Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 Staff Report BOCCBOCC7/6/99 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PROJECT: LOCATION: I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Mid Valley Metropolitan District, Garfield County Service Plan The proposed district is located in portions of Sections 28-33, T7S., R87W; portions of Sections 25, 26, 35 and 36, T7S, R88W; more practically described as an area extending west from the Garfield/Eagle County line to the Crystal Springs road along the north and south sides of State Hwy. 82. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District is proposing to amend the existing district boundaries established in 1982, to create the Garfield County Service Area (GCSA). The existing district boundaries include approximately 2,000 acres of land located in the Basalt/El Jebel area of Eagle County.. The existing district provides water and sewage services to the District residents. The proposed district would add 1,824 acres of land that is generally described as the Roaring Fork River Valley floor north of the river and the north side of Highway 82, extending west from the Dakota Subdivision to the Ranch at Roaring Fork. The existing district has 999 EQR's or an estimated Populations Equivalent of2997 people. There is an estimated 1, 195 undeveloped EQR's or a Population Equivalent of3,585 people. The District projects that two other districts in the vicinity of the present day facilities will be merged with the MVMD at some time in the future, which would result in a total of 3217 EQR's or a population equivalent of9651 people. The proposed GCSA would have a projected total of 462 EQR's and a Population Equivalent (PE) of 1383 people, based upon the Comprehensive Plan designations. Based upon the existing underlyil:i.g zone district designations in the same area, the applicants project a maximum of 840 EQR's or population equivalent of2520 people. The applicant's also included an analysis of"densities based upon discussions with individual landowners and estimates of development densities consistent with the expressed intentions of adjacent landowners." This projection would result in 955 EQR's and a PE of2885 people. The existing wastewater treatment facility can treat up to 325,000 gpd , with an ultimate capacity of650,000 gpd or 6,500 people approved by a site application from the CDPHE. -1- After further evaluation by the District Board, the ultimate plant size was defined as 891,450 gpd. The proposed Garfield CoWlty Service Area would have a separate treatment facility located at one of three potential sites in the proposed service area. There are two potential sites at the Ranch at Roaring Fork, two on the Clifford Cerise property and one on the St. Finnbar Ranch property. It is anticipated that the first phase of the plant would be 100,000 gpd to 200,000 gpd, depending on some pending development approvals. The MVMD also provides domestic water service to residents within the existing service district boWldary. (See supplements pgs. /O~ 2-3 ) Any property within the GCSA would be required to enter into a pre-inclusion agreement, requiring the dedication of wholesale and retail water facilities necessary to meet the needs of the development. Additionally, each water system has to have interconnecting transmission lines that are properly oversized to allow for the connection to a larger district owned system. The water system will consist of pressurized water mains within a single pressure zone. The range of water demand is from 192.50 gpm Maximum Daily Demand for the Comprehensive Plan projections of 462 EQR to 397.92 gpm Maximum Daily Demand for the Landowner projection of 955 EQR. An existing well field serves the MVMD properties and there are two other potential well field sites to the west on the Dennis Cerise Ranch and the Preshana property. The estimated cost of the construction of a new 286,000 gpd sewage treatment facility and associated infrastructure was developed for the three different sites. If the plant is built on the Ranch at Roaring Fork property, it would cost $4,507,119 to build it. If the plant is built on the Cerise property, it would cost $3,927,009 to build it. If the facility is built on the St. Finnbar property, it would cost $4,019,190 to build. The annual operating costs are estimated at $97, 767 for the 286,500 gpd plant. There is no financial analysis of the water system included in the application. A property owner in the proposed District service area will make capital cost contributions to fund construction of the plant and related infrastructure and receive credit for tap fees that would normally be collected. Operation and maintenance costs may be funded by any or all of the following: (1) monthly user service fees; (2) reasonable mill levy assessment; (3) tap fee proceeds designated for operational expenditures, including 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 any 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. -2- II. ISSUES AND COMMENTS A. Colorado Revised Statutes -C.R.S. 32-1-101, et. seq. Within 30 days of the filing of a service plan with the County Clerk and Recorder, the Clerk and Recorder is required to deliver the service plan to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to take one of the following actions: 1. Approve, without condition or modification, the service plan. 2. Disapprove the service plan. 3. Conditionally approve the service plan subject to additional information being submitted or the modification of the proposed service plan. The Board of County Commissioners "shall disapprove the service plan unless evidence satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented": 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. 3. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. 4. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the plan if evidence satisfactory to the Board of any of the following, at the discretion of the Board, is not presented: 1. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the County or other existing municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. 2. 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 under Section 32-1-204(1). 3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-108, C.R.S .. 4. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long-range water quality management plan for the area. -3- 5. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served. The following are responses to the statutory criteria: 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. The area has approved developments requiring central sewage treatment. Two developments adjacent to the Ranch at Roaring Fork were approved with the requirement that the Ranch's central sewage disposal system be available for the projects. There is another development with conditional approval inside the R at RF, that is required to have a central sewage disposal system available prior to final approval. The other property proposed for inclusion in the district have no specific identified need for organized service, other than one proposed development and a few landowners projected development density that is not consistent with any comprehensive plan designations. There is no projected need for central water supply systems for the area. The application includes projections for the provision of central water supply to the area, based upon the same assumptions made for central sewage treatment. It is noted that any entity armexing to the District would be required to give up all water rights and design a water system that could be a part of a larger system. 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. The only existing system in the GCSA is the Ranch at Roaring Fork system and it is inadequate to meet the immediate and near future demands for sewage treatment for the existing and proposed development in the area. The present system is at capacity and there are other property owners within the proposed district boundaries wanting service. The R at RF has a site application on file with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), that could meet the needs of the two developments adjacent to the Ranch property and the one development included in the Ranch's boundaries. The other properties to be included in the district would far exceed any capabilities of the existing or proposed treatment capabilities of the Rat RF. The MVMD does not have the capacity to serve the proposed GCSA with their existing treatment facility, but had identified the possibility of forced mains and lift stations being used along with an expanded facility. The MVMD board has eliminated this option as being viable for the entire proposed service area due to the length of the service. -4- 3. