HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.0 Leavenworth CorrespondenceApril 1, 1999
Loyal E. Leavenworth
Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.
P.O. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
VIA FAX WITH HARD COPY MAILED
RE: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Garfield County Service Plan
Dear Lee:
As a result of a preliminary review of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District Garfield County Service Plan,
I felt that it was appropriate to let you know that there are a number of issues that ate of concern to me.
This is also being sent to avoid any misunderstandings about the staffs concerns and to try give you some
time to respond.
The following issues are going to be included in a staff report, which will be based upon the criteria for
approval or denial of a service plan per C.R.S. 32-1-203:
• 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.
• 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 armexing 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.
• 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
assumption that property owners "may elect to amend the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan to
allow for a 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.
• 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 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 do so. The analysis of Ranch plant is based upon 813 EQR's, not the
stated need for 955 EQR's.
• Harold and Jean Blue are large property owners included in the service area, but only portions of
their entire ownership are included in the service plan. They were not even aware that they had
been included in the service area.
There may be other issues that the County Engineer or Eagle County will identify. Additionally, these
comments are not meant to be all inclusive, given the short period of time we have been given to review
the document.
In summary, there are a number of issues that lead me to a recommendation of denial. It appears that the
· document needs some additional thought and input from all parties involved with it.
Sincerely,
Mark L. Bean, Director
Building & Planning Department
~ ...
~£C£1VEO APR 2 6 -
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
CYNTHIA C. TESTER
GREGORY J. HALL
DAVID H. McCONAUGHY
KELLYD.CAVE
DAVID A. MEISINGER*
TOM KINNEY
*Admitted in Wisconsin only
Mark Bean, Director
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
April 22, 1999
Garfield County Regulatory Office & Personnel
Departnient of Development
109 Eighth Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Re: Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Dear Mark:
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P. 0. DRAWER2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261
FAX: (970) 945-7336
ltlaw@sopris.net
VIA FAX
I am writing on behalf of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District ("MVMD" or the
"District"). MVMD has been meeting over the past several years with the Town of Carbondale,
Mark Bean, Dwain Watson from the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, the
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, and developers and users to discuss water and
sewer service for the Ranch at Roaring Fork, St. Finbar and Preshana. In response to these
discussions, the District made a proposal for consolidated service for the Ranch at Roaring Fork,
St. Finbar and Preshana by MVMD in its Garfield County Service Plan.
The Town of Carbondale recently began (again) discussing extending sewer service east
to serve the Ranch at Roaring Fork, St. Finbar and Preshana. MVMD has several concerns
regarding Carbondale's proposal to extend service, which issues should be carefully considered
by the County, including the following:
1. Several years ago, the Town of Carbondale (hereinafter referred to as the "Town")
expressly removed the Ranch at Roaring Fork, St. Finbar and Preshana
(hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Proposed Area") from its 201 Plan.
The Town was concerned with increased densities that may result from central
sewer service to the low lying area south of the Roaring Fork River. The Town
wanted to keep density in the Proposed Area low to establish an urban growth
boundary.
If Town sewer service is extended, urban growth will spread to the low
lying area south of the Roaring Fork River. Additionally, the Town's limited plant
site can only serve the remaining area under the existing 201 Plan.
F: \1999\Letters-Memos\MVMD-Garfleld County-I tr -1. wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Mark Bean, Director
Page 2
April 22, 1999
2. The Town has conflicting land use concerns compared to Garfield County. The
County wants to promote @ comprehensive plan for the area. If the Town does
extend to the east, it has to be prepared to serve to the east to the Garfield County
line, consistent with the County comprehensive plan. Otherwise, extending sewer
service to the Proposed Area could usurp Garfield County's land use authority.
Furthermore, future land use within the County will be subject to the Carbondale's
Town Council's decision as to out of town sewer extensions.
3. Extending an interceptor along Highway 82 or through the low-lying area south of
Roaring Fork will be very expensive. How will the interceptor be paid for? Are
the Ranch at Roaring Fork, St. Finbar and Preshana users required to bear the
costs of installing the interceptor, estimated at $500, 000 to $800, 000? If so, each
user in the Proposed Area, including existing users, will pay approximately $1,700
to $2,800 just for the interceptor in addition to the Town's sewer tap fees. MVMD
does not believe this is economical.
4. The Town recently completed its Comprehensive Master Plan, and extension of
sewer to the Proposed Area is contrary to the findings of the Master Plan.
5. If the Town extends the sewer to the Proposed Area, a complicated jurisdictional
issue arises. The landowners in the Proposed Area will not be able to vote or
participate in the decision-making process of the Town regarding their sewer
service. Certainly, no contiguity exists to allow for annexation. In comparison,
under the District's proposal, the Proposed Area will be included in the District,
and.the landowners can vote for Board members who will represent them on our
Board of Directors. The landowners should be represented to maintain a voice in
the operation and maintenance of their sewer service.
6. There will be differential mill levy assessments since the jurisdiction providing
sewer service will not be able to tax non-included areas. In comparison to
Carbondale residents, landowners in the Proposed Area will not be assessed the
mill levy tax. Furthermore, to the extent that a multiplier (e.g. out of town rates
may be one and one-half times the rates for in town service, and therefore the
multiplier is 1.5) is used to make up the loss in mill levy assessments, the
economics of an extension of the interceptor become even more questionable for
the landowners in the Proposed Area.
F:\1999\Letters-Memos\MVMD-Garfield County-ltr-1.wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Mark Bean, Director
Page 3
April 22, 1999
7. The Town is only offering sewer service to the Proposed Area. In contrast, the
District's proposal includes both water and sewer service to the Proposed Area.
8. The District has been pursuing regionalization with the Town for three years. The
Town has consistently stated that it won't provide service to the Proposed Area.
Land Owners in the Proposed Area want service in a timely manner, and they do
not want to wait for three more years to see if Carbondale is prepared to provide
service.
As we stated above, we are meeting with Town representatives, and we are making this option
available to the Town to explore.
If the Town changes it mind and decides it wants to provide
sewer service to the Proposed Area, and despite the issues stated above, the District would ask
for some time to assess the implications of the Town's new position. After review, the District
is willing to participate with the Town to achieve regionalization.
At this point, the District is committed to seeking approval of its Garfield County Service
Plan. We are working on providing supplemental information in response to Mark Bean and Bob
Szrot's comments, and we want to continue with the scheduled hearing on May 12, 1999, before
the Planning and Zoning Commission. For the benefit of the valley's water quality, the District
believes that its service plan is the most reasonable and equitable solution to provide water and
sewer service in the Proposed Area.
In conclusion, the District's goal is to act responsibly to prevent the proliferation of sewer
plants and sewer districts. The District wants to consolidate sewer management from the eastern
edge of Garfield County to the Ranch at Roaring Fork's boundary. MVMD wants to work with
Garfield County to address these concerns. The District wants to address the County's concerns
and come to a solution that will facilitate the County's goals for water and sewer service for the
Proposed Area.
F:\1999\Letters-Memos\MVMD-Garfield County-ltr-1.wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Mark Bean, Director
Page4
April 22, 1999
Please call me or Louis Meyer, if you have any questions regarding this matter.
LEL:bsl
cc: Louis Meyer, P.E.
Kelly Mullane-Johnson, Administrator
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Theodore K. Guy, President
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Don Deford, Esq., Garfield County Attorney
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
Timothy Thulson, Esq.
Ronald B. Liston
Scott Miller
John Hier, Manager
Town of Carbondale
F: \ 1999\Letters-Memos\MVMD-Garfield County-ltr-1. wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
CYNTHIA C. TESTER
GREGORY J. HALL
DAVID H. McCONAUGHY
KELLYD. CAVE
DAVID A. MEISINGER*
TOM KINNEY
*Admitted in Wisconsin only
Don Deford, Esq.
Garfield County Attorney
109 Eighth Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 5, 1999
!011 GRAND AVENUE
P. 0. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 8I602
TELEPHONK (970) 945-2261
FAX: (970) 945-7336
ltlaw@sopris.net
VIA FAX
945-7785
Re: Extension of Review of Mid Valley Metropolitan District's GCSP
Dear Don:
I am writing on behalf of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District ("MVMD" or the
"District"). As you know, the District proposed consolidated water and sewer service in Garfield
County Service Plan (hereinafter the "GCSP") submitted for approval to Garfield County.
MVMD's review before Garfield County's Planning and Zoning Commission has been delayed
to allow MVMD to submit supplemental information to respond to concerns regarding the GCSP
by the County Engineer and the County Planner. The District met with you, Bob Szrot and Mark
Bean to discuss these issues, and MVMD has prepared a packet of supplemental information
addressing these concerns that will be submitted to the County by the end of this week. MVMD
was scheduled to appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission on Tuesday, May 11, 1999.
After speaking with you this morning, you informed me that the Staff Report on the GCSP
is due today and you requested a postponed hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission
so that Garfield County could review MVMD's supplemental packet. You also informed me that
Bob Szrot will be unavailable until Monday, May 10, 1999, to review MVMD's supplemental
material. In order to facilitate a productive and efficient meeting before the Planning and Zoning
Commission, MVMD agrees to a postponed hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission
if: (1) you recommend that a special hearing can be re-scheduled for the week of May 17 or May
24, 1999, and (2) a second meeting is scheduled before the Planning and Zoning hearing between
MVMD and. the Garfield County staff to address any further concerns or questions.
The District is committed to pursue approval of the GCSP in Garfield County. If an
additional week or two will allow for a more thorough review of the GCSP, MVMD is willing
to accommodate the County's request.
F: \ 1999\Letters-Memos\MVM D-De Ford. wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Don DeFord, Esq.
Page 2
May 5, 1999
Please call me or Louis Meyer, if you have any questions regarding this matter.
LEL:bsl
cc: Louis Meyer, P.E.
Kelly Mullane-Johnson, Administrator
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Theodore K. Guy, President
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
Timothy Thulson, Esq.
Ronald B. Liston
Scott Miller, Esq.
Mark Bean, Director
Garfield County Regulatory Office
Doug Pratt
David E. Leavenworth, Esq.
F: \ 1999\Letters-Memos\MVM D-DeFord. wpd
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
LOYALE. LEAVENWORTH
CYNTHIA C. TESTER
GREGORY J. HALL
, DAVID H. McCONAUGHY
KELLYD. CAVE
DAVID A. MEISINGER*
TOM KINNEY
*Admitted in Wisconsin only
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Mark L. Bean, Director
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
May 26, 1999
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
!Oil GRAND AVENUE
P. 0. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE' (970) 945-2261
FAX• (970) 945-7336
ltlaw@sopris.net
Re: Mid Valley Metropolitan District's Pre-Inclusion Agreement with Preshana.
Dear Mark:
Enclosed please find copies of the following documents:
(1) A signed Resolution from the Mid Valley Metropolitan District ("MVMD" or the
"District") conditionally approving Preshana's Petition for Inclusion into the District; and
(2) A signed Pre-Inclusion Agreement between Preshana and the District (attached as
Exhibit B to the Resolution).
For your information, the enclosed Pre-Inclusion Agreement for Preshana is almost
identical to the Pre-Inclusion Agreement the District signed for the Cerise-Wintergreen property.
Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding this matter. I will see you this
evening at the Planning and Zoning hearing regarding the Garfield County Service Plan.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
LEL:bsl
cc: Don DeFord, Esq., w/enc.
Mid Valley Metropolitan District, w/out enc.
F: \ 1999\Letters-Memos\MVMD-Bean-ltr -2. wpd
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN ])!STRICT
RESOLUTION NO.~
SERIES OF 1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MID VALLEY
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT CONDITIONALLY APPROYING THE
PETITION OF LANA AND HENRY TRETTIN. AND JAY N. WEINBERG.
AND/OR ASSIGNS. AND DIRECTING THE ATTORNEYS OF THE
DISTRICT TO TAKE SUCH ACTIQNS AS ARE REQlliRED BY STATUTES
FOR SPECIAL DISTRICT INCLUSIONS. AND APPROVING A PRE-
INCLUSION AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, Mid Valley Metropolitan District (hereinafter "District") is a Colorado
special district formed and functioning by authority ofC.R.S. § 32-1-101, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. § 32-1-101, et seq., contains requirements and procedures for
inclusion of new areas within special districts; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors received a Petition for Inclusion within the District
from Lana and Henry Trettin (hereinafter "Petitioner") and Jay N. Weinberg, and/or Assigns
(hereinafter "Developer"); and
WHEREAS, Petitioner is the fee owner of one hundred percent (100%) of the real
property sought to be included within the District, said real property being further described in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter "Property");
and
WHEREAS, Petitioner plans to sell the Property to Developer upon the happening of
certain conditions as agreed between Petitioner and Developer; and
WHEREAS, the Pre-Inclusion Agreement between the District, Petitioner and the
Developer provides that at such time as the Developer becomes the owner in fee title of the
Property, the Petitioner shall have no further obligations to the District pursuant to the Pre-
Inclusion Agreement, and Developer shall automatically replace Petitioner in the Petition for
Inclusion, provided that at the time of closing on the Property the Developer assumes all
obligations of the Petitioner pursuant to the Pre-Inclusion Agreement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-401, Notice of a Public Meeting to consider the
Petition was published in The Valley Journal newspaper on April 29, May 6, and May 13, 1999;
and
F: \ l 999\Resolucions\MVMD-Res-99. wpd
May 14, 1999 -1-
•'
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. ~
SERIES OF 1999
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE MID VALLEY
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT CONDITIONALLY APPROVING THE
PETITION OF LANA AND HENRY TRETTIN. AND JAY N. WEINBERG.
