HomeMy WebLinkAbout20200436.tiff " �'': ' WELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT
' �'' �" 1555 North 17th Avenue, Greeley, CO 80631 www,weldhealth,or
cou �' Y� 9
•
Memorandum
To: Angela Snyder
From: Lauren Light, Environmental Health Services
Date: December 10, 2019
Re: MET19-0003 Dry Creek Metropolitan District No. 1
Environmental Health Services has reviewed the proposed Metropolitan District
application. The purpose of the metro district is to provide for public improvements,
including planning, design, acquisition, construction, installation, relocation and
redevelopment, in the Dry Creek Regional Urbanization Area.
Environmental Health Services cannot address the formation or financial aspect of the
proposed District. However, Environmental Health Services will provide comments in
the future regarding land use items.
Health Administration Public Health& Environmental Health Communication, Emergency Preparedness
Vital Records Clinical Services Sorvleos Education&Planning &Resporse
Icic;9/0:304 6410 Icic:9/0 304 6420 Tele:970-.304-6415 Tele:970-304-6470 Tele:970-304-6470
Fax: 9/O-301-641'2 Fax: 9i0-304-6415 Fur: 970-304-6411 Fax: 970-304-6452 Fax: 970-304-6452 Public Health
TO: Board of County Commissioners
1861
• FROM: Bob Choate, Assistant County Attorney
•
DATE: December 19, 2019
GOUN "
SUBJECT: Review of Dry Creek Metropolitan District#1 Service Plan
I have rcvicwed the proposed service plan for the Dry Creek Metropolitan District#1,which is scheduled to be considered
on January 7, 2020 by the Planning Commission, and then on January 29, 2020 by the Board of County Commissioners.
The service plan is governed by the Special District Act, C.R.S. §32-1-101 et. seq., as well as Chapter 2, Article 14 of the
Weld County Code.
SUMMARY
This memorandum enumerates the items required to be included in all special district service plans by State statute and the
Weld County Code, and describes how the proposed service plan meets those requirements. It also describes the criteria
that the applicant is required to demonstrate, and additional criteria that the Board may consider.
The purpose of this metropolitan district is to serve a large Planned Unit Development within the Dry Creek RUA, which
is being permitted concurrently under PUDZ18-0006.I find no impediment to approval of this Service Plan, however my
recommendation for approval is contingent on the Board's approval of PUDZ18-0006, because without such approval I
do not believe the Applicant can demonstrate the need for the metro district.
If the Board approves the Service Plan, I recommend two additional changes be made to it as suggested by Don Warden
and myself,which are outlined in the Recommendation at the end of this memorandum.
ITEMS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO SE INCLUDED IN THE SERVICE PLAN
Pursuant to C.R.S. §32-1-202(2), the service plan is required to contain the following:
(a)A description of the proposed services;
Section 1.A. of the Service Plan describes the intent to provide for the finance and construction of"a part or all of the Public
Improvements for the use and benefit of all anticipated inhabitants and taxpayers of the District." Exhibit D contains the
Primary Infrastructure Plan, which includes infrastructure related to potable and non-potable/irrigation water, sanitary
sewer,roads, sidewalks,landscaping, and drainage improvements.
(h) A financial plan showing how the proposed services are to he financed, including the proposed operating
revenue derived from property taxes for the first budget year of the district;
The financial plan is provided in section VI and in Exhibit F to the Service Plan. Weld County Director of Finance and
Administration Don Warden has reviewed the financial plan for the district in his referral response dated December 6,2019.
He concludes that"The information presented regarding the statements of significant assumptions seem reasonable and the
pro-forma financial plan prepared seems realistic and feasible, assuming the build out of the districts takes place as
projected."He further states that he has "no objections in approval of the service plan".
(OA preliminary engineering or architectural survey showing how the proposed services are to he provided;
Exhibit E to the Service Plan contains the preliminary public improvements maps provided by HRGreen, an engineering
firm with offices in Colorado Springs and Denver.These maps generally demonstrate proposed infrastructure,including the
location of lots,roads,waterlines, sewer, drainage,parks, and landscaping.