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. The proposed district will need to invest between $3.9 to $4.5 million to build all of the infrastructure to meet the proposed demand for sewage treatment facilities on one of the alternative sites. Of that cost, in every alternative, $2.1 million will be the cost of the new treatment facility. The remaining portions of the costs would be for sewer lines and other infrastructure. . Two of the treatment facilities are being designed to treat 960 EQR's, the proposed Ranch treatment facility is designed for 813 EQR's. The Ranch site is identified as being designed for 813 EQR's because there was no proposed cost to Ranch residents for tap fees, in return for a site for a treatment facility. The Ranch and Cerise facilities are capable of treating 288,000 gpd and the St. Finnbar facility would have a capacity of200,000 gpd. These numbers do not make any sense, given the intent of the District according to the written text stating that the facility would treat 286,000 gpd and 955 EQR's. It is difficult for staff to say that the applicant's appear to be capable of providing "economical and sufficient service", when there no certainty as to which design will be used and whether or not it is sufficient. The service plan states that each development will be obligated to develop a water system that will serve the individual development and be capable of being connected to a larger system. There is a discussion of the size and capacity, but no discussion of the economics of the proposed system. There is no projected cost of the proposed facilities, it appears that each development will have to pay for their share. It is not clear how that will occur based upon the information in the application, since not all of the projected development would occur at the same time. Some properties would have to be improved prior to service being available for some of the other properties, requiring potential storage facilities inconsistent with the proposed plan .. 4. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The district has a commitment from the Dennis Cerise property owners to pay for the cost of the capital improvements. This project is proposing development densities inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that may -5- not be approved as proposed. If the development is not approved as proposed, the financing plan for the project will suffer a substantial loss of projected up front capital. Staff would question the viability of the District's ability to discharge any indebtedness, if the initial system is not financed as proposed. Blake Jordan, bond counsel for the County, has previously provided some suggested language for inclusion in a Service Plan that has been used by other Counties in the approval of a Service Plan. Staff would suggest that if the Service Plan amendments are to be approved, the suggested language be included as a part of the final Service Plan amendments. The following discussion addresses the reasons the Board of County Commissioners may deny a service plan: I. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the County or other existing municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. The service plan notes that the existing MVMD facilities could be expanded at the existing site to treat over two million gallons per day, if a 1.5 mgd mechanical plant were built on the undeveloped parcel north of the existing ponds. This would accommodate the 9651 people in the existing district and the projected 2885 people in the GCSA. There is discussion of the feasibility of utilizing the existing facility to treat sewage for the area, but it was rejected by the district board due to the need to use force mains and lift stations for the proposed service area. 2. 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 under Section 32-1-204(1). The CDPHE has proposed preliminary standards for ammonia for the Roaring Fork river that would only require treatment facilities along the river having to meet secondary treatment standards. This would allow aerated lagoon technology to be used to treat sewage in the Roaring Fork river valley, which may allow for the expansion of the existing facilities .. 3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-106, C.R.S .. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area I notes three different -6- designations on the Proposed Land Use Districts Map. The proposed new service area is split fairly evenly between Medium Density Residential ( 6 to less than 10 ac/du) and areas identified as Low Density Residential (10 and greater ac/du) and a smaller area of Existing Subdivision. The projected densities in Table 3 .2 in the application are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations. The projezf, zoning densities appear to be higher than staff calculated. (See pg. ) Staff calculations for zoning densities are similar to the projected comprehensive plan densities If the application had stayed with those projections, staff would not have any significant disagreement with the Comprehensive Plan discussion. The application goes one step further and projects additional density in excess of the Comprehensive Plan designations in "the event that property owners may elect to amend the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan to allow higher density." Table 3.4 projects development densities 82% higher than the existing Comprehensive Plan densities and 49% above the projected existing zoning projection. It is staffs position that the District has developed a plan that drives land use decisions. The County's acceptance to the proposed density would be tantamount to acknowledging the densities noted in the service plan. Any approval of this plan must very clearly state, that the County is not accepting as inevitable the approval of any increased density. If the higher density is appropriate, the Plarming Commission should be making the decision to designate the area as a High Density (I unit/less than 2 acres) as a part of a comprehensive plan amendment process, not a service plan amendment. The Water and Sewer Services Goal states the following: To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development. The following objectives are relevant to the proposed service plan : 7 .1 Development located adjacent to municipalities or sanitation districts with available capacity in their central water/sewer systems will be strongly encouraged to tie into these systems. 7.4 Development will be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed project on existing water and sewer systems. 7 .5 Garfield County will strongly discourage the proliferation of private water and sewer systems. -7- The following policies are relevant to the proposed service plan : 7.1 All development proposals in rural areas without existing central water or sewer systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before project approval. 7 .2 Where logical, legal and economic extension of service lines from an existing water and/or sewage system can occur, the County will require development adjacent to or within a reasonable distance, to enter into the appropriate agreements to receive service. The burden of proofregarding logical, legal and economic constraints will be on the developer. The proposed service plan amendment as written is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of the basis of the proposed projections that are used to determine the theoretical size of the GCSA treatment facility. The district's justification for needing to project densities inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan is due to their desire to avoid the need to amend the service plan. Staff would argue that the majority of the expense has already been incurred already and if justified, an amendment could be developed. 4. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long-range water quality management plan for the area. The Water Quality Management Plan for Region 11 (208 Plan) does not really address the need for additional point source discharge points on the Roaring Fork River. The County Engineer has been working on an updated 208 Plan for the County for the last few months, but there is no new document available yet that would support or oppose the development of new expanded point source treatment in the area. The applicant cites a 208 Plan that has not been adopted by Garfield County and technically is the guiding document for Eagle and Pitkin counties. 5. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served. If development is to occur in the proposed service area, a central sewage disposal system is the preferable method of treating sewage, as opposed to individual sewage disposal systems. Having a central sewage disposal system in the area would allow for the clustering of development densities, -8- with higher net densities for the area. The projection of higher densities for the area is not consistent with the present development projections in the area and in that sense, may not be in the best interest of the area to be served. B. Other Comments: I. County Engineer: Bob Szrot, Garfield County Engineer reviewed th;-.initial application and identified a number of issues and concerns. (See pgs. z~ -26) At the Planning Commission meeting, he noted that the supplemental information had met his concerns. 2. Ranch at Roaring Fqrk HOA: The R at RF HOA has not agreed to annex to the MVMD. (See pgs.7D-32 ) Additionally, the Ranch is pursuing the approval of a site application for a sewage treatment facility that would have capacity to handle the sewage from the Ranch, Preshana Farm PUD and the St. Finnbar Ranch developments. The most recent letter is in response to the notice sent out regarding the Commissioner's hearing. 3. Eagle County: Eagle County was given the opportunity to review the application. (See pg. 2 9 ) They have determined that the proposed application would represent a substantial change to the existing service plan, subject to their review processes. No additional responses have been received. 4. Town ofBasalt: Enclosed is a resolution from the Jown of Basalt, opposing the proposed service plan amendment. (See pgs. 33-iJ'J-) ill. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners Disapprove the proposed service plan amendments based upon the lack of satisfactory evidence that: 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. 3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-106 C.R.S .. -9- LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. ' LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH CYNTHIA C. TESTER GREGORY J. HALL DAVID H. McCONAUGHY KELLY D. CA VE DAVID A. MEISINGER' TOM KINNEY "'Admitted in Wisconsin only Mark L. Bean, Director ATTORNEYS AT LAW May 17, 1999 Garfield County Building & Planning Department 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 !Oii GRAND AVENUE P.O. DRAWER2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261 FAX: (970) 945-7336 ltlaw@sopris.net Re: Mid Valley Metropolitan District's Garfield County Service Plan Supplemental Information. Dear Mark: I am writing on behalf of Mid Valley Metropolitan District ("MVMD" or the "District") in response to Bob Szrot's comments stated in his memorandum dated April 5, 1999. Louis Meyer prepared a supplemental information packet that addresses the majority of your and Mr. Szrot's comments. This letter addresses the following concerns of Mr. Szrot: 1. How will Garfield County represent its citizens on the MVMD Board? Will a proportional number of Garfield County representatives be appointed to the board based on land area or population within Garfield County or is this board to be in the total control of Eagle County landowners? Garfield County citizens will be represented in the exact same manner as Eagle County citizens. Once property is included with the District, property owners and/or residents who are registered voters can vote in District elections and sit on MVMD's Board. A person shall be permitted to vote in any election if that person is an eligible elector. C.R.S. § 32-1-806. An "eligible elector" means a person: (a) who is registered to vote pursuant to the "Uniform Election Code of 1992"; and (b) either (i) who has been a resident of the special district or the area to be included in the special district, for not less than thirty days; or (ii) who, or whose spouse, owns taxable real or personal property situated within the boundaries of the special district or the area to be included in the special district, whether said person resides within the special district or not. C.R.S. § 32-1-103(5)(a). Therefore, property owners and registered voters in Garfield County will be able to vote in District elections and sit on MVMD's Board of Directors just like property owners and registered voters in Eagle County. Neither county will "control" the District; the registered electors will control the District. F:\ 1999\Letters-Memos\MVMO-Bean-!tr-1. wptl RECEIVED MAY 1 7 1999 -/{)--- LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. Mark L. Bean, Director Page 2 May 17, 1999 Under Colorado law, the Board members are elected at large. There is no Colorado statutory provision which requires or allows wards or director districts. Since a large portion of the District's voting members will be from the Garfield County portion of the service area, the District expects that a portion of the Board will be residents of Garfield County. The District will encourage such representation from the Garfield County portion of the service area. Finally, the legal concepts of equal protection and due process will apply to prevent any illegal discrimination of the County's residents. 2. Presented data for future development has been given for both the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and a Developers estimate with anticipated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. For application purposes. Comprehensive Plan numbers should be utilized. as any Garfield County Commission approved amendments are outside the scope of this application. First of all, Comprehensive Plan numbers were utilized in Mid Valley's Garfield County Service Plan. Developers' estimates with anticipated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan were also utilized in an effort to characterize foreseeable service requirements in the District. Obviously, the District will not serve in excess of the Comprehensive Plan numbers if final approvals are consistent with the Plan. However, to satisfy reasonably foreseeable service requirements, the District wants flexibility in the future if Comprehensive Plan numbers do increase. If the County decides to amend the Comprehensive Plan numbers, the District wants to have the ability to serve the property in its service area. The Comprehensive Plan "is long-term in nature and will require periodic updating as needs and issues arise in the County. Therefore, it will be necessary for the Plan to remain flexible and subject to change and modification within the political process." See Introduction to Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, p. 1-1. The District strongly believes that the Service Plan should have flexibility for future plant expansion without a Service Plan amendment in the event that Garfield County elects to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Unfortunately, development and utilities services have become a "chicken and egg" problem. Garfield County's Comprehensive Plan's policy for water and sewer services states that "all development proposals in rural areas without existing central water and/ or sewer systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before project approval." Id. at 111-9. If water and sewer service are not available through an approved Service Plan, the Comprehensive Plan can not be amended; in other words, neither document can ever address the potential for amendment and a F:\ 1999\L!!Hers-Memos\MVM D-Bean-!cr-1. wptl --//- LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. Mark L. Bean, Director Page 3 May 17, 1999 true "Catch-22" situation is created. If the Comprehensive Plan is not amended, through an approved Service Plan, the District will not provide service to rural areas contemplated in the Comprehensive Plan. Under Colorado law, the service plan approval process provides discretionary power to the board of county commissioners. Under the approval criteria, compliance with the