AND/OR ASSIGNS. AND DIRECTING THE ATTORNEYS OF THE
DISTRICT TO TAKE SUCH ACTIONS AS ARE REQUIRED BY STATUTES
FOR SPECIAL DISTRICT INCLUSIONS. AND APPROVING A PRE-
INCLUSION AGREEMENT.
WHEREAS, Mid Valley Metropolitan District (hereinafter "District") is a Colorado
special district formed and functioning by authority ofC.R.S. § 32-1-101, et seq.; and
WHEREAS, C.R.S. § 32-1-101, et seq., contains requirements and procedures for
inclusion of new areas within special districts; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors received a Petition for Inclusion within the District
from Lana and Henry Trettin (hereinafter "Petitioner") and Jay N. Weinberg, and/or Assigns
(hereinafter "Developer"); and
WHEREAS, Petitioner is the fee owner of one hundred percent (100%) of the real
property sought to be included within the District, said real property being further described in
Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (hereinafter "Property");
and
· WHEREAS, Petitioner plans to sell the Property to Developer upon the happening of
certain conditions as agreed between Petitioner and Developer; and
WHEREAS, the Pre-Inclusion Agreement between the District, Petitioner and the
Developer provides that at such time as the Developer becomes the owner in fee title of the
Property, the Petitioner shall have no further obligations to the District pursuant to the Pre-
Inclusion Agreement, and Developer shall automatically replace Petitioner in the Petition for
Inclusion, provided that at the time of closing on the Property the Developer assumes all
obligations of the Petitioner pursuant to the Pre-Inclusion Agreement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-401, Notice of a Public Meeting to consider the
Petition was published in The Valley Journal newspaper on April 29, May 6, and May 13, 1999;
and
F: \ 1999\Resolutions\MVMD-Res-99. wpd
May 14, 1999 -1-
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Resolution~
Series of 1999
liniited to, approval of a 1041 Permit by Eagle County, if required, approval of
an expanded District service plan by Eagle County, if required, approval of an
expanded District service plan by Garfield County, approval of a 201 Plan, if
required, and approval of a treatment plant site application by· the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment, all in accordance with the terms
of the Pre-Inclusion Agreement.
C. Approval by Garfield County of all subdivision final plat(s) to permit
development of the Petition Property satisfactory to the Developer and Petitioner,
to the extent that Petitioner has an interest in the Property, all in accordance with
the terms of the Pre• Inclusion Agreement.
D. Final acquisition by the Developer of the Property and the Plant Property as
described in the Pre-Inclusion Agreement, or such other property as the District
may choose to later designate as the Plant Property as provided in the Pre-
Inclusion Agreement.
E. Assumption by the Developer at the time of closing on the Property of all
obligations of the Petitioner pursuant to the Pre-Inclusion Agreement.
F. Execution by Cerise/Wintergreen and the Petitioner/Developer of a Wastewater
Treatment Plant development Agreement and a Line Extension Agreement, all in
accordance with the terms of the Pre-Inclusion Agreement.
2. Unless and until all of the preceding six (6) conditions precedent herein listed are
met, the Property shall not be included within the District.
3. Upon satisfaction of the conditions set forth in paragraph 1, the attorneys for the
District shall take such actions as are necessary and proper under state law to formalize the
inclusion of said property within the District, including the filing of a Motion and proposed
Order with the Eagle County District Court and filing a copy of the resulting Order with the
County Clerk and Recorder. · If deemed necessary by the attorneys for the District, for the sake
of efficiency of the process, the attorneys may take preliminary steps toward formalizing the
inclusion of the Property within the District before all six conditions precedent have been met,
but the Motion and proposed Order shall not be filed with the Eagle County District Court until
all six conditions precedent have been satisfied.
F:\ 1999\Resolutions\MVM D-Res-99. wpd
May 14, 1999 -3-
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Resolution
_a_
Series of 1999
4. The Pre-Inclusion Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit B, is hereby approved,
and the Chairman and the Secretary are authorized to execute said agreement on behalf of the
District. The Pre-Inclusion Agreement shall be recorded in the office of the Garfield County
Clerk and Recorder.
Read and adopted this
t'iS'+h day of 'w\a..'j , 1999, by the Board of Directors of Mid
Valley Metropolitan District by a vote of Ji_ to _Q_.
ATTEST:
F: \ 1999\Resolutions\MVM D-Res-99. wpd
May 14, 1999
By:
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
-4-
FRCM •HE~BERT s. KLEIN & ~ssoc TO
970 925 6847 1999.04-14 l2•30 ~160 P.02/03
Exhibit "A"
Our Order No. GW22461 !-2
LEGAL DESCRIPTIO!U
PARCEL A:
A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED lN A PORTION OF LOTS 3, 4, 6, 17, 18, AND 19 OF
SECTION 31 TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 87 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL M.ER.!DIAN,
COUNTY OF GARFIELD, STATE OF COLORADO, SAID PARCEL B:SING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS
COMMENCING AT THE WITNESS CORNER TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 31, A .
STOJ'l"E IN PLACE, THENCE S 60 DEGREES 01' 05" W 2350.39 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF RECEPTION NO. 279416, ALSO B:eING A POINT ON THE WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY
OF COUNTY ROAD NO. 100, A REBAR AND CAP L.S. NO. 10732 IN PLACE, THE TRUE POINT
OF BEGINNING THENCE S 00 DEGREES 11' 29" W ALONG SAID WESTERLY RIGIIT -OF-WAY
827.14 FEET TO A REBAR AND CAP L.S. NO. 10732 lN PLACE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG
SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAYS 03 DEGREES 56' 29" W 117.74 FEETTOAREBARAND
CAP L.S. N0.10732 IN PLACE; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID WESTERLY R.!GHT-OF-WAY
S 11 DEGREES 37' 27' W 299.44 FEE!; THENCE I.EA VlNG SAID WESTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY N
72 DEGREES 41' 32' W ALONG A LINE BEING NORTHERLY OF BLUE CREEK 136.34 FEET;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG AUNE BEING NORTHBRL Y OF SLUE CRBBK N 77 DJ:;GRE.ES 44'
52" W 317.09 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG A LINJ:; BEING NORTHERLY OP BLUE CREEK
N 62 DEGREES 48' 46" W 375.98 FEET; TE.ENCE CONTINUING ALONG A LINE BEING
NORTI!ERLY OF BLUE CREEK N 41 DEGREES 30' 29" W 89. 74 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING
ALONG A LINE BEING NORTHERLY OF BLUE CREEK N 81 DEGREES Ol' 17" W. 285.92 FEET;
THENCE N 13 DEGREES 12' 20" E 120.00 FEET TO A POINT IN AN EXISTING FENCE;
THENCE N 76 DEGRE.ES 47' 40' W ALONG SAlD EXISTING FflNCF. 1038. 73 FHET TO A POINT
ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "B' OF RECEPTION NO. 315658 (PR.OM WHBNC!i RRBAR
AND CAP L.S. NO. 10732 BEARS S 00 DEGREES 00' 18" W 263.20 FEET); THENCE N 00
DEGREES 00' 18" E ALONG SAID EASTERLY LINE 1013.6I PEET TO A POINT ON THE
SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY OF COLORADO STATE HIGHWAY NO. 82 AS EVIDENCED BY
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY MONUMENTS AND THE EXISTING CENTERLINE (WHENCE A REBAR AND
CAP L.S. NO. 3317 BEARS S 00 DEGREES 00' 18" W 3.99 FEET); THENCE S 79 DEGRBF.S
S6' 55" E ALONG SAID SOUTHER.LY RIGHT-01'-WAY 1982.77 FiiET; THENCE S 10 DEGREES
30' 58" W ALONG THE EASTERLY UNE OF SAID Rl::CP..PTION NO. 279416 133.47 FEET TO A
REBAR. AND CAP L.S. NO. !0732 IN PLACE; THENCE S 79 DEGREES 44' 32' E ALONG THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID RECEPTION NO. 279416 247.29 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
COUNTY 01" GAfil:lELD
STATE OP COLORADO
PARCF.LB:
A 20 FOOT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT OVER, UNDER, AND ACROSS THE SOUTHWESTERLY AND
WESTERLY 20 FBET OF LOT 12, AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS 11 AND 12 RANCH AT ROARING
FORK, PHASE V, GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO, AS MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE
SOUTHWESTERLY AND WESTERLY BOUNDAruES OF SAID LOT ACCORDING TO TIIE RF.CORDED
SUBDIVISION PLAT THEREOF. THE EASEMENT CENTERLINE JS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT 11iE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF LOT 12, AMENDED PLAT OF LOTS I l AND
12 RANCH AT ROARING FORK, PHASE V: THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 07' 35" EAST ALONG
THE EASTERLY BOUNDARY OF SAID LOT 12 A DISTANCE OF I0.00 F.E!i1' TO THE TRUE :POINT
OF BEGINNING; THENCE WEST PARALLEL TO AND IO FEET AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE
FRCM :H~?BERT s. ~~EIN & ~ssoc TO
970 925 6847 1999.04-14
Our Order' No. GW2246ll ·2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 12 A DISTANCE OF 94.33 FEET; THENCE NORTH 18 DEGREES
r 39' 41" WEST PARALLEL TO AND 10 fEET AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY OF
LOT 12 A DISTANCE OF 145.87 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE CURVED NORTHERLY BOUNDARY
OF LOT 12, THE CENTERl..lNE TERMINUS. .
COUNI"Y OF GARFIELD STATE OF COLORADO
. ·.1
Exhibit "B 11
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
PRESHANA PROPERTY
PRE-INCLUSION AGREEMENT
THIS PRE-INCLUSION AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 1'.4~ day of
~~ , 1999, by and between the MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN
DIS Colorado special district, whose address is 0031 Duroux Lane, Suite A, Basalt,
CO 81621 (hereinafter "District"); and LANA and HENRY TRETTIN, whose address is 3350
Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 100, Santa Monica, CA, 90405 (hereinafter "Trettin" or "Petitioner"),
and JAY N. WEINBERG, and/or ASSIGNS, whose address is 135 Palm Avenue, Miami
Beach, FL 33139 (hereinafter the "Developer"). The Petitioner and the Developer are
hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Landowners. "
W I T N E S S E T H:
WHEREAS, the District is a Colorado special district formed and functioning by the
authority of C.R.S. §32-1-101, et seq., providing potable water and sanitary sewer service to
the area around El Jebel, Colorado; and
WHEREAS,. C.R.S. §32-1-401, et seq. and Section 6.01 of the Rules and Regulations
of the District (hereinafter "Rules and Regulations") provide requirements and procedures for
inclusions of property into the District, and specifically C.R.S. §32-1-402(1)(c) provides that
agreements may be entered into "between a board and the owners of property sought to be
included in a special district with respect to fees, charges, terms and conditions on which such
property may be included"; and
WHEREAS, the Petitioners own certain real property located in Garfield County,
Colorado, as more particularly described in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by this reference (the "Petition Property" and sometimes "Preshana Property), which Petitioner
desires to have included in the Mid Valley District in order to receive water and sewer services
from the District; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has entered a Purchase and Sale Contract with the Petitioner
to purchase the Petition Property, ; and
WHEREAS, the District and Wintergreen Homes Limited Liability Company and the
Mumbert Cerise Family Company, LP (hereinafter "Cerise/Wintergreen") have entered into a
Pre-Inclusion Agreement dated July 27, 1998, and amendments thereto, wherein the District has
identified property in Garfield County, Colorado, which the parties to that Pre-Inclusion
Agreement propose for the purpose of constructing a regional wastewater treatment facility for
the benefit of the District and which will be located as to serve the Petition Property; and
W: \ W cinberg\487\Docs\wcinbergdistriculraft06C. wpd -1-
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. §32-1-40l(a), the petitioners submitted a Petition for
Inclusion of the Petition Property into the District on April 20,1999; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has proposed phased single, multi-family residential and
equestrian related development on the Petition Property, which at the time of execution of this
agreement is estimated to eventually require approximately 66 EQR; and
WHEREAS, the District will hold public hearing(s) respecting the inclusion of the
Property and shall, if the District determines, in its discretion, to include the Property, either
contemporaneously execute this Agreement with approval of the Petition, or condition approval
of the Petition upon execution of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to C.R.S. §§32-1-lOOl(l)(d), (j-m), and 31-35-402(I)(f), the
District has the authority to require reimbursement of its out-of-pocket costs in providing
services to District customers, including but not limited to water and sewer connections,
inclusions and exclusions from the District, and planning and review of line extensions; and
WHEREAS, Sections 6.01, 8.04, and 9.01 of the Rules and Regulations of the District
provide that the District may charge legal, engineering, publication, recording, inspection,
observation, extension, and other fees of customers desiring services from the District; and
WHEREAS, the District and the Developers desire to set forth their understandings and
agreements concerning the inclusion process and the future relationship between them.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises of
the parties, and other good and valuable consideration, the adequacy and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties, on behalf of themselves and their successors, assigns,
heirs, devisees, or transferees, agree as follows:
1. Procedures for Inclusion. Provided all of the conditions precedent to inclusion
described herein have been satisfied or performed, the District shall take all steps necessary to
finalize the inclusion of the Petition Property into the District pursuant to C.R.S. §32-1-401 et
seq., including but not limited to obtaining an Order or Orders of Inclusion of the Garfield
County District Court and filing and recording said Order or Orders with the Garfield County
Clerk and Recorder, the Garfield County Assessor, and the Division of Local Government.
