The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.0 Application:fl'IJ;,"1.~'fl!'tJ:···J" !:'1'1 "1''' ., LEA VENwORTH & TESTER P.C.' -~ . 1!, I ;..t " I v 'i M!1iJ ' . ·--- LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH CYNT!IlA C. TESTER GREGORY J. HALL DAVID H. McCONAUGHY KELLYD. CAVE DA V1D A. MEISINGER* TOM KINNEY (Of Counsel) *Admitted in Wisconsin only Mildred Alsdorf, Clerk Garfield County Clerk and Recorder 109 Eighth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 ATTORNEYS AT LAW March 2, 1999 !Oll GRAND A VENUE P. 0. DRAWER2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261 FAX: (970) 945-7336 ltlaw@sopris.net Re: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Garfield County Service Plan Dear Mildred: Enclosed please find two (2) copies of a Garfield County Service Plan for the Mid Valley Metropolitan District, which is filed for review by the Garfield County Board of Commissioners. The Garfield County Service Plan is filed pursuant to the provisions of C.R.S. §32-1-201, et seq. We have also enclosed two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) with the Garfield County Service Plan for the filing fee. If $250.00 is not the correct filing fee, please contact our office and we will pay the difference. We will be providing an additional seventeen ( 17) copies for the Planning and Zoning, Board of County Commissioners, Mark and Don shortly. We assume Eagle County will be sent a copy as a referral agency. If you have any questions concerning this Service Plan, please do not hesitate to contact our office at your convenience. LEL:bsl Enclosures Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH TESTER, P.C. cc: Mid Valley Metropolitan District, w/out enc. Don Deford, Esq., w/out enc. Mark Bean, w/out enc. Louis Meyer, w/out enc. Art Kleinstein, w/out enc. Tim Thulson, w/out enc. Ron Liston, w/out enc. Tom Zancanella, w/out enc. F:\1999\Letters-Memos\MVMD·Alsdorf-ltr-l . wpd APR. 22. l 999 l: 42PM LEAVENWORTH & TESTE~ P. C. NO. 944 7 P. 8 LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. LOYAL E. LBAVENWORTH 0 NT!IIA C. TESTER GREGORY J. HALL DAVID H. McCONAtJGHY KELLY n. CA VE DAVI[) A. ME!SlNGER' TOM KINNEY ~/l\hnmcd in Wi:.;c011~in only John Hier, Manager Town of Carbondale 511 Colorado Avenue Carbondale, CO 81623 ATTORNEYS AT LAW April 22, 1999 Re: Mid Valley Metropoli[an District Dear John: !Oil GRAND AVENUll P. 0. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRJNGS, COLORADO 81602 Tfl.EPHONE: (970) '145-2261 FAX: (970) 945-7336 ltlaw@sopris.not VIA FAX 963-9140 I am writing on behalf of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District ("MVMD" or the "Discrict"). For the past few weeks, MVMD has been meeting with the Town of Carbondale, Mark Bean, Dwain Watson from the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, and developers and users to discuss water and sewer service for the Ranch at Roaring Fork, St. Finbar and Preshana. John Evans stated that the Town of Carbondale had three options for sewer service expansion: (1) no expansion of the Town's .service area; (2) expand the Town's service area up to 100 Road (or the Catherine Store), thereby including the Ranch, St. Finbar, and Preshana; and (3) extend an intercepror up Highway 82 to the County's eastern boundary and "take all comers." On April 20, 1999, John Hier requested a le[ter from each representative stating that entity's most desirable omcome from the three choices for the Town of Carbondale. By way of history, MVMD has been meeting with interested parties for the pasc two or three years to discuss water and sewer regionalization issues in the valley. The Town was not responsive to the District's auempcs to discuss consolidation. In response to the Town's actions (or lack of actions), the District proposed consolidated service for the Ranch at Roaring Fork, St. Finbar and Preshana by MVMD in the Garfield County Service Plan (hereinafter the "GCSP") submitted to Garfield County. At this point in rime, the District is committed to pursue approval ur the GCSP in Garfield County. I:· 1. l tJtJt)\! . .;:rrc 1·~-Mcmos\M VM D-l'.