HomeMy WebLinkAbout20222592.tiffEsther E. Gesick
Clerk to the Board
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF WELD, STATE OF COLORADO
1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado 80634
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING
RE: LIFT SUSPENSION AND RE INSTATE A SITE SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MINOR AMENDED USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW PERMIT, MUSR14 0030 (FORMERLY USR 1704), FOR A
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE AND FACILITY, INCLUDING CLASS I
COMPOSTING, AN ANIMAL WASTE RECYCLING OR PROCESSING
FACILITY (AN ANAEROBIC DIGESTER BASED RENEWABLE
ENERGY PLANT [GAS]), ALONG WITH A CONCRETE BATCH PLANT
TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY FOR THE
ADDITION OF A DIGESTER PROCESS SYSTEM AND A 70 FOOT
FLARE IN THE A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - PLATTE
RIVER BIOGAS, LLC
(10:00 A.M. TO 11:57 A.M.)
The above -entitled matter came for public meeting before the Weld
County Board of County Commissioners on Wednesday, December 29,
2021, at 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado, before Jess Reid, Deputy Clerk
to the Board.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that upon listening to the audio record, the
attached transcript, as prepared by Rebecca J. Collings, DausterlMurphy,
www.daustermurphy.com, 303.522.1604, is a complete and accurate
account of the above -mentioned public hearing.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
2022-2592
Pzaz let
1 APPEARANCES:
2 ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
3
4
5
6
7
COMMISSIONER STEVE MORENO, CHAIR
COMMISSIONER SCOTT K. JAMES, CHAIR PRO-TEM
COMMISSIONER PERRY L. BUCK
COMMISSIONER MIKE FREEMAN
COMMISSIONER LORI SAINE
8 ALSO PRESENT:
9 ACTING CLERK TO THE BOARD, JESS REID
10 ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, BOB CHOATE
11 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT, CHRIS GATHMAN
12 PLANNING SERVICES DEVELOMENT REVIEW, DAWN ANDERSON
13 HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BEN FRISSELL
14 APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE:
15 TIM NAYLOR, AGPROFESSIONALS
16
17
1
1 CHAIR MORENO: It is December 29,
2 10:00 a.m. Land use is next here. Let the record
3 reflect that all five County Commissioners are present.
4 I'm going to call up Docket 2021-72. Mr. Choate.
5 MR. CHOATE: Thank you. All right. This
6 is a request to Lift Suspension and Reinstate a Site
7 Specific Development Plan and Minor Amended Use by
8 Special Review Permit, MUSR14-0030, formerly USR-1704,
9 for a Solid Waste Disposal Site and Facility, including
10 Class I composting and animal waste recycling and
11 processing facility (an anaerobic digester -based
12 renewable energy plant [gas]), -- renewable energy
13 plant [gas]), along with a concrete batch plant to be
14 used for construction of the facility for the addition
15 of a Digester Process System and a 70 -foot flare in the
16 Agricultural Zone District.
17 The property owner is Platte River
18 Biogas, LLC. This is located west of and adjacent to
19 County Road 49, north of and adjacent to County Road
20 40.
21 Notice of today's hearing was published
22 December 19, 2021, in the Greeley Tribune.
23 CHAIR MORENO: Chris?
24 MR. GATHMAN: Good morning,
2
1 Commissioners. I apologize. I had sent a PowerPoint
2 presentation, and I'm just getting it up now. So give
3 me just a second.
4 CHAIR MORENO: Okay.
5 While Chris is getting that set up, I'm
6 going to go ahead and just make a quick comment to
7 everybody in the audience here, because I know we have
8 a fairly decent group of citizens here today.
9 Just so everybody is very clear on what's
10 happening today, this is from a Show Cause hearing that
11 was back in June of 2016; is that correct, Counsel?
12 MR. CHOATE: The final one was December
13 of 2016.
14 CHAIR MORENO: 2016. Okay. And what is
15 happening here today is not a new USR. This is simply
16 to go over the violations that were out of compliance
17 here. And we'll be going through the process here with
18 staff and applicant, and have public comment to that
19 area specifically.
20 This is not a brand-new USR, just so
21 everybody is very clear on that. So when you're
22 getting your thoughts together, it will be addressing
23 those seven violations that -- I think there were
24 seven -- that we'll be going over today. I just wanted
3
1 to make sure everybody understands that as you're
2 getting your thoughts together. Okay? All right?
3 And I guess we'll still wait just a few
4 minutes. Counsel, is there anything else I need
5 to -- that's pretty clear?
6 MR. CHOATE: That's accurate.
7 CHAIR MORENO: Okay. Thank you.
8 MR. GATHMAN: All right. Okay. I
9 apologize for the delay.
10 CHAIR MORENO: No problem.
11 MR. GATHMAN: What we have before you
12 today is a reinstatement request for MUSR14-0030. The
13 current property owner is Platte River Biogas. It's
14 located in the northwest corner of Section 25, Township
15 4 North, Range 65 West. The site is located west of
16 and adjacent to County Road 49, and north of and
17 adjacent to County Road 40 section line.
18 I'm going to go through and do kind of a
19 quick background, because I know not all of the
20 Commissioners were here back in 2016 when the
21 suspension occurred. So I'll give you some background
22 starting from the original USR that was later amended
23 through MUSR14-0030.
24 So on July 21, 2010, USR-1704 was
4
1 approved for a Class I composting facility and animal
2 waste recycling processing facility, an anaerobic
3 digester -based renewable energy plant, along with a
4 concrete batch plant used temporarily for construction.
5 So this was the original Heartland application that was
6 approved in 2010.
7 There were changes to the site layout on
8 February 25th of 2013. Originally, they were proposing
9 like in -ground ponds that had kind of a -- I don't
10 know -- like a covering, kind of a dome over it, but
11 more of like a plastic covering.
12 They modified that for -- to essentially
13 put in tanks, above -ground digester tanks. Originally,
14 they were talking about 50 feet in height. I think
15 actually the tank's heights out there right now are
16 more like 29 feet, according to the building records.
17 This was brought back to the Board. The
18 Board approved these modifications in 2013. Then we
19 had additional changes in November of 2013. The
20 consultant for the facility submitted a change request
21 outlining the property information changes, which
22 included owner operator, project developer, and legal
23 description changes.
24 The State approved the name changes on
5
1 November 7th of 2013. On February 5, 2014, the USR-
2 1704 plat was reported, reflecting the changes that had
3 been brought to the Board in 2013.
4 Later on in 2015, February 25, 2015,
5 there was MUSR14-0030. This is a minor amendment to
6 USR-1704. Included in all of that, they -- all of the
7 stuff that was existing on -site, in addition to a
8 digester processing system and a 70 -foot flare in the A
9 (Agricultural) Zone District.
10 The addition mainly was, at that
11 time -- originally, it was just essentially processing
12 manure. Under this proposed amendment, they had a
13 system where they would be processing food waste that
14 would be brought in from offsite.
15 This did include notice to surrounding
16 property owners within 500 feet, as required through
17 the Minor Amendment process. There was a modification
18 to Development Standard Number 6, referring to an EDOP
19 approval letter, or Engineering Design and Operations
20 Plan approval letter that was dated 12/18/2014.
21 There was also amendments to Development
22 Standard Number 30, to make more general information
23 that refers to all state and federal agencies, versus
24 more specific. The Development Standards approved
6
1 under MUSR are the Development Standards for -- of
2 record for the site that is here now.
3 On June 30, 2016, based on complaints, we
4 sent a letter setting them up for a July 11, 2016,
5 Probable Cause hearing. We held a Probable Cause
6 hearing on July 11, 2016. Based on the Board's
7 decision, a show -cause hearing was scheduled for
8 September 19, 2016.
9 We had a total of three Show Cause
10 hearings. They were continued on September the 19th
11 and November the 14th, and the final Show Cause hearing
12 was held on December 19, 2016.
13 On December 19, 2016, the Board of County
14 Commissioners determined that Heartland Biogas, LLC,
15 was operating without a Certificate of Designation, was
16 in violation of eight Development Standards under
17 MUSR14-0030.
18 Based on these findings, the Board of
19 County Commissioners suspended operations of Heartland
20 Biogas, LLC, until a valid Certificate of Designation
21 is obtained, and the facility comes into compliance
22 with all of the Development Standards.
23 On June 30, 2020, Heartland Biogas, LLC,
24 sold the property to Platte River Biogas, LLC, per
7
1 Special Warranty Deed, recorded under 4603820.
2 So this was USR-1704, the original USR
3 that was approved by the Board. This is the Minor
4 Amendment plat. It's a little hard to see. I don't
5 know if I have a pointer.
6 One of the -- really the main changes,
7 this is -- I guess, the south is kind of on this side.
8 But one of the main changes is you have the tanks and
9 the main operating area that was under the original
10 USR. I don't know if -- correctly, but they also added
11 the food processing or recycling facility here to the
12 south of their main operations area. So that was the
13 main change under the MUSR. And they also had a flare
14 as a part of that minor amendment as well.
15 So what is before you today is a
16 reconsideration request. AGPROfessionals, on behalf of
17 Platte River Biogas, LLC, in a letter to the Department
18 of Planning Services dated November 15, 2021, provided
19 a response stating that they have satisfied the
20 conditions outlined in the December 19, 2016, Board of
21 County Commissioners Resolution, and requests
22 reinstatement of MUSR14-0030 as a manure -only digester
23 facility. So there would be no food waste brought to
24 the facility; it would be manure only.
8
1 Staff has reviewed the request from
2 AGPROfessionals to reinstate as a manure -only digester
3 facility, and recommends that MUSR14-0030 be
4 reinstated, per the reasons stated in the memorandum
5 from Ben Frissell of Environmental Health Services to
6 Chris Gathman and Tom Parko, Jr., with the Department
7 of Planning Services that was dated November 16, 2021.
8 Staff's recommendation is subject -- or we do
9 recommend that it be subject to the following
10 condition: "Development Review reviewed the submitted
11 Final Drainage Report with a revised date of
12 February 6, 2013, for the Heartland Biogas facility. As
13 identified during the Show Cause hearing, this report
14 does not match the current on -site condition.
15 Therefore, the Weld County -- or Weld County
16 Development Review is respectfully requesting that
17 AGPRO satisfy one of the -- satisfy the following
18 condition prior to operation of the facility: Submit a
19 revised Drainage Report that reflects the current
20 on -site drainage conditions to the Weld County
21 Development Review for review and approval."
22 In addition, on the planning side, there
23 was a -- we did conduct a site inspection in November
24 of 2021; verified that on the planning side, you know,
9
1 that all of the structures were in compliance with the
2 approved MUSR plat.
3 Also, they had a -- at the time, back in
4 2016, they had a work trailer onsite that had an
5 expired zoning permit. That has been removed from the
6 site as well. And they also had some cargo containers
7 onsite that required building permits, but those have
8 been removed. So on the planning side, we have
9 no -- no additional items.
10 We've obviously got Dawn Anderson with
11 Development Review here today, and Ben Frissell with
12 Environmental Health. We're happy to answer any
13 questions.
14 CHAIR MORENO: Any questions at this
15 point here for staff? Commissioner James?
16 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Just a couple of
17 clarifying questions, Chris, to make sure I'm
18 completely clear. The status of the USR is that it is
19 in suspension. It never was revoked. It's in
20 suspension?
21 MR. GATHMAN: Correct, correct.
22 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Okay. The CD that
23 was spoken of in this suspension was linked to the food
24 waste, and is not required to operate as a manure
10
1 facility?
2
3
MR. GATHMAN: Correct, yes.
CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Okay. I guess
4 you'll probably get to that in a second, Counselor.
5 I'm putting the cart in front of the horse here.
6 And finally, to bring this USR into good
7 standing, so to speak, to bring it out of suspension,
8 all that needs to be satisfied is those Development
9 Standards that the previous board, on 12/19/16, found
10 to be in violation, then? All we have to do is prove
11 that those things are -- all the applicant has to do is
12 prove that those things are up to speed, so to speak?
13 MR. GATHMAN: That is my understanding,
14 yes.
15 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Okay. Thank you.
16 CHAIR MORENO: Any other questions or
17 clarifying questions at this point? Okay.
18 Dawn, did you have anything to add?
19 MS. ANDERSON: No, I'm just here to
20 answer questions.
