HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.1 MVMD Service Plan 1999I .
1
I
I
I
I
l
l
!
'
I
(
"
1
J
I
I
' '
i'
I
. I
' I
' • I
I J
. I
. I
. !
; I
'
. I
J
GARFIELD COUNTY SERVICE PLAN
FOR THE
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
0031 Duroux. Lane, Suue A
£:over\150lc.109
Basalt, Coloraao 81621
MARCH 1999
Prepared by
I.Arm o. M«y1r, P.E.
Schm1.101er Gardon Meyer, Inc.
118 Wm 6th Streer, Suite ZOO
Glenwood Springs CO 81601
(970) 945-1004
RECEIVED MAR 3 1999
l
. l
I
l
l
I
J
j
!
' l
i
I
. '
' l
' j
, I
' ' j
' l
!
. j
' J
' i
i
' 'J
CHAPTER 1.
CHAPTER 2.
CHAPTER 3.
CHAPTER 4.
toe\ 1501c109.rev
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MVMD-GCSA PLAN
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 . 1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 . 2 Background and History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1 .3 Service Plan Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED SERVICES . . . . . . . 6
2. 1 Existing Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Proposed Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.3 Proposed Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 7
DISTRICT BOUNDARY, ESTIMATE OF PO PU LA TION,
AND VALUATION FOR ASSESSMENT .................... 8
3.1 Existing District Boundary . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3 .2 Proposed Garfield County Service Area (GCSA) . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Estimate of Population Within GCSA ............ ·. . . . . . 9
3.4 Estimate of Population Within GCSA .................. 9
3.5 Assessed Valuation and Property Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 13
Table 3.1
Table 3.2
Table 3.3
Table 3.4
Table 3.5
Table 3.6
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
EQR' s in Existing District
Comprehensive Plan Zoning in GCSA
GCSA Area Summary Zoning Criteria
GCSA Unit Count Zoning Criteria
GCSA PUD Density
Projected Densities
Existing District Boundary
ESA Boundary
Comprehensive Plan Zoning
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES TO BE CONSTRUCTED 14
4.1 Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.2 Proposed GCSA Wastewater Treatment Service . . . . . . . . . 15
4.3 WWTF Phasing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.4 Interceptor Sewer Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.5 Existing Water System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.6 Proposed Water System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4. 7 Estimated Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs 18
Table 4.1
Table 4.2
Table 4.3
Table 4.4
Table 4.5
Cerise Site Costs
Ranch at Roaring Fork Site Costs
St. Finnbar Site Costs
Summary of Costs
Operation and Maintenance Costs
. I
I
l
i
. I
I
I
. I
I
i
I
' '
' ' I
' J
I
\
·. I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
MVMD-GCSA PLAN
CHAPTER 4. (continued)
CHAPTER
5.
CHAPTER 6.
CHAPTER 7.
CHAPTER 8.
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Existing WWTF Site
ESA WWTF Sites
Ranch Sites
Ranch Site
St. Finnbar Site
Cerise Site
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
5.1 General .. .. • • .. .. . . .. • .. . • .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. • .. 24
PROPOSED AND EXISTING AGREEMENTS
6.1 General • . • • . • • . • • • . . . • • • . . . . • . . • • . • . • • . • • . • • 25
FINANCIAL PLAN • • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • . . • • • • • • • • . • • . • • • 26
7 .1 General • • • • • • • • . • • • • • . • • • • • • . • • . • • . . • . . • • • • • 26
COMPLIANCE WITH 208 PLAN . . . • • • . . • • . . • • . • • • . . • • • • 27
APPENDICES
, i EXHIBIT A -MVMD Service Plan, April, 1992
. I EXHIBIT B -1999 Proposed Budget
i
, I
' '
EXHIBIT C -MVMD Rules and Regulations, November 12, 1998
, I EXHIBIT D -Pre-Inclusions Agreement (MVMD\Cerise)
. 1 EXHIBIT E -Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate
I
'
ii
toc\1501c109.rev
I.
j
. l
I CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
I
I
l
l
1
'
. i
j
1
. J
' 1
' :
• j
c j
I l
1.1 General
Pursuant to the requirements of the Colorado Special District Control Act (C.R.S. 32-1-
201, et seq.), this Garfield County Service Plan (hereinafter called "Service Plan") is
submitted to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners for review and approval.
This Service Plan provides the terms and conditions of the proposed Mid Valley Metropolitan
District (District) establishing of its service area in Garfield County, inCiuding the following
elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Delineation of the new Garfield County Service Area (GCSA).
Construction of a phased subregional WWTF (wastewater treatment facility) on
one of three possible sites in the GCSA .
Construction of wastewater conveyance facilities including interceptors, lift
stations, and force mains necessary to serve the GCSA.
Construction of potable water supply, storage and transmission mains to serve
the GCSA.
The District was organized and created by an Order and Decree of the District Court,
Eagle County. The Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County approved the Service
Plan through Resolution No. 82-104, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The
District currently provides water supply, treatment, storage and transmission services and
wastewater treatment and collection services within the current District boundaries, an area
that encompasses approximately 2000 acres located in the Basalt/El Jebel area. The existing
District boundary is predominately in Eagle County, however, the District does already serve
some portions of Garfield County at the present time, primarily, property in the Dakota
Subdivision. This Service Plan adds District service area only in Garfield County.
1.2 Background and History
The existing District Eagle County Service Plan was prepared and approved in 1982
n:pon\1501C109.rv2
1
l
I
by Eagle County. The original intent of the District was to provide water, wastewater, and
recreation functions. Prior to the formation of the District the El Jebel area experienced a
proliferation of small water and wastewater treatment facilities that led to water quality
problems and poor planning. Since the inception of the District in 1983, the primary services
of the District have been water and wastewater treatment.
The District was originally organized by a steering committee of the major property
owners within the El Jebel and surrounding areas. Relevant events and significant milestones
] which have occurred since that Steering Committee's original actions are as follows:
. J
l
I . '
' )
c l
i
. i
I
I , I
1.
2.
3.
4 .
Service· Plan. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District Service Plan for the
organization of the District is based on a population 5,700 people. The valley
floor was categorized into different zone .districts and densities, resulting in a
total number of 1628 EQR's based upon a total area of 1937 acres. The
WWTF design flciw was 0.57 MGD. The Service Plan, prepared and approved
in 1982, has not been meaningfully amended or updated in seventeen years.
1041 Permit. A 1 041 Permit from Eagle County was obtained for the
expansion of a major utility .
. CDPHE Site Application. A site application from the CDPHE for the siting of a
WWTF was based upon a first phase facility with a capacity of 325,000 gpd.