(d)A map of the proposed special district boundaries and an estimate of the population and valuation for assessment
of the proposed special district;
Exhibit C-1 shows the "Initial District Boundary Map", which is comprised of two lots on the northeast corner of County
Roads (CR) 2 and 21, both of which arc owned by ALF Todd Crcck Village North LLC. Exhibit A contains the legal
description of the Initial District Boundaries, which includes approximately 79.5 acres. Exhibit C-2 shows the "Map of
Future Inclusion Arca", which is comprised of approximately 530.1 acres. This map is defined to include "the property
proposed for inclusion within the District(if any) in the future." Section IV of thc scrvicc plan provides: The service Area
consists of approximately 589 acres of land.The current assessed valuation of the Service arca is assumed to be $120,150."
(e) A general description of the facilities to he constructed and the standards of such construction, including a
statement qf how the,facility and service standards qf the proposed special district are compatible with facility and
service standards of any county within which all or any portion of the proposed special district is to he located, and
of municipalities and special districts which are interested parties pursuant to section 32-1-204(1);
Exhibit E to the Scrvicc Plan provides general maps demonstrating the public improvcmcnts to be constructed. Section
V.A.3. of thc Scrvicc Plan requires the District to design and construct on improvcmcnts "in accordance with thc standards
and specifications of the County and any other governmental entities having proper jurisdiction."The entire district service
arca is within Weld County.Also,the County is simultaneously processing a Planned Unit Development(PUD) application
for a residential/mixed used development within the initial District Boundaries,which will require the applicant to adhere
to County design and construction standards.
(f)A general description of the estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal services, administrative
services, initial proposed indebtedness and estimated proposed maximum interest rates and discounts, and other
major expenses related to the organization and initial operation of the district;
Exhibit D contains engineering estimates for the proposed infrastructure (potable and non-potable/irrigation water lints,
sanitary sewer facilities, roadways, stormwatcr / drainage facilities, and common landscaping). Exhibit F contains
dcvclopmcnt projections for tax income to the District.
(g)A description of any arrangement or proposed agreement with any political subdivision for the performance of
any services between the proposed special district and such other political subdivision, and, if the form contract to
be used is available, it shall he attached to the service plan;
Exhibit G describes two anticipated intergovernmental agreements: 1) with Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District for
the provision of water and wastewater services;2)with Special District Association Property and Liability Pool for provision
of insurance.
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE SERVICE PLAN
In accordance with C.R.S. §32-1-202(2)(i) and Section 2-14-20 of the Weld County Code, the service plan is also required
to contain thc following:
C. The Service Plan shall enumerate and describe all powers requested on behalf of the District. Demonstration of
the need or benefit of each power is required. Powers which are not clearly needed will not he approved in the
Service Plan.
The powers of the District arc provided in section V., subsection A. of the Service Plan. The scrvicc plan authorizes the
district to takc any action authorizcd by law,with specific limitations. Generally,the District(1) is required to comply with
all jurisdictional construction standards,(2)must comply with specified limitations on the issuance of debt, (3) is precluded
from including property into the boundaries of the district if not otherwise identified in its service arca,and(4) is precluded
from consolidating with other special districts without the County's written consent.
D. Any Intergovernmental Agreement which is required, or known at the time of formation of the District to likely
he required, to fulfill the purposes of the District, must he dcseeihed in the Service Plan, along with supporting
rationale. The Service Plan shall provide that execution of intergovernmental agreements by the District that are
not described in the Service Plan shall require forty-five-day notice publication and written notice to the County
pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b}, C.R.S.
Exhibit G describes two anticipated intergovernmental agreements: 1) with Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District for
the provision of water and wastewater services;2)with Special District Association Property and Liability Pool for provision
of insurance.Section IX of thc service plan contains the limitations on intergovernmental agrccmcnts required by the County
Code.