21 CHAIR MORENO: Okay. Ben, and did you
22 want to add anything?
23 MR. FRISSELL: Just here for questions as
24 well.
11
1 CHAIR MORENO: Okay. All right. At this
2 point, I will bring back the applicant, or the
3 applicant rep. Please state your name and address for
4 the record.
5 MR. NAYLOR: Good morning, Commissioners.
6 CHAIR MORENO: Good morning.
7 MR. NAYLOR: I'm not here just for
8 questions.
9 First of all, Tim Naylor with
10 AGPROfessionals, 3050 67th Avenue, Greeley, Colorado.
11 We are representing Platte River Biogas.
12 One of the things that Chris had on the
13 thing that AGPROfessionals has requested -- and
14 AGPROfessionals, it's really Platte River Biogas that
15 is responding to this. A.J. de Jager and Mel
16 Flaschenriem, are owners of local dairies, and they are
17 requesting this.
18 I'd like to thank staff for their
19 diligence in reviewing the -- and confirming that
20 Platte River Biogas has brought the Development
21 Standards at issue in the cause hearings into
22 substantial compliance. They've agreed that we're good
23 for doing that.
24 As outside observers of the initial Show
12
1 Cause hearings, it appears that Heartland Biogas was
2 unable or unwilling to bring the facility into
3 compliance, and that forced the Commissioners to
4 suspend the USR.
5 Platte River Biogas is committed to
6 maintaining compliance with the Development Standards
7 and is also committed to being a valuable part of the
8 agricultural community in the area.
9 The facility will be as a manure -only
10 facility. It will be an agricultural facility
11 supporting local dairy farms.
12 If we can go to the next slide, Chris.
13 Platte River Biogas is requesting
14 reinstatement of MUSR14-0030 to operate the facility as
15 a manure -only digester, as part of the manure
16 management system for surrounding county dairies.
17 While Platte River Biogas understands
18 that the mismanagement of the facility by the previous
19 operator has caused concern in the community, their
20 mismanagement was the reason for the -- requiring the
21 suspension. Platte River Biogas, again, is committed
22 to operating a well -managed, manure -only facility.
23 Next slide.
24 This is the vicinity map. It's located
13
1 on the corner of 49 and 40. It's surrounded by many
2 dairies. Shelton Dairies is just to the north.
3 Feedlots Timmerman's and Horton in Lasalle, and several
4 other dairies. Mr. Flaschenriem's dairy is just to the
5 north on 49. So this vicinity is very much aware of
6 Confined Animal Feeding Operations and agricultural
7 operations.
8 Next slide, please.
9 Platte River Biogas -- Mr. Flaschenriem
10 and Mr. de Jager, purchased Platte River Biogas, LLC,
11 from Rockland Capital. And so they are the owners of
12 it. Rockland Capital is not part of that, nor is
13 Heartland Biogas. It is solely owned -- it is solely
14 owned as Platte River Biogas. So the property has not
15 changed names from -- into A.J. de Jager or Mel's
16 because it's part of Platte River -- Platte River
17 Biogas.
18 When they -- when they purchased this,
19 they understood that this facility no longer had a
20 Certificate of Designation, and it was no longer a
21 Solid Waste site, that it could only be operated as a
22 manure -only facility.
23 The solid waste facility was closed in
24 accordance to the approved Closure Plan, and CDPHE
14
1 inspected the site, approved the closure in May of
2 2020. Once the site was no longer considered a solid
3 waste site and verified to be clean of solid waste,
4 CDPHE released the Financial Assurance Bond. Once the
5 Financial Assurance Bond was released, that -- that
6 proves that the site is no longer a Solid Waste site
7 and no longer in control of CDPHE.
8 As a manure -only facility, CDPHE agreed
9 that solid waste regulations no longer apply. They
10 also agreed that the facility will not be required to
11 provide Financial Assurance, Engineered Design and
12 Operation Plans, Closure Plans, site monitoring, and
13 sampling. They're not required to meet the solid waste
14 impoundment requirements, and they're not required to
15 meet the composting of solid waste requirements.
16 Again, this is no longer a Solid Waste
17 facility. It is an ag facility operating for the
18 benefit of the local agricultural community.
19 In Weld County, anaerobic digesters are
20 considered a Use by Right when they're part of a manure
21 management system on a dairy farm. So a local dairy
22 could build a digester on their dairy with only a
23 commercial building permit.
24 Mr. de Jager and Mr. Flaschenriem decided
15
1 that rather than build new infrastructure, they could
2 revamp the existing facility, incorporate new
3 technology, and operate the -- operate it for multiple
4 dairies that might not have the volume to efficiently
5 operate solely on their own. Again, this will be a
6 community digester for local dairies, specifically,
7 Mr. Flaschenriem and Mr. de Jager's.
8 M&J Dairy was designed -- when it was
9 designed, it was designed to utilize the digester
10 facility, the Heartland digester facility, for its
11 manure management. When it was -- when that was
12 suspended, it made it very difficult for
13 Mr. Flaschenriem to manage his manure. He had to do
14 extraordinary things to take care of his manure from
15 that site, because it was designed as -- to operate
16 with this facility.
17 So reinstating this will help
18 Mr. Flaschenriem operate his facility efficiently. It
19 will also help A.J. de Jager's facility as part of this
20 management system.
21 When they -- when they started this
22 endeavor, they reached out. They knew that there was a
23 lot of failures that happened with Heartland Biogas,
24 and one of those was communicating with the
16
1 neighborhood. Even when they were communicating with
2 the neighborhood, they were -- they were not doing a
3 good job of it.
4 Mr. de Jaeger and Mr. Flaschenriem worked
5 hard to open -- to be open with their plans for the
6 facility. They met -- between October and December,
7 they met in person with families surrounding the site.
8 They contacted by email, phone, and letters over 40
9 property owners within a half a mile of this site to
10 offer to meet and talk about the project.
11 Surrounding property owners and previous
12 hearing participants were notified by mail of the
13 hearing details. So the County goes out 500 feet. We
14 made sure that everybody that had signed a document as
15 part of these proceedings was notified that this
16 proceeding was happening. Again, we want to be open
17 and forthright in how we're moving this project
18 forward.
19 It's Mel and A.J.'s intention of being
20 good neighbors. They're part of the agricultural
21 community, they have large dairies in the area, and
22 they plan to be good neighbors for a long time in the
23 future.
24 I believe Mr. de Jager actually gave most
17
1 of the people he met with his personal phone number to
2 call if there was an issue. So they want to be very
3 open on what's happening.
4 The next slide is just an overview. This
5 is the existing facility. It was operating at the time
6 that this photo was taken, with domed -- there are six
7 dome digesters in the middle. The two tanks to the
8 left or east are going to be manure storage tanks. So
9 when the manure is delivered, it will be stored in
10 those large tanks and then dosed into the digesters.
11 In the forefront, the top on the left is
12 the operations building. And then the building in the
13 center is the gas -- the gas condensing units. And
14 then there are H2S scrubbers on the far west side on
15 the right corner. They are revamping this equipment.
16 They are bringing in different equipment to make this
17 operate more efficiently and for better odor control.
18 The facility is going to operate. It
19 will still have the same Development Standards as it
20 had before, and it will operate within those
21 Development Standards. It is a seven-day a week
22 operation_ Primary operation -- operating hours are
23 6:00 to 6:00. That's when the manure will be
24 delivered. They will anticipate having six to eight
18
1 employees on site, rotating shifts. So there will be a
2 total of about 30 employees. We anticipate 70 to 90
3 semi loads. And as far as the traffic, the traffic
4 remains the same as it was.
5 When this was developed, the County
6 required that they build a turn lane into the site, and
7 then County Road 49 was constructed. They provided
8 funding for their turn lanes, which was utilized to
9 construct County Road 40, the County Road 40, 49
10 intersection. So that has full movement turn lanes at
11 that intersection.
12 Benefits of an anaerobic digester, we are
13 currently seeing more and more air quality regulations
14 in Colorado, and agriculture is in the crosshair of new
15 regulations. Anaerobic digesters help create - or
16 help capture and manage emissions associated with
17 dairies, and will allow facilities to control emissions
18 to meet future regulations.
19 So we're going to see a lot of dairies in
20 the future that are going to have digesters and waste
21 management systems incorporated into the design as
22 they're being built.
23 Digesters allow dairies to be sustainable
24 for future generations by reducing on -farm methane
19
1 emissions, provide diversified income streams and
2 beneficial byproduct that support regenerative farms
3 and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
4 We're seeing across the country that
5 anaerobic digesters are operating as part of manure and
6 waste treating management. In Massachusetts, they have
7 a moratorium that you cannot -- you cannot dispose of
8 food waste in a landfill. It has to be -- they have to
9 do something else with it. And this is a manure -only
10 facility.
11 But we're seeing these -- these digesters
12 being designed, managing. And they're in
13 neighborhoods. There's one facility that's next door
14 to a neighborhood, and across from it is a monastery.
15 And it's operating. There's no issues. There's no
16 odor concerns. So it can be done. The mismanagement
17 by Heartland Biogas has unfortunately created an issue
18 in the community, and that doesn't need to be.
19 Again, Platte River Biogas is very much
20 aware of the issues from the previous operators. Odor
21 was the number one reason that we were in the Show
22 Cause hearings. Heartland Biogas failed to control the
23 odors of the food and waste. The putrid, rotten odor
24 was caused by mismanagement and mishandling of the food
20
1 waste brought to the site and left outside for an
2 extended period of time.
3 There will be no food waste at this
4 facility. There's no future plans to have food waste
5 there. The only way that food waste could be brought
6 onto this site is to come back to the Board, ask for a
7 Certificate of Designation, and have a public hearing,
8 and there's no intention of that.
9 Manure will be stored -- so to continue
10 controlling odor, the manure that's brought into
11 the -- onto the site will be stored in tanks, and then
12 we'll have bio-filters to help control that odor.
13 New activated carbon bio filters will be
14 installed where inadequate or no filters were in place
15 by the previous operator. New H2S scrubber systems,
16 designed to operate in colder temperatures, will be
17 installed to function properly in this area. The ones
18 that were installed previously weren't -- they had to
19 have an optimum temperature, and when it got cold, they
20 couldn't function efficiently. And then any equipment
21 that requires an APEN, we will acquire an APEN for it
22 as needed.
23 One of the other things that's -- that
24 they're looking at doing at this facility is water
21
1 treatment. And this is, again, part of the program
2 that agricultural is seeing, is that we now have the
3 cost of water, and the costs of treatment are coming in
4 align so that it's actually economically feasible to
5 clean the water, and to clean it to standards that we
6 can take this water and put it into an augmentation
7 plan for an adjudicated water system, or we can feed it
8 back to the cattle.
9 There's a lot of options once that water
10 is clean. It also helps us minimize the amount of land
11 application, if it were to be land applied, the amount
12 of area, because there's not as many nutrients in it.
13 So they're planning on putting a water treatment
14 facility on the site as well.
15 Again, we believe that we -- we've met
16 all of the Conditions. We've achieved the Development
17 Standards and are in compliance with all of the
18 Development Standards that were at issue with the
19 original Show Cause hearings, and would request that
20 the Board reinstate it as a manure -only facility so
21 that they can operate as a part of the agricultural
22 community.
23 I'd be happy to answer any questions.
24 CHAIR MORENO: Any clarifying questions
22
1 for Mr. Naylor? All right. Go ahead, Commissioner
2 Saine.
3 COMMISSIONER SAINE: It's just a quick
4 one, and maybe I'm jumping ahead a little bit. But
5 just to give me an idea of the ambient -- I guess
6 that's the best word I can use -- but what is the
7 approximate of Mr. Flaschenriem's dairy to this
8 facility?
9 MR. NAYLOR: The -- say that again.
10 COMMISSIONER SAINE: The proximity of the
11 dairy to this facility of Mr. Flaschenriem.
12
13 mean?
14
UNKNOWN MALE: To the north there, you
MR. NAYLOR: M&J's Dairy is located on
15 County Road 52 and 49, and this facility is on 40.
16 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Do you know
17 approximately mileage -wise or feet?