The population for the ultimate plant (650,000 gpd) was listed in the site
application at 6,500 people.
Discharge Permit. An NPDES Discharge Permit was obtained from the CDPHE
for the Phase I treatment plant.
5. Actual Design Criteria. After developers within the District defined land use
scenarios and upon direction from the Board, the ultimate plant size was
designed for 2,547 EQR' s or 8,914 people. This resulted in a plant flow
capacity of 891,450 gpd.
~n\1501Cl09.rv2
2
l
l
' l
)
. 1
' l
1
' j
i
' )
. I
" J
6. COOT Condemnation. In 1992, COOT began construction of a relocated four-
lane section of Highway 82 which bisected the District's 22-acre plant
property and significantly decreased the usable area for wastewater treatment
needs, leaving limited area for future expansion.
7. Service Plan/Amendment -1041 Permit Amendment. In 1992, the District's
1041 Permit underwent amendment to include an annexation outside the
District service area boundary for the Dakota Meadows project. This was the
first and has been the only expansion of the District service area. This was
also the first annexation below the District's wastewater treatment plant
requiring a lift station to pump up to the plant. This annexation was also the
first service outside Eagle County and within Garfield County. Both Eagle
County and Garfield County agreed that this expansion was not a material
modification to its 1982 Service Plan .
8.
9.
10.
El Jebel Mobile Home Community. In 1997, the District was approached by
the El Jebel Mobile Home Community for service to existing and proposed uses.
Ammonia Limitations. In 1997, the District was first notified that ammonia
limitation would be imposed on the next Discharge Permit or plant expansion.
Petitions for Service. Also in 1997, the District was approached by several
property owners downstream from the District boundaries who petitioned the
District Board in accordance with procedures provided by statute to provide
wastewater service to their downstream properties.
' I 1 .3 Service Plan Criteria
L j
. i
The Roaring Fork Valley Floor from the existing District boundary west to the Town of
Carbondale boundary is not presently included in any approved service plan boundary or a 201
Plan service area. This area has three land use and development applications pending or
ongoing and an existing PUD development exists at the Ranch at Roaring Fork, which has an
obsolete WWTF that requires upgrading 1 •
1 A pending site application has been submitted to the CDPHE.
I l repon\1501CI09.rv2
3
. '
I
I
At the _same time, due to growth within the District's existing service area, the Board
has determined that the expansion of the District's existing WWTF is required as
contemplated in the original service plan area. In order to comply with the policy of the
CDPHE regarding consolidation of operations and wastewater facilities and to meet the needs
1
J of existing and future users requesting services, the District submits this GCSA. The Service
Plan will allow for subregional water and wastewater service to the GCSA, the area from the
} Existing Garfield/Eagle County line west along the valley floor to and including the Ranch at
Roaring Fork Subdivision. The Service Plan is consistent with the adopted 208 Water Quality
Management Plan which encourages consolidation of WWTF's and encourages management
through approved sanitation districts.
l
. 1
j
' J
i
I
' J
I
i ,I
I i
·This Service Plan includes satisfactory evidence to assist the Garfield County Board of
Commissioners to authorize county approval pursuant to the following requirements of C.R.S.
32-1-203:
• Evidence that there is sufficient existing and projected ne~d for expanded
service in the areas to be included for service by the District;
• A determination that the existing service in the Roaring Fork Valley floor from
the existing District boundary west to the Ranch at Roaring Fork is
currently inadequate for present and projected needs;
• A determination that the District is capable of providing economical
and sufficient services to the area within the GCSA;
• A determination that the area to be included in the GCSA has, or will
have, the financial ability to discharge any proposed
indebtedness on a reasonable basis;
• A determination that adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the
Roaring Fork Valley Floor through the County, or other existing
municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including other existing
special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis;
• A determination that the facility and service standards of the GCSA are
compatible with the facility and service standards of Garfield County;
•A determination that the Service is in substantial compliance with any master
plan adopted pursuant to C.R.S. 30-28-106;
• Evidence that the District's GCSA proposal is in compliance with any duly
adopted county, regional, or state long-range water quality management
plan for the Roaring Fork Valley Floor; and
MpOn\ISOICI09.rvl
4
I
l
l
' J
l
c J
• A determination that the District's GCSA will be in the best interests of the
area proposed to be served. •
~n\\j(JJCIO'J.rv2
5
)
l
J
l
)
l
l
. J
1
' j
CHAPTER 2. DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED SERVICES
2.1 Existing Services
The District's existing WWTF provides service to customers within the existing District
boundary. The aerated lagoon WWTF is rated at a hydraulic capacity of 325,000 gpd with
existing average daily flows approaching 230,000 gpd, and a maximum daily flow of 284,000
gpd. The District collection facilities include an interceptor sewer line that extends from the
WWTF east up the valley floor to the Aspen Junction Subdivision. The District also owns and
maintains existing collection lines within subdivisions in the District boundary. The El Jebel
MHP (mobile home park) and the Sopris Village Homeowners Association operate privately-
owned and maintained WWTF' s that are not within the current District boundary. Long
range master planning for the District's existing WWTF and the approved 1982 Service Plan
assume that, in the future, both plants will be consolidated with the District's facility.
Within the GCSA, the Ranch at Roaring Fork operates an extended aeration package
WWTF rated at 50,000 gpd. According to the Ranch, influent flows have exceeded plant
capacity due to inflow and infiltration. All other land uses within the GCSA are currently
served by ISDS systems.
The District provides potable and non-potable water service (including water for fire
protection) to customers within the District boundary. The potable water supply comes from
two individual well fields. One of the well fields is located in the open space between the
Blue Lake Subdivision and Highway 82; the second is located in the Basalt Industrial Park.
Both well fields pump to above ground welded steel water tanks. The District provides non-
potable water service for lawn and garden irrigation within the Willits Subdivision (f/k/a Sopris
Meadows). Several private non-potable systems also exist and are operated by homeowners
associations.
Within the expanded service area, the Ranch At Roaring Fork has a well source that
is chlorinated and pumped to an above-ground steel water tank. All other land uses within
the expanded service area are served by individual wells. These individual structures do not
have adequate fire protection and pressures at the Ranch at Roaring Fork reportedly are below
industry standards.
repon\1$01CI09.rv2
6
2.2. Proposed Services
. ! The District is seeking to provide regional consolidated water and wastewater services
]
l
l
l
' J
l
' J
/
in the GCSA. A more detailed description of the infrastructure is included in Chapter 4.
2.3 Need For Service Plan
The District is seeking approval for the GCSA in order to provide for the following:
1 . Establishment of the GCSA.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Future inclusion of additional property within the District boundary.