E. The Service Plan shall include the description of any planned inclusion into, or exclusion of property from, the
District's boundaries. The Service Plan shall provide that inclusions or exclusions by the District that are not
described in the Service Plan shall require forty-five-day notice publication and written notice to the County
pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S.
Section V.A.5 of the service plan contains these limitations. Exhibit C-2 contains the "Inclusion District Boundary Map",
which is defined to include "the property proposed for inclusion within thc District(if any) in thc future."
F. The Service Plan shall describe any planned extraterritorial service agreement. The Service Plan shall provide
that any extraterritorial service agreements by the District that are not described in the Service Plan shall require
.forty-five-day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S.
The service plan does not describe any extraterritorial service agrccmcnts that arc rcquircd or known at the time of formation.
Section IX of the service plan contains thc limitations on extraterritorial service agreements required by the County Code.
G. The Service Plan shall outline any anticipated plans or needs for the exercise, by the Distract, of its power of
eminent domain. The Service Plan will contain language limiting the use of the District's power of eminent domain
to carry out the District's essential,functions and services as well as to implement the intent of the Primary
Infrastructure Plan as defined in the Model Service Plan described in Section 2-14-60. The use of eminent domain
will be undertaken strictly in compliance with state laws. The Service Plan shall provide that use of eminent domain
or change in the Primary I frastructure Plan by the District not described in the Service Plan shall require forty-
five-day notice publication and written notice to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(h), C.R.S.
Scction V.A.9. of the service plan limits thc District's use of eminent domain as required by the County Code.
H. The Service Plan shall restrict the District's debt service mill levy authorization to fifty (50) mills (the "Debt
Service Mill Levy Cap'). The Service Plan shall restrict the Districts total aggregate mill levy (debt service mill
levy plus operations and maintenance mill levy) to sixty-five (65) mills (the "Aggregate Mill Levy Cap'). Although
the District's operations and maintenance mill levy may exceed f(teen (15)mills as part of the Aggregate Mill Levy
Cap, the debt service mill levy may not exceed the Debt Service Mill Levy Cap. The Debt Service Mill Levy Cap
and the Aggregate Mill Levy Cap shall he adjustable from the base year of 2006,-provided, however, that in the
event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after the base year of 2006, the mill levy limitation
applicable to such debt may he increased or decreased to reflect such changes, such increases or decreases to he
determined by the District Board in good faith (such determination to he binding and final), so that to the extent
possible, the actual tax revenues generated by the mill levy, as adjusted, are neither diminished nor enhanced as a
result of such changes.For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation
shall he deemed to he a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation.
The financial plan is provided in section VI of the service plan. Weld County Director of Finance and Administration Don
Warden has reviewed the financial plan for the district in his referral response dated December 6, 2019. Mr. Warden's
referral indicates that thc service plan meets these limitations.
1. The Service Plan shall include financial projections prepared by an investment banking firm or financial advisor
qualified to make such projections. Said firm shall be listed in the Bond Buyers Marketplace as a provider of
financial projections.
The financial plan is provided in section VI of the service plan. Weld County Director of Finance and Administration Don
Warden has reviewed the financial plan for the district in his referral response dated December 6, 2019. Mr. Warden's
referral indicates that the service plan meets these limitations.
J. The Service Plan shall require that, thirty (30)days prior to an election thereon.,proposed ballot questions for a
formation election, debt authorization or de-Brucing will he submitted to the County for filing and review. The
County shall have the right to object to any ballot questions not in compliance with the Service Plan as a major
modification of the District's Service Plan pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(x), C.R.S.
Scction VI.l of the service plan, Elections, addresses elections. This section does not expressly grant the County the right
to object to any ballot questions which are not in compliance with the Service Plan. Therefore, I suggest the following
language be added to section VI.I.:
"At least thirty(30) days prior to the District's organizational election,the proposed ballot questions
shall be submitted to the County for review to ensure that said ballot questions are in compliance
with this Service Plan."