18 MR. NAYLOR: Four.
19 UNKNOWN MALE: Six.
20 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Okay. And have
21 there been any air testing done regarding -- I mean,
22 right now if they're not being able to use the
23 facility, they've got untreated manure out in the
24 fields, which you've just illustrated that it's been
23
1 difficult for him to get rid of this manure. I'm just
2 wondering what the ambient air quality is now with it
3 being untreated, versus it being treated at the plant.
4 And maybe we don't have any answer to that, but --
5 MR. NAYLOR: Well, I guess I can answer
6 it in the standard air quality requirements for
7 agricultural areas is a 14:1 threshold.
8 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Okay.
9 MR. NAYLOR: And this facility is
10 required to meet the 7:1 threshold. So it's a
11 significantly higher threshold than what would be seen
12 on the requirement for a CAFO -- for a dairy or a feed
13 lot.
14 And so -- so it -- the challenge is going
15 to be that it's manure. So is it the smell coming from
16 Shelton? Is it -- you know, if there's a manure smell
17 out there, whose is it, you know?
18 But again, they have to meet a 7:1 at the
19 property line to be in compliance with their
20 air -- with their odor regulation for this facility.
21 That's the Development Standard that -- and we would
22 anticipate that in -- if this would have started out as
23 an ag facility, that it would have -- that the
24 Development Standard would have been a 14:1
24
1 requirement.
2 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Okay.
3 MR. NAYLOR: That's what it is for
4 dairies.
5 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Okay. That helps me
6 out --
7 MR. NAYLOR: Does that make sense?
8 COMMISSIONER SAINE: - as an all-around.
9 There was kind of a roundabout way you said, whose
10 stink is stinking, but, yeah, I understand, because
11 there's dairies around and the wind blows.
12 MR. NAYLOR: Yeah. And I think that, you
13 know, a lot of the discussion at the hearing was, you
14 know, if it were -- if it were manure only, we're used
15 to that. You know, we have manure. But this is a
16 putrid, rotten, dead chicken smell.
17 And I think -- Mr. Freeman I think
18 remembers that smell, and I'm sure that there's a lot
19 of people here that do. That's not going to be the
20 case. This is not going to have food waste, and it's
21 not going to have that rotten putrid --
22 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Well, and I would
23 just make one comment there, and you're right.
I'm
24 going to agree with you on this point, completely
25
1 different than what Heartland was doing. There are a
2 number of these facilities throughout Weld County with
3 no issues. But because it is manure, it's manure, it's
4 a different thing. And the threshold at this, when
5 you're actually doing it this way, is less than the
6 threshold of the dairy across the road from you.
7 So this is one of those things that
8 actually is a huge benefit to the air quality in Weld
9 County, as well as to the dairies and to the other
10 Confined Feeding Operations throughout the County.
11 This is something that is a huge benefit, completely
12 different than what we were dealing with with
13 Heartland. And I was here for that.
14 MR. NAYLOR: Yes, sir.
15 CHAIR MORENO: I was too.
16 Commissioner James?
17 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Thank you, Chair.
18 If I could, I just want --
19 CHAIR MORENO: Hang on just a second.
20 Commissioner Saine, were you done? I didn't mean to
21 cut you off.
22 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Oh, yeah. That just
23 fit in the context, and I think that's actually what I
24 was looking for is the context. It's surrounded by
26
1 dairies, so a very close proximity, because this
2 facility is built to manage manure from dairies
3 originally.
4 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Right.
5 COMMISSIONER SAINE: So to the point of
6 14:1 to 7:1, it seems as of right now a benefit to the
7 surrounding communities and for -- and for the
8 waste -- the water treatment seems like the reuse is
9 going to reduce, you know, land application
10 requirements as well.
11 So there seems to be some benefit to this
12 facility, versus the one that was operating. Of course
13 I wasn't here for that. But just some observations.
14 CHAIR MORENO: Okay. All right.
15 Commissioner James?
16 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: And I guess I want
17 to -- thank you, Mr. Chair -- I want to piggyback on
18 those comments and the fact that the standard via the
19 USR that will go from suspension to not suspension, if
20 it's proven up here today, is still at the 7:1 ratio,
21 correct?
22 And what you're talking about is a
23 standard that would normally be held as a 14:1 ratio.
24 So to me, that's a stricter and a benefit to
27
1 surrounding communities, if you have a 7:1 ratio, where
2 a 14:1 ratio would normally be required. Is -- and
3 Ben, I'll even look at you on this one, correct?
4 MR. FRISSELL: Yes, the 7:1 ratio would
5 be a more stringent threshold than the 15 or 14.
6 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Still the standard
7 that exists in this USR if it were to go -
8 MR. FRISSELL: Correct. The USR standard
9 is 7:1 pollution threshold.
10 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Thank you.
11 CHAIR MORENO: Are you done,
12 Commissioner?
13 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: I am. Thank you.
14 CHAIR MORENO: Commissioner Buck?
15 COMMISSIONER BUCK: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
16 Just a quick question.
17 So did Heartland, though, keep a 7:1
18 ratio? When it was --
19 MR. NAYLOR: They did not. They had a
20 violation -- I'm sorry.
21 COMMISSIONER BUCK: Prior to adding food
22 to the -- when they were doing the food digesting,
23 because they did do manure only, correct?
24 MR. NAYLOR: They did manure for a very
28
1 short time, but I think the violation that occurred was
2 during -- they had the food waste.
3 COMMISSIONER BUCK: Okay. Thank you.
4 MR. NAYLOR: And it was a 2 to -- I think
5 it was a 2:1, and it was -- it was one violation, but
6 yes, it was -- the problem was that it just smelled all
7 the time. But it wasn't above the standard. So --
8
9
COMMISSIONER BUCK: Okay. Thank you.
CHAIR MORENO: All right. This is a
10 public hearing, so Mr. Naylor, I'll have you have a
11 seat.
12 MR. NAYLOR: Thank you.
13 CHAIR MORENO: Anybody in the audience
14 who would like to address the board on this
15 MUSR14-0030, please come forward and state your name
16 and address for the record. And you have three
17 minutes. Please, be respectful of that time. Thank
18 you.
19 MR. WELCH: James Welch, 18626 County
20 Road 49, Lasalle. Thank you for allowing us to speak
21 today. I actually have a list of notes, and I'm
22 actually probably going to scrap them all.
23 But just briefly for the three of you
24 that weren't on the Board, it was as bad as we say it
29
1 was. We literally canceled family events. We had to
2 reschedule our lives. We literally had to leave our
3 homes because of the stench.
4 Talking about the 7:1, I think the thing
5 that's important to note here is you think about doing
6 that, that is true. It's more stringent than the 15:1
7 at a dairy, but the reality is, is that there were over
8 600 complaints about this facility. It is the largest
9 documented odor producer in the state in the documented
10 state history. Yet there was one violation of that
11 7:1. So something doesn't match here. So yes, it is
12 more stringent, but there's some inconsistency here.
13 And so my biggest concern as we look at
14 lifting the suspension on this is that it's no longer
15 going to be a solid waste facility, so it's not subject
16 to the solid waste rules.
17 When you look through the findings in the
18 Show Cause hearing, any of the things that talked about
19 the 600 cases of the odor reports all fell under the
20 solid waste rules, and those are not going to be
21 applicable anymore. So we actually have less
22 protection as a community moving forward as a
23 manure -only facility.
24 Yes, it may be better, but there's no
30
1 guarantee of protection for the community. The only
2 protection we will have is the 7:1 standard, which
3 again, only happened one time, even though there was
4 over 600 reported -- or 600 reported odor cases.
5 So I'm very, very concerned that, you
6 know, by the fact that it's no longer going to be a
7 solid waste facility that we have really lost our
8 protection. And theoretically, they could go back and
9 we could have another 600 complaints and they not
10 violate the 7:1, and we're back into the same miserable
11 conditions.
12 Because, again, when you go through the
13 findings of the original Show Cause -- or the Show
14 Cause hearing, wherever it references the 600 cases of
15 complaints was all in the Solid Waste Regulations.
16 So for example -- and also additionally,
17 there's not going to be, from my understanding, because
18 they won't have to be under Solid Waste Regulations,
19 they don't have to have the EDOP. And part of the EDOP
20 is an Odor Plan. And so that was also one of the
21 findings was that they violated the Odor Plan. Without
22 an EDOP, there's no requirement that there's an Odor
23 Plan. Same way with the Design Plan.
24 While it was great, I actually liked the
31
1 things that they present that they're going to do, but
2 I don't see any requirement that those are actually
3 going to have to be implemented. So again, it's -- I'm
4 very concerned that by lifting this, we actually have
5 less protection, and we could be right back in the same
6 situation we were. So anyway, thank you for your time.
7 Any questions?
8 CHAIR MORENO: Yes, questions for
9 Mr. Welch? Commissioner James and then Commissioner
10 Saine.
11 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Thank you,
12 Mr. Chair, and thanks, Mr. Welch, for your comments. I
13 appreciate it. And trust me, I have -- I'm a Lasalle
14 guy, and so I have been to some neighbors' houses back
15 when that thing was in operation, and I understand what
16 you're saying, and it was bad.
17 That being said, the interplay -- it's
18 interesting that -- the regulations that you talk about
19 and you're concerned about losing a restriction, it was
20 an interplay with the CDPHE. So, geez, it stinks and
21 I'm going to call somebody, they would call Ben at our
22 Environmental Health. Ben says, "That's out of my
23 purview." And the authority matters. The authority on
24 who reinforces these things matters. Ben calls the
32
1 CDPHE, and the CDPHE may or may not respond.
2 We've had this incident, I'm thinking
3 about in the gas communities to where they call you,
4 you say, "That's not my purview." I'll call the CDPHE,
5 and the CDPHE may or may not get around to it.
6 Now you come -- you get rid of that CDPHE
7 layer, now you come to a USR that is governed solely by
8 Weld County. I've found that Ben and his department
9 are far more responsive to these type of complaints
10 than what the CDPHE will ever hope to be. You're
11 taking the state layer out of it.
12 In my opinion, that's a good thing
13 because you go to -- the best government is a
14 government that's closest to home. You go back to an
15 enforcement mechanism that exists at the Weld County
16 Department of Public Health and Environment. I've
17 found our services to be much more responsive than that
18 of the CDPHE, would be my comment.
19 MR. WELCH: So Commissioner James, I
20 don't mean you any disrespect. But my
21 understanding -- and Ben can correct me if I'm
22 wrong -- is that the calls would all actually come to
23 Weld County Public Health, and that would be who would
24 do the investigation.
33
1
2 could --
3
COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Ben, if you
CHAIR MORENO: Yeah, Ben.
4 MR. FRISSELL: Let me clarify. For odor
5 calls, yes, we would get them and we went out. We
6 went -- and I don't have the numbers in front of me,
7 but we went out a huge amount of times and did, you
8 know, 60 -plus odor investigations, with one of them
9 resulting in a violation of Regulation 2, which we did
10 note at that time. That was what we are discussing.
11 That is the violation that occurred, that an odor was
12 found to be at a threshold below that 7:1.
13 For any of the other items, for
14 waste -related items, we do work with the CDPHE. We do
15 use the USR as our guiding document. And if that USR
16 is tied back to the solid waste regulations, that is
17 how we can start getting in and start working with the
18 CDPHE.
19 So Commissioner James is right on some
20 parts, and Mr. Welch is right on some parts as well.
21 It just depends on what we're talking about. If it's
22 odor, those do come to us, and we do investigate those
23 to the best of our ability, and we do try to work with
24 the State. We did not get very much help from the
34
1 State for their odor investigations during that
2 timeframe.
3 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: James, it's good
4 upon me if I were right just this much. It's a day for
5 me.
6 But the point being, it's that interplay
7 with the CDPHE, at least my experience in one of the
8 gas facilities. It's that interplay with the CDPHE
9 that creates that kind of ambiguity. Here, it's kind
10 of a one -stop shop as far as a violation goes. If
11 there's a problem, it goes directly to the Weld County
12 Department of Public Health and Environment, and the
13 full authority then will exist there, not a shared
14 authority with the CDPHE.
15 MR. FRISSELL: And that would be correct
16 with the facility's future manure -only operation,
17 correct.
18 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Correct.
19 MR. FRISSELL: Right. Historically, we
20 would try work --
21 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: It would have to go
22 back to the CDPHE.