2. Reimbursement to District. As provided herein and as otherwise allowable under
applicable local regulations, state law, and federal law, including but not limited to Section 7 .18
of the Rules and Regulations of the District, the Developer agrees to pay the District a
reasonable amount for all services provided or actual costs incurred by the District in relation
to the inclusion requested by them, including engineering, legal, inspection, filing, or recording
fees and related expenses, on receipt of itemized billings for those services from the District.
W: \ W einberg\487\Docs\wcinbcrgdistriccdraft06C. wpd
-2-
All such amounts are due within thirty (30) days of the date of the bill, with interest on any
overdue amounts to be assessed at one percent (1 % ) per month. In the event that such amounts
remain unpaid thirty (30) days after the date they are billed, the District reserves the right, in
addition to any and all other remedies, to cease supplying any and all services being provided,
including but not limited to water and sewer service, review, and processing of applications for
service or inclusion. In the event the District is forced to pursue collection of any amounts due
and unpaid under this provision, it shall be entitled to collect attorneys' fees, filing and lien
recording fees incurred in such collection efforts in addition to the unpaid amounts due, plus
interest. Further, the Petitioners expressly agree to guarantee payment of all amounts due to the
District owed by the Developer and to assume liability to the District for all such costs and fees
owed by Developer, if , and only if, Petitioners elect to assume this Agreement under paragraph
11, below. Notwithstanding the foregoing, should the District declare amounts due and unpaid
by Developer, District shall deliver notice to Petitioner and Developer whereupon Developer
shall have 30 days to cure such non-payment by Developer. If Developer fails to cure,
Petitioners shall have an additional 30 days to pay the amounts due before District may declare
a default hereunder. Such non-payment by Developer prior to the closing on the Purchase and
Sale Contract shall constitute a breach for which Petitioners may declare the Purchase and Sale
Contract terminated and shall result in Developer's rights and obligations hereunder being
terminated and Petitioner shall have the right of election described in paragraph 11, below.
Provided however, any claim or action brought or taken between Developer and Petitioner under
the preceding sentence shall be deemed solely between those two parties and not involving the
District, which shall not be named in any action respecting that claim. Further, the Petitioners
hereby guarantee payment of all amounts due to the District owed by the Developer and assume
liability to the District for all such costs and fees, as set forth herein.
3. Rules and Regulations. The inclusion process, and the Petition Property itself,
shall be subject to the Rules and Regulations adopted September 19,1991, as they may hereafter
be amended; provided, however, that no future rules or regulations shall be applicable which
defeat the intent of this Agreement, or modify any express or substantive terms of this
Agreement without the consent of the parties. From the effective date of inclusion as established
by the Order of the Court, the Petition Property shall be subject to all taxes, fees, rates, tolls,
and charges now in effect or which may later be levied or collected by the District, except as
otherwise hereafter described in this Agreement. Further, all connections to the District water
or sewer systems and all lines for water or sewer service on the Petition Property shall be made
in accordance with the Rules and Regulations and technical specifications as they may hereafter
be reasonably amended, consistent with the terms of this Agreement..
4. Connection to District System. The Petitioner and the Developer agree that at the
time the District's services are first extended to the Petition Property, the Developer or the
Petitioner shall connect all improvements, including any that may have been served by pre-
existing water wells and septic systems or otherwise pre-existing on the date of this Agreement,
W: \ W einberg\487\Docs\weinbergdistrictdraft06C. wpd -3-
to the District's water and sewer system and pay all fees due for such connections, except as
otherwise provided herein to the contrary.
The parties' mutual obligations and the payment of fees related to expansion of and
connection to the District's sewer system are more fully set forth in the Wastewater Treatment
Plant Development Agreement and Sewer Interceptor Line Extension Agreement to be executed
separate from this Agreement. Pursuant to the Rules and Regulations, no Di&frict service shall
be provided, and no connection shall be made to the District water or sewer systems until the
Petition Property is included in the District, an application for service has been made, any
applicable tap fees have been paid, and a tap permit has been issued.
5. Raw Water Irrigation. The parties hereto agree that all outside lawn and garden
irrigation within the proposed development shall be provided by a pressurized raw water
irrigation system to be constructed by the Developer, at the Developer's expense, pursuant to
plans and specifications to be approved by the District. At no time and for no reason shall
potable water supplied by the District be used for outside irrigation purposes, except as may be
provided by written exception granted by the District or as may be provided for in District
Rules and Regulations, now or hereafter adopted. As a result of the Developers' utilization of
raw water only for outside/irrigation purposes, the District agrees that a twenty-five percent
(25 % ) reduction shall be imposed on the water portion of each tap fee assessment.
All construction of the raw water irrigation system shall be in accordance with plans and
specifications prepared by a professional engineer and approved in writing by the District's
engineer, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. Construction specifications shall
be designed to meet the reasonable irrigation requirements of the subdivision and which is
designed in a manner which is customary for similar raw water irrigation systems; the District
Engineer shall have approval of the design, which approval shall not be umeasonably withheld.
Provided however, landowner may construct, maintain and operate a separate raw water system
for equestrian uses, which may utilize sprinkler guns, slotted pipe and other customary irrigation
practices for pasture and equestrian uses. To ensure that all outside water uses are undertaken
from the pressurized raw water system to be installed by the Developer, the Developer agrees
to include in the Protective Covenants affecting the Petition Property adequate provisions
restricting such use and providing penalties therefor, which penalties may be in addition to the
provisions of the Rules and Regulations of the District. Prior to the recordation of any
covenants, said covenants shall be provided to the attorney for the District for review and
comment and to the Board for approval. The raw water system up to and including the meters
and curb stops shall be owned, operated, maintained, repaired and replaced by the District only
after the District has accepted dedication of the system as herein provided. It is anticipated that
the raw water irrigation system will not be owned, maintained by or dedicated to the District.
In the event any dedication is proposed, the District shall have sole and complete discretion
whether to accept such dedication. The District may accept the system in part, in its sole and
reasonable discretion, reserving all rights to rescind acceptance if the remaining portions of the
W: \ W einberg\487\Docs\wcinbcrgdistrictdraft06C. wpd -4-
system are not satisfactorily completed. The Protective Covenants shall be recorded
simultaneously with the final subdivision plat.
To the extent the raw water system is not accepted by the District, the raw water
irrigation system shall be owned, operated, maintained, repaired, and replaced by a property
owners' association to be created by Developer at the time of final plat, as set forth more
specifically in the line extension agreement(s) described hereafter in Paragraph 8, as referenced
below, to be entered into by and between the parties; except that a property owner's association
need not own those portions of such systems installed beyond the meters and curb stops on
individual privately-owned lots.
6. Water Rights Dedication. For the Petition Property and any other parcels which
receive District water service, the requirements for dedication of water rights to the District, as
set forth in Article X of the Rules and Regulations, shall be satisfied by dedication or the
payment of cash in lieu of actual water rights, unless otherwise agreed. The amount of any
cash payment shall be Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per in-house EQR times the number of total EQRs
associated with the development of the Petition Property. For purposes of water rights
dedication, it is understood that the Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per EQR fee includes no payment for
irrigation, of open space or otherwise. Fees for such amounts shall be separately assessed based
on District Rules and Regulations. As it has been calculated by the Developer that the total
number of EQRs associated with the development is approximately 66, the total cash in lieu of
actual water rights to be paid to the District by the Developer is currently estimated at
$3,300.00. If at the time of fmal plat a different number of EQRs is calculated, additional water
rights dedication shall be due to the extent the total EQRs approved for development exceed 66.
The amount currently estimated shall be paid to the District, or the water rights dedication shall,
occur within ten (10) days of the date of inclusion and any adjustment based on final plat
approval shall be paid or refunded within ten (10) days of the date of such approval.
7. Easements. The final plat(s) of the Petition Property shall dedicate for no
additional consideration reasonable and customary utility easements as required and approved
by the District across the Petition Property, which shall be particularly described on the final
utility plan and/or fmal plat(s). In connection herewith, Petitioner and Developer agree to
dedicate the above-described easements to the District on the final plat, free and clear of all liens
and encumbrances which would interfere, as determined by the District, with the District's use
of the easements. All easements to be dedicated shall be general utility easements of a width
determined by the District. Further, Developer agrees to dedicate all other easements, as
necessary, for access or completion of work on the Petition Property and for future expansion
of District services to properties west of the Petition Property as may be determined reasonably
necessary by the District and communicated by the District to Developer; such additional
easements, to the extent not provided under the Wastewater Treatment Plant Development
Agreement and the Sewer Interceptor Line Extension Agreement, shall be determined and
dedicated at or prior to the time of final plat approval. If the Developer develops the property
W: \ W einberg\487\Docs\wcinbergdistricldraft06C, wpd -5-
with multiple plats, the District may require that an overall master plan of water and sewer
infrastructure be developed and approved by the District to which later filed plats must conform.
At the time of final plat approval, the District shall be allowed to require the Petitioner and
Developer to dedicate an easement or easements to the District associated with reasonably
required water facilities to provide domestic, potable water supply to the Petition Property, if
necessary, which shall not include a water storage facility located upon the Petition Property.
8. Line Extension Agreement(s). In addition to the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Development Agreement and Sewer Interceptor Line Extension Agreement described in
paragraph 10 of this Agreement related to construction and extension of District sewer treatment
facilities, and in addition to the Water System Development and Line Extension Agreement
contemplated by paragraph 9 of this Agreement, at the time of or prior to final plat approval(s)
(which approvals shall include where permitted by the counties a signature of the District), the
Developer shall be required to enter into a standard line extension agreement(s) with the District
in connection with the extension of water and sewer mains to be installed as part of the
development of the Petition Property contemplated by the final plat(s).
9. Water System Facilitv Installation. It being the intent of the parties that subject
to the provisions of future agreements between the parties as referenced in this Agreement, the
District will provide water service to the Petition Property after inclusion, it is anticipated by
the parties that, in order to serve the Petition Property and properties to the east of the Petition
Property not now in the District and not contemplated for inclusion in the District by this
Agreement, it will be necessary to extend and expand District water system facilities.
Therefore, the Developer agrees to provide the District with the necessary easements for a
District main water line through the Petition Property, as may be necessary in the District's
discretion to service the Petition Property and property to the west of the Petition Property with
water service. Said easement shall be determined in a manner in which lots approved by
Developer and Petitioner would not be adversely effected. The Developer agrees that in
accordance with the Rules and Regulations they will install . a District main water loop, within
the Petition Property, ifrequired, at Developer's expense in the size to be reasonably determined
by the District to meet District needs. Developer further agrees that it will enter into a
subsequent Water System Development and Line Extension Agreement for this purpose. The
District agrees that such Line Extension Agreement shall provide for reimbursement to the
Developer of the additional costs incurred associated with oversizing the District main water line
to the extent the District receives line extension fee surcharges from subsequent developers and
users of the District main water line, as it is further extended. The water main line
constructed by the Developer shall be dedicated to the District and upon acceptance, the District
shall be responsible for all operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the line; provided,
however, in the event the main water line is installed prior to the time of final plat, Developer
shall grant the District a temporary twenty-five foot (25') construction easement and a twenty-
five foot (25 ') permanent utility easement for the installation and subsequent operation,
maintenance, repair and replacement by the District for such water line .. Furthermore,
W: \ W cinbcrg\487\Docs\wcinbcrgdis[I'ic!draft06C. wpd -6-
Developer agrees that the installation of the line shall be considered a public improvement to be
secured by appropriate financial guarantees as required by the District's Rules and Regulations.