K. If; after the Service Plan is approved, the State Legislature includes additional powers or grants new or broader
powers for Special Districts by amendment of Section 32-1-1001 et seq., C.R.S.,, no such powers shall he available
to or exercised by an existing District unless the District publishes forty-five-day notice and provides written notice
to the County pursuant to Section 32-1-207(3)(b), C.R.S. If; within forty-five (45) days of the publication of such
notice, the County expresses to the District a written objection to the proposed action, then the proposed action
shall he considered a material modification of the Service Plan and shall he resolved only in accordance with
Section 31-1-207(2), C.R.S.
Section V.A. of the service plan includes these required limitations.
L. Every Service Plan shall include, in addition to all materials,plans and reports required by the Act, a Primary
Infrastructure Plan ("PIP') as defined in the Model Service Plan. This PIP shall include, at a minimum, a map or
maps (24"x 36')providing an illustration of public improvements proposed to he built, acquired or financed by
the District, along with a written narrative and description of.those items and a general description of.the Districts'
proposed role with regard to the same.
The service plan contains a general description of the Primary Infrastructure Plan(PIP) in section V.B.The PIP is described
in detail in Exhibits D and E.
Pursuant to Section 2-14-50 of the Weld County Code, the service plan is required to include provisions related to
the dissolution of the district:
The Service Plan shall provide for the dissolution of the District after the District's debts and financial obligations
are fully defeased and the District has completed all of its operations and maintenance responsibilities.A District
with long-term., ongoing operations and maintenance will not he obligated to dissolve. However, the Service Plan
must provide that, in the event said obligations are someday undertaken by another party or are otherwise no longer
the responsibility of the District, it shall be required to dissolve.
Dissolution of the District is described in section VIII of the service plan. The terms of section VIII comply with these
requirements.
ACTIONS THE BOARD MAY TAKE ON REVIEW OF THE SERVICE PLAN
Pursuant to C.R.S. §32-1-203(1), the Board of County Commissioners has the following authority:
(a) To approve without condition or modification the service plan submitted;
(b)To disapprove the scrvicc plan submittcd;
(c) To conditionally approve the service plan subject to the submission of additional information relating to or thc
modification of the proposed service plan.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE SERVICE PLAN
REQUIRED CRITERIA. Pursuant to C.R.S. §32-1-203(2), the applicant is rcquircd to show cvidcncc of ALL of the
following criteria.
(a) There is sufficient existing and projected nccd for organized service in the arca to be serviced by the proposed
special district.
(b) The existing service in the arca to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and
projcctcd needs.
(c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the arca within its
proposed boundaries.
(d) The arca to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, thc financial ability to discharge thc
proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
OPTIONAL CRITERIA. Pursuant to C.R.S. §32-1-203(2.5) and Section 24-10.B of the Weld County Code,the Board may
exercise discretion to disapprove the service plan if the applicant has not shown evidence of the following:
(a) Adequate scrvicc is not, or will not bc, available to the arca through the county or other existing municipal or
quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable
basis.
(b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and service
standards of each county within which the proposed special district is to be located and each municipality which is
an interested party undcr section 32-1-204(1).
(c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to section 30-28-106, C.R.S.
(d) The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long-range water quality
management plan for thc arca.
(c) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the arca proposed to be scrvcd.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed Service Plan includes all items required by Statute and the Weld County Code, and generally follows the
model service plan found in Weld County Code Appendix 2-C. The purpose of this metropolitan district is to serve a large
Planned Unit Development within the Dry Crock RUA, which is being permitted concurrently under PUDZ18-0006. I find
no impediment to approval of this Scrvicc Plan, however my recommendation for approval is contingent on the Board's
approval of PUDZ18-0006,because without such approval I do not believe the Applicant can demonstrate thc nccd for thc
metro district.