23 MR. FRISSELL: We would work the best of
24 our ability with the CDPHE to determine compliance on a
35
1 specific issue if it were within the Solid Waste
2 Regulations.
3
4 Thank you.
5 CHAIR MORENO: Any questions?
CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Okay. Thank you.
6 Commissioner Saine?
7 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Yes, thank you,
8 Commissioner Chair and Mr. Welch. Thank you for
9 sending over some data. Can you remind me, you
10 mentioned the 600 complaints. What was the time span
11 of those complaints?
12 MR. WELCH: It was roughly 18 months. It
13 was from --
14 COMMISSIONER SAINE: From what year to
15 what year?
16 MR. WELCH: Effectively it was 2016 to
17 2017. So while it was suspended in 2017, it -- or
18 2016, they didn't actually completely finish operation
19 until a little bit closer to like -- I think it was
20 April of 2017.
21 COMMISSIONER SAINE: So a follow-up
22 question, Mr. Chair -
23 CHAIR MORENO: Okay.
24
COMMISSIONER SAINE: is that the time
36
1 where they were operating with the food waste?
2 MR. WELCH: Yeah, I think it maybe -- I
3 think they began operating with food waste -- well, it
4 was around January. I believe it was January 2016.
5 I'm almost 100 percent certain it was January of 2016.
6 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Okay. All right.
7 MR. WELCH: And I guess, sorry, I'll add
8 one follow-up point to that, because, again, I find
9 this interesting when we look at, you know, is the 7:1
10 sufficient, and that is that that violation occurred in
11 April of 2016. The 600 odor complaints, the vast
12 majority of those were actually after that April
13 timeframe. So again, there's no direct correlation
14 that the impact that the community is feeling is
15 actually demonstrated by the 7:1 ratio. So --
16 CHAIR MORENO: Continue.
17 COMMISSIONER SAINE: So -- and thank you
18 for that. And I hear you loud and clear on the fear
19 that your value of your lifestyle may be diminished.
20 Your property -- the enjoyment of your property may be
21 diminished just from some bad experience that you had.
22 I'm really interested in consistency,
23 especially when it comes to our agricultural
24 communities and the folks who live around agricultural
37
1 productions. And so -- and the reason I'm asking those
2 questions, as you've picked up, is that we've got a lot
3 of dairies surrounding the facility already that are
4 probably producing some kind of odor with less
5 regulation than what this facility will have.
6 And at this time, we're not going to
7 repeat that same terrible experiment of allowing a
8 Certificate of Designation for food waste, which it
9 seems, based on what you just told me, it started in
10 January 2016.
11 The whole of the complaints, it sounds
12 like from your chart, was within those 18 months, or
13 1.2 years, from 2016 to 2017, at which time it was
14 suspended because of the -- not only the violation, but
15 some other violations as well. So coming back full
16 circle, now we're no longer allowing that
17 experimentation or that food waste to be processed
18 there.
19 In addition, with some of the other
20 fail -safes that they're putting in, I'm having -- I
21 guess you'd have to give me some more reasons why I
22 wouldn't go ahead with something that is a protected
23 property right with the USR.
24 But I hear your concerns. I'm just
38
1 searching for -- there's something else that I'm not
2 seeing or something else that you didn't send or
3 something -- or some other consideration that could be
4 given.
5 MR. WELCH: No, I mean, to me the major
6 consideration -- and admittedly, it sounds like that it
7 is a Use by Right, that you can do an anaerobic
8 digester within your own facility.
9 But there is a difference between, you
10 know, a dairy just pumping manure out into a lagoon
11 that's exposed to oxygen versus an anaerobic digestion
12 process, which actually breaks it down differently. I
13 mean, that's the whole point. You do it without
14 oxygen.
15 So, you know, one of the major
16 considerations is, What are the off -gasses that come
17 off that digestion process? For example, H2S is a
18 possibility of coming off of there. Is there adequate,
19 you know, measures to actually make sure that that is
20 going to be taken care of? Because talking with
21 various people, one of the -- one of the very real
22 potential odors of this was the hydrogen sulfide
23 off -gassing.
24 And so that's still going to be produced.
39
1 Maybe not at the same quantity, admittedly. But, you
2 know, is that going to be produced, whereas, if you
3 just throw it in a lagoon, you don't necessarily have
4 that same type of digestion process.
5 So I guess that's my biggest concern, is
6 that it is a different process, right, than just, I
7 have a bunch of cattle and I run everything out into an
8 open lagoon. Yeah, it still produces odor, but it's a
9 different type of odor.
10 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Okay. So the CDPHE
11 site, I may ask some more questions around that when
12 other people come up, and maybe ask AGPRO to come back
13 up.
14
15
16
17 one -
CHAIR MORENO: This will be it with him.
COMMISSIONER SAINE: Yes.
CHAIR MORENO: Because he only gets the
18 MR. WELCH: Okay.
19 CHAIR MORENO: Again, thank you for being
20 here. And I know I was -- I actually physically went
21 out there, and Former Commissioner Cozad, and to know
22 what had happened during that process during those
23 complaints. So I appreciate your comments today.
24 Thank you, Mr. Welch.
40
1 MR. WELCH: Thank you.
2 CHAIR MORENO: Anybody else in the
3 audience that would like to address the Board, please
4 come forward and state your name and address for the
5 record.
6 MR. FLIPPIN: Hello. My name is Steve
7 Flippin. I live the closest to this facility. My
8 address is 23295 Weld County Road 40.
9 I was the first one to start getting
10 odors. I started getting odors in 2015 when they just
11 were strictly running manure off their small digester.
12 The six big tanks were not in operation yet. We did
13 not know who to contact at that point. It wasn't until
14 2016 we gat together as a community, and then that's
15 when we started calling Phil Brewer down there at the
16 County over these odors.
17 But it did stink. It did not smell like
18 manure. It -- and this was just manure they were
19 receiving, no food products. It stunk. You'd be
20 outside, you'd get a whiff of this odor, and it's like,
21 Oh, God, what is that smell?
22 It is -- and it -- and I'd gone up to
23 that facility, oh, a number of times to complain
24 to -- to Carol Lopez, was the gentleman running the
41
1 facility at the time. And, well, they didn't really
2 have a whole lot of interest it in at that point. And
3 a couple of gentlemen up there had told me, Oh, this
4 doesn't produce any odor. It's like, yeah.
5 And then I ended up contacting -- oh, it
6 was one of the gentlemen out of San Diego. I had to
7 call their HR department, and then finally was able to
8 get somebody out of California to come up and actually
9 start meeting with us over these odors.
10 And I'm -- this was just in the newer
11 phase, so -- it was bad. And that was just the very
12 beginning before they started the food. They hadn't
13 even got those big tanks done yet, because he took us
14 around on a tour and showed us they were building those
15 six big digester tanks.
16 And I just -- if this does take off, I
17 would like to see a lot stricter odor control than the
18 7:1, because I did go through -- a couple of us went
19 through and got certified through the state on odor
20 control, running the nasal ranger.
21 And a 2:1 with those types of gases that
22 are released does stink. A 7:1 is horrible. - could
23 only manage what a 14:1 with these types of odors
24 coming off this facility would be like. It would -- I
42
1 mean 7:1 was horrible. Because I did use that nasal
2 ranger at the house. With a 2:1, you could smell it
3 through the nasal ranger.
4 That's what I would like to see, if this
5 does take off. I don't want to see it run at all. I
6 mean, none of these people live anywhere close to this
7 facility. They don't have their families there.
8 Now, what is this -- if it does take off
9 and we get these odors, what does this do to our
10 property values if we just want to move and get away
11 from this place? I mean, I'm not going to be able to
12 sell. Am I going to -- you know, what's that doing for
13 us?
14
15
16
Do you have any question? I'd be --
CHAIR MORENO: Questions for Mr. Flippin?
COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: So I just have one
17 comment, and that is I don't disagree with anything
18 that you said. But I think that the difference is
19 whether it was manure or whatever else it was,
20 Heartland was not operating professionally. They were
21 not doing -- they were not running these things the way
22 they're meant to be run. They were completely not
23 following regulations. They were not caring about
24 anything.
43
1 I guess my point is, there are a number
2 of these facilities -- and I wish you had the
3 opportunity to go and take a look at them -- that are
4 currently operating in Weld County, and there is no
5 odor coming off of them, any more odor than what you
6 would smell driving by a dairy or a feed lot or
7 whatever else.
8 So I think -- I think it's unfair to
9 judge what new comes on this facility based on the way
10 Heartland operated, because that was the issue. That
11 truly was the issue. But I understand your concerns.
12 MR. FLIPPIN: Yeah.
13 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Thank you.
14 CHAIR MORENO: Thank you for your
15 comments.
16 MR. FLIPPIN: Thank you.
17 CHAIR MORENO: Thanks for being here.
18 Next?
19 MS. MARK: Jean Mark. I live on Road 40
20 about a mile and a half from there.
21 And I think last go -around, what stopped
22 it, in part, was Heartland said there will be no odor.
23 We had that in writing somewhere. And obviously there
24 was odor. People were putting up flags, you know, if
44
1 you could go outside or not, if it was blowing that
2 way.
3 So if these people say there will be no
4 odor and put it in writing, we'll see. Because to
5 say -- like they say, nobody lives out there. And to
6 catch it on an odor monitor, you know, you have your
7 window open, or you have a planned picnic and the wind
8 changes, you go inside or leave. So it's life
9 changing.
10 CHAIR MORENO: Any questions? Okay. Did
11 you? No? Thank you. Next?
12 MS. ARENS: Good morning.
13 CHAIR MORENO: Morning.
14 MS. ARENS: I apologize for reading, but
15 I bale hay; I don't talk. My name's Rena Arens.
16 I'm -- we farm about 700 acres within a mile and a half
17 to two and a half miles of the plant, downwind.
18 So I notice there's only two
19 Commissioners that were here before, and I'm sure you
20 probably remember the two-mile report. That's who I
21 am.
22 So it's impossible for us as neighbors to
23 get across to the rest of you how horrible it really
24 was, and life changing it was. It caused so much
45
1 stress and heartache in our neighborhood that life was
2 not worth living there for a lot of people.
3 So today's hearing is about the
4 reinstatement of the USR under new ownership. I'd like
5 to express my concern and opposition to the
6 reinstatement as it is presently structured. It leaves
7 too many open doors for another nightmare for our
8 neighborhood.
9 The County must realize this is the
10 fourth time this plant has sold in one decade. The
11 plant was never brought online with the original owners
12 with the manure -only designation. Under the second
13 series of owners, the plant was never brought to
14 100 percent operation because of the continuing
15 problems with the operation of the plant and the lack
16 of odor control.
17 The third set of owners, a private equity
18 group, sold and never moved forward on operating or
19 attempting to operate the plant. Now we have another
20 set of owners promising manure only. The Councy has
21 been asked to reinstate the existing USR, leaving way
22 too many possibilities.
23 This plant has been an expensive
24 experiment from the beginning. I attended numerous
46
1 meetings with all of the transient owners, listened to
2 the promises, witnessed the lack of expertise in
3 operating the plant. Through all the hearings, the
4 various owners admitted to the County on record that
5 they didn't know if the fixes would work. Many times
6 they had no solution.
7 The County and the neighbors were asked
8 again and again for another chance to correct the
9 problems. Both gave the plant and its operators every
10 chance. Now we are asked again.
11 The letter received -- that I received,
12 and some of the neighbors I'm sure received, talks
13 about how they're neighbors who live and work around
14 us. I doubt very strongly if the stench from this
15 plant will ever reach M&J Dairy seven miles away. Nor
16 will it reach Hunter Ridge Dairy, 24 miles away, or
17 Seeley Lake where some of the owners live. Nor will
18 the stench reach New Hampshire where Jim Potter,
19 another principle in this latest adventure, resides.
20 However, the stench cloud will hang over
21 the Justices, the Welches, the Hoilens (phonetic), the
22 Flippins, the Andersons, the Marks, and make it down to
23 my house two and a half miles away, along with the
24 entire neighborhood as far as five miles away.
47
1 The stench will hang over the jewel of
2 Weld County -- the Weld County Parkway -- that brings
3 people from all over through our county. The dairymen
4 have admitted they cannot run the plant, and they have
5 to rely on someone else. One of their partners with
6 ownership is Jim Potter. Mr. Potter has been involved
7 with this plant from inception, and has been involved
8 in all the problems with no solutions.
