through the 2nd quarter of 1987. a fair shake).
Among other programs will be participation in the American
Meat Institute's National Meat Month in February, 1988, and Farm Policy: Here We Go Again
in a cheeseburger promotion in cooperation with the American The farm policy debate is heating up. Those in favor of
Dairy Assn. changing the farm bill want to do so partly because exports
have not increased, despite low prices and the most expensive
Excel to Negotiate for Plants farm subsidies in history. Supports under the 1985 farm bill
Excel Corp., Wichita, Kan., a subsidiary of Cargill, Inc., will cost $26 billion this year-15 percent of the budget deficit.
will move to acquire three former Spencer Beef plants—at Others, including NCA, say it is premature to judge the results
Spencer and Oakland, la., and Schuyler, Neb. The planned of the current five-year bill; it has been in effect only one year.
move by Excel follows a U.S. Supreme Court ruling which Meanwhile„ dairy industry representativ_es,,hav€ indicated a
overturned a Monfort of Colorado antitrust suit that had desire to seek new dairy legislation._Some dairy cn 4ps are call-
blocked Cargill's previously planned acquisition of the plants in for an extension of the Dairy Termination Program; others
from Land O'Lakes, Inc. Cargill never did take possession of -Propose a two-tiered support system; others want a national
the plants, and in 1985, following a lower court ruling against qu_otasystem. A problem is that any of the supply-confrol pro-
the Cargill acquisition, E.A. Miller, Inc., Hyrum, Utah, bought grams can mean slaughtering more cows.
the plants, and Miller is now operating the Schuyler plant. A Fed Market Down for the Holidays
Miller spokesman said the company planned to continue run- Fed Market Down for the Holidays
ning the plant. The fed cattle market fell $2-3 in the past week because of
However, a Cargill spokesman said, there is a stipulation a weakening of demand for wholesale beef, said Mark Ander-
in the Miller agreement with Land O'Lakes that, if the antitrust son of Cattle-Fax. While cattle supplies have remained tight
case were resolved within a certain time in Cargill's favor, and manageable, he said, there has been little retail interest
Cargill could negotiate with Miller to acquire the plants. Excel in buying meat against the late December holiday period. Fed
will go ahead and negotiate to buy the plants. The Supreme cattle supplies are expected to increase in late December, Jan-
Court said that antitrust laws are intended for "the protection nary and February, and, Anderson said, it is not unusual for
of competition, not competitors" and that a "threatened cost- the market to deteriorate 2-3 weeks before an increase occurs
price squeeze" was not grounds to halt a merger. A Monfort in fed cattle supplies. The holiday lull in the market is also not
spokesperson said the company was disappointed and still was unusual, he said. This year's situation is somewhat similar to
concerned about further packing industry concentration. what happened last year at the same time.
y.
Colo c o
University
Department of Animal Sciences Cooperative Extension
( 303 ) 491-6392 Colorado State University
Fort Collins,Colorado 80523
December 8 , 1986
Mr. Greg Brown
20700 Weld County Road 15
Johnstown, Colorado 80534
Dear Greg:
Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I 'm sending you
several pieces of information which may be of value to you
in preparing for the Planning Committee hearings .
First, is a copy of the data for the 1986 Colorado DHIA
Annual Report which is about ready to go to press, indicating
what has happened over the years to the number of herds , number
of cows and average herd size in Colorado. I 'm sure you can
see from this report that we are increasing herd size in Colorado
but we ' re currently at approximately 150 milking cows. Should
this trend continue I would suspect that in the next 10 to
15 years , the average herd size will probably double to approxi-
mately 300 to 350 cows per herd. I do not, however, feel that
there will be an explosion in large herds in Colorado which
would drastically change that herd size above the 350 cow level .
Currently, herd size seems to maximize out at between 800 and
1200 cows per unit with some dairymen owning more than one
milking unit.
Second item is current dairy production outlook which 75.-- was just published in the Colorado Ag Business Roundup - winter
1986 . It indicates that there is some concern whether or not
producers will expand in Colorado to offset deductions to cover
the costs of the herd buyout program. This has been happening
and it appears that because of that, Colorado still has con-
siderable surplus milk that must be trucked out of the state
to cheese processing plants in Kansas, Nebraska and Utah.
Currently, we do have more milk than the market demands call
\,___,,, for in Colorado, and we do not foresee a milk shortage situation
developing in the near future. It is true that the National
r l,-
Colorado State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Colorado counties cooperating.
Cooperative Extension programs are available to all without discrimination.
Mr. Greg Brown
Page two
' ' Advertising Board is helping to sell consumers more product
C and that consumption has picked up; however, consumption has
not picked up as fast as a dairyman' s ability to increase milk
" production per cow. There are several other items on the horizon
that may cause the ability of dairymen to increase milk
/) production per cow very rapidly and, therefore, it may not
be necessary to increase cow numbers in order to produce milk
in quantities equal to consumption. You must also remember
that the population explosion that we saw in the late ' 70s
and the early ' 80s has slowed down in Colorado and predictions
are that Colorado will begin to see people leaving the state
faster than entering the state because of the lack of job
opportunities here at the current time.
The last item enclosed for your use is the October 1986
Dairy Situation and Outlook Report. I 'm sure you will find
information in this of interest to you as you prepare to discuss
the request for a new dairy being developed .
You should be able to get data from Mountain Empire Dairy-
men ' s Association at Thornton, Colorado, on the amount of milk
that is being trucked out of Colorado on a daily basis during
the last two or three months. Please keep in mind that it
is usually at this period of the year (October, November,
December and January) when we approach a period of time
throughout the year when the supply of milk for the market
is the closest to the demands of milk in this market. So,
the figures you' ll be looking at if you look at October and
November truck-outs will be the period when the market and
the demand is the closest together.
Let me know if there is other material or information
that I can provide to you.
Sincerely,
Dawson C. Jordan N
Professor
Extension Dairy Specialist
DCJ:dn
Enclosures
Hello