If the Board of County Commissioners approves the Service Plan,I recommend thc following changes be required:
Add the following to Section VI.1.:
"At least thirty (30) days prior to thc District's organizational election,the proposed ballot questions shall
be submitted to the County for review to ensure that said ballot questions arc in compliance with this Scrvicc
Plan."
Add the following to Section VI.E., as recommended by Don Warden:
"The District shall not apply for or accept Conservation Trust Funds, Great Outdoors Colorado Funds, or other
funds available from or through governmental or nonprofit entities for which the County is eligible to apply,except
pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the County."
MEMORANDUM
TO: Tom Parka, Director of Planning December 6, 2019
FROM: Don Warden, Director of Finance and Administration
coil
SUBJECT: Review of Dry Creek Metropolitan District No. 1
In response to your referral concerning the service plan for the Dry Creek Metropolitan District
No. 1 I have the following to offer as it relates to the financial plan of the service plan primarily to
finance public improvements with a debt limit of$30,000,000.
The financial plan submitted to justify the Total Debt Issuance Limit in the service plan for
$30,000,000 is adequate. The total improvements are estimated to be $27,845,000. The
financial plan was prepared by DA Davidson, which are recognized experts in this financial
area. Statements of significant assumptions seem reasonable and the pro-forma financial plan
prepared seems realistic and feasible, assuming the build out of the district takes place as
projected. No opinion is stated as to whether the build out is realistic and feasible given the
market conditions in the timeframe stated.
The financial plan calls for the Dry Creek Metropolitan District No. 1 to have a maximum of 55
mills for the debt limit cap. The debt mill levy limit cap is within the standard of a maximum debt
mills in the Weld County Metro District Policies County Code Section 2-14-30 with the permitted
assessed valuation ratio adjustment per County Code Section 2-14-20 H from the base year of
2006 to the current year's residential ratio of 7.2% to allow a maximum debt mill levy of 55.277.
As proposed the financial plan has a reasonable debt mill levy and a reasonable debt tax
burden on all residential and commercial properties within the District (development).
The service plan calls for a maximum of 30 years for the length of bond debt, which conforms to
the county's metro district policy (County Code Section 2-14-30 B.) of a maximum of 30 years
for the length of bond debt. The financial plan shows a 30-year financing term. The district can
issue new debt with 15 years from the date of the district's first debt authorization election. Upon
written notice to the county, the district may issue debt after 15 years in order to provide service
provided in the service plan if development phasing is of a duration that makes it impractical to
issue all debt within the 15-year period. By voter approval a maximum of 40 years for the length
of bond debt is permitted under state law.
Th Aggregate Mill Levy Cap which is the maximum mill levy the District is permitted to impose
on the properties in the District for debt and operations and maintenance function is sixty-five
(65) mills with the permitted assessed valuation ratio adjustment per County Code Section 2-14-
20 H from the base year of 2006 to the current year's residential ratio of 7.2% to allow a
maximum debt mill levy of 55.277, plus 1U mills tor operations and maintenance functions or
65.277 mills.
I did not find in the service plan an indication the District shall not apply for or accept
Conservation Trust Funds, Great Outdoors Colorado Funds other funds available from or
through governmental or nonprofit entities for which the county is eligible to apply, except
pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the County. I would recommend this
condition be added to any final approval of Dry Creek Metropolitan District No. 1.
The information presented regarding the statements of significant assumptions seem
reasonable and the pro-forma financial plan prepared seems realistic and feasible, assuming
the build out of the districts takes place as projected. Therefore, from review of the service plan
I have no objections in approval of the service plan with the Total Debt Issuance Limit in the
service plan of$30,000,000, Total Debt Mill Levy Limit Cap, and Total Aggregate Mill Levy Limit
cited in the service plan based upon my conclusion that the financial matters in the service plan
appear to be in conformance with the county's metro district policies.
From: Kristine Ranalem
To; Angela Snyder
Subject; FW: MET19-0003 Referral
Date: Monday, December 2, 2019 7:20:18 AM
Importance: High
Please see referral comments below. I hanks!