9 My fear is it will continue to be a thorn
10 in the side of our entire neighborhood and an
11 embarrassment to Weld County's reputation. It is
12 costing the Weld County taxpayers untold expense with
13 oversight, legal issues, and enforcement.
14 I beg the Commissioners to leave the
15 suspension until such time as ownership can
16 prove -- and I don't mean on a piece of paper. I mean
17 they have to put in all this stuff, not just say
18 they're going to, because that never happens -- until
19 they can prove that they're capable of running the plan
20 efficiently. No more experimenting. Weld County and
21 our neighborhood have been given -- have given this
22 plant more than enough chances.
23 In conclusion, the plant which has sold
24 four times, is nothing more than an expensive
48
1 experiment that has been allowed to terrorize an entire
2 county, including the Board of Commissioners, and
3 especially a neighborhood of the same people. And
4 we're talking hundreds of years, not a couple of
5 decades. All these people were here in 2016. They're
6 still there in their beautiful homes, not mansions, but
7 homes they have worked their tail off to own. And this
8 plant completely cut off the very air they breathe.
9
10
11
12 much.
13
MR. CHOATE: Five minutes, Mr. Chair.
CHAIR MORENO: Yeah, got it.
MS. ARENS: Time up? Thank you very
CHAIR MORENO: Hang on just a second.
14 Are there any questions? Commissioner -- okay. All
15 right. Thank you for your comments.
16 MR. CHOATE: Actually, the Clerk would
17 request a copy of your letter, if you're willing.
18 We'll add it as an exhibit to the record.
19 MS. ARENS: Okay. I made a few
20 corrections. I'm sorry.
21 MR. CHOATE: That's okay. Thank you.
22 CHAIR MORENO: Next? Is there anybody
23 else that would like to come forward? State your name
24 and address for the record.
49
1 MS. WELCH: Hi. I'm Sharon Welch. I'm
2 at 18626 County Road 49. We live on the hill that
3 overlooks the plant, so we have a very good view, with
4 a beautiful deck that we like to enjoy that, as
5 everybody mentioned, for several years, we were
6 actually the one with the flag.
7 On record, I think there's a picture of
8 our flag that sits on our land that used to represent
9 freedom that we had at our place. And unfortunately,
10 as it was mentioned, it became where our neighbors
11 looked at our flag whether or not we could go outside,
12 because it depended on which way the wind was blowing.
13 So I think that you've all heard like how
14 horrible our life was. We even had a Stanford person
15 that came earlier to tell us that we had PTSD from
16 smell, which we did, and you're hearing a lot of that
17 today. We are -- we are living in fear once again.
18 Today's my daughter's birthday. We were
19 supposed to be out of town, but we're here sitting at a
20 hearing. My husband missed his grandmother passing
21 away because he was here at a hearing.
22 So when you talk about or listen to how
23 this affected our lives, I don't want to be here today.
24 I don't -- I had mentioned I didn't want to get to know
50
1 our neighbors, because I just want to be able to live
2 my life and enjoy my grandkids outside, riding horses.
3 I don't want to know what with my neighbors are doing,
4 unfortunately.
5 And I think when you talk about what
6 they're doing, when I asked the question when we met
7 with them, "Is there another facility exactly like this
8 running successfully?", they couldn't tell me yes. I
9 asked if they had a mentor that they were working with
10 of this exact facility, this exact style that this
11 facility is set up, and they couldn't answer yes.
12 So for me, when we talk about being
13 experimental, it does seem like it's an experiment
14 again. It does seem like we are going to be subject to
15 hoping that the facility works.
16 And I'm going to tell you, I have -- I
17 know what they want to do is right. I believe that
18 these men do live in our community, and I'm excited
19 about that. I think that that is wonderful. But
20 they're not going to be living next door.
21 And again, it is an experiment. And we
22 were guinea pigs for several years; we're not
23 interested in doing it again. They could do it on
24 their own dairy, on their own property, not next to
51
1 mine.
2 And so I think that that's what I would
3 say, is that, yes, it is going to be a manure -only
4 facility, but it's not the exact facility that this is
5 running. And that's where our concern comes, where we
6 don't have specific guidelines in place.
7 Were we told by Heartland it wasn't going
8 to smell? Oh, yeah, we were. We were also told that
9 they were going to do X, Y & Z, that unfortunately the
10 County did not hold them to. The County didn't hold
11 them to what they said they were going to do. And we
12 believed in good faith that they were going to do it,
13 but that really backfired on us. So we are worried
14 about not having things in writing of what they're
15 going to do.
16 I believe that they're good men, and I do
17 believe that they want to do what's right for this
18 county. But if it doesn't work, we're the ones that
19 are going to be suffering once again.
20 So anyway, that's what I have to say.
21 Thank you for your time today.
22 CHAIR MORENO: Ms. Welch, and I'm glad
23 you pointed that out, because I forgot. I was going to
24 ask the others that spoke. So you did have a
52
1 conversation with the applicant. One-on-one or did you
2 meet as a group? Did you --
3 MS. WELCH: We did. We met with them
4 one-on-one. I think it was a very good conversation.
5 I was very upfront at the time that I didn't want to
6 get to know them, because I don't. I want to live my
7 life.
8 My husband spent two horrible years
9 fighting not just the state, the county, and Heartland.
10 I lost him for two years. Every night when he got off
11 work, it was a full-time job doing what actually I
12 think was your job, that he had to do. And so I don't
13 want that to happen again.
14 We were very sad when we got the letter,
15 because it once again started all over again. Nobody
16 in the county should have to go and get -- learn how to
17 do a smell test and a smell meter. I didn't do it. I
18 just relied on my flag whether or not I could go
19 outside or not.
20 I do believe that they are good men, and
21 I do believe that they want to do what's right for the
22 county. But our concern is that once again, we're
23 going to be an experiment, because this facility has
24 never run successfully.
53
1 And the one thing that I would also like
2 on record, we speak a lot about mismanagement of
3 Heartland. But at the end of the day, the facility was
4 not set up to run correctly. That was -- the end of
5 the day, that was the problem. Yes, they had
6 mismanagement. They told a lot of things to the
7 community that weren't true. But at the end of the
8 day, the facility did not run properly in order to
9 handle the amount of smell that was coming off of it.
10 I would just like for the record for you
11 all to look back of how many complaints were made of
12 smell prior to the facility opening. We have lived by
13 dairies, feedlots our whole lives, and we've never
14 made, not a single one complaint. So when we talk
15 about the distance of us from a dairy and are the
16 smells going to be the same, we know what a dairy
17 smells like. We've lived by them our whole lives.
18 We've never made a complaint about that.
19 So you know, I would just like that to be
20 considered too, is that it's not like we're the smell
21 people. We have lived in agricultural our whole lives.
22 CHAIR MORENO: Okay. Thank you. Any
23 questions? All right. Thank you for being here.
24 Thank you for your comments.
54
1 MS. WELCH: Thank you.
2 CHAIR MORENO: Anybody else in the
3 audience who would like to address the Board, please
4 come forward and state your name and address for the
5 record. Yes, sir.
6 MR. WERNER: Good morning, Commissioners.
7 My name is Rich Werner, Upstate Colorado Economic
8 Development, 822 7th Street, Greeley, Colorado, here in
9 Weld County.
10 I have some prepared comments, and I'll
11 start by saying when we permitted the property, it was
12 pretty exciting. It was phenomenal for Weld County.
13 This was a renewable energy project that was a natural
14 addition to a county that is number one in agriculture,
15 produces 90 percent of the oil and gas, 25 percent of
16 the natural gas, 25 percent of the wind energy. These
17 are comments by a former Weld County commissioner when
18 this project came online.
19 And as we know, as Commissioners, your
20 responsibility to support business and support the
21 citizens of Weld County I don't think can be
22 questioned. In fact, when we look at this project,
23 this commission shut down a $150 -million investment
24 because it was bad for the neighbors. That's a pretty
55
1 significant decision that was made by this -- by this
2 body.
3 So when we look at Weld County and we
4 look at the rich history of protecting and promoting
5 entrepreneurship, protecting our businesses, and
6 protecting responsible land use, there's no question as
7 to the role that you fulfill every day. And I think
8 that most people in this -- in this -- at the dais in
9 this audience realize that.
10 Back in 2016, I stood before this
11 commission, and I said that it was critical for
12 companies to be good neighbors. It was critical for
13 the success of Weld County to have a true partnership
14 between the public and the private sectors. And
15 there's no reason to go into all the particulars of
16 what happened back then. But the fact that this
17 project was shut down shows exactly how the process is
18 supposed to work.
19 Now we're here five years later with
20 local dairymen taking ownership of this facility, going
21 to a manure -only structure. And we have to look at
22 what has been going on in the agricultural industry, in
23 the energy industry, and understand that these
24 advancements in technology are increasing production,
56
1 they are improving air quality, they're improving soil
2 qualities all across these industries.
3 And so as we look at reinstating this
4 USR, which I am here in support of, we need to
5 understand that as a body in Weld County, if we are not
6 taking care of these things ourselves -- and I don't
7 mean to pontificate too much -- we know that there are
8 additional regulations that are coming online every
9 day.
10 Weld County is at the forefront of an
11 all-inclusive energy industry in the state of Colorado,
12 and, in fact, in the nation. In agriculture, we're one
13 of the top -producing, as I mentioned, and still are one
14 of the top -producing agricultural counties in the
15 United States. And these technologies are being used
16 every day.
17 I think this project, as it is done and
18 comes back online, will be using these technologies,
19 solving the problems that were before this body before,
20 and I hope you take my comments in consideration as you
21 make your decision. Thank you for your time.
22 CHAIR MORENO: Mr. Werner, again,
23 appreciate you being here and appreciate your comments.
24 I'm just going to respectfully disagree with the one
57
1 comment of -- and interpretation about shutting down.
2 What the Board had done was suspend their
3 operation because they were not in compliance. That
4 was, I guess, the interpretation that it was a
5 shutdown; but it was a suspension until they could
6 prove up and come in compliance with County Code here.
7 And the CD was not valid that they had. So -
8 MR. WERNER: I stand corrected,
9 Commissioner. It was a suspension, yes.
10 CHAIR MORENO: Thank you. Appreciate it.
11 Anybody else in the audience who would like to address
12 the Board on this, please come forward and state your
13 name and address for the record.
14 With that, I am going to close public
15 comment and bring back the applicant, the applicant
16 rep.
17 Commissioner James?
18 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Mr. Chair, might
19 this be a good pause for a three -minute time out?
20 CHAIR MORENO: Okay. How about we recess
21 at 11:12 for about five minutes.
22 (Recess from 11:12 a.m. to 11:19 a.m.)
23 CHAIR MORENO: It's 11:19. We're going
24 to continue on. I'm going to call the applicant back
58
1 up, the applicant's rep. Mr. Naylor, do you want to
2 comment on the comments that were being made?
3 MR. NAYLOR: Well, we certainly
4 understand the concerns of the neighborhood and their
5 having to live through the Heartland Biogas debacle.
6 The process that this started was two
7 engineers, in 2009, that came up with the design to do
8 these mega swimming pool digesters. And then other
9 people bought, and it's just progressed through that.
10 And so we're here today to ask that this
11 be reinstated as a manure -only. I think back at
12 the -- at the hearings, the hearings that happened in
13 2016, the Board asked Heartland, "Why don't you just do
14 manure only?" I think the neighbors had requested,
15 "Why don't you just do manure only?" That would solve
16 a lot of problems.
17 So again, we're here. We have somebody
18 that can and is willing to operate the facility as a
19 manure -only facility. The technology is just
20 developing every day. The regulations are here. A.J.
21 just said it a little bit ago that right now the
22 control is the Best Management Practice, and then it's
23 going to move into a required management, and then it's
24 going to turn into a regulated management practice for
59
1 odor control.
2 We are trying to catch it at the
3 forefront and be able to control the greenhouse gases,
4 the emissions, and also capture methane as a renewable
5 energy source. And for that, we would request that the
6 Board reinstate the permit.
7 CHAIR MORENO: Commissioner James?
8 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: I didn't mean to
9 interrupt you.
10 MR. NAYLOR: I can answer any questions,
11 yes.
12 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Good. Then our
13 timing was good there. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and
14 thanks, Mr. Naylor.