The parties also acknowledge and understand that other wholesale water service facilities
may be required to service the Petition Property and properties not now in the District but
adjacent to the Petition Property. Such facilities may include, without limitation, additional
District water wells and pumping facilities. As long as the District makes its request before
commencement of infrastructure improvements made pursuant to a final plat, the Developer shall
construct such improvements, on the Petition Property, at its expense. Developer specifically
agree that to the extent such facilities provide water service capacity to service the Petition
Property, the Developer shall be responsible for a pro rata share of the cost of all such
facilities. The Developer's pro rata share shall be that portion of the cost of the installation of
the facilities represented by a reasonable estimate of the Petition Property's fully developed
water service facility needs as a function of the overall capacity of the facilities constructed. The
balance of the cost shall be reimbursed to the Developer first by credits applied to future tap fees
from the District calculated at the tap fee rates in effect at the time construction is requested by
the District. Any remaining balance due the Developer shall be paid to the Developer within
sixty (60) days after completion and acceptance by the District of all such facilities constructed.
In the event it is determined by the District that additional wells are required to service the
Petition Property as fully developed, the Developer agrees it will install any necessary
additional wells if requested by the District to do so, prior to the sale of any lot on the Petition
Property. After such installation and approval by the District engineer, the Developer shall
dedicate such facilities to the District. Upon acceptance, the District shall be responsible for all
operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of any such facilities.
It is recognized by the parties that at the time this Agreement is entered there is
insufficient information available to estimate or predict the extent of the District's water service
facility needs, and planning for those needs has not been sufficiently accomplished to identify
appropriate physical locations for such facilities if needed. The Di.strict agrees that prior to, or
upon approval of an expanded District Service Plan by Eagle County (if applicable) and Garfield
Counties, it shall commence the necessary planning activities to identify such needs as they
relate to the Petition Property. Such planning shall be completed by the District no later than
the date of effective inclusion of the Petition Property in the District. The District further agrees
that to the extent it deems it necessary to construct such facilities on the Petition Property, the
District shall include in a Water System Development and Line Extension Agreement provisions
for reimbursement to the Petitioner and Developer pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the
District of the cost of such installation beyond that portion for which the Developer will be
responsible as outlined in the preceding paragraph.
10. Sewer System Facility Installation. It being the intent of the parties that subject
to the terms and conditions of this Pre-Inclusion Agreement and the terms and conditions of
other agreements as referenced herein, the District will provide water and sewer services to the
W :\ W einbcrg\487\Docs\wcinbergdistrictdraft06C. wpd -7-
Petition Property, Developer agrees that it shall pay its proportionate share of all costs of
construction, planning and easement acquisition of a wastewater treatment plant of a type to be
determined by the District, and District sewer interceptor line with associated facilities,
including lift stations, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Wastewater Treatment
Plant Development Agreement and the Sewer Interceptor Line Extension Agreement both to be
executed separate from this Agreement. The Developer acknowledges that full financial
guarantees for the cost of design of these facilities may be required by the District in addition
to other guarantees required pursuant to District Rules and Regulations. Upon acceptance of the
sewer interceptor and, if applicable, lift station(s), by the District, the District shall be
responsible for all operation, maintenance, repair and replacement of the line, except to the
extent otherwise provided in the Wastewater Treatment Plant Development Agreement and the
Sewer Interceptor Line Extension Agreement. For purposes of assessing Developer's
proportionate share of any water or sewer facilities contemplated for design and construction
under paragraphs 9, 13, 14 or this paragraph, the Developer's responsibility shall be the in
proportion to the number of EQR's assessed to Developer's demand for the Petition Property
compared with the number of EQR's required by St. Finnbar, and the Cerise/Wintergreen
Properties.
11. Conditions Precedent to Inclusion. The following five (5) conditions shall all be
conditions precedent to the obligation of the District to include the Petition Property in the
District:
A. Execution of a Wastewater Treatment Development Agreement and a Sewer
Interceptor Line Extension Agreement (the "Infrastructure Agreements") by July
27, 1999. In the event the Infrastructure Agreements are not executed by this
date, then the District, the Petitioner (to the extent they have an interest in the
property) or the Developer (to the extent he has an interest in the property) may
elect to terminate this Agreement.
B. Receipt of all necessary approvals from state and local government entities for the
water and wastewater expansion of the District to the west to include the Petition
Property and the Plant Property at a minimum, and the construction of a second
District wastewater treatment plant and interceptor line. Such approvals shall
include, but not be limited to, approval of a 1041 Permit by Eagle County, if
required, approval of an expanded District service plan by Eagle County, if
required, approval of an expanded District service plan by Garfield County,
approval of a 201 Plan, if required, and approval of a treatment plant site
application by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
Approval by governmental entities of the necessary permits, or other regulatory
approvals, shall be satisfactory to meet this condition if such approval is made
without conditions based on application made by, or approved in writing, the
District. If any of the above approvals are the subject of an action for judicial
W: \ W einberg\487\Docs\weinbcrgdistrictdraft07C. wpd -8-
review or injunction, then the District, the Petitioner (to the extent they have an
interest in the property) or the Developer (to the extent he has an interest in the
property) may elect to terminate this Agreement. In the event the Amended
Service Plan before Garfield County is not approved by Garfield County prior to
July 27, 1999, then the Petitioner (to the extent they have an interest in the
property) or Developer (to the extent he has an interest in the property) may elect
to terminate this Agreement.
If any necessary approval as contemplated in this paragraph is received with
conditions, the District shall have the right to refuse to accept such conditions and
may declare such approval unsatisfactory for purposes of meeting this condition;
provided, however, that conditions placed on development land use approvals
shall not give the District the right to refuse to accept the condition as satisfied
for purposes of this Agreement, so long as the Developer bears all costs
associated with such land use approval conditions.
C. Approval by Garfield County of all subdivision final plat(s) to permit
development of the Petition Property satisfactory to the Developer and Petitioner,
to the extent that Petitioner has an interest in the Property. The Petitioner and
Developer agree to diligently pursue the development approvals. The Developer
shall also have the right to refuse to accept any conditions on development land
use approvals and may declare such approvals unsatisfactory for purposes of
meeting these conditions. To the extent the Developer chooses to proceed despite
a condition on the land use approvals which the District finds objectionable, the
costs of colllplying with that condition will not be included in any subsequently
approved calculations for determining plant or interceptor cost for Developer tap
allocation purposes or Developer line extension fee reimbursements.
The District agrees to cooperate with the Petitioner and Developer to provide
representations regarding the availability of water and sewer services to the
Petition Property consistent with this Agreement, the Infrastructure Agreement,
and any other subsequent ancillary Agreements.
D. Closing and receipt of deed(s) for the Petition Property from Petitioner to
Developer. If for any reason Developer, as the contract purchaser of the Petition
Property terminates · his contractual interest in the Petition property, this
Agreement shall be deemed of no binding effect or force as against Developer,
and all obligations and responsibilities of Developer shall be deemed to be
succeeded by and transferred to and assumed by Petitioners. Developer and/or
Petitioner shall give notice to the District of any such termination of Developer's
contractual interest in the Petition Property, within ten (10) days of such
termination.
W: \ W einberg\487\Docs\weinbergdistrictdraft07C. wpd -9-
E. Execution by Cerise/Wintergreen of a Wastewater Treatment Plant development
Agreement and Sewer Line Extension Agreement having terms compatible with
the Agreements referenced in subparagraph ll(A), above.
Petitioner and Developer agree that in the event the three (3) conditions precedent
described in 11.A., B. and C., are performed or satisfied, each will immediately use their best
efforts to close the purchase and sale of the Petition Property subject to their respective
contractual obligations respecting the sale and purchase of the Petition Property. In the event
the fourth contingency (subparagraph "D", above) is not met, then Petitioner shall have the right
of election to terminate this Agreement within forty-five ( 45) days of Developer's notice of his
termination under said subparagraph. If Petitioner does not timely terminate this Agreement as
set forth above, Petitioner ·shall be deemed to have elected not to terminate this Agreement.
Any declarations that an approval as contemplated herein is unsatisfactory, as a result of
conditions imposed by a governmental agency, must be made in writing to the other party within
forty-five (45) days of the date of such approval, or the right to so declare shall be waived.
Later acceptance of the condition shall be deemed to rescind any such declaration.
In the event that any of the conditions precedent herein listed are not met, this Agreement
may be terminated by the other party upon ten (10) days' written notice. In the event this
Agreement is terminated, the District shall be under no obligation to include the Petition
Property, nor shall it be under any obligation under any other agreement referenced herein,
including the Infrastructure Agreements, except to the extent that the Infrastructure Agreements
provide for reimbursement of Developer costs in the event of termination at, or after, certain
levels of design development.
It is understood thatall costs associated with the preparation of the necessary applications
for approval and other service costs as defined in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement, are Developer
costs and termination of this Agreement as a result of lack of approval from state or local
government entities by either the District or the Developer shall not be considered the fault or·
breach of either. No such termination shall relieve the Developer of the obligation to pay the
full costs incurred for preparation of approval applications up to and including the date of
termination. In the event, however, that the District exercises any right given to it to relocate
or resize the contemplated wastewater treatment plant or sewer interceptor after the design of
either of them has proceeded past the sixty-five percent (65%) design completion level with
approval by the District, the District shall be responsible for any increased cost in the
preparation of applications for necessary approvals, whether or not this Agreement is
terminated.
12. Remedies. A breach of this Agreement, or a breach of either of the Infrastructure
Agreements shall be considered a breach of all agreements. Any and all remedies specified
W: \ W einbcrg\487\Docs\weinbergdistrictdraft07C. wpd -10-
under each or any of these Agreements are cumulative and are not intended to be exclusive of
any other remedies to which the parties may be lawfully entitled. None of the remedies provided
to either party under any of these Agreements shall be required to be exhausted or exercised as
a prerequisite to resort to any further relief to which it may then be entitled. Every obligation
assumed by or imposed upon either party hereto shall be enforceable by any appropriate action,
petition, or proceeding at law or in equity, and may be initiated separately or jointly. This
Agreement may be specifically enforceable. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance
with the laws of the State of Colorado, and in particular the Colorado Revised Statutes and the
Special District Act.
13. Service Plan and 1041 Permit Applications. The preparation of modified water
and/or sewer service area plans to be submitted to Garfield County and/or Eagle County and the
preparation of a 1041 Permit application to Eagle County for construction of the Plant, if
required, shall be the responsibility of the District, hereinafter referred to as "Soft Costs".
The parties agree, however, that the proportionate cost of the Soft Costs incurred after
February 1, 1999 for the approval by Garfield County and/or Eagle County for expansion of
the District's water and/or sewer service plans and for approval of a 1041 permit for plant
expansion, if required, shall initially be the responsibility of the Developer in proportion to the
number of EQR's which Developer requires compared with the number of EQR's required by
St. Finnbar and the Cerise/Wintergreen Properties. At such time the District plant is completed,
Developer, along with any subsequent developers making demands on the plant capacity, shall
be required to proportionally share in pre-February 1, 1999 costs in a manner that recognizes
funds spent by Cerise/Wintergreen prior to February 1, 1999, under the Cerise/Wintergreen
Pre-Inclusion Agreement with the District. The Developer shall provide such financial
guarantees as the District may require not to exceed the estimated proportionate cost of
application preparation. The parties agree that absent an express modification of this
Agreement, the initially co~templated minimum size of an expanded service area for the District
shall be as noted on the service plan drawing attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference as Exhibit B; provided, however, that in the event petitions to be excluded are received
by the District, or in the event other objections by third parties are received by the District, the
District may determine or direct that the size of the service area shall be reduced to satisfy such
objections.
The District further reserves the right in its sole discretion, to order enlargement of the
size and extent of the District service area to be included in the District's service area expansion
application. However, should additional demands be serviced by the plant, for any development
in excess of ten percent (10%) of the EQR's contemplated to be provided by this Agreement,
the developer of such development making those demands shall similarly share proportionately
in the soft costs, and where applicable, shall refund to the initial funding parties of Developer
and Cerise/Wintergreen such amounts as are required to rebate overpayments based on revised
calculations of proportionate shares as calculated by the District. For purposes of implementation
W: \ W einberg\487\Docs\weinbergdistrictdraft07C. wpd -11-
of this paragraph, Cerise/Wintergreen shall be a third party beneficiary of the provisions of this
paragraph. The parties agree to cooperate and proceed in good faith to develop and complete
applications to Eagle County and Garfield County for service plan expansion and a 1041 Permit
application as contemplated herein no later than 180 days after execution of this Agreement. The
parties agree that the District shall be permitted to make the sole decision regarding the ultimate
size and extent of any revisions to its service area, and that in the event it should be determined
by the District that approval cannot be obtained to expand the District service. area to an extent
deemed necessary by the District, the District may abandon all efforts to expand the District
service area, in which event this Agreement shall be terminated upon receipt by the Landowners
of written notice from the District. The District specifically agrees, however, that service area
expansion to the west which includes the area indicated on Exhibit B, will be considered
satisfactory expansion and no right to terminate shall accrue if approval of the area so indicated
can be obtained, except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 11.B.