Comprehensive Plan is discretionary. C.R.S. § 32-1-203(2.5) states as follows: The board of county commissions may disapprove the service plan if evidence satisfactory to the board of any of the following, at the discretion of the board, is not presented: . . . ( c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with the 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 the area. C.R.S. § 32-1-203(2.5) (emphasis added). We have shown a viable service plan consistent with the master plan. Therefore, under Colorado law, Mid Valley Metropolitan District's Service Plan does not have to be solely limited to the Comprehensive Plan numbers. In conclusion, the District strongly believes that it should not have to amend the Service Plan in the event that Garfield County elects to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Colorado law does not require the District to limit its Service Plan proposal to the Comprehensive Plan numbers, and it would be unrealistic and expensive to amend the Service Plan each time the Comprehensive Plan is modified. Therefore, the District has included an analysis of Comprehensive Plan numbers as well as proposed Developer numbers. F: \ 1999\ Letters-Memos\M VM D-Be:m-!tr -1. wpli --;;_- LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. Mark L. Bean, Director Page 4 May 17, 1999 Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding this matter. We can schedule a time at your convenience to discuss any further concerns before the May 26, 1999, Planning and Zoning hearing. LEL:bsl cc: Don DeFord, Esq. Bob Szrot Louis Meyer, P.E. Mid Valley Metropolitan District Board of Directors David E. Leavenworth, Esq. Kelly Mullane-Johnson Douglas Pratte Scott Miller Ronald B. Liston F:\ l 1)99\Lcucrs-Memos\MVM D-Bean-!tr-1. wpi.J Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. -13- 970I 945-1004 s G_\\ ENGINEERS SURVEYORS FAX i9701 945-5948 5CHMUESER GORDON MEYER 118 West 6th. Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 May 14, 1999 Mr. Mark Bean, Director Building, Sanitation & Planning Department Garfield County Courthouse 109 8th Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Garfield County Service Plan Dear Mark: RECEIVED HAY 1 8 UIS -,.. ,...,..,... The purpose of this letter is to respond to your April 1 , 1 999, letter in which you have raised a number of issues about the District's Service Plan. This letter will address the issues you have raised point by point. There is no analysis of the alternative of using forced mains and lift stations to utilize the existing District facilities. There appears to be a possibility of utilizing the existing facilities based on the potentials noted on Page 9 of the Service Plan document. 1 . An analysis of the alternative using force mains and a lift station, and pumping to the existing District site was considered with the District very early on in the planning process. The life cycle cost for this alternative was comparable to other alternatives considered, however, this alternative was eliminated early on by the Board of Directors, essentially because of the premise that wastewater treatment plants should be located as far down gradient as possible to allow gravity flow. The District Board has had a very adamant policy which has been implemented over the years about minimizing lift stations. The Board has made it very clear to the development community over the years in their existing service area that lift stations are discouraged. The force main required would be over four miles long, which would result in extremely long detention times causing the sewage to go septic and the formation of hydrogen sulfide gas. Based on those reasons, the Board believed it was more prudent to install a plant site that would be located down gradient and allow for gravity flow. There is no analysis of the proposed water system in terms of demand, capacity, financing or operation. There is only the brief description of the existing facilities and noting that future development annexing to the District would be obligated to develop water systems capable of being a part of a larger system and be required to give all water rights to the District. 2. Attached to this letter is an additional section providing more specific detail on the potable water system. Also attached is a drawing showing the schematic location of these water facilities. -14--- May 14, 1999 Mr. Mark Bean Page 2 '' The proposed plan is not consistent with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area I, given that the sizing options are based on assumptions completely different from any proposed land use densities contained in the Comprehensive Plan. To base future facility sizing on the assumptions that property owners "may elect to amend the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan to allow higher density", is driving land use decisions. The District is making decisions based upon assumptions that their vision of what should be approved, rather than the adopted documents in the County. 3. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District's Garfield County Service Plan does include an analysis consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in Section 3.4, Page 9. The second paragraph includes an analysis of densities based upon the Comprehensive Plan that results in 462 EQRs, 1 383 people and a plant size of approximately 138,000 gpd. This is further summarized in Table 3.6, which shows the population based on buildout consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, existing zoning and landowner projections. The Mid Valley Board has made it clear that they wish to proceed even if development proceeds as per Comprehensive Plan densities. Attached as Table 4.6 is an economic analysis that shows the infrastructure costs assuming that the Service Area built out to Comprehensive Plan densities. This table assumes that a plant would be built on the ranch property. The cost per EQR is $ 6204. The plant will be phased with Phase I capacity approximating the existing approved development in the Service Area. The Ranch at Roaring Fork's existing EQRs, and EQRs for Preshanna & St. Finnbar total approximately 300 eqrs or 75,000 gpd. Therefore, a plant size at around 100,000 gpd may be appropriate. Subsequent phases, if required, would serve any upzonings that may occur. As a utility district, however, it is important to plan for multiple scenarios. If the wastewater service for this area only considered Comprehensive Plan densities, and upzonings did occur over the next 20-30 year period, how would those areas be provided wastewater treatment service? Certainly, proliferation of ISDSs and small wastewater treatment plants under the jurisdiction of homeowners associations is contrary to any water quality planning. The utility planning, particularly for water and wastewater treatment facilities, for any municipal district has had to consider impacts of upzonings, higher densities and the occurrence of planned unit developments. Examples are numerous in Garfield County where central water and wastewater treatment service is not available through a municipal district, yet growth continues and has resulted in haphazard, ill-planned and unsafe water and wastewater treatment facilities. In order to preserve Roaring Fork River surface water and alluvial groundwater quality, central wastewater service is necessary. The plan contains a variety of alternatives for the siting of a treatment facility. Only one of these sites has any kind of agreement with the landowner involved. Additionally, the size of the plant is based upon a sub-regional capacity, with no real ~----------------SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC·------------------' May 14, 1999 Mr. Mark Bean Page 3 11; analysis of the feasibility of expanding to be a larger regional facility. This is not consistent with one of the earlier statements in the document noting the possible need to d so. The analysis of Ranch plant is based upon 813 EQRs, not the stated need for 955EQRs. 4. The District included multiple plant sites for the express purpose of giving the District and Garfield County the flexibility of ultimately selecting the most preferred site. Multiple sites were proposed with the fallback position that the Cerise site is under contract. Should the District abandon all efforts at this time to provide a more sub-regional plant serving down to the Ranch at Roaring Fork? Is the County comfortable with multiple jurisdiction providing wastewater treatment in this segment of the County? Ultimately, the State Health Department will decide whether to grant the Ranch at Roaring Fork Site Application. As we all know, the State is requesting a local response on this issue. Based upon the numerous meetings that the NWCCOG has held, meetings with the Town of Carbondale and other meetings the District has held, it is clear that the majority of the opinions is that the wastewater treatment solution in this area should be a regional solution under a consolidated administrative authority. The Garfield County Service Plan is clear that any one of the three sub-regional plant sites will only serve the Garfield County Service Area. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District is proceeding ahead at this time to increase the capacity of their Eagle County wastewater treatment facility. In addition, the District's negotiations with the Ranch at Roaring Fork has made it clear that any plant located on the ranch would be a sub-regional plant, not a regional plant. The District and the Ranch are exploring the legal mechanism to ensure that is enforced. The analysis of the Ranch plant is based on 813 EQRs because, to date, the negotiations between the District and the Ranch provided for free tap fees for the Ranch if the wastewater treatment plant was located on a Ranch site. You should also note that in Table 4.2, in addition to the free taps, the cost estimate includes a land cost of $250,000. If the Ranch pays tap fees consistent with other users, the cost per EQR would be $4 700, as opposed to $5500. Harold and Jean Blue are large property owners included in the service area, but only potions of their entire ownership are included in the Service Plan. They were not even aware that they had been included in the service area .. 5. The District made an attempt to contact the major landowners in the valley floor from the Eagle County line down to the Ranch at Roaring Fork. Again, it was the District's policy to include as broad a ranging area as possible. We are currently working on a drawing which includes the property ownership map of this area from the County Assessor's Office overlaid onto the District '-----------------SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER. INC.----------------' -1~- 1:: May 14, 1999 Mr. Mark Bean Page 4 boundaries. We would propose to make minor adjustments to the boundary so that property lines are consistent with the boundary and the upper pressure limits. It is important to understand that the Service Area, by definition, is different than including property within the District boundaries. Properties can only be included within the District boundaries and subject to the mill levy assessment if a pre-inclusion agreement and annexation occurs with the District. The alternative would be to exclude many of the enclaves within the Service Area which would require a Service Plan amendment every time one of these property's request to be included in the District boundary. We hope this information addresses the majority of your concerns. We would be more than welcome to meet with you prior to the scheduled P & Z meeting. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Louis Meyer, P.E. LM:lc/1501C109.1 Enclosure ~---------------SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC·----------------' MVMD GARFIELD COUNTY SERVICE PLAN 4.6 WATER SYSTEM DETAILS The purpose of this report is to supplement the MVMD Garfield County Service Plan with additional information for water service infrastructure plan. This information was requested by Garfield County staff. 4.6.1 INTRODUCTION This section will discuss, in conceptual terms, the wholesale potable water infrastructure necessary to serve the MVMD Garfield County Service Area. This service plan description of the specific improvements to be constructed are preliminary estimates and will be subject to modification and revision as engineering plans, financial factors, development plans and construction scheduling may require. The following sections contain a general description of the contemplated facilities and improvements. 4.6.2 WATER UTILITY SYSTEM The attached drawing indicates, in schematic format, the overall layout of the proposed domestic water supply system, including water source and treatment, transmission Jines and water storage tanks. The overall water system will consist of multiple wells and well fields, well houses for treatment and controls, two water storage tanks, and looped transmission lines. A tie-in to the existing MVMD Eagle County water system will be provided. Should the Ranch at Roaring Fork request water service, a tie-in is provided as shown. Distribution and service lines will be planned as development occurs, but generally will consist of looped Jines off the main 12" transmission lines. Fire hydrants will be planned along with the distribution lines. 4.6.3 DESIGN CRITERIA The proposed domestic potable water distribution system will consist of pressurized water mains within a single pressure zone. Water system components will be installed in accordance with the applicable standards of the industry and, more specifically, with the CDPHE Drinking Water Design Criteria where applicable. In addition, the MVMD has existing standards for the extension of water lines and appurtenances. 1501C109.CH4 -18- ,, System pressures will be controlled by water levels in the proposed water storage tanks. Static pressure will range from a low of 40 psi to a high of 140 psi. The service area will require only one pressure zone. Those areas with static pressures greater than 80 psi will require individual pressure-reducing valves on services. Water transmission mains will be sized to deliver fire flows plus maximum daily flows. The two water storage tanks will be looped by one 12" diameter transmission main. Distribution lines will be sized to deliver fire flows plus peak hour flows, and will be a minimum of 8" in diameter. The water system will be designed based upon the necessary fire flows from the 1991 Uniform Fire Code (UFC), Division Ill, Appendix A. 4.6.4 WATER DEMAND The same methodology used for the wastewater demand calculations will be used for the potable water demand. A range in proposed densities from Comprehensive Plan, existing zoning and property owner requests will be used to determine water demands. Ultimate demand will dictate the number of wells and potentially the size of water storage tanks. Transmission line sizing is largely a function of fire flow demands. The following table estimates the Average Daily Flow, Maximum Daily Flow and Peak Hour Flow. These flows are based upon the criteria of 3 persons per unit, 100 gpcd, a 2: 1 ratio of Maximum Daily Flow to Average Daily Flow and a ratio of 4.5 of Peak Hour to Average Daily Flow. WATER DEMANDS AVERAGE DAY MAXIMUM PEA( HOUR EQR PEOPLE DEMAND DAY DEMAND,: DEMAND Cg-) Cg-) (oan) Comorenensive Plan 462 1386 96.25 192.50 433 Existing Zoning 840 2520 175 350.00 787 Landowner Projections 955 2865 198.86 397.92 895 1501C109.CH4 -;C/- . l:: The MVMD has a raw water policy that requires all outside watering to be through a secondary water system and not the potable system. The valley floor has been historically irrigated and, thus, a secondary system will be feasible. Therefore, the potable demand is based strictly on in house demands. 4.6.5 WATER RIGHTS The MVMD has a water right dedication ordinance that requires all developers requesting service to dedicate sufficient water rights to offset demand from the District's potable water system. Developers are required to dedicate actual senior irrigation water or cash in lieu of for those properties that do not have adequate water rights. The District currently operates under approved augmentation plans through Case No. 85 CW 591 and Case No. 90 CW 074. The District also has purchased approximately 300 acre feet of Ruedi Reservoir water from the Bureau of Reclamation Ruedi Round II contract for long term water right purposes. When sufficient water rights have been dedicated to the District, an augmentation plan will be filed that will transfer those rights to the municipal wells. The valley floor has been historically irrigated and thus has more than adequate senior irrigation water necessary to be dedicated to the District to offset demand. 