A new WWTF to serve the GCSA. This plant will be located on one of three
sites identified in the expanded service area2.
The possible future installation of an interceptor sewer that would convey
wastewater from the existing District WWTF site to the GCSA site in order to
comply with the CDPHE policy of consolidating of WWTF's. It is understood
that implementation of this policy would require future service plan
amendments from both Garfield County and Eagle County.
The establishment of potable water supply, storage and transmission facilities
within the expanded service area.
This plan, as stated, will allow for the orderly expansion of water and wastewater
facilities in order to meet .both the needs of currently permitted future development as well
as the needs of a growing valley. It will allow the District to comply with the CDPHE policy
of regionalization of WWTF's consolidation of administrative functions and protect water
quality in the Roaring Fork River. Upon approval of the Garfield County Commissioners, this
: 1 plan will provide services to this area based upon the current Comprehensive Plan density as
, ! well as higher densities that may occur as a result of further land use approvals. •
: j
2 An expansion to the capacity and treatment standards of the existing District WWTF is also
planned. The expansion due to hydraulic and organic capacity was contemplated in the original
service plan. The treatment standards have changed from the original service plan due to
adoption of ammonia standards.
reportl\SOICI051.rvl
7
' l
l
l
l
' l
I
' J
I
. J
i
I
CHAPTER 3. DISTRICT BOUNDARY, ESTIMATE OF POPULATION, AND VALUATION FOR
ASSESSMENT
3.1 Existing District Boundary
The existing District boundary and service area is shown in Figure 3.1. The boundary
extends from the Aspen Junction property on the east to the Dakota Subdivision on the west
and includes property in the Roaring Fork Valley Floor on the north side of the Roaring Fork
River, totaling approximately 2000 acres. Notable exceptions include the El Jebel MHP owned
by the Crawford family and the 125-lot Sopris Village Subdivision, both of which have
privately-owned water and wastewater facilities. The District boundary is entirely within
Eagle County with the exception of portions of the Dakota Subdivision that was annexed in
1996 and is in Garfield County.
3.2 Proposed Garfield County Service Area (GCSA).
The area from the western side of the District's current boundary to the Town of
Carbondale is not included within any current utility service area, District boundary, or 201
Plan boundary. The Town of Carbondale recently completed a Water and Wastewater Master
Plan, which defined the boundaries for both water and wastewater services. Those
boundaries were consistent with the Town's adopted Land Use Master Plan. A utility service
gap exists between the current District boundary and the Ranch at Roaring Fork. In order to
include this area in a well-planned utility district, the MVMD is proposing to establish service
area boundaries to include this land. This area is shown on Figure 3.2 and is generally
depicted as the Roaring Fork Valley Floor north of the Roaring Fork River from the Dakota
Subdivision on the west to and including the Ranch at Roaring Fork on, the east. This area
includes approximately 1824 acres. The major properties include the undeveloped Dennis
Cerise Ranch, Clifford Cerise Ranch, Blue Creek Ranch, St. Finnbar Ranch, Preshana Farms,
and the developed Ranch at Roaring Fork Subdivision.
Properties within this service area will be annexed into the District boundary
individually through the inclusion process set forth in C.R.S. 21-1-401, et seq., upon request
to the District, and execution of a pre-inclusion agreement between the District and the
respective landowners.
~nll501C109.rvl
8
u
ij
c
n
4
0
4
~
:
~
:;
::>
~
" _,
0
' ~
1=.
n,
n n
~
en
" D
c:J.
W'
"' E
' D
>
E
/,
u
~
::> n
~
~
"' ::>
::>
::>
/
I
ENGINEERS
~ SURVEYORS
G
SCHMUESER M
GORDON MEYER
SCHMUESER GOR)'
118 W. 6th Street, S\UNTY
Glenwood Springs, C~
(970) 945-1004 (~
Aspen, Colorado (97G
SCALE·
Job No. 1501C
0rawn by: RM
Dato: 2/8/99
Appr. by:
Fillt:mvri-ms d
v
;;
I:
n
~
" ~
~
::!
:;
::>
::>
~
" '-' "' ~
:!:.
w c::
~
>:
.!)
fJ
:n :n :n
~
::>
:::J
jj
T)
;,;
~
OJ
:::J
'-"' :<:
OJ
:::J
en
"' 0
0.
~
<n
E
' 0
>
?
w
~
0
l!l
' l
: l
. I
I
J
l
~ ,,
~
><
0
0
0
~
.:.;
' r
• I '*.1 :·:~··"
~ ENGINEERS
..:J SURVEYORS
G
SCHMUESER :J\I\
GORDON MEYER
SCHMUESER GORO
118 W, 6th Street sJ
(
Glenwood Springs,' Coil
970) 945-1004 (Fl
Aspen, Colorado (9701
Job No.
lJnJwn by:
Date
""" by:
Fiie: mvd-m
1501C
RM
2~/99
LOM
TABLE 3.1
MVMD
~~
WWTF PROJECTIONS
EQR SUMMARY '
~~.,afJB&B:Ft!;\<'\'!'~. -~ EQR'S PlAT'fED TOTAiEQ!l;t' P~tCTJaff ,_,:,t~YAP!1~.L :,fJ.; ... _, -ftCA!irr~ : ;:CJ"QtAt, /f;1~.fi~:";\'~'il:~'-;" ::~/':': •··. . '"BUTNOT:. :·' UNDER·:~ ·"EQ~s:· 'PROOE¢TEQ ;ftERs, '~-PER.: ''FLOW . ~ti?-it}~'i1~;,,~-;,/;~--f:;J::: , ~'.?'·[;" O!OVE'LOPEP COMMITMet.IT • ·: ·.-'· · '#OJfEQ~S CAPITA : EQR -. WW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
!~~~k~~¥\1i1i~~1~t'Ei~~~j~ :.:<, •··•·•.· •.. ·. -~-rE-.. · i. ·.· .•. ;~n~~'-<•i•.:;'.f QR1:,/J:f\[~Q~-ti · -r~PD~. ti:~PITA~ r~PDJ
RLUELAKE
FILINGS 1-4 266 3 269 269 100 3 80700
FILINGS 74 20 94 94 100 3 28200
~uMMIT VISTA 107 0 107 107 100 3 32100
•~sPEN JUNCTION 107 26 133 133 100 3 39 900
)ILLEY BUSINESS CTR 37 2 39 39 100 3 11 700
0
SAL T INDUSTRIAL PARK 66 7 73 73 100 3 21 900
AK GROVE TOWNHOMES 45 0 45 45 100 3 13 500
IVEROAKS 15 4 19 19 100 3 5.700
RIVER RANCH 23 4 27 27 100 3 8.100
SALTTRADE CTR 14 1 15 15 100 3 4.500
LASSIER ACRES 2 2 4 4 100 3 1 200
LO ORCHARD SUBD 40 0 40 40 100 3 12 000
TATE HWY DEPT 7 0 7 7 100 3 2100
ITSIMMONS MOTORS 10 0 10 10 100 3 2.910
OPRIS MEADOWS 16 834 850 850 100 3 255 000
t<EEFARM 0 0 40 40 100 3 12 000
ACOTASUBD 57 17 74 74 100 3 22200
UY RANCH 2 2 27 29 100 3 8.700
KLIANRANCH 2 0 2 10 12 100 3 3600
ODIACPARK 0 0 17 17 100 3 5.100
BLUE' RIDGE PUD 0 0 83 83 100 3 24 750
EXACONVENDY'S 7 .