From: BFR Plan Reviews <planreviews@brightonfire.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2019 10:07 AM
To: Kristine Ranslem <kranslern@weldgov.com>
Cc: Schuppe, Mike <mschuppe@brightonfire.org>
Subject: RE: MET19-0003 Referral
Caution:This email originated from outside of Weld County Government.Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good morning Kristine,
For some reason I was unable to open the referral form so I am sending our comments via email.
As part of our long standing conversation about this project the Fire District is requiring the
developer to provide a fire station site and building to serve the Dry Creek area. We believe that this
requirement should be reflected in the Metropolitan District documents.The exact location and type
of building requires continued discussion and approval.
I have included Fire Chief Mike Schuppe on this email as he would be the point of contact for the
developer for the details of the site and the station.
Thank you!
�az�sz ut ezze
Fire Inspector
Brighton Fire Rescue District
500 S. 4th Ave. 3rd Floor
Brighton, CO 80601
303-654-8042
www.brightonfire.org
From: Kristine Ranslem <kranslemPweldgov.com>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 11:53 AM
To: Brenda Dones <bdonesCweldgov.com>; Bob Choate <bchoateCweldgov.com>; Bruce Barker
<bbarker@weldgov.com>; Don Warden <dwarden@weldgov.com>; Alan Caldwell
<acaldwellPweldgov.corrt>; sarah.brucker@state.co.us; don.sandoval@state.co.us; Jason Bradford
<jbradford@brightonco.gov>; Hodges Todd <thodges@fortlupton.org>; Stephanie Darnell
<sdarnelIVFortluptonco.gov>; 'Alyssa Knutson' <AKnutson@fortlupton.org>; Alan Sielaff
<asielaff@northglenn.org>; 'bsmith@northglenn.org' <bsmith@northglenn.org>;
scott.twomblvCJcitvofthornton.ne ; Itart-schoenfelderCaadcogov.org; BFR Plan Reviews
<planreviews@brightonfire.org>; Kerrie Monti <kmonti@sd27j.net>; westadamscd@gmail.com;
eindy.einspahr)co.usda.gov; bob.cox@aims.edu
Cc: Angela Snyder<asnyder(Jweldgov.com>
Subject: MET19-0003 Referral
We have received a case (MET19-0003) in which we ask that you review the material
and send a referral to us. Please click on the link below and select "Search
Applications" under the Planning tab. Input the record number. Please click the blue
arrow next to the "Record Info" button at the top. Select Attachments and you will find
all the information including the referral form to submit back to us. The following is a
quick link to the case search:
https://accela-aca.co.weld.co.us/citizenaccess/.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at the number below.
Thank You!
iCt vu tev
Planning Technician
Weld County Planning Department
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
(970)400-3519
kranslerr,pweldgov.corn,
- gyp
,. r
Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings
are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that
is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the
communication.Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the
contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is
strictly prohibited.
AUSMUS LAW FIRM, P.C.
6020 Greenwood Plaza Blvd,Suite 100
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Telephone: 303-694-4248
T elefax:303-694-4y56
e-mail: and}@ausmuslaw.com
J. Andrew Ausmus
Of Counsel
Christy K.Ausmus
Tricia McCarthy
January 28, 2020
Mr. Bob Choate, esq.
Weld County Attorney
1555 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: City of Ft.Lupton Reply regarding Dry Creek Metro Dist.No. 1
Case No.MET 19-0003
Dear Bob:
To reiterate, Fort Lupton's obligation to provide sewer services is contingent upon
conditions that currently do not exist under paragraph I (A) of the IGA. The City is not waiving
those conditions and therefore specifically reserves all rights under the IGA.
The City would withdraw its suggestion of a continuance of the Board of County
Commissioner's consideration of the change of zone application. We have had meetings with
District representatives and have confirmed to them that the City reserves all rights it has under
the [GA and is not waiving any of those rights or conditions contained therein.