14. Plant Site Aoolication. The preparation of the Site Application to be submitted
to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for the new wastewater treatment
plant pursuant to law shall be the responsibility of the District. The parties agree, however, that
the proportionate cost of the application to be prepared for approval by the Colorado Department
of Public Health and Environment incurred after February 1, 1999, shall be the responsibility
of the Developer (in the manner included and described as a part of the "Soft Costs" described
in paragraph 13, above). The Developer shall provide such financial guarantees as the District
may require not to exceed the estimated proportionate cost of application preparation. The
District shall cause preparation of the Site Application to be commenced and filed as soon
thereafter as possible after Garfield County approval of the pending Amended Service Plan
request. Simultaneously with, or prior to, the commencement of preparation of the site
application, the District shall commence preparation of an application for approval of an
expanded service area by Eagle County and/or Garfield County and approval of the 1041 Permit
by Eagle County, if applicable. The parties agree that absent an express modification to this
Agreement, or absent specification of a differing size in the Infrastructure Agreements, the size
of the plant to be initially constructed, for which the site application shall be prepared shall be
approximately 100,000 g.p.d., but the District reserves the right, in its sole discretion to order
·enlargement of the proposed initial capacity of the plant to be constructed as contemplated by
the Site Application; provided, however, that the District agrees that in such event it shall
negotiate in good faith for any necessary modification of the Infrastructure Agreements between
the parties to further compensate the Developer for any increased costs and for the refunding,
on a proportionate basis of any Soft Costs associated with the addition of new demands
requesting service, as provided in paragraph 13, above.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties acknowledge and agree that the site application
may contemplate an ultimate plant capacity adequate to service the regional needs on expanded
District, as determined by the District in its sole discretion. It is acknowledged by the parties
that the ultimate plant capacity needs are currently estimated at approximately 1.3 m.g.d., but
W: \ W cinberg\487\Docs\wcinbergdistrictdraft07C. wpd -12-
that in the event during the term of this agreement the plant site is relocated, or the service area
is further expanded to an extent not initially contemplated by this agreement, the parties
acknowledge and agree that the ultimate plant capacity necessary to service regional needs could
further expand and the Developer agrees to cooperate with the District in defining and providing
for such further expansion.
15. Release and Replacement of Petitioner. The parties agree that at such time as the
Developer becomes the owner in fee title of the Petition Property, the original Petitioner shall
have no further obligations to the District pursuant to this Agreement, and Developer shall
automatically replace the original Petitioner in the Petition for Inclusion. At the time of closing
on the Petition Property the Developer shall assume all obligations of the Petitioner pursuant to
this Agreement.
16. Effective Date. It is acknowledged by the parties that this Agreement is
contingent upon the passage of a resolution by the Board of Directors of the District approving
of the inclusion of the Petition Property into the District. The resolution shall specify that
inclusion is contingent upon satisfaction of all conditions precedent specified in this Agreement
and execution within the specified time of the Infrastructure Agreements. The parties expressly
agree and acknowledge that the effective date of inclusion will not occur until all conditions
precedent have been performed or satisfied and a court order has been signed pursuant to C .R.S.
§32-1-401 formally including the Petition Property in the District.
17. Notice. This Agreement shall constitute actual notice to any and all future users
of District services on the Petition Property, and all owners, tenants, or other persons who
occupy units or reside upon the Petition Property of the terms and conditions herein.
18. Notices. All notices, requests, demands, consents, and other communications
pertaining to this Agreement shall be transmitted in writing and shall be deem!!d duly given wh,en
received by the parties at their addresses below or any subsequent addresses provided to the
other party in writing, by certified mail.
Notice to JAY N. WEINBERG:
With copies to:
W :\ W einberg\487\Docs\weinbergdistrictdraft07C. wpd -13-
135 Palm Avenue
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Herbert S. Klein, Esq.
Klein
& Zimet, P. C.
201 N. Mill St., Suite 203
Aspen, CO 81611
And
Kevin L. Patrick, Esq.
Patrick & Stowell, P.C.
730 East Durant St., Suite 200 ·
Aspen, CO 81611
Notice to Henry and Lana Trettin:
With copy to:
Notice to District:
With copy to:
Henry and Lana Trettin
3350 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 100
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Paul Taddune, Esq.
Paul J. Taddune, P.C.
323 West Main St., Suite 301
Aspen, CO 81611
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
0031 Duroux Lane, Suite A
Basalt, CO 81621
Leavenworth & Tester, P.C.
P. 0. Drawer 2030
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
19. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the parties and their successors, assigns, heirs, devisees, or transferees.
20. No Additional Waiver Implied by One Waiver. In the event any agreement
contained in this Pre-Inclusion Agreement should be breached by either party and thereafter
waived by the other party, such waiver shall be limited to the particular breach so waived and
shall not be deemed to waive any other breach hereunder, including a subsequent breach of the
same agreement.
21. Covenants in This Agreement. The parties agree and intend that this Agreement
shall run with the Petition Property and be a burden and covenant on that Petition Property.
22. Complete Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire and complete
agreement of the parties on the subject matter herein. No promise or undertaking has been made
by any party, and no understanding exists with respect to the transactions contemplated, except
as expressly set forth herein. All prior and contemporaneous negotiations and understandings
between the parties are embodied and merged into this Agreement.
23. Enforceability. If any covenant, term, condition, or provision of this Agreement
shall, for any reason, be held to be invalid or unenforceable, the invalidity or unenforceability
of such covenant, term, condition, or provision shall not affect any other provision contained
herein.
24. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of Colorado,
which state shall also be deemed the place where this Agreement was entered into and the place
of performance and transaction of business of the parties. In the event of litigation pertaining
W:\Weinberg\487\Docs\wcinbergdiscrictdraft07C. wpd -14-
to this Agreement, the exclusive forum, venue, and place of jurisdiction shall also be Colorado,
unless otherwise designated in writing by the parties.
25. Authoritv. Each person executing this Agreement represents and warrants that
he or she has been duly authorized by one of the parties to execute this Agreement and has
authority to bind said party to the terms and conditions hereof.
26. Assignment. Any assignment or attempt to assign any portion of the Petitioner's
or Developer's rights or obligations shall be void and of no force and effect unless the
Petitioners shall have attained the written .consent to any such assignment from the District,
which shall not be unreasonably withheld after consideration of the financial worthiness of the
assignee. The District may require, as requirement of its consent to assignment that all unpaid
and due fees and costs be brought current. Approval of such assignment, if given, shall release
the Petitioner from any responsibility or liability under this contract.
27. · Warrantv of Authority. Each person executing this agreement represents and
warrants that he or she has been duly authorized by one of the parties to execute this agreement
and has the authority to bind said parties to the terms and conditions thereof.
28. Attorney Fees and Costs. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to damages and reasonable
attorney fees and costs.
29. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended from time to time by
amendments made by the. parties in written form and executed in the same manner as this
Agreement.
30. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterpart
originals, each of which shall constitute an original but all of which shall constitute one and the
same agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year
set forth next to their signatures.
By
W: \ W einberg\487\Docs\weinbergdistrictdraft07C. wpd -15-
APR~l9-99 MON 09:36 OAKLAND-SHIPPING
STATE OF COLO.RADO
COUNTY OF 'O,'i(L
)
)ss.
)
\
'•
Ac:krl.owledged, subscribed, aJJd iwom to befoie
1999, by lW<.od.c.:i:Q.. f. (;,~ : IS·Preaident,
Secretuy, on behalf of the Ml alley ~etropolitan D'
WI~'ffiSSmyhandan.dof:ficial~eal.
My Commission expires: "-~-' -· ud.
/e-v.</J"(/v~,;p. I
STATE OF COLORA:'aO } !I
. ) SS.
COUNTY OF #//~e4J')
Achtowlcdgcd, subscribed, a,n'1 :worn to befqrc
1999, by 'Honey Trettin and Lana Treain.
WITNESS my hand and official Seal. . .
·16-
412 697 5454 ·<
I
\ : : .
·'
-...; .. ·.
. : .. ·. . .:· ~ ; .. '
. ·.-.. !
. TrRLA.Sf,~~ . " .:
STATE OP COLOM?JO )
)a.
COUNTY OP )
TREND
PR'll'rlQHIU1
~•ltd1ed, 1111'10'1"-I, aalf JWOfll to bet'oft Ille dill_ day Of _____ ,
1999, -0:7 ' ' • Pnlidm. -...
Semwy, on ~t of i= Mid Valkl1 Melropolllla Disirioi.
'
My CommjHioa npinl: -------
STATE OJ' COLOMDO )
) ...
COUN':rY OP )
.Mkaowltdpd, 1ubeoribed, &IW IWOl'll llD Wore a lllla _ dly of ___ _
1999. b7 Hcm'Y n.IWl w Lal1' Tdlill.
·wnmss my bud llld ~ 1AI.
My CommlltioD expire1: -------·
RPR 16 '99 10:00RM PRTRICK & STOWELL;
' ~
-17-
P.S
. -'I . i. IECEIVED JUN 3 D 19fli1
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER,-P.C ... ·· · · · · ·
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
AAA)i" •
LOYALE. LEAVENWORTH
CYNTHIA C. TESTER
GREGORY J. HALL
DAVID H. McCONAUGHY
KELLY D. CAVE
DAVID A. MEISINGER*
TOM KINNEY
"'Admitted in Wisconsin only
Mark L. Bean, Director
June 30, 1999
Garfield County Building
& Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
!Oll GRAND AVENUE
P. 0. DRAWER 2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261
FAX: (970) 945-7336
ltlaw@sopris.net
VIA HAND DELIVERY
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")
to supplement the information for our presentation to the Garfield County Board of County
Commissioners on July 7, 1999. The District has several issues. First, at the Planning and
Zoning Commission's meeting on May 26, 1999, Louis Meyer's presentation included a variety
of overhead slides. For clarification purposes, we have numbered these overheads and copied a
set of the material for the County Commissioners. In addition, Louis added a few overheads for
the presentation on July 7, 1999. Enclosed please find a set of the numbered overheads.
Secondly, enclosed please find a copy of MVMD's Water Systems Costs at Comp Plan;
the District's 1998 audit, and a highlighted copy of a report entitled "Individual Sewage Disposal
Systems: Colorado Issues Review and Task Force Recommendations" (hereinafter the "Report")
for your review. The Report was published by the Denver Regional Council of Governments for
the Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Task Force, and it analyzes the implications to water
quality and accumulative loading of nutrients to surface and ground water from on-site septic
tanks. We highlighted the Report to reference those areas which we believe are most relevant to
the discussions regarding the Garfield County Service Plan. The Report notes that the movement
of nitrate into groundwater from septic tanks poses a health risk and that there is a linkage
between total phosphorous discharges in runoff and septic tanks in the mountainous portions of
Colorado. The Report basically concludes that individual sewage disposal systems degrade the
quality of water in mountainous portions of Colorado, and therefore should be discouraged.
We also enclose a copy of the District's 1998 audit for your review and to demonstrate that
the District is a viable, financially sound special district. As you can see, the District's current
cash assets total $2,413,697. Finally, the District wants to confirm that it is willing to accept the
F: \ 1999\Leners-Memos\MVMD-Bean-ltr-3. wpd
"
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Mark L. Bean, Director
Page2
June 30, 1999
conditions recommended by Blake Jordan regarding the Garfield County Service Plan.
Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
LEL:bsl
cc: Don Deford, Esq. w/enc.
Bob Szrot w/enc.
Louis Meyer, P.E. w/enc.
Mid Valley Metropolitan District w/enc.
Board of Directors w/enc.
David E. Leavenworth, Esq. w/enc.
Kelly Mullane-Johnson w/enc.
Douglas Pratte w/enc.
Kevin Patrick w/enc.
Ronald B. Liston w/enc.
Tim Thulson, Esq. w/enc.
F: \1999\Letters-Memos\MVMD-Bean-ltr~3. wpd
!
l
i
!
'
I
I
I
l
I l_ ·-==-
----
·--1 ---
· ---·--·-I -
1•-·-··1=.:_
'" l.