4.6.6 DOMESTIC WATER SOURCE The source of supply for the Garfield County Service Area will be through municipal quality alluvial wells. The Roaring Fork Alluvial provides municipal quality drinking water supplies from Basalt to Glenwood Springs, including the town of Basalt, MVMD, Ranch at Roaring Fork, El Jebel, Town of Carbondale and Aspen Glen. Alluvial wells in the valley have consistently met the minimum drinking water standards and the Primary Drinking Water Standards set forth by CDPHE, requiring only disinfection for treatment. The source of supply should be sized to meet the Maximum Daily Flow requirement which will vary depending on the approved density in this area but will range from approximately 200 gpm to 400 gpm. l ' -zo-1501C109.CH4 I t: Three well field sites have been identified as possible sources of supplies for the Garfield County Service Area. First, the MVMD Phase 1 Well Field located near J W Drive and Highway 82 on the south side of The Blue Lake Development provides water to existing District's needs and has the potential to serve a larger service area. Additional wells can be added to this well field. The water can be chlorinated at the existing pump house, pumped up to the Phase 1 700,000 gallon water tank and then delivered to the distribution system. An interconnect with an existing distribution line in the Dakota Subdivision can be made with a line extension into the Cerise property. A pressure reducing-valve will be required because of the elevation difference in the two pressure zones. A second well field can be located within the Dennis Cerise Ranch. The wells would pump through a well house where the water would be disinfected and then pumped to a storage tank above the Cerise Ranch. A final well field could be located on the Preshanna property. Water from these wells can be chlorinated and pumped either directly into the distribution system after 30 minutes of detention time or could be pumped directly up to a second water tank located on the Blue property. The timing and implementation of these water sources will be dependent upon the location, density and timing of land use in this service area. The MVMD requires pre- inclusion agreements for annexation and line extension agreements prior to water service to any user in the Service Area. 4.6.7 FINISHED WATER STORAGE It is proposed to provide two finished water storage tanks, each with an approximate capacity of 300,000 gallons. Tank locations include sites above the Dennis Cerise Ranch and on the Blue property (above the old Carbondale landfill). 1501C109.CH4 -21- 11 I The storage capacity is derived through three components. Those components consist of fire flow, emergency and operational storage. Fire flow storage is based upon a fire flow of 1500 gpm for two hours, or 180,000 gallons. Emergency storage is based upon 12 hours of maximum day demand. Operational storage is based upon the difference between peak hour and water supply capacity over a 4-hour period. The following table summarizes the storage requirements for the three proposed land use scenarios (i.e., comprehensive plan, existing zoning and landowner projections). The total volume varies from 376,000 gallons to 585,000 gallons. The tank bases will be constructed at an approximate elevation of 6500 feet. This will result in pressures varying from 40 psi to 140 psi within the Service Area with a median pressure in the 60 to 80 psi range. Pressure contours are shown on the attached drawing. WATER STORAGE REQUIREMENTS OPERATIONAL EMERGENCY FIRE FLOW STORAGE STORAGE TOTAL (aal lons) (nal tons> (cial lons) Caal Lons) Comprehensive Plan 180,000 57 750 138,600 376,350 Existina Zoning 180 000 105 000 252-000 537.000 Landowner Projections 180,000 119,375 286,500 585,875 1501C109.CH4 -iz- TABLE 4.6 MVMD RANCH SITE SGM INC OPINION OF PROBABLE COST NO. ITEM/DESCRIPTION 1 .1 MGD PLANT 2 OUTFALL LINE 3 LAND COSTS 4 WETLAND MITIGATION 5 SLIP LINE RANCH LINES 6 INTERCEPTOR SEWER LINE 7 MANHOLES 8 HWY BORE 9 HWY CROSSING 10 ACCESS ROAD 11 REMOVE RANCH WWTF 12 EXCESS GROUNDWATER DEWATERING SUBTOTAL ENGR 7% CONTINGENCY 15% TOTAL ESTIM, UNI QUAN" 1 LS 1200 LF 5 AC 1 LS 2200 LF 23500 LF 78 EA 200 LF 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS 1 LS TOTAL EQRS (NOTE LESS 147 EQR'S FOR RANCH) COST PER EQR " ~-. UNIT PRICE $2,079.360 $30 $50 coo $0 $45 $30 $1,500 $400 $20,000 $35,000 $30.000 $25.000 TOTAL PRI $1,046.360 $36,000 $250.000 $0 $0 $705.000 $117,000 $80.000 $20.000 $35.000 $30,000 $25.000 $2.344.360 $164.105 $351.654 $2,860, 119 461 $6,204 . MIO VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT GARFIELD COUNTY SERVICE PLAN MARCH /999 GIS ANALYSIS: ALL VALUES IN ACRES PU/l.MiJ:f/fP l'1£M.URf!J. EXPANDED SERVICE AREA 1824 1933 RANCH AT ROARING FORK 355 335 PRE SHANA 61 TOTAL ARRD ZONING 1408 1572 WETLANDS, SLOPES, ROADS, ETC 281.6 747* TOTAL DEVELOPABLE ACRES 1126.4 770 NUMBER OF UNITS ARRD ZONING 563.2 385 * FLOODPLAIN 549 SLOPE > 40% 108 HIGHWAY 82 ROW** 90 TOTAL 747 * * 145' ROW USED 3-25-99 ,,,,,, -24-- /2.IFF£Rfl!/.C£ +6% -6% +12% +165% -46% -46% " Garfield County April 5, 1999 Memorandum To: File Re: Mid Valley Sanitary District Garfield County Service Plan ROBERT B. SZROT, County Engineer I have reviewed the document titled Mid Valley Metropolitan District, Garfield County Service Plan, March 1999 and have the following observations: My goal is to assure that any entities that desire to serve citizens of Garfield County are organized, have gone through a detailed planning process, and will provide competent service to our citizens both in the near term and long term. The expansion of the Mid Valley Sanitation District Area into Garfield County is one possible way to obtain water supply and waste treatment for this area. This document, however, did not conclusively address many of my concerns. I realize that Mid Valley would like to provide treated water and centralized wastewater treatment within Garfield County and I would support a regional waste treatment facility preferably at the northern (down-gradient) end of their proposed expansion to make use of gravity flow. But first I would like to understand some historical details and assure that the citizens of Garfield County will obtain benefits from this proposition. THE PAST: A historical overview of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District (MVMD) raises some question that need to be addressed. MVMD was started by 12 land owners in Eagle County in 1982 to serve and area of 1900 acres and 5700 people with water, waste water treatment, and recreational facilities. The Eagle County Commissioners approved this group as a district in 1983. The Colorado Department of Health and Environment (CDPHE) gave approval for a wastewater treatment plant capacity of .65MGD to serve 6500 people. A NPDES Permit was acquired for the phase 1 treatment plant and an Eagle County 1041 permit was obtained for expansion of a major utility. 109 8th Street. Suite 300. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363 (970) 945-5004 FAX (970) 945-7785 • ·Developers within this district then defined land use and the MVMD Board then directed the ultimate plane size to be raised to .891 MGD for 8914 people. Have COPHE or the Eagle County Commissioners ever approved this increased capacity? In 1992 the Colorado Department of Transportation bisected the MVMD 22-acre treatment plant site with reconstruction of Highway 82, whereby the district claims that its treatment capacity is significantly diminished which will limit its ability to serve areas of future expansion. What, in light of this diminished capacity, is the existing number of people served, the total anticipated service population, the acreage area of service, and any available unused capacity of the existing facility? In 1992 the MVMD amended their 1041 permit to included Dakota Meadows (an adjacent Garfield County subdivision) into their service area. In 1997, MVMD states that the El Jebel Mobile Home Park approached them to be included into their service area. Also in 1997, the CDPHE had advised the MVMD that ammonia limits would be imposed on their next discharge permit (or renewal?) or on any future plant expansion. In addition, there also exists the Sopris Village Community that is not currently part of the MVMD -although inclusion is anticipated. What resultant capacity values, in relation to their existing full capacity, will the MVMO experience with inclusion of El Jebel Mobile Homes and Sopris Village into their district? What anticipated ammonia levels limits are expected, will they apply to the existing plants renewal permit, and what would these values be for a new plant? To summarize to this point, I see a Sanitary District run by Eagle County landowners that has experienced a degradation from original design capacity due to a highway bisection which is not fully servicing several entities within their geographical service area -if this capacity even exists. In addition, current COPHE permit figures of the bisected site have not been presented. Is this plant currently at capacity? I also have not seen any descriptions of recreation projects that have resulted from MVMD efforts. THE FUTURE: The MVMD desires to expand water, wastewater treatment, and recreational services to an area equal to or greater than their existing district served. Several concerns I have that have not been addressed in this document include: 1) How will Garfield County represent its citizens on the MVMD Board? Will a proportional number of Garfield County representatives be appointed to the board based on land area or population within Garfield County or is this board to be in the total control of Eagle County landowners? 