15 A couple of -- bottom line what we have
16 is this suspended USR that we have to decide if we're
17 going to bring that back, if we're going to reinstate
18 that USR. That all boils down to eight violations.
19 We've got those violations enumerated here, and we'll
20 just need to put our findings on the record if we
21 decide to go down that path and talk about each of
22 those violations, specifically, here in just a moment.
23 But talk to me about a couple of things
24 still at kind of the 30,000 -foot view here. I hate to
60
1 be crass about this, but it would help me to
2 understand, What makes these things stink? I mean, is
3 it the -- and my question is, let me be more specific.
4 Mr. Welch made a comment about
5 off -gassing and about an H2S problem there. I'm
6 assuming that there are byproduct gases from the
7 digestion of the manure. There's a chemical process
8 that takes place, gas is created. How is that handled?
9 What kind of surety do we have that those kind of
10 off -gassing is not going to take place?
11 And there was one other question, Tim,
12 that I'm going to ask that you address here that was
13 interesting to me. Is this a facility problem or a
14 management problem? Could it be the facility is bum?
15 And if so, what is the new owner doing to bring it up
16 to speed?
17 MR. NAYLOR: So the manure management
18 practices that are in place now are that manure goes to
19 a pond. It goes through the same process as -- in a
20 pond that it does in the digester. It
21 creates -- there's an anaerobic process in the bottom
22 of the pond and an aerobic process at the top of the
23 pond. And as weather changes, ponds turn over too, and
24 then you get a smell for a while because the anaerobic
61
1 side came up. It creates methane. It creates H2S in a
2 pond.
3 In the digester, it will do the exact
4 same thing. It will create H2S. It will create
5 methane. It will create all of those same off -gasses,
6 except they're in a confined, contained space. So we
7 have bio filters to manage odor. We have H2S scrubbers
8 that will capture that H2S and turn it -- and change it
9 to a sulfer, and so it can be controlled.
10 So the digester is a controlled
11 environment that allows us to capture those greenhouse
12 gases. It allows us to capture the methane. It allows
13 us to deal with that. Whereas a pond, it just happens
14 and it goes into the atmosphere.
15 There are dairymen -- DFA is looking at,
16 "How do we cover ponds? How do we put a bubble over a
17 pond and capture the gas there?" Well, this process
18 allows us to take it to the next level.
19 And as far as your second part of your
20 question, they are reviewing all of the equipment that
21 is on -site. They are upgrading the scrubbers, the H2S
22 scrubbers, as I mentioned earlier, that those scrubbers
23 weren't -- they don't operate well in the colder
24 weather. They found that out. So those are being
62
1 upgraded. So there's a lot of engineering that is
2 taking place to upgrade and change the facility.
3 The basic parameter -- you know, the
4 basic operations of this are similar to any other
5 facility, any other digester. You put manure in, you
6 let the bugs do their thing, they create methane, and
7 you capture that and control the off -gasses.
8 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Mr. Chair, if I
9 could.
10 CHAIR MORENO: Continue.
11 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: A couple comments
12 made about the previous operators and a lack of
13 expertise. Can you perhaps talk about the folks who
14 plan on operating it as we move forward, and their
15 experience so to speak, their expertise in this area?
16 MR. NAYLOR: Platte River Biogas will
17 be -- will be -- they will be hiring a company to
18 manage and run the facility. Heartland Biogas operated
19 it as their own. EDF ran it. They had their own
20 people it in.
21 And the choices that they made in
22 that -- in how they managed that facility, I think -- I
23 think if -- I think this is a good example of the
24 mind -set when they came to these Show Cause hearings
63
1 was, "We are not in violation of the odor." And that's
2 what they stood on, and that's what they died on is,
3 We're not in violation.
4 Instead of going to back and saying,
5 "Yeah, but you stink, do something about it," they
6 said, "No, we're not doing anything about it. We're
7 just going to tell you that we're not in violation."
8 Well, that's not -- that's not what Platte River
9 Biogas -- that's not what, you know -- we're not going
10 to die by the sword of, "We're not in violation."
11 The whole thing is get it reinstated, buy
12 the proper equipment, get the proper people to operate
13 it. It isn't any different than any of the other
14 anaerobic digesters that are on dairies. The dairymen
15 aren't operating the digesters. They have an operating
16 company that are experts in managing and operating
17 SCADA systems and managing and controlling.
18 These aren't any different than any large
19 power generating facility, that they -- they operate
20 under controls. Everything has a defined control
21 limit, and as long as you keep it within that, they
22 operate.
23 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Thank you.
24 CHAIR MORENO: Any other questions for
64
1 Mr. Naylor? Commissioner Saine?
2 COMMISSIONER SAINE: And thank you for
3 that recap of the process and how it's very -- it's
4 very similar to what happens in the ponds for dairies.
5 And we know that our dairies are somewhat in trouble,
6 which is -- this -- capturing the methane is something
7 that will be helpful as the state looks at doing some
8 other regulations.
9 But the anaerobic and aerobic, so I just
10 want to make sure I'm clear. The products are exactly
11 the same, which would be methane and the H2S; is that
12 correct?
13 MR. NAYLOR: Yes.
14 COMMISSIONER SAINE: In the dairy ponds
15 and in these digesters?
16 MR. NAYLOR: The breakdown of the manure
17 follows the same process. The digester helps
18 facilitate it because it keeps it in an optimum
19 temperature for the bugs that are converting the
20 nitrogen to methane. And so it happens at a more rapid
21 speed, but it's the same process. It's the same
22 decomposition process, whether you're in a lagoon or a
23 digester. It's just a controlled environment.
24 COMMISSIONER SAINE: And permission for
65
1 dialogue, Mr. Chair?
2 CHAIR MORENO: Yes.
3 COMMISSIONER SAINE: So with the speeding
4 up the process -- and again, I'm trying to be very
5 cognizant of the concerns of the residents here -- the
6 speeding up the process, does that produce more smell,
7 more odor that has to be contained than a regular dairy
8 pond?
9 MR. NAYLOR: It creates -- it happens at
10 a faster pace. I wouldn't say that it creates more
11 odor, but the difference in a digester is that you have
12 the ability, because it's in an enclosed thing, you
13 can -- you can capture that. You capture that odor.
14 You can filter that odor. You can scrub the H2S, which
15 creates the rotten egg smell. You capture that and you
16 clean it, you fix it. And you can't do that with a
17 lagoon.
18 So the dairy lagoons that are out there,
19 they're going to smell like dairy lagoons. And every
20 so often they turn over, and that's the day you go, Oh,
21 my gosh, what happened, you know, because they turned
22 over the anaerobic part of it.
23 COMMISSIONER SAINE: And just to, again,
24 be cognizant of some of the concerns, because I haven't
66
1 lived through that. I'm sure that wasn't pleasant.
2 But you mentioned that you're updating the H2S
3 scrubbers. That's something that Mr. Welch brought up.
4 And you mentioned things like they're being updated.
5 You only mentioned the cold weather aspect. Can you
6 elaborate on how else -
7 MR. NAYLOR: They're a brand-new H2S
8 scrubber. And I don't know the -- I'm not an engineer.
9 I'm not -- we didn't design the facility. AGPRO does
10 not design facilities. We don't have mechanical
11 engineers that do that. That was done by another
12 group. We just facilitated the land use and the solid
13 waste permitting through the state.
14 So, but they are replacing those
15 scrubbers with new high-tech optimum scrubbers that
16 will operate in the conditions that they're in now. So
17 they're replacing equipment to operate better.
18 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Okay.
19 MR. NAYLOR: Does that make sense? Is
20 that answering your question?
21 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Well, I was hoping
22 for something a little bit more complete, but as you
23 said, you're not an engineer. Is there anybody
24 approved that might --
67
1 MR. NAYLOR: I don't think we have
2 anybody technical here that can say, Here's how these
3 H2 -- basically they -- they're just a different
4 version, but they're set up to -- to work optimally in
5 the colder environment than what these original ones
6 were.
7 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Okay.
8 CHAIR MORENO: Okay. Any other
9 questions? All right. Well, I think we need to start
10 going through. As Commissioner James stated earlier,
11 we do have eight of the violations that we need to
12 address here at today's hearing and go through this.
13 The first one is on -- Violation Number 1
14 was Development Standard Number 6. So can we have
15 conversation from the Board. Commissioner James?
16 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Just a little bit.
17 Before we get too specific -- I'll walk
18 down that path here in a second. But before we get too
19 specific, I -- we -- it was interesting, one of the
20 comments from the public was that we don't have a way
21 of giving them a test, so to speak, before we allow
22 this. We either do or we don't. They have to operate
23 it to prove that they can do so efficiently. So we've
24 kind of got a chicken or an egg thing here.
68
1 So the way we can be responsive to the
2 neighborhood is being responsive, you know, if there is
3 a complaint to be mega responsive with that complaint.
4 So I guess this is nothing more than look at my friend
5 Ben here and say, Ben, we need to be mega responsive to
6 any -- hopefully we don't receive complaints. How
7 do -- how will we react to them if we do?
8 MR. FRISSELL: We are responsive no
9 matter what to any complaint across the county to the
10 best of our ability. And similar to this, if we
11 receive a complaint, we do the best that we can to get
12 a certified nasal ranger operator out to the site and
13 conduct that investigation.
14 There is some clarifying points that I
15 would like to point out regarding some timeframes of
16 items that I think would be beneficial for the Board to
17 hear.
18 The site originally took manure in 2014.
19 In October of 2015, the site started taking waste
20 grease. November of 2015 was our first odor complaint.
21 2016 was when the site started taking other solid
22 waste, meaning food waste. And our -- our complaints
23 increased dramatically during that time.
24 I have some of those numbers. And
69
1 starting November 11, 2015, which was our first
2 complaint, we received 501 complaints to November 10 of
3 2016, which was right before the Show Cause hearing,
4 which then got suspended -- or got continued to the
5 December timeframe.
6 And during that timeframe, I believe we
7 responded 60 different times to do odor investigations.
8 Noting that we have limited hours; we can't be there at
9 11:00 at night. There are some weekend times that are
10 just not available. So we received complaints at
11 various times, but, again, we responded to the best of
12 our ability.
13 But I did think that was pertinent to
14 this whole conversation of actual timeframes of when
15 items were delivered, what they were doing, and when
16 complaints started.
17 CHAIR MORENO: So about almost a year
18 before they started with the food, spoiled food and
19 everything else, there was no complaints. It was
20 strictly manure that they were --
21 MR. FRISSELL: During the time that they
22 were strictly taking manure, we did not receive, to my
23 knowledge, any complaints. When they started taking
24 waste grease in October of 2015, a month later, we
70
1 received our first odor complaint. And then 2016 was
2 when they started taking the more food -based items and
3 processing those, and that's when our complaints
4 increased dramatically.
5 CHAIR MORENO: Commissioner James,
6 continue.
7 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Thanks, Ben. I
8 appreciate that.
9 And to that, as we start to work through
10 this and put findings on record, do we have to deal
11 with these eight different violations?
12 Violation 1 was Development Standard 6:
13 Property owner or operator shall comply with the
14 applicable sections of the regulations pertaining to
15 the Solid Waste Disposal and Facilities Act, and be
16 constructed, operated, and monitored as detailed in the
17 application materials and conditions detailed by the
18 Design and Operation Plan approval dated April 7, 2010,
19 from the Colorado Department of Public Health and
20 Environment in conjunction with the application
21 materials, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
22 Bottom line is Violation 1 had to do
23 specifically with the CD and the solid waste, correct?
24 CHAIR MORENO: Right.
71
1 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: So findings towards
2 reinstatement of the USR, at least let me put on
3 record, that this is not a concern since there would be
4 no solid waste. And if there is any, which we're told
5 they're not, it would still, as the applicant has
6 pointed out, it revolved -- or involves the operators
7 coming back in and applying for that CD from this
8 particular body --
9 CHAIR MORENO: That's correct.
10 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: - which was public
11 process.
12 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: And the state.
13 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: And the state as
14 well, right. So therefore, Violation 1, I believe our
15 findings should be is not applicable to the operation
16 plan as we move forward.
17
18 Commissioners?
19
CHAIR MORENO: I would agree. Cther
COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I would agree.
20 CHAIR MORENO: Commissioner Saine? All
21 right.