----------------
EXHIBIT 1
u
I
N I
' ,
' -~-'
• Evidence that there is sufficient existing and projected need 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
inadequate for present and projected needs;
• A detenmination that the expanded District is capable of providing
economical and sufficient services to the area within its proposed
boundaries;
• A detenmination that the area to be included in the expanded District
has, or will have the financial ability to discharge any proposed
indebtedness on a reasonable basis; ·
• A detenmination 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 detenmination that the facility and service standards of the proposed
expanded District are compatible with the facility and service standards
of Garfield County;
• A detenmination that the District's expansion proposal is in substantial
compliance with any master plan adopted pursuant to C.R.S. 30-28-
106;
• Evidence that the District's expansion 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
• A detenmination that the District expansion will be in the best interests of the
area proposed to be served.
EXHIBIT 2
~ L ..
....
t::O
.... ...,
<.;>
PROPERTY
BLUE LAKE
FILINGSH
FILING 5
SUMMIT VISTA
4
SPEN JUNCTION
VALLEY BUSINESS CTR
BASALT INDUSTRIAL PARK
OAK GROVE TOWNHOMES
RIVER OAKS
RIVER RANCH
BASALT TRADE CTR
GLASSIER ACRES
OLD ORCHARD SUBD
STATE HWY DEPT
FITSIMMONS MOTORS
SOPRIS MEADOWS
TREE FARM
DACOTASUBD
GUY RANCH
aRLIAN RANCH
KODIAC PARK
BLUE RIDGE PUD
TEXACO/WENDY'S
MID VALLEY MEDICAL CTR
KOA
•SPEN BASALT MHP
BISHOP
PARKSIDE
McCUNE
FORD
JACOBI
CHURCHES
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL
EL JEBEL
SOPRIS VILLAGE
TOTAL
2
-
l!XIST
IClll'9
,.,,..,
266
H
107
107
37
66
45
15
23
14
2
40
7
10
16
57
2
7
0
15
73
1
5
•
5
999
TABLE 3.1
MVMD
WWTF PROJECTIONS
EQRSUMMARY
3
-4 5
-
ll!QR'I PLATTU TOTAL lalt'I l'lmllCTllD
9UTllOT. .,:;;~ .. llQll'I.
. DIVIUll'IOi CCII lllYMlll'I'
.. ,,.. ... ,,., '""'"'
3 260
20 94
0 107
26 133
2 39
7 73
0 45
4
'" 4 27
1 15
2 4
0 40
0 7
0 10
834 850
0 0 40
17 H
2 2 27
0 2 10
0 0 17
0 0 83
0 7
40 40
0 15
0 73
0 1 5
3
8
7 7 6
0 5
0 5
0 5
•
0
• 20
172 1171 223
• -
TOTAL
"'°'*""
..... --
26•
..
107
133
39
73
45
'" 27
15
4
40
7
10
850
40
7'
..
12
17
83
7
40
15
73
6
8
13
5
5
10
25
2113
759
124
3,076
7
fLOW
"" CAl'ITA .......
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
,
8
-9
-
CAPITA TOTAL
,1!111 FLOW
IQll WW
'"APIT•• '"'l'Dl
3 80,700
3 28,200
3 32,100
3 39,900
3 11,700
3 21.900
3 13,500
3 5,700
3 8.100
3 4,500
3 1,200
3 12,000
3 2,100
3 2,910
3 255,000
3 12.000
3 22.200
3 8,700
3 3,600
3 5100
3 2'4 750
3 2100
3 12 000
3 -4.500
3 21,900
3 1,800
3 2,400
3 3,900
3 1,500
3 1,500
3 3,000
3 7,500
3 657.980
922,860
[:~ 1· ~I
JI ..
)i gi I
j~ ! ,, I i1 m ' '
is i I
l
1 § I i lft .. '
·1 ~ I ~ I
.. -___ ..._
I
I
i I
I
I •
I •
-
~ ---·
_JI
.··
--.,~ .. -
·.'
•,
' .
J
ii '
I
·1 ~
.. -.'
\
... t_ .......
. '-~::~~=~~ ~ ,;~ -
. _r)jt":::"'• :.
. ;---· ____ · ------·.--1
__.i~I . · .·. I
EXHIBIT 4
.-, ,,
,
J
/
/
I
~ /
EXillBIT 5
I
\
\
• •
-, .
:<..
~ i ·-;
J
~ \
i5 ~ . ../
~ .·
:::i \II
:;· ~
<l :::;;
~
:I..
~ :i.:
EXHIBIT 6
--·
TABLE 3.4 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ZONING IN ESA
ZONING ACRES EQR'S
LOW 684 68.4
MEDIUM 685 116.45
HIGH 0
RE 22 0
OS 13 0
PRE SHANA 61 80
RANCH AT ROARING FORK EXISTING 355 147
RANCH AT ROARING FORK PROPOSED 50
TOTAL 1820 461.85
_)
EXHIBIT 7
TABLE 3.2
TOTAL ACRES IN EXPANDED SERVICE AREA
RANCH AT RF
PRE SHANNA
TOTAL ARRD ZONING
WETLANDS, SLOPES, ROADS ECT 20%
TOTAL DEVELOPABLE ACRES
#OF UNITS UNDER AIR/RD ZONING
TABLE 3.3
PROPERTY
undevelonAti
ranch at rf existing
ranch at
rf oronnsed
ranch creek
oreshanna
TOTAL
_)
EXHIBIT 8
1824
355
61
1408
281.6
1126.4
563.2
EQR'S
563.2
147
25
25
80
840.2
-· &--.oa !
ACRES
ACRES
ACRES
ACRES
ACRES
ACRES
EQRS
ISCUSSIONS WITH PROPERTY OWNERS
PROPERTY #OF EQR'S
ERISE PHASE 1 1200 ACRESl 300
ERiSE PHASE 2 [100 ACREA] 100
<\IL Y STERETT PROPERTY 50
T FINNBAR 23
RESHANA FARMS 80
ANCH AT ROARING FORK EXISTING 1-47
.ANCH AT ROARING FOR PROPOSED 25
ANCH CREEK PROPERTIES 25
LUE CREEK RANCH 80
LIFFORD CERISE PROPERTY 100
vALDORF SCHOOL 5
ilSC EXIST AND PROP ISDS .
20
OTAL 955
EXHIBIT 9
, '
)
. ~
/
• •
\. :!·
' "'
•.i
. .
I
I
.• l ...
EXHIBIT 10
" N
·' ~
' '
..
.'
0
•
'"-.,
•
•
,,_-~~--
~
~
\
\
I
I
..
--i
• I
Ill
Ill
0::
\
>-
b z
::i
0
{.)
z
~
LOT8
---
SECTION 31
• ~ • • • LOT$ /!&
SECTION
= l
FIGURE 4.7
~ ---Ul1P!:J.!:!!A!!!. _ ---,
1. I
~-~~ i.::i Lor 6 11
··-··-··-·-··-
PROPOSED WWTP
SITES
LOT 10
c PRELIMINARY
•
~ ~----~ / ..
-.... .. _ --
CERISE RANCH
7 ZANC4NtzLA ANO ASSOC/A TFS. INC:
EXHIBIT 11 ;;'NEERING CONSUL TANT.5'
SCALE• MTE• »£tT
1ir, • IOOtt fDNJMT 1.S. tftt 1 t:7 1
DRAW IT• OICD Jl• t .,.. ay, P'\..M NO.
Cl'PQ: -t101 -1CIOO COCl'Ot A~
, ...... m.CllL400 8\.o! (l70) ~ OHM TAZ TAZ a'-c ..,
i
1
= 4.1
D
:st= -•TE ALTERNATIVE
II\
OF PROBABLE COST
ITEM/DESCRIPTION
000 GPO WoNfF
TFALL LINE
10 COSTS
1 STATION
-".CE MAIN 6"
oAN OUTS
.>J) CROSSING
~ESS ROAD
:RCEPTOR
"HOLES
'Y BORE
3TOTAL
3R7%
'NTINGENCY '5%
TOTAL
-E 4.2
10
CH SITE
1 INC
N OF PROBABlE COST
)NTINGENCY 15%
TOTAL
UNl1;,
QUANTITY
' LS
"" LF
5 AC
' LS
6300
LF
25 LF
' LS
' LS
""" LF
.., EA
200 LF
TOTAL EOR'S
COSTPEREOR
)TAJ.. EORS (NOTE LESS 147 EQR'S FOR RANCH)
JST PER EOR
-E4.3
'10
;~BAR SITE
'11NC
JN OF PROBABLE COST
>TE '
··~
~ 000 GPO WWfF
:UTFALL LINE
ANO COSTS
iFT STATION
ORCE MA.IN 6"
:LEAN OUTS
·<DAO CROSSING
\CCESS ROAD
'ITERCEPTOR
iANHOLES
1
WYBORE
,uan ' _NGR.~
';ONTIN ENCY '5%
TOTAL
'~"· OUNIT>TY
' LS
200 LF
5
' LS
8000 LF
" LF
' LS
' LS
'"""' LF
53 EA
200 LF
TOTAL EOR'S
COSTPEREQR
UNI/
PRICE
$2 079 360
...,
$50 000
S12!l 000
'" $500
""'"' $25,000
S30
"500
"""
u~
PRICE
'1:7 079 360
000
'=125 000
""' 000
510000
"500
"""
TOTAL PRI~~
S2 079 360
$18,000
S250 000
$125 000
$157.500
$12 500
$20 000
$25,000
$387 000
.... 500
""000
... 218 8tlO
$225,320
""829
$3,"27.009
"" $4,091
"' "° 000
$250 000
000
.. ooo
$705000
$117000
""000
000
$35000
S30000
'25000
,...,,..
$4,507.119
'" ........
1 •v1...._.-.. 1v1:
"'"" ••ooo
000
'25000
'"'000
"000
000
$10 000
"""000
$79500
""000
"' '230""
....
$4,0Hl.m
"" $4,1117
EXHIBIT 12
~p· 1= 4.6
1\/1v1D
ANCH SITE
GM INC
"INION OF PROBABLE COST
0.
1
2
3
4
5
s
7
3
9
0
1
2 -
-
ITEM/DESCRIPTION
.1 MGD PLANT
OUTFALL LINE
LAND COSTS
WETLAND MITIGATION
SUP LINE RANCH LINES
INTERCEPTOR SEWER LINE
MANHOLES
HWY BORE
HWY CROSSING
ACCESS ROAD
REMOVE RANCH INWTF
EXCESS GROUNDWATER DEWATERINC
... UBTOTAL
ENGR7%
CONTINGENCY 15%
TOTAL
TOTALEQRS
COST PER EQR
ESTIMATED UNITS
QUANTITY
1 LS
1200 LF
5 AC
1 LS
2200 LF
23500 LF
78 EA
200 LF
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
EXHIBIT 13
UNIT
PRICE
$1,046,360
$30
$50,000
$0
$45
$30
$1,500
$400
$20,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
TOTAL PRICE
$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
. '
,e· ~ 4.6
VMD
t..NCH SITE
3M INC
INION OF PROBABLE COST
), ITEM/DESCRIPTION
.1 MGD PLANT
' OUTFALL LINE
LAND COSTS
WETLAND MITIGATION
SLIP LINE RANCH LINES
i INTERCEPTOR SEWER LINE
MANHOLES
HWY BORE
l
HWY CROSSING
0 ACCESS ROAD
1 REMOVE RANCH WWTF
~EXCESS GROUNDWATER DEWATERll
-;:,JBTOTAL
ENGR 7%
CONTINGENCY 15%
TOTAL
TOTAL EQRS
COSTPEREQR
ESTIMATED UNITS
QUANTITY
1 LS
1200 LF
5 AC
1 LS
2200 LF
0 LF
0 EA
0 LF
0 LS
1 LS
1 LS
1 LS
EXHIBIT 14
UNIT
PRICE
$1,046,360
$30
$50,000
$0
$45
$30
$1,500
$400
$20,000
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
TOTAL PRICE
$1,046,360
$36,000
$250,000
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
$1,422,360
$99,565
$213,354
$1,735,279
461
$3,764
. '
OUTLINE FOR 1996 208 PLAN
REGION XD WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
Introduction
How To Use This Plan
Background
Policy Summary
VOLUME I -POLICY PL.AN
~~T\V~ NORTHWEST COLORADO
l'i W6U<.....J COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
Robert Ray
Water Quality Director
Page
6
8
9
12
:249 Warren Ave.