2) Presented data for future development has been given for both the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan and a Developers estimate with anticipated amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. For application purposes, Comprehensive Plan numbers should be utilized, as any Garfield County Commission approved amendments are outside the scope of this application. 3) I would like to see a graphical relationship of the Carbondale District service area to the MVMD GCSA areas and any communications or memorandums between the applicant and Carbondale -to assure that the valley floor areas will be served by MVMD or Carbondale. 4) As the original service area planned for potable water for 5700 people, where will the water come from to service the new GCSA population? The old MVMD water figures show a supply of 1.035-MGD summer and .593-MGD winter. Please show agreements or applications that will assure that the MVMD will have possession of water rights to do this. Also will any irrigation water rights need to be converted to domestic as was the case in the existing MVMD and does MVMD have these rights? Where will GCSA water storage be accomplished? Existing storage has been noted at Ruedi for figures of 25AF to 500AF -just what agreements are in place with MVMD and what will be the relationship to GCSA water storage? 5) What recreational facilities are planned or anticipated in the GCSA? What recreational facilities have been built in the current MVMD? 6) Reference comes up to this expansion as "sub-regional", yet it appears that only one regional plant will be built on one of three sites. Why is this expansion referred to as sub-regional and are there plans to build additional plants within this service area? Please give details about this topic area. Also, what percent and flow quantity is anticipated to come from the existing MVMD to the GCSA if any? 7) Will water and wastewater treatment services be provided to all entities within the proposed GCSA expansion as per the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan. Also, will existing or future homes not specifically affiliated with subdivisions or developments within the GCSA expansion be able to access and utilize the GCSA services? 8) When will the El Jebel Mobile Home Community and the Sopris Village Community be served by the MVMD -what timeframes and agreements are in-place or in-progress? 9) Please provide a one or two page summary showing existing water and wastewater flows, population and areas served, and treatment capacity for the: a) Existing system without El Jebel and Sopris Village. b) Existing system with El Jebel and Sopris Village. c) Existing system full planned existing service area buildout. d) Expanded GCSA system with full Garfield Comprehensive Plan buildout. -,:/- ') \) ) \'> Reference has been made to the Region Twelve 208 Plan. Although currently under review and revision, the Region Eleven (Garfield County) 208 Plan is the relevant document to reference for this expansion project. Notice is made that, in principal, I would expect the two plans to be similar in content and philosophy -yet there still exists a quite finite jurisdictional distinction. Approval by the Eagle County Commissioners, the Eagle County 1041 Permit. or MVMD Eagle County CDPHE discharge and NPDES permits do not automatically apply to this Garfield County expansion both from an operational and jurisdictional view. Approval of this District expansion will result in the expectation that the MVMD GCSA will provide fill people living within the GCSA District (up to and including a population equivalent the Comprehensive Plan's full build-out numbers); potable water, centralized wastewater treatment. and recreational facilities. This will include existing homes wishing to convert to centralized services, future development as per the Comprehensive Plan. and some anticipated unforeseen circumstances. In addition, boundaries for this district need to be clear and coordinated with adjoining districts, such as Carbondale, to assure full coverage along the valley floor. Until information is presented to clearly address the complete scope of the above listed concerns, I recommend Denial of this application. -J-B- Community Development Department " ' (970) 328-8730 '\ ' FAX(970)328-7185 TDD (970) 328-8797 Email: eccmdeva@vail.net http: //www.eagle-county.com April 5, 1999 EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO Garfield County Board of County Commissioners CIO Mark Bean 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Mid Valley Metropolitan District, Garfield County Service Plan Dear Commissioners and Mark: Eagle County Building P.O. Box 179 500 Broadway Eagle, Colorado 81631-0179 Thank you for the referral on the above referenced Service Plan application. After due consideration of the referred documentation, it has been determined by the Eagle County staff that this proposal represents a substantial modification of an existing service plan. As such, Eagle County will reserve any comments for full and complete review of a Service Plan Amendment through an application for the same to Eagle County. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Paul E. Clarkson AICP Senior Planner cc: Eagle County Board of County Commissioners Jim Hartmann, County Administrator Jim Fritze, County Attorney Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney Keith Montag, Community Development Director Mid Valley Metro District 0031 Duroux Lane, Suite A Basalt, CO 81621 7 1999 -zq- MH~ ~4 '99 09=33AM RANCH RT ROARING FORK M~rch 2J, l 99Q Mili:!.rcd Alsdorf. Clerk Garfield County Clerk aru:i Recordor 109 Eigllc Street. Suue 200 Glenwood Spnngs, CO 8160 l --.J3DUTE "lfl'-)John 0 Walt via Fa.-.: and Ccrtified Mail Re: Proposed Mid· Valle~· Metropolitan District Garfield County Service Plan Dear Ms. Alsdorr. This correspondence is in response to 11\e G-Jrfie\d County Service Plan. d.'.lced March 2, 1999. filed bv the Mid-Valley Metropoliran District IMVMD) for review by the Gariield County Board of Commissioners. Tius plan proposes to anne" r.he R.lnch ac Roaring Fork (RRF) inco an c:qi;mded :Vrvi.ID service distnct. The )..{VMD Se:"'1C: Plan J.lso det:uls J proposal to loc:ice J sub-regio!l.l.! wastewater plane on one of chree (acruaUy four) potential sices. including rwo proposc:rl sues toc:ued on RRF propcrry. The :<RF Board of Directors wishes 10 m:lke cle:ir r.h•I tbe RRF holTlC<Jwners have ooc agreed to anne."'1Uon into the proposed Gariield Counrv Se:-vice Arca (GCSA). nor h:ive they agreed to anv arrangement ar contr3C: wuh ~ID for them co pro\.1de '>vastc:'>volter trc3Unent service to die R.RF. MY:-.CD acknowledges tJu.s on page 15 of the Se,..,·ic: Plan b\· scaung, "r.he Disuict and the R.lnch could no1 agree upon terms muruallv s.msiac:ory 10 Boards for the use of etcher of the two sues.