0 7 7 100 3 2.100
ID VALLEY MEDICAL CTR 0 40 40 40 100 3 12.000
OA 15 0 15 15 100 3 4500
SPEN BASALT MHP 73 0 73 73 100 3 21900
ISHOP 1 0 1 5 6 100 3 1 800
PARKSIDE 5 3 8 8 100 3 2.400
UNE 7 7 6 13 100 3 3.900
ORD 0 5
5 100 3 1.500
COBI 0 5 5 100 3 1.500
HUR CHES 5 0 5 5 10 100 3 3000
ISCELLANEOUS 5 0 5 20 25 100 3 7.500
TOTAL 999 972 1971 223 2193 100 3 657.960
)
ENGINEERS !:i SURVEYORS
G
SCHMUESER M
GORDON MEYER
SCHMUESER GO
11 a w. 6th street, ~ry
Glenwood Springs,
(970) 945-1004 .
Aspen, Colorado (91
\ \ ,·-~-'-.•.
"\ \v··· { i
Job No. 1501C
Ai'Pr. by: LOM
Fkmvd-m ,
~. l' c,~
.
.
11
.
IC)
I]
rm
. · 1· ~;~
' \J .• :
~1 [~:
.~.:
' l ~;
ll
i.,, I
jfi -
-f)i1
'.:-
!ir. ]
1 J
~cl
.
.
!,\[., l
ii
~,I
~ll I
I'
; I
i,: I
\J
.··. ......... ----~-· .-.~--·;:-.
3.3 Estimate of Population within Existing Service Area
Table 3.1 shows the projected buildout EQR (equivalent residential unit) count Inside
the current District boundary. This table is a compilation of existing users, proposed density
of approved final plats and proposed densities obtained from individual property owners. The
buildout within the existing District boundary is projected to be 2193 EQR's, which translates
into 6579 people. Currently, the District serves approximately 1050 EQR's. The El Jebel
MHP and Sopris Village currently are not in the District, however, long-range WWTF planning
assumes that they will consolidate into the District some day. The inclusion of these
properties would add approximately 1024 EQR's. The total buildout inside the District
boundary including these enclaves is projected to be 3217 EQR's arid 9651 people.
3.4 Estimate of Population Within GCSA.
In determining the possible maximum and minimum estimated populations within the
proposed GCSA, the. District hasanalyzed the existing GarfiEliirCouiiiY zoning maps and the
Comprehensive Plan land use recommendations.
In October, 1994, the Garfield Planning and Zoning Commission adopted a master plan
for the unincorporated area of Garfield County in Resolution 1995-pc-1. This resolution
specifically addressed the area in Garfield County known as Study Area 1, which includes the
unincorporated areas adjoining the municipalities of Glenwood Springs and Carbondale. The
only developed PUD within the GCSA is the Ranch at Roaring Fork. Preshana Farms has a
c.onditionally approved PUD which is projected to include 80 EQA's. The total acreage of the
GCSA is 1824. Table 3.2 shows the possible number of EQR's within the GCSA by applying
the comprehensive plan recommended zoning to undeveloped land (see Figure 3.3). This table
shows approximately 462 EOR's which will result in 1383 people and a wastewater
contribution of 138,300 people.
The predominate existing zoning within the GCSA is Agricultural/Residential/Rural
Density (A/R/RDl which allows minimum lot area of two acres. Again, using the same
acreage of 1834 acres and eliminating the previously developed Ranch at Roaring Fork and
previously zoned Preshana Farms, the possible number of EQR's can be determined. Tables
"'°"\IS01CI09.i¥J
9
___ ;;·_
. 1
. j 3.3 and 3.4 show the methodology used to calculate the number of EQR's using the existing
·.· J
l
c l
: l
'. l
' J
'J
' !
l _j
' ' i
' i
i J
i I . I
J
underlying zoning. Table 3.4 shows 840 EQR's. These 840 EQR's will result in a population
projection of 2520 people and 252,000 gpd wastewater contribution.
TABLE 3.2
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IN GCSA
Low (0. 1 units/acre) 684
Medium ( 1 unit/6-10 acres) 685
High ( 1 unit/2 acres or less)
Resource 22
Open Space 13
Preshana Farms 61
Ranch at Roaring Fork -Existing 355
Ranch at Roaring Fork -Proposed
TOTAL 1820
TABLE 3.3
GCSA AREA SUMMARY
ZONING CRITERIA
EXPANDED SERVICE AREA
RANCH AT ROARING FORK
PRESHANA
TOTAL A/R/RD ZONING
WETLANDS, SLOPES, ROADS, ETC. 20%
TOTAL DEVELOPABLE ACRES (not including Preshana)
68.4
116.45
0
0
0
80
147
50
461.85
·.···•·. '['OTAL ···•·.···A:c!'lES> ·.
1824
355
61
1408
281.6
1126.4
NUMBER OF UNITS UNDER A/R/RD ZONING 1 UNIT/ 2 ACRES = 563.2 UNITS
repon\l 501CI09.rv2
10
I
l
' l
l
l
' l
: l
1
I
1
i
' J
' I
I
TABLE 3.4
GCSA UNIT COUNT
ZONING CRITERIA
1·••r·. · ·· ··.·,··.•t, .•• , .•••...... ,.~~&ii.~s!Y···•·· ···'·'··rrn··.···•••·•····'.··••·,••1····•·'·• ··,•~oit'.~
Undeveloped (A/R/RD) 563.2
Ranch at Roaring Fork -Existing 147
Ranch at Roaring Fork -Proposed 25
Ranch Creek 25
Preshana Farms 80
I TOTAL 840 l1
Utility planning in this area should not drive land use decisions. However, responsible
utility service planning should also plan for the event that property owhers may elect to
amend the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan to allow for a higher density. Long-range
planning for a utility must consider both existing service needs as well as reasonably-projected
ultimate needs. The utility provider would therefore be able to accommodate higher densities
resulting in well planned, efficient, environmentally sound wastewater treatment, and potable
water delivery service, should the higher density occur. Certainly the past land use history
of the Roaring Fork Valley would suggest that planning for higher densities is prudent utility
planning. The alternative is to not plan for higher densities, which will result in service that
is substandard and environmentally unacceptable. Examples would include the water and
wastewater service that occurs in the Roaring Fork Valley at the CMC turnoff, and at the
mouth of Cattle Creek. These areas consist of many large ISDS's and small WWTF' s that
are under the control of private entities and homeowners associations. Many of these systems
are not in compliance. with current CDPHE regulations. At the same time, the entities and
associations operating these facilities do not have the financial ability to plan and build
regional "state of the art" facilities that protect water quality. Adequate fire protection is not
available.