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
AUSMUS LAW FIRM, P.C.
J. Andrew Ausmus
Cc: City Administrator
City Planner
City Engineer
AUSMUS LAW FIRM, AG
6020 Greenwood Plaza Blvd, Suite 100
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
Telephone: 303-694-4248
Telefax: 303-694-4956
e-nrrrll: andt rn iusrrrslaw.com
J. Andrew Ausmus
Of Counsel
Christy K.Ausmus
Tricia McCarthy
December 17, 2019
Angela Snyder
Weld County Planner
1555 N. 17`" Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Re: City of rt. Lupton Reply regarding Dry Creek Metro Dist. No. 1
Case No. MET 19-0003
Dear Angela:
My name is Andy Ausmus and I. am the City Attorney for the City of Fort Lupton. I have
been forwarded a referral for the proposed project for Dry Creek Metropolitan District No, 1.
At this time, Fort Lupton has no present obligation to provide sewer services for the
proposed project and does not intend to voluntarily offer sewer services to the Applicant. Fort
Lupton's obligation to provide sewer services is contingent upon conditions that currently do not
exist. The Applicant cannot accurately represent that it has secured sewer services to support the
proposed project. Under the current intergovernmental agreement between Todd Creek Village
Metropolitan District and Fort Lupton, Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District cannot provide
the project with any sewer treatment services,
Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
AUSMU LAW FIRM, P.C
J. d w Au
Cc: City Administrator
City Planner
City Engineer
City of Brighton
Community Development
500 Sou•h 4.hi Avenue
Brighton
Brr35lchtn,i,`CO 8080
bM www.h,qht5 VII.g
vvww.hrirll tancn.�aow
December 6, 2019
Angola Snyder
Weld County Planning Dept.
1555 N. 17th Ave.
Greeley, CO 80631
VIA EMAIL
Re: Case Number METI9-0003—Dry Creek Metro District No. I
Ms. Snyder:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the referenced Dry Creek Metropolitan District No. 1 referral.
The proposed development is located within the City of Brighton's Planning Influence Arca and
designated in the City's Comprehensive Plan as being appropriate for Agricultural uses. The overall
development proposes more than 6,000 dwelling units with a potential population of almost 20,000
persons in an existing agricultural and rural arca of the County. As the proposed development is
iL1t o111paLib11; with BLigl1 LULL'S CUiill)i1;111;i151Ve Pl'ui, Lill; City of Blig11LUi1 oppUbeh the .:,sLablishii11;i1L of lllu
Dry Creek Metropolitan District and recommends that the application be denied without first entering into
an intergovernmental agreement(IGA) with the City of Brighton.
Urban style developments should be located in areas where there exists adequate services, utilities, and
infrastructure to accommodate that development. Creating new, urban style development in rural,
outlying areas will place unfair and undue burdens on surrounding municipalities and agencies to provide
the services that arc required of denser urban style developments. The proposed development arca is
currently rural in character and there is no existing infrastructure available to serve the urbanized
development patterns proposed by the development. The cost of funding essential services will ultimately
be borne by the future homebuyers through metro district financing mechanisms. These homebuyers are
often unaware of the impact the metro district mill levies will have on their future tax burdens.
Residents who live in metropolitan districts, with their high metro district mill levies, taxes, and fees, arc
less likely to support the school district's efforts to adequately fund schools. No details were provided
regarding the method that will be used to mitigate the impact of this development on an already strained
school district. The City of Brighton requests that Weld County require all homebuilders within the Dry
Creek development to pay the same Capital Facility Fund fee and school land dedication fees as those
homebuilders who build within the City of Brighton.
This development will place a significant burden on Brighton's transportation system. In addition, the
existing rural transportation network will require significant improvements in order to accommodate the
traffic generated by the proposed development. Extensive improvements to the rural transportation
infrastructure will erode the rural and agricultural character of the arca and diminish Brighton's
ADMINISTRATION • BUILDING • ENGINEERING • PLANNING
OUR MISSION . . . INTEGRITY + VISION + STEWARDSHIP = A PROGRESSIVE COMMUNITY
agricultural and rural buffer that was established in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Metro
District does not address the traffic impacts that this dcvclopmcnt will have on the City of Brighton's
roadway network.