· Represemam·es of the RRF have be<:n discussing a po5Slble wastewater consolidation arrangement "1th ~ sine.. Jui~" However. no agreement wha!S<Je'\'er. has been re:iched and rn:iv nQl lle re::iched based on fundamcnlJJ differences t>erwc:en the p:lt!lCS regarc1ing the scope. capacity. l<X:>aon. tinancing. and concro! of the furure expansion of the fuc:iliry. Alrhoug!l we ti:i,-e ti.id a cordial incer.ict1on with the MVYID 13-0ard ol Dirteror.;. l\'C believe thar MVMD is premarure in presennng Gartie!d County with a Service Plan rhat references :md makes assertions regarding lbe RRF wasterwater =anent needs and plans. when i.n f3C"~ no 3greemems have been made. We ..iso bcliC\·e the Service Plan may contain sigrutkant factual errors relevant to !be RRF. U: after further srudy. we bl!lieve r.he,· are material. we -.;u comment on them. Therefore. the RRF Boord of Directors respe:tfulfy requests the G<imeld Coumy Board oc' Commissioners to consider thac r.he RRF is not al this time. a m!ling panii::pant m the liled G-.uiield Cowicy Service Plan. We ilave not agreed to enter the GCSA or to IOCltc a suo-regiooal 111astewacer cre:itmem plant on our properry. The RRF is actively pu"'1ing other Mst....ater treaunent options that mar prove more appropriate for the RRF homeowners and for consoUd.:mon with prcpo<ed housing developmenl$ :i.dj:>cent ro !he RRF. Scvet:!..I yo:1rs ago we developed a pl'1n to upgrade 'me RRF pla.n1 and submitted this proposal to r.hc Stace. The Stale required that the RRF Jgrc:c to serve SL. Finnbar and Preshana fanus before approving tile Sile Application. The RRF a~ to s.ervicc Si. Finnbar and Presll.ana Farms. The subsequent co11S1Jlidation cffol'! rook more than r\¥0 yc:JtS before ic w:is appro"cd 3 super-majority vo<c of the RRF homcowneI3. We ccmnussioned our EnginC1:r to p~re prclinuruu"' designs and a revised Site Appliciuon. . . 82 • Carbondale, Colorado 81623 -ao- P.1 , I • , -i:.~ I The RRf is aimmittcd to ~g and ""P"nding our existing S0,000 gallons per day VJaSICWalcr nealJDCUt &cil.ity to provide savice 10 oar resi&mis, as well as to OQI' immediate neighbors (deYelopment below Catherine Slore), it !hey so desire. A 100,000 aalloas per day lllcility has already been pbnned and fjMoo..f by llD 3SSCSSDIClll ofRRF OOlllWWDta'5. In addition, we~ oft'l::ml scmce 10 proposed housing deveiopmi:nls adjacent to the RRF. The Site Application was filed nearly a year ago uid only n:quiies approval by the Wala' Quality CollU'Ol Division of the Colorado Departmeot of Public Health in order to finish final design and colllllJICllC: COllSIJUl:Uoo. We believe this is !be most e"i)"rlitious plan ro CllSUJC COllt1Jllled service lo tile RRF residents and provide consolidated scmcc to adjag:nr devdopmctU in Ga.rtield Coonty. Board ofDin:ctors. Rm::b al Rmring Fodt rlomcone:s A..,..;ac;.,n f T. Mike Getb:r, Chairman of tbc Board cc: Man: Bean Dan Ddord. Esq. Ted Guy Jolln Heir Hardin Holmes, Esq. Gaqc Hopft::ibx:k. E:;q. Alt Kleinsteia David Leavenwol1J1, Esq. Layal l..=enworth, E,,q. RDll Uson Ronald C. Mdaugblio LauiJi Meyer Tim Thul5on Dwain Wwoa Tom Zaocandla -3/- <00. d Leavenworth & Tester, P.C. 1011 Grand Avenue P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 RE: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Dear Sirs/Madams: June 24, 1999 This letter responds to your letter of June 11, 1999 to property owners within the Mid Valley Metropolitan District's proposed Garfield County Service Plan area, requesting our views with respect to inclusion in the service area. 'The Ranch property owners do not request and currently oppose inclusion in the proposed Garfield County Service Plan area. It is our belief that a majority of the property owners within the proposed Garfield County Service Plan area live at the Ranch at the Roaring Fork, The Ranch has reliably provided water and wastewater service to its homeowners for over a quarter ofa century. Accordingly, we do not require an "opportunity to request wastewater treatment service from the District in the future." As you know, the Ranch has submitted an application for site plan approval to renovate/expand our existing wastewater treatment plant. This application was recently forwarded to the CDPHE Water Quality Control Division in Denver for consideration of final approval. We anticipate a prompt response by the State. In addition, Garfield County has already approved the Ranch's site plan. Representatives of the Board of our Homeowners Association have negotiated with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District with a view to consolidating our wastewater treatment services. No agreement has resulted from these negotiations. Unless such an agreement is reached, there is no need for the District's services to extend to the area west of the Catherine Store Road and we therefore oppose expansion of the District's boundaries to include that area. Sincerely yours, ~~ Michael J, Gerber, M.D, Chainnan, Board of Directors Ranch at Roaring Fork Homeowners Association, Inc. CC: Secretary, Board of County Commissioners, Glenwood Springs As a homeowner in the proposed service area, I concur with the foregoing letter: Name Address 14913 Highway 82 •Carbondale, Colorado 81623 • (303) 963·3500 £-PZ6 2:'96 0.!...6 101 MIDLAND AVENUE• BASALT, CO 81621 (970) 927-4701 • FAX (970) 927-4703 TOWN OF BASALT, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. __ s __ SERIES OF 1999 RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF BASALT TRUSTEES, BASALT, COLORADO, COMMUNITY ON THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THE MID-VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT'S AMENDED SERVICE PLAN Recitals WHEREAS, the Town of Basalt is in the process of adopting its new Master Plan; WHEREAS, the Town of Basalt has previously adopted a Three-Mile Plan; WHEREAS, throughout both of these planning efforts the Town of Basalt has analyzed the impacts from the extension of urban services on historic growth patterns; WHEREAS, without question it is the extension of urban services and the approving of urban and suburban development without regard for the logical extension of existing urban infrastructure that has contributed to the sprawl development pattern in the valley; WHEREAS, in an effort to address these concerns the Town of Basalt has identified an Urban Growth Boundary for the extension of urban services and urban density and land uses in both the adopted and proposed master plans; WHEREAS, our. analysis in association with the preparation of the new Master Plan concludes that there are existing development approvals and sufficient land designate;d on the future land use mapping within the proposed Urban Growth Boundary, to double the population in the urban growth boundary. The Town's Urban Growth Boundary comprises lands currently located within service boundaries for existing special districts. Town Boundaries and existing private service providers; ""'r·v,. . WHEREAS, the proposed Master Plan has the Infrastructure/Utilities Goal, "Public investment in infrastructure should be done in a cost effective way based on the community's desire to provide all reasonable necessary facilities and services. In part, this goal should be achieved through compact and efficient development patterns and effective phasing. Infrastructure improvements and expansion should serve the Town's growth, land use and environmental goals not vice versa." RECEIVED JUN 2 9 1999 -----------Established in 1901 -----------' WHEREAS, the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District's Amended Service Plan erodes the Urban Growth Boundary's intent by the premature extension of urban services which will ultimately create development patterns that are inconsistent with the Town's planning efforts; and WHEREAS, Eagle County is the approval agency for the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District's Amended Service Plan and they have not been given the opportunity to process an application. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Trustees of Basalt, Colorado, find that the proposed amended service plan will cause urban services to be extended prematurely; will cause inappropriate development patterns in Basalt's Three-Mile area; and continue the problems associated of uncontrolled growth in the valley; and is inconsistent with the adopted Three Mile Plan and the proposed Master Plan. Approved on this 22nd day of Town of Basalt Board of Trustees by~ RICHARD P. STEVENS, MAYOR June , 1999 ATTEST: PAMELA K. SCHILLING, tOW/f CLERK ~ .. ···· ':.···· ..... · I;)\\ !d.1 \i ... <:;) "··· •••••• "'·. : <:...·· ~ "·~. '·: .,..~ :.~: '.~\lti1 ji: . ,if.A••.;:""";; en .. •• •'" "' ........ · .. ). .. . Y 0 Wit...., ~···"· ........... -