(1d:;1011d3lc-ltr-l . wpU APR. 22. l 999 1: 42PM LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C. LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. John Hier, Manager Page 2 April 22, 1999 NO. 944 7 P. 9 In response your request, MVMD would probably choose the no expansion option as its most desirable ourcome for the Town. MVMD has several concerns regarding the Town's proposal to exlend sewer service including the following: l. Several years ago, rhe Town of Carbondale (bereinafter referred to as the "Town'') expressly removed the Ranch at Roaring Fork, St. Finbar and Preshana (hereinatter collectively referred to as the "Proposed Area") from its 201 Plan. The Town was concerned with increased densities that may result from central sewer service to the low lying area south of the Roaring Fork River. The Town wanted to keep density in the Proposed Area low to e~tablish an urban growth boundary. If Town sewer service is exrended, urban growth will spread to the low lying area south ofrhe Roaring Fork River. Additionally, the Town's limited plant sire can only serve the remaining area under the existing 201 Plan. 2. The Town has conflicring land use concerns compared to Garfield County. The County wants to promote .its comprehensive plan for the area. If the Town does extend to the east, it bas to be prepared to serve to the east to the Garfield County line, consislem with the County comprehensive plan. Otherwise, extending sewer service to the Proposed Area could usurp Garfield County's land use aurhority. Funhermore, future land use within the County will be subject to the Carbondale's Town Council's decision as to out of rown sewer extensions. 3. Extending an interceptor along Highway 82 or through the low-lying area south or Roaring Fork will be very expensive. How will the interceptor be paid for? Are the Ranch at Roaring Fork, St. Finbar and Preshana users required to bear the costs of installing the interceptor, estimated at $500,000 to $800,000? If so, each user in the Proposed Area, including existing users, will pay approJ<imately $1, 700 to $2,800 just for the imerceptor in addition to the Town's sewer tap fees. MVMD does nor believe rhis is economical. 4. The Town recently completed its Comprehensive Master Plan, and extension of sewer to the Proposed Area is contrary to the findings of the Master Plan. 1::\ l 91J9\l.cncrs-Mcmo~\MV MO-Cubomlult!-llr" 1. 11111..J APR. 22. 1999 I: 42PM LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C. LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. John Hier, Manager Page 3 April 22. 1999 NO. 9447 P. 10 5. If the Town extends che sewer co rhe Proposed Area, a complicated jurisdiccional issue arises. The landowners in rhe Proposed Area will nor be able to vore or participate in the decision-making process of the Town regarding their sewer service. Certainly, no contiguity exists to allow for anm:xalion. In comparison, under the District's proposal, the Proposed Area will be included in the District, and the landowners can vote for Board members who will represent them on our Board of Directors. The landowners should be represenced to maintain a voice in the operation and maintenance of their sewer service. 6. There will be differenrial mill levy assessments since the jurisdiction providing sewer service will not be able to tax non-included areas. In comparison to Carbondale residents, landowners in the Proposed Area will not be assessed the mill levy tax. Furthermore, to the extent thar a multiplier (e.g. out of town rates may be one and one-half times the rates for in cown service, and therefore the multiplier is 1.5) is used to make up the loss in mill levy assessments, the economics of an excension of the intercepcor become even more questionable for the landowners in the Proposed Area. 7 _ The Town is only offering sewer service to the Proposed Area. In contrast, rhe District's proposal includes both water and sewer service to the Proposed Area_ 8 _ The District ha~ been pursuing regionalization with the Town for three years. \he Town has consistently stated that it won't provide service to the Proposed Area. Land Owners in the Proposed Area want service in a cimely manner, and they do not want to wair for three more years co see if Carbondale is prepared to provide service. Despite th<' concerns seated above, rhe District is firmly committed to regionalization. As we stared above, we are meeting with Town representatives, and we are willing to explore this option with the Town. However, for various reasons, the District is committed co pursuing approval of rhe GCSP-Therefore, a1 this time the District recommends that the Town not pursue expansion of their sewer service co the Proposed Area. F · \ 1999\1.1.:ttcn-Mcmo~ \ M V M 0-C arbontlaltl-11 r• I . wp!.1 APR. 22. l 999 l: 42PM LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C. LEAVENWORTH & '!'ESTER, P.C. John Hier, Manager Page 4 April 22, 1999 N0.9447 P. !! Please call me or Louis Meyer, if you have any quesrions regarding this marter _ LEL:bsl cc: Louis Meyer, P.E. Kelly Mullane-Johnson, Administrator Mid Valley Metropolitan Disrrict Theodore K. Guy, President Mid Valley Merropolitan District Very cruly yours, LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. Loyal E. Leavenworth Don Deford, Esq., Garfield County Attorney Garfield County Board of Coumy Commissioners Timothy Thulson, Esq. Ronald B. Liston Scott Miller Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Regulatory Office F. \J 9991.Lelt~r~-Mo::1~1t)~\MVMD-Carbomlaftl·l11 .. l .wrx1