22 Then let's move on to Violation 2., and
23 this is Development Standard Number 10. Commissioner
24 Freeman?
72
1 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: So this one here
2 is actually a submitting of a change order to the State
3 and not to the County. And essentially, what it was
4 doing is they were in violation of their Engineering
5 Design Plan, their EDOP, which is all of this
6 violaticm, which is also no longer applicable because
7 there is no EDOP required, because that's a
8 separate -- because it's a USR now. So, Violation 2 is
9 essentially the same as Violation 1. It's no longer
10 applicable.
11 CHAIR MORENO: Okay. Everybody in
12 agreeance with that? Everybody in agreeance? Okay.
13 All right. Let's take a look at -- go ahead,
14 Commissioner Freeman.
15 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: There is one thing
16 in this one that I think we need to bring to -- and
17 that is Number 4 on Violation 2 is around the Drainage
18 Plan. And I need Dawn to state where we're at there.
19 MS. ANDERSON: Thank you, Commissioners.
20 Dawn Anderson, Planning Services, Development Review.
21 In regards to the drainage, at this time
22 I cannot sign off on that item, being that we did not
23 get a Final Drainage Plan that addressed the sizes of
24 the soils and the ponds and the water levels.
73
1 We've been in communication with the
2 applicant's representative, and when an inspection was
3 done, in 2016, where these findings were made, there
4 hasn't been an update at this time. So we need an
5 approved As -built Updated Final Drainage Plan, and I
6 would ask that the Board do that prior to operation so
7 that we can satisfy this request.
8 CHAIR MORENO: Okay. I'm going to go to
9 the applicant here to address that.
10 MR. NAYLOR: Yeah. We had an engineer
11 review the site, walk the site, review it, provided a
12 memo to staff stating that it was within compliance of
13 the drainage criteria.
14 We are certainly in
15 agreeance -- secondly, we have not been -- you know,
16 there was a statement that the soils were not in
17 compliance and -- but we have not been provided any
18 documentation to that. But we are in agreeance of
19 providing an As -built and an Updated Drainage Report.
20 We can't provide one that states that the
21 2013 drainage currently matches the site because there
22 were two grading permits issued in -- one in 2014, one
23 in 2016 that changed the site. And we weren't required
24 to update the drainage report at that point, in 2014,
74
1 2016. But we are willing to address the staff's
2 request.
3 CHAIR MORENO: What would be the
4 timeframe to get that done?
5 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: May I speak,
6 comment, Commissioner?
7
8 Commissioner.
9
CHAIR MORENO: Okay. Go ahead,
COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: So I think what we
10 need to do is put a Condition on Approval that says the
11 Final Drainage Report will be submitted prior -- and
12 approved prior to operation.
13 MR. NAYLOR: And we're acceptable to
14 that.
15 CHAIR MORENO: Well, I still want to ask
16 the question, What would that be -- what's your
17 timeframe to get that done?
18 MR. NAYLOR: Well, we would have that
19 done prior to operation. So we would -- rather than
20 have a strict 60 -day time limit to have it done, it
21 will be provided and approved by staff prior to us
22 operating the facility.
23 UNKNOWN MALE: Operation?
24 MR. NAYLOR: Yes, sir, which is what we
75
1 see pretty standard in a lot of our conditions.
2 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: And that's
3 satisfactorily with --
4 CHAIR MORENO: Staff, I'm going to go to
5 staff now.
6 MS. ANDERSON: Yeah, I would agree with
7 Mr. Naylor. I mean, I think that was the issue from
8 when I read the Hearing Certificate. Of course I was
9 not here in 2016, and employed with the County, but the
10 concern was the site conditions did not match that of
11 the approved Drainage Plan. So when we're speaking of
12 an As -built and an Updated Drainage Plan, that's what
13 we're looking for to make sure that they're in
14 compliance. And we would agree that prior to operation
15 would be sufficient.
16 CHAIR MORENO: Commissioner Freeman, is
17 there anything else?
18 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: No.
19 CHAIR MORENO: Okay. And then I'll go to
20 Commissioner James.
21 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Thank you,
22 Mr. Chair.
23 And I'm just going to look towards
24 Esther. If you're scribing this, so to speak,
76
1 I -- under the proposed resolution on page 7 of the
2 draft, whatever the next sub -bullet in your numbering
3 structure would be there, would it be 4-A, if we can
4 simply place that --
5 CHAIR MORENO: Prior to --
6 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Yeah, the --
7 CHAIR MORENO: Counsel?
8 MR. CHOATE: I'll help you out here. We
9 actually have a proposed Development Standard -- pardon
10 me -- a proposed Condition of Approval at the -- it's
11 the last -- on the last page.
12 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: It's the last.
13 Okay. Thank you.
14 MR. CHOATE: Because page 7 is a
15 continuance of your findings.
16 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Gotcha.
17 MR. CHOATE: And so the appropriate place
18 would be at the end. Based on what you -- I've got
19 some language to add in: "Prior to operation, the
20 property owner shall submit. . " And I can work with
21 Esther on that.
22 CHAIR MORENO: So look at -- board
23 members, is everybody okay with that? Commissioner
24 Saine? Okay. So all right. So why don't we -- that
77
1 was the last of that, because there was Number 4. So
2 we'll go ahead and go on to Violation Number 3, which
3 is Development Standard Number 17.
4 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: So let me take a
5 shot at this one, if I can.
6 CHAIR MORENO: Okay. Commissioner James?
7 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Development
8 Standard 17 was: "The facility shall operate in
9 compliance with applicable Colorado Air Quality Control
10 Regulations and comply with any permits issued by the
11 Air Pollution Control Division."
12 I'd be open, fellow Commissioners, on how
13 we're going to get the compliance there.
14
15 repeat that?
16
COMMISSIONER SAINE: I'm sorry. Can you
COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: So this goes back
17 to -- if I'm not mistaken, this goes back to the one
18 odor complaint.
19 CHAIR MORENO: Back in '16?
20 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Violation 3, is
21 that what that's in reference to?
22 MR. CHOATE: Yeah. It's the odor
23 complaint and the APEN, I believe. There was a
24 relevant compliance order on consent. And again, the
78
1 solid waste regulations don't apply to manure only.
2 I'd refer to -- I'd defer to Ben to answer that.
3 CHAIR MORENO: Ben?
4 MR. FRISSELL: So there was a compliance
5 order on consent, and it was more related to the
6 equipment that's operating there for the gas processing
7 portion. So that compliance order on consent has been
8 transferred to PRB, and they are now required to comply
9 with that. There are some modifications they're doing
10 to equipment, so they're essentially going to reopen
11 that and comply with it as they update and change their
12 equipment over to the current one.
13 So as Mr. Naylor stated, the H2S system
14 would be an example of that. They will reapply for any
15 APENs that they need, and that will solve that
16 compliance order. And again, that has been transferred
17 over for them.
18 There was that -- the odor issue. But
19 based on the Operations Plan and the odor mitigation
20 section within that plan, it seems -- and it appears
21 to, at least, to Environment Health -- that they're
22 taking the necessary steps to comply with future odor
23 issues to not get to that 7:1 threshold.
24 CHAIR MORENO: Commissioner James,
79
1 continue.
2 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: On Violation 3, let
3 me submit for the record my finding of the lack of
4 solid waste combined with the updating of equipment,
5 and the improvement of the facility will indicate the
6 compliance could be achieved.
7 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I would agree.
8 CHAIR MORENO: Any questions on that?
9 You can ask some more. Okay. Is there anything else
10 on that that --
11 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: No.
12 CHAIR MORENO: I think that pretty much
13 clearly states it with compliance order on consent
14 there. All right. So let's go on to Violation
15 Number 4, the Development Standard 21.
16 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: So I think this
17 one goes along the same lines. There was a compliance
18 order that has now been transferred, that will be
19 corrected. And you guys have looked at it and believe
20 that that's the case?
21 MR. FRISSELL: The state will be the one
22 that will approve that compliance order on consent with
23 the new PRB. But yes, we have seen the transfer order.
24 We know that they are in talks with the State for that
80
1 compliance order, and are making the necessary
2 arrangements to gain compliance.
3 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Okay.
4 CHAIR MORENO: So the same as that one?
5 MR. FRISSELL: That is correct.
6 CHAIR MORENO: Anything else on that?
7 Commissioner Saine, all good? All right.
8 Let's go on to Violation Number 5 here,
9 Development Standard Number 30, of the waste materials.
10 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Just a quick
11 comment, if I can, Mr. Chair.
12
13 James.
14
CHAIR MORENO: Go ahead, Commissioner
CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Just a simple
15 clerical error there. It's listed as D; that should be
16 E.
17 CHAIR MORENO: On which one are you
18 looking at?
19 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: On page -- draft
20 page 9, it should be E, rather -- Violation 5, rather
21 than D, Violation 5.
22 CHAIR MORENO: All right. Thank you.
23 Good catch.
24 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: I channeled my
81
1 inner Kirkmeyer.
2 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: That's a little
3 scary.
4 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Don't hold it
5 against me. All right.
6 Development Standard 30, "waste materials
7 not specifically addressed by other Development
8 Standards shall be handled, stored, and disposed of in
9 a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris,
10 and other potential nuisance conditions," is the
11 Development Standard.
12 The Board previously found the applicant
13 was in violation of Development Standard 30 due to
14 failing to control nuisance conditions as evidenced by
15 the test quality and photographs relating to off -site
16 nuisance conditions such as blowing trash, uncovered
17 trash containers, and off -site odor conditions.
18 Bottom line is we need assurance that
19 this won't happen again.
20 CHAIR MORENO: This will just be manure.
21 Now they won't be having milk cartons and all that
22 other --
23 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Yeah, right. It's
24 not the trash, the food trash that they have.
82
1 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Exactly. That's
2 what the issue was.
3 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: So my findings
4 would be that they should be addressed, then, because
5 the material handled is solely manure.
6 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Right.
7 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Okay.
8 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: I'll go to the
9 next page, and it should be F.
10 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: It should be F
11 there. Good catch.
12 CHAIR MORENO: All right. So Violation
13 Number 7, Development Standard 42, property owner --
14 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Go to 6.
15 CHAIR MORENO: Which one?
16 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Top of page,
17 Violation 6.
18 CHAIR MORENO: Oh, I'm sorry. Yep.
19 Okay. Number 6.
20 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: And it's
21 Development Standard 34.
22 CHAIR MORENO: I'm going to use that one.
23 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: And so I can take
24 this one.
83
1 CHAIR MORENO: Please.
2 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: This one,
3 Violation 6, is directly related, once again, to the
4 Certificate of Designation and EDOP, which is no longer
5 applicable.
6 CHAIR MORENO: Everybody okay with that?
7 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Uh-huh.
8 CHAIR MORENO: Now we'll go to Violation
9 7, Development Standard 42. This is what the property
10 owner or the operator shall be responsible for
11 complying with, the Design and Operation standards,
12 Chapter 23 of the Weld County Code.
13 COMMISSIONER SAINE: This is back to CD.
14 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: What's that?
15 CHAIR MORENO: Go ahead, Commissioner
16 Saine.
17 COMMISSIONER SAINE: CD.
18 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: It directly is
19 completely about the Certificate of Designation.
20 CHAIR MORENO: Yeah, that's not required,
21 so that's not applicable.
22 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: And of course also
23 in this one, with the Design and Operation standard,
24 that also includes the drainage in Number 5, which is
84
1 being addressed at the end, so I think we've covered
2 that.
3
4
5 operation.
6
CHAIR MORENO: Prior to operation, right.
COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Right, prior to
CHAIR MORENO: Okay.
7 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Insert prior to
8 operation?
9
10 last page.
11
COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: It will be on the
CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: The last page.
12 CHAIR MORENO: All right. Everybody okay
13 with that, then?
14 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Uh-huh.
15 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Yes.
16 CHAIR MORENO: And we have one more.
17 This is Violation Number 8, and this is the Development
18 Standard 45. This is, "The property owner or operator
19 shall be responsible for complying with all of the
20 foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with
21 any of the foregoing Development Standards may be
22 reason for revocation of the permit by the Board of
23 County Commissioners."
24 MR. CHOATE: And that's the catchall. So
85
1 by finding that they made remedies to the other
2 violations, you automatically find they remedy that one
3 as well.
4 CHAIR MORENO: Okay. Anything else from
5 the Board?