In September of 2009, the City of Brighton provided comments to the Weld County Planning Department,
expressing the City's significant concerns about the proposed amendment to the Weld County
Comprehensive Plan to establish the Dry Crock Regional Urbanized Arca (RUA). The City of Brighton,
along with many other regional agencies and municipalities, opposed the creation of this RUA as it would
lead to urban sprawl and place an unfair burden on surrounding communities. In this letter, the City of
Brighton encouraged coordination between Weld County, the Developer, and surrounding municipalities.
As in 2009, 2010, 2018, and November 2019, the City of Brighton, once again, expresses serious
concerns with the proposed development. The City of Brighton rcqucsts the opportunity to meet with the
Developer and Weld County in order to establish an intergovernmental agreement (IOTA) that will henefit
the Developer, the County, and the City of Brighton and provide a beneficial solution for all three parties.
The City of Brighton opposes the proposed Dry Creek Metro District and requests that Weld County deny
or postpone this application until an intergovernmental agreement is established to adequately address
Brighton's concerns.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (303) 655-
2024 (or via c-mail at jbradford[rbrightonco.gov), should you require additional information concerning
this referral response.
Sincerely,
Icl446Y&
Jason Bradford,AICP
Planning Manager
Page 2gf2
Division of Water Resources
oNa
Department of Natural Resources
January 28, 2020
Angela Snyder
Weld County Department of Building and Planning Services
Transmitted via email:
asnvder@weldeov.com
RE: Dry Creek Metropolitan District No. 1
Case no. MET19-0003
Part of the W / of the W t/, Sec. 35, T1 N, R67W, 6th P.M.
Water Division 1, Water District 2
Dear Ms. Snyder,
We have reviewed the submittal documents related to case no. MET19-0003 provided via mail
on November 25, 2019, concerning the above referenced proposal for a draft service plan for
the creation of Dry Creek Metropolitan District No. 1 to service an area of approximately 589
acres.
This referral does not appear to qualify as a "subdivision"as defined in Section 30-28-101(10)(a),
C.R.S. Therefore, pursuant to the State Engineer's March 4, 2005 and March 11, 2011
memorandums to county planning directors, this office will only perform a cursory review of the
referral information and provide informal comments. The comments do not address the
adequacy of the water supply plan for this project or the ability of the water supply plan to
satisfy any County regulations or requirements. In addition, the comments provided herein
cannot be used to guarantee a viable water supply plan or infrastructure, the issuance of a well
permit, or physical availability of water.
The proposed water source for Dry Creek Metropolitan District No. 1 is Todd Creek Village
Metropolitan District (District). A Water and Sewer Service Agreement between the District and
ALF Equinox Todd Creek Village North, LLC dated September 17, 2008 was provided with
application materials. However according to the Todd Creek Village Metropolitan District Water
Supply Plan dated December 17, 2019 and memorandum to the report dated January 20, 2020
("Water Supply Report") the District is not currently committed to serve the ALF Todd Creek
Village North development since all of the conditions in the Water and Sewer Service Agreement
have not yet been satisfied.
Should you or the applicant have any questions, please contact Allis Thyne at (303) 866-3581
x8216.
Sincerely,
nna Williams, P.E.
Water Resource Engineer
O_4c�
1313 Sherman Street, Room 821, Denver, CO 80203 P 303.866.3581 www.colorada.gov/water
Jared S. Polls, Governor I Dan Gibbs, Executive Director I Kevin G. Rein, State Engineer/Director
\1876*
Dry Creek Metropolitan District No. 1
January 28, 2020
Page 2 of 2
JMW/aat
Cc: Subdivision File 26879
Todd Creek Village Metro District File
Hello