For these reasons, this Service Plan will use a range of densities and population so that
well planned utility service can result for the most appropriate land use as determined by
Garfield County. Planning for multiple future scenarios will result in well planned utility
service and at the same time will not impede good land use decisions.
repon\1501CI09.rv2
11
l
I ]
l
' l
' l
: l
' l
I
I I
I I
I I
, I I .
In contrast to Tables 3.3 and 3.4 which show the density based upon the
Comprehensive Plan and existing zoning, Table 3.5 shows the densities based upon
discussions with individual landowners and estimates of possible development densities
consistent with the expressed intentions of adjacent landowners. This table shows 955
EQR's and 2865 people resulting in a wastewater flow of 286,500 gpd.
TABLE 3.5
GCSA PUD DENSITY
<\. i : ~·.··
. ·:····
·····.·.·ii<"i /···~f,!q\ij~l;(lft'.$ ..
Cerise Phase 1 (200 acres) 300
Cerise Phase 2 (100 acres) 100
Baily Sterett Property 50
St. Finnbar 23
Preshana Farms 80
Ranch at Roaring Fork -Existing 147
Ranch at Roaring Fork -Proposed 25
Ranch Creek Properties 25
Blue Creek Ranch 80
Clifford Cerise Property 100
Waldorf School 5
Miscellaneous Existing and Proposed ISDS's 20
TOTAL 955
Central WWTF service is appropriate for any of the EQR projections included in
this Service Plan. A large .amount of ISDS's or individual small WWTF's under the control of
homeowners associations is contrary to the 208 Plan and can lead to water quality problems.
Table 3.6 summarizes the projected densities based upon the comprehensive plan, existing
zoning and landowner projections. Plant size will ultimately be phased to match the densities
ultimately approved by Garfield County. Minimum buildout will help determine the size of the
first phase process capacity. The property owner projections can help identify the amount
of land necessary for a WWTF should the higher densities result.
rtp0nll'6l CI09.r12
12
. 1
,1
l
. 1
. I
. I
I
1
J
, I
.. i
! J
j
' 1
' j
I J
, I
' '
' '
I
'
I
I
l
TABLE 3.6
REQUIRED WASTEWATER
METHODOLOGY EQR's POPULATION TREATMENT (gpd)
Comprehensive 138,300
Plan 462 1386
Existing Zoning 840 2520 252,000
Landowners
Projections 955 2865 286,500
3.5 Assessed Valuation and Property Taxes
The District has included a copy of its 1999 budget, attached hereto as Exhibit B. The
District has set the 1999 mill levy at eight (8) mills, which generates a cumulative mill levy
revenue of $257, 108. In addition, the District's assessed valuation under the 1999 budget
is $32, 138,540. The mill levy assessment for the GCSA will be the same as the District's .
The mill levy assessment will be used to offset depreciation, replacement and operation and
maintenance expenses.•
repon\ISOIC109.rvl
13
I
' I CHAPTER 4. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF FACILITIES TO BE CONSTRUCTED
-l
' I
I
1
-'
1
'
I
-J
, I
' '
' 1
I
' l
I
\ _J
' I
'_I
I
' J
4.1 Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant Site
Figure 4.1 shows the District's existing WWTF site. Originally, the District had
approximately 22.364 acres. The original Phase I plant was built and consisted of 6.7 acres.
In 1994 COOT realigned Highway 82 through the District's property and divided it as shown.
The highway realignment took 3.564 acres from the District. Future developable areas within
the property include the south remainder parcel, a triangular piece consisting of 3.3 acres, the
2.4-acre site to the north of Highway 82 and south of the WWTF and, finally, the 6.4-acre
parcel north of the existing lagoons and south of Dakota Meadows.
The undeveloped parcel north of the existing ponds could accommodate a mechanical
treatment plant for up to 1.5 MGD. The two remaining parcels could accommodate a smaller
plant site but, because of the triangular shape, size and contiguity to Highway 82 is not
conducive for a 1.0 MGD or larger mechanical treatment plant. The north remainder parcel
could be used as a pretreatment structure. If a WWTF were constructed on the 6.4 acre
parcel, the parcel where the lagoons are located could be reclaimed for additional plant site.
If the lagoon technology was continued as per the Service Plan and as modified by the
COOT takings case by adding a third aerated pond and settling pond, the new plant capacity
would be approximately 500,000 gpd. This assumes a pond 12' deep with 2:1 side slopes.
If a fourth pond were added, this would increase the pond capacity to approximately 770,000
gpd. If the two existing pond depths were increased from eight feet to twelve feet deep with
2:1 side slopes, the ultimate capacity could be approximately 900,000 gpd.
-The District's existing plant is a three-cell facultative, aerated lagoon system. The
plant was designed to meet secondary discharge limitations. In 1997, the CDPHE notified the
District that future discharge limitations would include an ammonia limitation of between 5
and 10 mg/I. Recently, the CDPHE indicated that the limitation may be as low as 1 mg/I. The
aerated lagoon technology will not meet this limitation.
~n\1501CI09.rd
14
1
'1
. I
J
·1
J
J
I
I
I
i
,..1
--·
.. ..
--·
--..
__ ,.
--·-..•
... --· ---...
.... -··
. """··-·-. .
....
~
-. ! !
I I •1u
.. ..
,~
I
"" I
.. ..
~ w
!II
I a: I ::l
~ -~ u.
~
·--I
I• \ 1~~1 .
I
l
, ] condemnation powers if it decides to exercise that right, however, the Board has been
reluctant to do so.