6 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: So the only thing
7 that I would add is when you go on the final
8 page -- and Commissioner Saine is
9 correct -- submit a -- on the drainage deal, it needs
10 at the end of that saying, "Prior to operations."
11 CHAIR MORENO: And Counsel had
12 already mentioned that.
13 MS. ANDERSON: Yeah, I think counsel has
14 some language.
15 MR. CHOATE: Dawn and I were discussing
16 that just have the recommended maybe changed to what's
17 there to say, "Prior to operation, the property owner
18 shall submit a Revised Drainage Report, including
19 as -built certifications, reflecting current on -site
20 drainage conditions to Weld County Development Review
21 for review and approval."
22 COMMISSIONER SAINE: It sounds much more
23 legal.
24 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Much better to put
86
1 it first than last, I would agree.
2 CHAIR MORENO: So I'm going to go back to
3 the applicant, and you followed with us?
4 MR. NAYLOR: We are in agreement.
5 CHAIR MORENO: You agree?
6 MR. NAYLOR: I kept up with it, yeah.
7 CHAIR MORENO: Okay. All right. Again,
8 I just really want to extend the huge thank you to
9 everybody that's here. I know sometimes you think
10 we're not listening, but what's been presented here,
11 what we had to discuss was not about what happened in
12 the past. And I'm sorry what happened in the past,
13 because that was awful.
14 But today what we're doing is looking at
15 what needed to be done with the new owners here and be
16 in compliance with those violations that were in place
17 here. And again, it's much different than what was in
18 that USR before, so it's much different here.
19 Again, I appreciate that the outreach was
20 there, and I hope that outreach will continue with
21 the -- with the applicant's pledge to that. And I know
22 you said cell phone numbers and everything have been
23 issued and that.
24 So our department, as Commissioner James
87
1 said, we'll handle that as quickly as possible, and we
2 will not overlook anything. That is our pledge from
3 this Board here. Commissioner James and then
4 Commissioner Saine.
5 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Yeah, if I
6 could -- thank you, Mr. Chair -- I'd use my big dog
7 voice, but my big dog voice is a little froggy right
8 now, when I say it is the expectation, at least of this
9 member of the Board of County Commissioners, that the
10 Weld County Department of Public Health and Environment
11 is responsive to neighborhood complaints.
12 It is the expectation of at least this
13 Commissioner that Platte River Biogas do what they say
14 they're going to do. And that I will be, in
15 particularly, sensitive to complaints on this because
16 there's two things at play. We cannot affect the
17 quality of life of the residences that live in this
18 neighborhood. They can't go through this nightmare
19 again. I'll be very sensitive to that.
20 Secondly, I'm very pro these type of
21 facilities, Mr. Naylor, and I think you know that,
22 because as we feel our way toward an energy future, as
23 we take a look at how Weld County can truly be that
24 pioneer in all of the above energy developments, these
88
1 types of facilities are -- offer tremendous
2 opportunity.
3 And so I think it behooves us all to make
4 sure they function as good neighbors so we can move
5 forward towards finding that, which is the future for
6 Weld County. And with that, I'll put my big dog voice
7 away. It's my expectation, but I am also optimistic.
8 CHAIR MORENO: Commissioner Saine?
9 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Mr. Chair, I would
10 like to request a mic extender, because I --
11 CHAIR MORENO: Stay away from the germs.
12 That doesn't mean I want him over here, Commissioner
13 Saine.
14 COMMISSIONER SAINE: I'll speak a little
15 closer to the mic.
16 So if angels were in charge of the
17 fairest men, we would need government, but as such,
18 government is instituted to protect private property
19 rights. And as such, a USR also protects private
20 property rights.
21 And just in consideration to the
22 neighbors, I have to follow the law. We make the law,
23 but we also need to give equal treatment under the law
24 as best we can, and that is if they met the Development
89
1 Standards, then we need to reinstate. And it sounds
2 like that has been done.
3 However, rather than relying on
4 government to be the response, if I can implore you,
5 Mr. Naylor, and everyone else in the room, if we can
6 work it out between neighbors. If there's
7 anything -- any complaints at all, if there's any
8 chance you can be more responsive than Heartland was
9 and solve the problem, I would truly, truly appreciate
10 that.
11 MR. NAYLOR: May I make a comment,
12 Commissioner?
13 CHAIR MORENO: Go ahead.
14 MR. NAYLOR: Yes, certainly that is the
15 intent of A.J. and Mel, and that is why they've given
16 out their phone numbers, that they want to be the first
17 person called, not Ben Frissell in Weld County. They
18 want to be the first person called so that they can
19 make an attempt to correct the issue.
20 If they can't resolve it, then it needs
21 to go to the County. It needs to go to the government.
22 But none of us want to go to the government. We think
23 we can work with it together.
24 COMMISSIONER SAINE: Okay. Thank you.
90
1 CHAIR MORENO: Commissioner Freeman?
2 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: So I also want to
3 thank everybody for being here today. I think one of
4 the things that -- and I know that the one in the past
5 was terrible and all that. Obviously, I was here.
6 This is a completely different kind of an operation.
7 This is something that is really important in Weld
8 County going forward. It's really important for the
9 future of agriculture in Weld County.
10 And I think -- I have full confidence
11 that they'll be able to operate this in a way as many
12 others are currently operating in Weld County that it
13 will not be an issue. I've seen -- we've all seen how
14 these operate. And when they're operated
15 correctly -- and I believe this one will be -- it's
16 going to be fine.
17 And I do understand the concerns, and I
18 do understand why everybody is worried about it. But
19 this is a completely different thing. I have full
20 confidence in these guys because it's their
21 livelihoods. These dairies, that's what they do.
It's
22 what they -- it's how they -- it's what they do for a
23 living, and it means -- it's not like they're just in
24 it for business. They're in it for their livelihood
91
1 and the operation in the future of what agriculture is
2 going to look like in Weld County and across the State.
3 So I think they're going to be great
4 neighbors, and I think they're going to be great
5 partners with you guys, and I have full confidence that
6 this will happen in a way that is very successful. So
7 going forward, everybody work together and good luck.
8 Thank you.
9 CHAIR MORENO: Commissioner Buck?
10 COMMISSIONER BUCK: I just want to thank
11 everybody also for being here. I feel like we all have
12 the froggy Freeman voice. But --
13 CHAIR FREEMAN: I try to share.
14 COMMISSIONER BUCK: -- but I am very
15 sensitive to your comments, and we will all be on high
16 alert to make sure that we don't have the travesty that
17 had happened in the past.
18 And so I just want you to know, feel free
19 to call us any time, email us. We want to know first
20 and foremost if there's a problem. But I have
21 confidence that we can make this work, and so I just
22 hope and pray we can. So thank you.
23 CHAIR MORENO: With that, we still need a
24 motion. We've heard comments ahead of time here. So
92
1 I'm going to bring it back to the Board.
2 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Mr. Chair, let me
3 give it a shot here.
4 CHAIR MORENO: Commissioner?
5 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Submitting as
6 finding of fact the testimony offered here today, the
7 discussion of the County Commissioners and the
8 Resolution that exists on record, I move we lift
9 suspension and reinstate a Site Specific Development
10 Plan and Minor Amended Use by Special Review Permit,
11 MUSR14-0030, formerly USR-1704, for a Solid Waste
12 Disposal Site and Facility, including Class I
13 composting, an animal waste recycling or processing
14 facility (an anaerobic digester -based renewable energy
15 plant [gas]), along with a concrete batch plant to be
16 used for construction of the facility, with the
17 addition of a Digester Process and a 70 -foot flare in
18 the A (Agricultural) Zone District for Platte River
19 Biogas, LLC.
20 CHAIR MORENO: Included with the findings
21 that were stated?
22 CHAIR PRO-TEM JAMES: Yes.
23 COMMISSIONER SAINE: And the legal
24 language amendment?
93
1 CHAIR MORENO: That's the motion by
2 Commissioner James.
3 COMMISSIONER FREEMAN: Second.
4 CHAIR MORENO: And seconded by
5 Commissioner Freeman. Any further discussion on this?
6
7
8
9
10
All those in favor, Aye?
MULTIPLE SPEAKERS: Aye.
CHAIR MORENO: Opposed?
Motion approved.
All right. Thank you everybody for being
11 here, and Happy New Year.
12
13 11:56 a.m.)
14
(Audio proceedings concluded at
94
Page 1
1 TRANSCRIBER'S CERTIFICATE
2
3 I, Rebecca J. Collings, a Colorado Realtime
4 Certified Reporter and Registered Professional Reporter
5 within and for the State of Colorado, do hereby certify
6 that I prepared the foregoing transcript from an audio
7 recording of the proceedings.
8 I further certify that the transcript is
9 accurate to the best of my ability to hear and understand
10 the proceedings.
11 I further certify that I am not an
12 attorney, nor counsel, nor in any way connected with any
13 attorney or counsel for any of the parties to said
14 action, nor otherwise interested in the outcome of this
15 action.
16
17
18
REBE( A J. COLLIS
19 Registered Professional Reporter
Colorado Realtime Certified Reporter
20
21
22
23
24
25
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF COLORADO)
ss
COUNTY OF WELD)
I, Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board of Weld County
Commissioners and Notary Public within and for the State of Colorado,
certify the foregoing transcript of the digitally recorded proceedings, In re:
LIFT SUSPENSION AND RE INSTATE A SITE SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND MINOR AMENDED USE BY SPECIAL
REVIEW PERMIT, MUSR14 0030 (FORMERLY USR 1704), FOR A
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITE AND FACILITY, INCLUDING CLASS I
COMPOSTING, AN ANIMAL WASTE RECYCLING OR PROCESSING
FACILITY (AN ANAEROBIC DIGESTER BASED RENEWABLE ENERGY
PLANT [GAS]), ALONG WITH A CONCRETE BATCH PLANT TO BE
USED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE FACILITY FOR THE ADDITION
OF A DIGESTER PROCESS SYSTEM AND A 70 FOOT FLARE IN THE
A (AGRICULTURAL) ZONE DISTRICT - PLATTE RIVER BIOGAS, LLC,
before the Weld County Board of County Commissioners, on Wednesday,
December 29, 2021, and as further set forth on page one. The transcription,
dependent upon recording clarity, is true and accurate with special
exceptions(s) of any or all precise identification of speakers, and/or correct
spelling or any given/spoken proper name or acronym.
Dated this 6th day of September, 2022.
Esther E. Gesick, Notary
Weld County Clerk to the Board
ORIGINAL (X)
CERTIFIED COPY ( )
ESTHER E GESICK
NOTARY PUBLIC
STATE OF COLORADO
NOTARY ID 19974016478
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES SEPTEMBER 29, 2025
Invoice for Transcript and Certification of Record
Esther E. Gesick, Clerk to the Board
1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631
(970) 400-4226 / c_gesick@weldgov.com
December 29, 2021, Hearing Transcript HE21-73 (PL2072) re: MUSR14-0030 — Platte River
Biogas, LLC (prepared by Dauster/Murphy and certified by Esther E. Gesick, Weld County
Clerk to the Board)
Transcript writing time
Transcript pages
SUBTOTAL:
+ CTB Case File preparation
+ CTB Transcript Certification
SUBTOTAL:
GRAND TOTAL:
Transcript Cert
4 hrs X $25.00
88 pgs X $7.50
* hrs X $60.00
3.0 hrs X $60.00
_ $100.00
_ $660.00
$ 760.00
$180.00
$180.00
$940.00
TOTAL:
Staff Time Log
Date
09/06/22
Time
11:10 a.m. - 12:40 p.m.
1:00 p.m. — 2:30 p.m.
Logged
1.50 hrs
1.50 hrs
3.00 hrs
Murphy Court Reporting, LLC
PO Box 753
Broomfield, Colorado
80038
Esther Gesick
egesick@weldgov.com
Quantity
Description
Invoice
Date
8/31/2022
RECEIVED
SEP 0 2 2022
WELD COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
Invoice #
941
P.O. No.
Terms
Project
Net 30
Rate
Amount
4
88
in re: Platte River Biogas facility
December 29, 2021
Writing Hours
Certified Transcript of Audio Recording
25.00
7.50
100.00
660.00
Thank you for your business.
82-1347267 - Reporter Beckie Collings
Total
$760.00
Hello