P.O. Box 2308 97<>= 468<rl'/S"v. "/
Policy 1. Water Quality 5'vennome. co 80498 FAX<_, 468-1208 15
1.1 Policy Statement 15
1.2 Policy Objectives 15
1.3 Policy Justification 15
1.4 Implementation Recommendations 16
1.4.1 Meet Existing Water Quality Standards 16
1.4.2 Recommend Revisions to Water Quality Standards, 16
Classifications, and Designations
1.4.2.1 Special Water Quality Standards 16
1.4.2.2 New Outstanding Waters Designations 16
1.4.2.3 Changes to Use-Protected Designations 17
1.4.2.4 Changes to Temporary Modifications 17
1.4.2.5 Designated Uses Recommendation 18
1.4.2.5 Designated Use lmpainnent Recommendations 18
1.4.2.5.1 Water Quality Limited -Allocated Segments 18
1.4.2.5.2 Water Quality Limited -Potentially Threatened 19
1.4.2.5.3 Water Quality Limited -Partially Supported 20.
1.4.2.5.4 Water Quality Limited -Not Supporting 21
1.-4.3 Implement Local Governmental Land Use Controls 21
1.4.4 Implement Water Quality Improvement Projects 21
1.-4.4.1 Inactive Mine W.Q. Improvement Projects 21
Policy 2. Water Use and Development
2.1 Policy Statement
2.2 Po•icy Objectives
2.3 Policy Justification
2.4 Implementation Recommendations
1
EXHIBIT 15
23
23
23
23
24
·.~)
..
EXKUTM CHAMIElS
1 36 St.<"' c..,;.,i
Denver. Co!oraOc 80203·1792
Phcne 1303) 806-<471
May 18, 1998
William Y e!lowtail
Regional Administrator, Region VIII
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
999 l &th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2413
Dear Mr. Yellowtail:
STATE OF COLOR.ADO
It is my pleasure to inform you that I have ccnified the State's approval of the 1998
update to the Area-wide Water Quality Management Plan for the Northwest Colorado
Council of Governments (NWCCOG) under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act.
Following a public informational hearing on April 13 1998, the Water Quality Control
Commission approved this update without conditions.
If you or your staff have any questions or co=ents, please contact Bill M.;Kee at the
Water Quality Con1l'ol Division, 692-3583. Thank you for your assistance and
cooperation.
Sincerely,
Roy Romer
Governor
Enclosures
cc: Peter D. Nichols, Chair, Water Quality Control Commission
David Hoirn, Director, Water Quality Control Division
Robert Ray, NVICCOG
EXHIBIT 16
.. ,_
: !
CHAPTER 8. COMPLIANCE WITH 208 PLAN.
This Service Plan which consolidates service areas, management agencies and WW
is consistent with the policies of the Region XII Water Quality Management Plan or 208
for the Roaring Fork River. The purpose of Section 208 of the Federal Clean Water Act 1s lu
require plans for coordinated regional approaches to Water Quality Management. Specific
citations in the 208 Plan include the following:
3 .1 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."
3.2 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."
4.2 Policy Objectives
"To avoid the proliferation of wastewater treatment facilities and/or wastewater
treatment agencies where practical alternatives exist."
4.4 Implementation Recommendations
reponllj)ICI09.nl
"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
EXHIBIT 17
repgml"11CIOl.1"¥2
"
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
EXHIBIT 18
• J
)
POLICY 4. DOMESTIC, MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE TREATMENT
4.1 Policy Statement
Land use and development decisions to locate water supplies, wastewater
treatment systems,
and other facilities will be made in a manner which protects
water quality. Dilution will
not be considered as a means of waste treatment.
Decisions regarding facility location shall also recognize the protection of
floodplains, geologic hazard areas, wildlife habitats, wetlands, shorelines, and
agricultural land. Plans for facilities which discharge wastes will be coordinated
with existing facilities to protect water quality.
4.2 Policy Objectives
To ensure that all land use activities have adequate facilities to collect, treat, and
dispose
of anticipated types and quantities of wastewater.
To ensure that the discharge of any water pollutant from waste treatment facilities
industrial or commercial processing activities or mine waste tailings ponds meets
the assigned conditions of its discharge permit so as to comply with stream
standards as established by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission.
To ensure the wasteload allocations for point source discharges are met throughout
the region through upgrading of existing treatment facilities and planning and
construction
of new facilities as required.
To ensure that development of solid waste disposal sites including residuals from
wastewater treatment is conducted in accordance with sound conservation practices
giving consideration to potential pollution problems inherent in proposed sites.
To recognize the sensitivity of regional and local groundwater aquifers to pollution
from waste
discharge~ or s_e~paoe from waste disposal sites and septic system
leachate. ------· -------... ---------· · · -
1 • To avoid the proliferation of wastewater treatment facilities and/or wastewater II
treatment agencies where practical altematives exist.
~~'--~"'--'--~--'---~----~~--------~----,
To ensure that.w::i .. tewater treatment facilities are properly operated and maintained
by a responsible operating entity.
To seek the most cost-effective approach to limitation of critical pollutants by
examining tradeoffs between point and nonpoint sources.
32
EXHIBIT 19
j
G1U Owens. Guvl!rnor
:.:ine E. :'lr)rton. Acting E.'(ecut1ve D1r!!ctor
:Jedic.Jceo :o !:JfO(ectm~ Jnc 1morov1n~ tre r.e:;.ith JflU environment oi ihe !:JeDOte oi' C:;icr_i!'.:O
tJOO Ch..:rrv Cr~·.!i< Or. S
;"J~nver. (Jior:::ioo 1102-16-1530
P!ione 1JOJl 692-2000
', ,JCJteo In c;~no:::ile. C-.:>iorJClO
:Vfarch 31. 1999
John G. Colton
1~Jbor=itorv Jnd R~di.ltJOn s~rv1ces Oiv1s1on
.'Jl 00 lowrv Blvd.
Denver CO 80220-6928
303l 6'J2.JO')O
1830 \Ii. universitv Dr Suite I :o
Tempe, AZ 85281
RE: Ranch at Roaring Fork Site Application
Dear Mr. Colton:
Colo...do Dcpmment
of Public H<::<lth
4.n.d En,,.;ronmenc
In response to your letter of March 5. 1999, please consider the following information and facts.
I understand you are concerned that the Water Quality Control Division ("Division") changed our
expectations regarding options for consolidation of facilities at the Ranch at Roaring Fork ("the
Ranch") after the site application was submitted last year.
Under the Water Quality Control Commission's Site Application Regulations. the Division is
responsible for ensuring that consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities occurs whenever it is
feasible. Consolidation generally provides a positive economic impact for the users of the facility
in comparison to the costs for separate facilities and can also have a positive environmental impact
which benefits all of the users of the receiving stream. Consolidation of facilities in the Roaring
Fork Valley has been an issue for well over fifteen years and we have consistently worked with
the wastewater treatment entities and developers in the vailey to make good facility siting
decisions. I believe that. if you look at the history of this issue at the Ranch. you will see that our
Grand Junction staff has tried to work proactively with the Ranch on the issue of consolidation.
In case you are not aware of the specific details. the following is a brief history of our discussions
with the Ranch on consolidation issues.
In 1990. Dick Bowman and Dwain Watson of our Grand Junction Office met in Grand Junction
to discuss consolidation of wastewater treatment plants with representatives of the Ranch and the
proposed St. Finnbar and Preshana Farms developments. At that time. St. Finnbar 1nd Preshana
Farms had proposed their own wastewater treatment facilities and the Ranch's wastewater
treatment plant had been identified as being at risk due to physical deterioration of the facilities.
At the end of that meeting. it was our understanding that the Ranch. St. Finnbar and Preshana
Farms had agreed that the two developments would tie into and help expand the Ranch's
treatment facility.
Zv1r. Bowman and Mr. Watson were not contacted again on improvements to
the Ranch's facility for several years.
On April 8. 1994. Mr. Watson sent the manager of the Ranch a letter (copy attached) discussing
consolidation with the same proposed developments. This letter '.'.as sent in response to a letter
from the Ranch w. St. Finnbar denying sewer service. EXHIBIT 20
l . _,
He asked the board to consider the Water Quality Controi Division·s responsibilitv to encourage
consoiidation whenever feasibie and reminded them of the commitment the Ranch. had made to-
provide sewer service to St. Finnbar. Shortly after sending this letter. \[r. Watson attended a
meeting with the Ranch"s Board of Directors ro discuss these issues. :\o further discussion on
consoiidation with the Ranch occurred until a site application for
a new plant was received on
:V!ay t:?.. 1998 The site application proposes an expanded faciiity that would tre:u wastewater
from the Ranch.
St. Finnbar. and Preshana Farms
d1scuss1ons wit t e en s engmeenng tmn m 1g t of the task force· s concerns. The engineer
agreed that further evaluation of consolidation was appropriate and he and Mr. Watson mutually
agreed that the site application should be put "on hold".
We are aware that Mid-Valley Metro has been exploring the possibility of developing a regional
facility that would be located adjacent to the Ranch and that this facility would also serve St.
Finnbar and Preshana Farms. We understand that. if the Ranch were to join the District, Mid-
Va!ley Metro has made an offer to the Ranch to tie into the regional facility which:
l. Would not require payment of tap fees;
1. Would preclude any increase in operations and maintenance costs for a number of years: and
3. Would obligate Mid-Valley Metro to provide capital to repair inr1ow and infiltration of
groundwater into the Ranch's sewer lines.
When the site application was submitted in May of last year, eight years had passed since our
1990 discussion with the Ranch, St. Finnbar and Preshana Farms. [ realize that we have
continued to discuss the Ranch providing service to these other local developments during the
past several years. However. what you are characterizing as "the worst abuse ofbureaucraric
authority
I have ever seen"' is unfair. [ believe this is actually a case of charged circumstances
with regard to opportunities for consolidation of wastewater treatment facilities. The Ranch has
been looking at improving their wastewater treatment facility since at least 1990 but. for reasons
unknown to us. didn't work through the consolidation issues until last year. As mentjqqed abgye
short! after the site a Ii ' nd ~ · -
of
EXHIBIT 21
Consoiidation with Mid-Valley would reduce the Ranch·s control over the regionai facilitv"s
design. However. assuming the offer from Mid-Valley Metro is valid. we cannor see hoV: the
Ranch would be ··at risk" for future operations and maintenance costs since they would not
increase for a number of years and would be mitigated in the future by the larger number of taps
over which these costs would be spread.
substantially th; 52me
If you or the Ranch would like to discuss the substance of our position in greater detail or if you
have any questions. please contact Dave Akers of my staff at (303) 692-3 591.
'Qj~
kr David Holm, Director p · Water Quality Control Division
)
cc: Marie. Bean, Garfield County Planning Director
Michael Gerber, Chairman, Ranch at Roaring Fork HOA
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Preshana Farms
St Finnbar Development
Dwain Watson. District Engineer
MS-3 File
EXHIBIT 22
-. .. "
)
-. . --. -... . . . .
~"' fror::i Board of ColJtll'.· Commi.isl=s~
April 5. 1998
~E:-. ~l..Q. ~~~
S:..n. A~c.o.£\~
RtV<dt or Jliwl'il:~ Fol'k -SJJL Appli::IZ1ion for E.xp1ZJUion of Stwa.gtt T ~'" lf"or~
Ma...-J: mentic•ned a Public Meet-~ nee:ied to be sc~uled fo; :he Board Jf H:3lth an~ !he l'!oard
:;-C.iuriry Cvnmus>ionm ta ~view the site app:ication for expansion of the seWS&e tr"~!n\i!''.t
wo:ls at the Rmeh at Roaring Fort. · ·
~: il:dic=d ~was set ~o be hearcl l:>y the ?lannmg Com.minion on Wednc.day, }\.~ ~-
.-'\.due Wi£ Kt :or Jo.Uy 4 !.! o:OO P.~c. .
PUlalJC llE1'ING: RANCH AT ROARING FORK ~ITE APPUCA TION -SEWAGE EXPAIWSION
Mn 89111, :Bob S2ro--. DanDeFord. F:-:m.ic Ho!lowell, Presidec1 of the Homco-...-s
APO<:lJl!kJa .lllld Deim DeroW of:Mcl .o••l!hlin Water Enginem, Ltd. were pl'C$Cnt:.
The appliCZlian fo: ~ ;ipproval fot co~ of expacsicn of the RAneli "Roanng l'orll:
Hom•t0"'~ Anccimon Inc. domestic wutewaw-ttelllllcm woric (1ncludl:1g ~ pll,nts.
.se"'·en, .tmd !ift $W10!1$) ovrr 2,000 GPO ~t}· "Nai submin:d for approval of the Board of
Cou.o.ty Ccmm.issioocn.
Mmx wbm.iu.ed a letter frot:l Lee Leavaiwonb. from the Mid· Valley Sll!iwion D~ sine! it
was r ,_~di= Marl.'. did hil stalf r:pon. He said this i• a review of the~ ai Ro~
Foti: ,;ite Applicatio:: for cxpansio:i of a s.1wqe treatment works. '
The ll.tneh at Koarine F orlt Home Own= CR. at RF) A.S&Qc:ano:i 1; proposil1i to u~ an
~.J<isti:1' SO,))() ;pd ~t.:::treatmc:nt facilizy, With a 100,000 gpdfad.ity,at an,..Vmue<j
con of S6SO,OOO. The c= facility ill bcin& designed to IIlCCC curtent ~ quality di.5clw11c
s~ !ll"A to a.:o:•m..-n~ add!ticnal devclo;imcnt v.~thin the R at RF and some o=<L:
.k\-clopm::m.