' l
J
, I
' l
' l
l ' ,
I
' J
I
I
I
I , I
The second possible site is referred to as the St. Finnbar site and is located on the
Finnbar Ranch property. This site is included because it was previously the subject of a site
application submitted by the St. Finnbar Ranch. The site consists of approximately 5 acres
and is located in a proposed residential development). This site would allow for gravity flow
of the expanded service area with the exception of the Ranch which would have to be served
by a lift station. This site is not currently available to the District, but is a possibility should
it become available. The District and St. Finnbar Ranch owners have not held formal
discussions for use of this site for a WWTF.
The third site is located on the Clifford Cerise Ranch and is known as the Cerise site.
The District has a contract that allows the District to use this site if it is determined to be the
site chosen. This site would contain approximately 5 acres. Two sites can be used for a
WWTF on the Cerise Ranch. The. first location is adjacent to the Roaring Fork River
approximately 800 feet from Highway 82. This location is not visible from Highway 82. The
second location is north of Highway 82 and is visible from the highway. Both locations would
require that all downstream properties pump up to this site. This includes The Ranch, St.
Finnbar, Preshana Farms and others. See Figure 4. 7 for locations of both sites on the Cerise
Ranch.
4.3 WWTF Phasing
The WWTF will be built in phases that will allow each phase to provide service to the
GCSA for approximately 10 to 20 years. The exact size of the phase will be determined prior
to the submittal of a Site Application to the CDPHE. The Site Application to CDPHE will be
. I referred for comment to the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission and the County
L J
Commissioners. It is expected that the first phase will range between 100,000 gpd to
200,000 gpd. The ultimate size will be dependent upon land use approvals.
4.4 Interceptor Sewer Infrastructure
' j
Interceptor sewers, lift stations and force mains will be installed that will allow either
rq>orl\1501Cl09.rv2
' . j
'
16
c I
I
' I
' J
' 1
I
' l
: l
J
I l
I
' J
' ' I
L J ' '
I u
: I ' >
>
~
\
' f
I~
l
SG
CHMUESER M s
GOR DON MEYER
---· .···
ENGINEERS SCHMUESER GORD(t-SURVEYORS
Job No.
1501C
11a w. 6th street suitr AREA lJtvwnby:
RM
~lenwood Springs,' Colo~ Dato:
2/8/99
970) 945-1004 .fiFA
spen, Colorado (9 o) '
Appr. by:
LOM
Flltl:mvd-m
1.
i
}
\
-f'
I
' ;
"' '-
"' :r:
u c:
~
en en en
-
-0
'-"' ::>:
c:
0
::>:
~
-~
-'-'
I
"O
E
>
E
/
lD
0
-/
-0
lD
-0
/
-co en
-/
"' en
3'
"O
/
E
'-/
/
~~f3 PllOl'OSllD 1fn'I' Bllft8 ON I' IWlr:tC • -,,,. UNDt:-~==.,;;;~-1
l
.w:r. Ir.
--~
l
----
' l
I
......... _ ..
l ... ... ·-
l
!
1
.\
I
j
' j I
'
i
; I
)
I I , . .,
I
.-~,M
1
ENGINEERS SCHMUESER GORD Job No.
1501C
SG
SURVEYORS
118 W. 6th Street, Suif AREA
°"""' by: RM
SCHMUESER M Glenwood Springs, Co/A Dato:
2/ll/99
i (970) 945-1004 fiF Appl: by:
I GORDON MEYER Aspen, Colorado (9 0)
' F&: mild-ms
'
1
)
1
J
1
i
~ r -l
' ~ c J
n
~
" ~
1 ~
~
' ~
"'. u
"' ~
l.. r -i
I
~' J
c::
~
?5 r j
fl ' J
:n :n
~ i
j
"' 0
'-' ~! i
wt. J
"' >-
C,
.µ
en
E
I
-0 »
E
/'
LI
-Oi
l.C1!
-O'
/'
x
8:
~· .:..i' _j
,.' ' .,.._...
1 : /'
... l t
• ... _,."' -A.
-.. •R -' _ .. ·-->,,,._ ,!''''•..._,
.-,,f ~-~~--; I
,. ~ ; j
• I . ,.
~'·.··· .. -w
l
I
1
l
l
l
l
I
of the three sites to be used as the GCSA Phase 1 WWTF. Interceptors will be sized to flow
'h full during peak hour flow conditions. Possible alignments and locations for the
conveyance infrastructure for the three sites are shown in Figures 4.2, 4.4 and 4.5. The final
sizing will be based upon the densities approved by Garfield County during the land use
process. Financing, ownership, alignments and sizes of these facilities will be determined at
the time of pre-inclusion agreements and line extension agreements.
4.5 Existing Water System
The District water supply comes from alluvial wells. Currently, the District has two
cl , j well fields referred to as Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1 is located between Highway 82 and
l
. J
l
• .I
1
. J
' ,
I
I
the Blue Lake development and has two wells with a combined capacity of 500 gpm. Phase
2 has one well with a capacity of 250 gpm. Additional wells will be added in 1999 to both
well fields. The water from the wells is chlorinated and pumped directly to two above-ground
welded steel storage tanks that provide fire storage, emergency storage, operational storage
and chlorine contact time. In addition, the District provides service to an upper pressure zone
in the Aspen Junction Subdivision, which has a 60,000 gallon tank.
The water system built to date is consistent with the original Service Plan. The only
addition will be the addition of more wells in order to meet the increased demand within the
existing Service Area.
4.6 Proposed Water System
As property is annexed into the District for wastewater service the water infrastructure
will be planned to allow for one continuous water system with multiple supplies, storage
tanks, and interconnecting transmission lines. Through pre-inclusion agreements, each
property owner will be required to dedicate wholesale and retail water facilities necessary to
meet the needs of that development, plus the interconnecting transmission lines and
oversizing required to incorporate these facilities into one system. It is probable that the
majority of the larger tracts of land in the GCSA have the ability to develop high capacity
municipal alluvial wells. In addition, several sites exist for regional water storage facilities.
Multiple and redundant storage and supplies will result in improved and reliable potable supply
facilities as well as enhanced fire flow capabilities. Many properties within the GCSA do not
n:ponll501C109.rv2
17
' l
l
' l
, I
' )
: l
' . I , I
I
I
FIGURE . 4. 7.
~
=---;---=----1
SITE AUE1iWA1M',,
RJR PRQPQSEI> WASmrA1ER
1REA111ENT PLANT
D , I HB~i /1
oo IV
0 /;'
;I
I
I
I. #st'37" I tMUt1'
--
LOT8
-.11'-#ff
SECTION 31
·-··-'"-·-··-
_ ....... · ,,,, ..
•
I
I==
----"'---11
lt ~11 ,,
L
LOT 5 s
;
PRELIMINARY
~! tr'7:~--o-J
SCALE•
PROPOSED WWTP
SITES
DATE• SHEET
11n .. 600tt FEBRUARY 1!5, 1999 1 OF 1
DRA'w'N BY• CHKD BY1 APPD BY1 PLAN NO.
DNM TAZ TAZ CERISE2.dw9
'
GRAPHIC SCAI.Z
'kosJ;;J r I
T
C•rmr)
f"IGURE NO.
CERISE RANCH 1 ZANCAN£ZLA ANO ASSOC/A IFS. HVC.
ENCHV& 7i'/NC CONSUL T.4N1S
POST mMX BOX 1DOIS -1~ COOPER A"91Ut
Gl£NWOOO SPRINGS, COUllWlO 81802 (970) 90-5700
PROJECT• 97426
' 1
I have sites that would allow for storage facilities. Each development will be required to meet
the District's Rules and Regulations including the Water Rights Dedication Regulations,
secondary water requirements and line extension agreements. If the water facilities within
the existing District are tied into the GCSA facilities, the District would consult with both
Eagle County and Garfield County for the need of service plan amendments.
4. 7 Estimated Capital and Operation and Maintenance Costs
' l This section will discuss both capital costs and operatibn and maintenance costs for
J
l
' l
' l
I
I
J
' I
' J
. l
i
I
l )
I
, I
I
the GCSA WWTF, interceptor sewers, lift stations, force mains or "wholesale facilities".
Financing of these facilities will be determined through pre-inclusion agreements and line
extension agreements. The water supply, storage, transmission, and distribution facilities will
be built by the District wit.h the funding provided by the development community.
A detailed cost estimate for each WWTF site is included in Tables 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3.
These estimates include the associated wholesale conveyance infrastructure. Interceptors,
lift stations and force mains have been included only for comparison purposes. As stated
earlier, financing for these facilities will be determined in agreements between the District and
property owners. The cost for each alternative site is as follows:
TABLE 4.4
GCSA PHASE 1 -INFRASTRUCTURE COST (plant and lines)
(286,000 GPD WWTFJ
i $111]~ .: !I ~~$± l \I ' I !l§l~g~.~11 H I
Cerise $3 927 009 $4 091
Ranch $4 507 119 $5 544
,_ qGo
ll-""'-"""--~~~~~-+~~--'""'-'=<=<-~~-+~~~-=~'--~~-11_g/'1--
St. Finnbar $4 019 190 $4 187 !'=='¥.:====~~~~==~~=====~==~====~~====~~~~
-9r,,o
The cost of land is included in each of these estimates. Several negotiating points
included in the recent negotiations are reflected in the Ranch site estimate. The WWTF in
each site included is a tertiary 286,000 gpd plant. The first phase plant capacity will be
based upon the land use approvals granted by Garfield County. The 286,000 gpd was chosen
as a likely size for comparison purposes only.
report\ISOICI09.rvl
18
~ l
' l
l
I
: 1
' 1
' J
l
J
I
I J
' !
The cost per EQR for the wholesale facilities compares favorably with the District's
current tap fee of $4,200 for sewer. This amount also compares favorably with other
comparable tap fees in the valley. This suggests the economic viability for the costs in the
expanded service area.
The annual operating cost for a $286,500 gpd WWTF is approximately $97,767 as
shown Table 4.5. This amount prorated over the EQR's served results in a cost of $8.50 per
month per EOR. This is just for the wastewater budget and does not include general
administration and line expense. The expense associated with the lift station will either be
the responsibility of the individual homeowners associations that benefit or if operated by the
District, will be recouped by the additio.n of a lift station surcharge to the monthly service
fee .•
rcport\ISOIC\09.l'Vl
19
l
I
' l
)
l
)
1
I
\
J
l
. I
' l
J
: l
' i
I
' J
' l I
l
I
' J
, I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
288,000 GPO WWTF
Outfall Line
Land Costs
Lift Station
Force Main • 6"
Cleanouts
Road Crossing
Access Road
Interceptor
Manholes
Highway Bore
TOTAL EQR's
COST PER EQR
I j repon\ISOICI09.rv2
TABLE4.1 ~
CERISE SITE ALTERNATIVE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
960
$4,091
Ill
1 LS
400 LF
5 AC
LS
6300 LF
25 LF
LS
LS
12,900 LF
43 EA
200 LF
Subtotal
Engineering, 7%
Contingency, 1 5 %
TOTAL
20
$2,079,360
$45
$50,000
$125,000
$25
$500
$ 20,000
$ 25,000
$30
$1,500
$400
$2,079,360
$ 18,000
$ 250,000
$ 125,000
$ 157,000
$ 12,500
$ 20,000
$ 25,000
$ 387,000
$ 64,000
$ 80,000
$3,218,860
$ 225,000
$ 482,000
$3,927,009
I
j
')
'l
' J
' '
' J
: l
' '
' J
l
, I
'
l J
. I
' J
'l
' J
' . I
~ I
: I
I I
j
288,000 GPD WWTF
2 Outfall Line
3 Land Costs
4 Wetlands Mitigation
5 Slip Line Ranch Lines
6 Interceptor Sewerline
7 Manholes
8 Highway Bore
9 Highway Crossing
10 Access Road
11 Remove Ranch WWTF
TABLE 4.2
RANCH SITE ALTERNATIVE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
1 LS $2,079,360
1200 LF $45
5 AC $50,000
LS $200,000
2200 LF $45
23,500 LF $30
78 EA $1,500
200 LF $400
LS $20,000
LS $35,000
LS $30,000
12 Excess Groundwater Dewatering LS $25,000
Subtotal
Engineering, 7%
Contingency, 1 5 %
TOTAL
tl)l., ,.,f 9,(J? TOTAL EQR's 813
COST PER EQR $5,544 •
nlJ)OJt\ISOICI09.rv2
21
$2,079,360
$ 54,000
$ 250,000
$ 200,000
$ 99,000
$ 705,000
$ 11'7,000
$ 80,000
$ 20,000
$ 35,000
$ 30,000
$ 25,000
$3,694,360
$ 258,605
$ 554, 154
$4,507, 119
l
, I
j
, I
I
' '
I
. l
)
1
' '
' J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
200,000 GPO WWTF
Outfall Line
Land Costs
Lift Station
Force Main -6"
Cleanouts
Road Crossing
Access Road
Interceptor
Manholes
Highway Bore
TOTAL EQR's
COST PER EQR
, I l __ j report\ISOIC!09.rv2
TABLE 4.3
ST. FINNBAR SITE ALTERNATIVE
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
960
$4, 187
Ill
LS
200 LF
5 AC
LS
6000 LF
24 LF
LS
LS
16,000 LF
53 EA
200 LF
Subtotal
Engineering, 7%
Contingency, 15%
TOTAL
22
$2,079,360
$45
$50,000
$125,000
$25
$500
$20.000
$10,000
$30
$1,500
$400
$2,079,360
$ 9,000
$ 250,000
$ 125,000
$ 150,000
$ 12,000
$ 20,000
$ 10,000
$ 480,000
$ 79,500
$ 80,000
$3,294,860
$ 238,640
$ 494,229
$4,019,729
. l
j
)
l
. J
1
. J
1
. J
' l
: J
I
·. J
I
. I
. 1
)
. 1
, I
: j
' l
r I
l J
: I
. I
. I
I
TABLE4.5
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
0.288 MGD WWTF 0 & M EXPENSE
1 Chemicals $ 1,000
2 Lab $ 1,000
3 Plant Maintenance and Supplies $ 5,000
4 Operator Labor $ 8,000
5 Permits $ 650
6 Building Power ~ $ 1,500
7 Process Power $32,825
8 Equipment Replacement $ 1,500
9 Professional Services $ 3,500
10 Administration $ 6,000
11 Biosolids Management $ 36,792
TOTAL $ 97,767
repon\I SOlC109.rv2
23
l
· 1 CHAPTER 5. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS
5.1 General
The first phase WWTF will be a tertiary plant designed to meet secondary discharge
limitation standards and an ammonia limitation. It is unknown at this time what the actual
: ] ammonia limitation will be. The CDPHE has not finalized background water quality data
collection necessary to input into the Colorado ammonia model used to predict ammonia levels
in the rivers. Preliminary information provided by the CDPHE .indicated an ammonia limitation
of between 1 and 10 mg/I. Interceptor and collection sewers, water storage tanks, wells,
l
I
. J
c '
I I J
transmission and distribution mains will be designed and constructed in accordance with the
standards and specifications set forth in the District's Rules and Regulations. A copy of the
current District's Rules and Regulations are attached as Exhibit C. •
n:pon\ISOICIO'J.rvl
24
l
j
l
,]
CHAPTER 6. PROPOSED AND EXISTING AGREEMENTS
6.1 General
Attached are copies of the pre-inclusion agreement between the District and Cerise
Ranch and the Cerise Ranch developer, Wintergreen Homes. It is anticipated that other
' ] properties, including Preshana Farms, may also enter similar pre-inclusion agreements. The
Cerise/Wintergreen agreement is included in Exhibit D.
j
)
: l
, I
I
' J
I l
: l
: l
'.J '
Also attached as Exhibit E is an agreement between the District and Wintergreen
Homes which spells out the terms by which Wintergreen Homes has secured an option to
purchase the WWTF site on ttie Clifford Cerise Ranch. This option ensures that at least one
of the three sites is secured. •
•
report\ISOIC109.rv2
25
'. l
. J
' I
i 1·
..
! l
I
' J
. I
CHAPTER 7. FINANCIAL PLAN
7.1 General
The financing for the wastewater infrastructure will be provided up front by the
development community, the terms of which are provided in the attached pre-inclusion
agreement. This agreement provides that the developer will furnish the cash up front for the
District to design and build the treatment plant and interceptor sewers. The developer, in
turn, receives a tap fee credit for each tap purchased from the District up to the amount
originally paid by the developer. It is anticipated that the Subdivision Improvement
Agreements between the developer and Garfield County will include the developer's pro-rata
share of the wholesale infrastructure, including other public improvements as required by
Garfield. County.
The District does have the ability to issue General Obligation Bonds, subject to
provisions of the Special District Act and Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution.
The District will be required to fund the operation and maintenance costs of the new
wastewater treatment facility. The operation and maintenance costs include the base cost
identified in Table 4.5. plus additional administrative costs and variable operation and
maintenance costs. The District may utilize any or all of the following revenue sources to
meet operational and maintenance costs: ( 1) monthly user service fees; (2) reasonable mill
levy assessment; (3) tap fee proceeds designated for operational expenditures, including a
reserve and replacement fund to be collected by the District upon the sale of each tap; (4)
an operation surcharge whereby parties financing the District's facility upgrade and expansion
will fund and shortfall the District experiences for operation and maintenance of the plant prior
to efficient operational capacity.
The District may also issue tax exempt revenue bonds guaranteed secured by credit
enhancements provided by developers to ensure there is no potential for a burden on the
existing or future users and property owners.
The District will maintain its present financial viability by the methods and procedures
identified above. In addition, the District maintains present.an future authority under Title 32,
Colorado Revised Statutes, to assess fees, rates, tolls, penalties and other charges to
supplement revenues necessary for operation and maintenance of the District's facilities.•
repon\1501CI09.rv2
26 6
l
l
I
l
I
I ]
' l
. J
, I
!
. I
' l
. '
I
l )
' ' I
i
' j
. ' '
'
I J
I
' J
I \ ~fl/ ~ l
CHAPTER 8. COMPLIANCE WITH 208 PLAN. / wJ.-fl0'~
This Service Plan which consolidates service areas, inagement agencies and WWTF' s
is consistent with the policies of the Region XII Water Quality Management Plan or 208 Plan
for the Roaring Fork River. The purpose of Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act is to
require plans for coordinated regional approaches to Water Quality Management. Specific
citations in the 208 Plan include the following:
3.1
3.2
4.2
Point Source Issues
"The principal problems addressed included the need for advanced wastewater
capability at domestic facilities to protect Roaring Fork Rive and Brush Creek
from toxicity due to discharges of ammonia, chlorine and BOD5• The plan also
addressed the need for future consolidation of facilities in the El Jebel area as
a result of anticipated growth in the area."
Point Source Recommendations
"A Consolidated Sanitation Management District in the Mid Valley area should
be established in the future. The sanitation district' which could be managed
by a single management organization include: El Jebel, Basalt, Sopris Village,
Mid Valley and Aspen Glen."
Policy Objectives
"To avoid the proliferation of wastewater treatment facilities and/or wastewater
treatment agencies where practical alternatives exist."
4.4 Implementation Recommendations
repon\ISOIC109.rv:Z
"Where site conditions require wastewater collection and central treatment,
efforts should be made to consolidate treatment plants. Consideration,
however, needs to be given to protection of instream flows. Every effort
27
' ' I
; ' ' '
' J
; 1
!
' '
'' I
l
c l
j
' 1 ' ' I
)
' I
'
1
' 'j
l j
should be made to consolidate management agencies and special district
boundaries, where possible, and financially beneficial. At a minimum, proper
long-term operations and maintenance should be provided by a responsible
operating entity.•
28