Rand-. Creel; Pl'D, PmJwo.n.o and St. F:imebar ar= potenriai ser.'icc arus. It is ami;;ipated thai
the pr.:;ios:ed up~ will accommodate an add:tional 30 dwelJ.in&S within lb: Rat RF, 56 tJni'-'
ir. the Pc::shbla Ra:lch PUD lU1d 20 "llllS Witb.in :he St. Fimulbm R::nch subdivision Th,
proFo.1o.I is to c:o.:n:!= Ute eiastin(; ~gement m-w:ture t!-~t is based upon the R I! RF
Ho=~"'':l:::-S Ai50c1at!on rules lllld ;oven= frorn the control of the £;ysie:n and the
ir.cor;:onmo:i of the new ci:ve!opmcllti 111to the "-l:S\l1:1ation.
EXHIBIT 23
)
tbo t~iiicy "proposed to :ne.et 2.."1 .u:unonia •ta.""ldatd of lO • 15 ~· l and the s~·s projected
stall>l2rd i.s l-5 rni;r I. :.iatk added tl:at if this ill 51JproYed 0y ~ Boa:a of C=issioncr.;. the
Ran.:~ at Roaring fork would r.e:::i co ,;end in :.•a m!e: ttJ: waur qua!itr gwdeiines anci
stBl'lciar6 ;i,s d:ciated. He also memioncd tbal t.'tis ;s in 3 tloodp!air. and would need to en<ur~
that ·::~e fa<;ilirv n:.eei. t~e ~llircmen:s.
!\. ieiter Lee Leavenworth •uomilted indicates in~= in ~<'illg :his facility.
Dem< De~osicr of l.-lc~in Water Engineers. Ltd.-"ill be di::signins tt.c seM!• cxi:=ion. :;
:hi: State were to lower some of ;a., effi:ient ..-da.rd.i, this plant will mil n:ed to"'oe llJ);l'*
Th<:> have ~sed !he floodplai~. rtcogro~ i: »ill be ncc:essary to n:uti&atc for th:tt pQtemiz.l
and. they will do so accordingly W'lth berms 11?1d old pond.! '~miwed. to increut the uu of~f
flow He explained the !llltlption efforts and r=cdios. -:lley feel they cir. moet the des1p '
SW.:&:-ds to bzndle all requii==.
Frmi: Hollowell -Rech at Roaritll f;;rk -Homeowners Auociation President -commentet;I ~
fioodillc ha:! not beer. A prol::lem s.lnce he ha.c b&.ln in t!ie ..,.,,, The Homoowner's AssociatiQn
has o~-atee 1he aiea's wurew= treatment facilities ior 2S yeian. The. A»oci•no;i lw ce~
iWti!crity u provided for ti,• the State of Colonicio: thl5 authanty Wclud9$ the levying c;,f
;usos ime:its IUld celleeton of serrice fees. He also itlquin:d as to the Con-~e Pim and
uk.eC, wim i& the ci=i.ty for Ccunty Road l CO?
:..l.arx owed low Cleasity witi.ch includes one dwelling for 2 • 5 acres.
7 Frw: said that MW-Valley opc:ntii' t.'ic f!.cility far Ranch 1t &.oaring Fo:-k.
· Mm m~ tha: there is another lljlpli=on for St Filll!Ahar .
. Toro .l:mc~l11 • St. Finmb3? hu i.11 application sttting on the State E<".alth D~em·• auk.
~ ('~ Ranch will 'Ol.l applyini: tn the State as W»i:. He sialed St. F"lllll&bar ha:i not '>nh4rl¥1D
their ap)>iic:.auon. ·
.\iark Wd the Swe i> uymg tc ;ciisclid&te amt one pouibie condition is re put thi< on :iold
~ 1g the State's diset.lSJions.
cen .. , R&ncl1 wu coraidcri!li tYini imo St. Filinaba:.
Comi:lissioner .\iarnn asl;ed i!"'lh:is expansion wu goi..;g tO consider the Ce.rise Ranch
deve!opmcm.
Dean Deto11e: said th;s expa.ruion lw :iat considered Che Ctrise Raru:h. He di~'t think t.'lcte
wu e:iouo:h property 10 exp:a:>Q tile plant to accommodate the Ccri~ !Unch. Also, th mer: they
expan:L :be more they get imo 6e floodplain one! creates o:ilc:t smOU$ p:oblems.
Co=~sioner Mctn comment:t! that their concern "''U h.aving more than one sylts!t:t within
!!-..at afQ • tb-ee of them :he way this conversation is goitli.
Dan s; • a district ·ch th
Dem •:xpla:ned wi:W stcpli could b:: ai<.en to enlarge the ~!ant caiiaciry.
TI1e B·>ild. cauncned ~ tlw with ttc new State >tandsrds. the Colon.do rmiaronem of H~aitil
:nay n quire this plt111t to ciccl.are ph:ise ! illld phase II plll!ls.
lJi>.11 stt!ed a !j>ccial di$lrict woulcl ~ the most eicpcdicnt :S to set this handled.
. ' . . .. ---·---
EXHIBIT 24
= ": . . . .
)
J
:. Tnat a speci~.i' use pc:mir fo~ We facility ce ap;:rov:::O ior tl::e Jllace=m. ~:·the iacil!ty in
the flood p :.m.
3. T'Mr!U
o.
~-::arl, Be:ir. said e Board !-.a.s rhe author:ty to ~omment re ~ie Swc -..1th a response of ~;t.'ic; -
raco;n.~ ~pprova1; recc=::nciod disapproval; or no CC!!llmC!ll.
com~i;MPS Mrpjp ''rrll'Q 1;5519 ?®a disSi5$ij1ecL
i..iiii= Smith uWl frank about the .o;pecia!TI1~1.
Fr.i:J: Holloway sta:cd the base rare is higher. T.ic other thilJ.g was bm.a& anott.c bOttd. and
another electioa. de mCC!ione<i WI Ceri!c developn:.ent.
Mm has mt:lticncd ~ !lil< mes &1ld L'lcy will look into it.
Corn n1ssioner ~kCo""1l. l.Jlced. if they L<iaease :he base an;! ~. = tl::e the mes •t.tr :U
~amc?
t!Oli ~~· ~crd~~r~S~tblt~req=!~~~"'~siliwa;~,~~~~~~~=5~2!
does iot ha>-e rr.u.'tlJ) e :11nec tney lave alr:.dy fUcd."
A motfon was pwjpMrSfry:i??B: :pd •=!:4 bl'S=issiomo: ~to
"Pallve • •ite ~~!l!!im1 L -4 !~~DoFOTa WO!!led it i&l autl!=e'the
Chair to s1pi the411jj;ttoa.; earned.
'
EXHIBIT 25
J
-··-. •"""'-' "'""' uu: .r..ua-ve..uey Disnic: Ser•ice Plan Amend=::.: id was to t!ke m the Dako!a
Meadows property, lh:ir service plan 31Ud thls i• ·~ fur West s.o they would go for tllis parjcuJar
sav-c<i plan. Th.!re has been so:ne cba.."lges as to wh:u they Will have to 4.QCc::-.modaie b t= of
<.<idbor.a.i ci...""~iopment wit:llr: their exiE!.l:iii; district inciud!!l.g Crav.ford a, well as !h:: periJI:ele:'S
they lave tom~ in i.nn; o:the wa:er quality s=&rci!i. Their spt:m may nave soir.e di5ealcy
mee'~ theso lu&b ~ai bc:ng imposed b;· the Health Derartmcnt. They tn&Y end ap L.avine-
to re-d.es:&n tr.etT faci.Uty.
Yfarl: • said "'hat they would iike 10 do, ii he •.i.ic~ th; propc>a.I, is t.'ley WQuJd like a=
".his um.brei!a 1'.!'.IM&emtm 1'¥ency "~th mul:iple =~ f~l!Iie! -one beina their o ... n
ellisttns in the valley ii!'t& alld the Ranch at Roanlli fork weu.ld l:7e anoC:i:t ~ center :hey
\llOuld tlllt.~. :-':io R.Jnch at Roarin& Fork and everyorni in dw IU"8a would be und:r t<:.e ~w
Mi:!-V wy Me:opohlan Diurict ~ement perimeter>.
Dave Lcavenwortb • n!Jl!=tins Lee Leavim.worth .lnd their firm W:l r:prcscms Mi.d-\' &lley
DiSlr:;t. He wmlcd u:i elarify quenions and eon=s about ~-Va.ilcy. TI>= Mid-Valley Boarti.
Ill its lut mectiat in .".;In! pU!ltd a ltesohnio:i asking lb: !,c;lvenwonl: Finn to 1'Tite the Bomd
ofCc·m."'1lissi.ono:rs a:xi aQdres, ti:.ii1 i&.'lll! !C thee He parap~ed :he Sanilllion Board's co11Ccm
s .. yi."l~ thaI it is primarily&. feelinlt 1hS1 the de\"elopmcnt. whatio-.cr it i> goin;; to be tJllI'.; going to
occm berwecc. R.mc!l • Roaruig Fori:: ind Dakota. (!he current boundary oftb.e Mid-Vlll.ley
Dist::ct) is somdiing the Mid-Valley Board believes lihould be doll.I: onr.rqi=l basis. They
zre iii C.. process concc:rnbg r.pplications 11.:1 tb.ey ai:e required to by StElllC ~ tbc Special
District Act,~ a petition from a Garlield County propcry O'Wllel' at the Ceri3e R=!i :o
iaeluti: tbcir 300 a= no:h for ;ru:rposcs for Urviccs. n:e District dOe:i ill.ve fua= concc= • ~
i:otcntW ammooi1 coac«r. thst "ill be n=391.r)" to meet :n the~; ~ :n expaMioi:
p:ob!.mu.: withe }.li~-\ie.lley BoW Ms a real coneem about pumpi..aJ up-hill. Thay have :iee:i
'.alkin1: with the Caisc's L-.i the develope:s associated with thlm: about CO!ltll'Uction of an
.Cdition&i plar.t. n.;. W>il ultimately come baci< bciore tho Boar:i ofCu=ssio<>en for a pJu:
cxpar.sion 4!)pro,·al. The !l'fic-Valley Board primatily Wlll!ted tho Commissioners to be aw..rc
lb:~· '·'•re doing tlw as tl:ey ccnsidcr :he pmicular application before then: today. Mid-Valley
B~ard lw indicaicda wiJlnin,ess to take on more responsjbility ill tomu ofrn=gino" wmer
an<:'. ., wer dimiet in that area.
Chai.nnan Sml!h asked if two cimicts ear.tld be roerged7
Da111: L.oave:iwonh •Wed :h..ay co·Jl.d be merged but they csn not overla;o. He: said h.: could be
"'rotli, i:ut it looks like the proposee &em ce area went beyond the Caun.'}' Road I 00. TM
Mid-\'alley Di..aiot i.5 =utly 1•1nlcicg that "''Cle they to go Aheaii, they wOl:ld expzw.d to tile
edie cf St. Fillnabac and P~a Fanns. The cumm1 loca.Uon th•) uc contctr.platin0 • soco!l<i
plant :ite would be on th= Clit!ord Cerise Ranch just ;.ip the valley about 112 mile. The
~id· \'alley Bo.rd has received inpnt from tile pt:blic for alr.lost a yeu ~.nearly every lllQll:.l.
Concl11sion:
The Plannina Comm:iuion recowmec.ded App:'Ova.l of the 9<0poscC. site !pplic.mon with !he
followir.g camnu:ms:
1 That Che UJcilit;· oniy be appro''ed ific C31! tneet all water quo.lit;' star.d.a<do for the
Roc'.n3 forl: river.
EXHIBIT 26
' '
6j
6.6
6.7
6.8
6.9
__ )
Require developers to perfonn a
specific analysis of pocennal impacts
to agricultural lands and uses. and to
propose mitigation measures.
Require developers/ development tc
draft a specific mitigation plan to
consider and to adopt practices which
eliminare the spread of noxious weeds,
maintain existing irrigation ditches
(with specific provisions to assure
water is not wasted or impeded) and
unpose proportionate costs of
maintenance that are borne by the
developer/development.
This plan
shall be required no later
than at the
subdivision stage. This plan shall
require input/approval by the affected,
agrarian landowner(s).
Encourage the developer or
development tc purchase a
conservation easement, at fuir value,
from the adjacent agricultural interest,
who can use this buffer zone for
agricultural purposes when infeasible
to maintain a 300 feet buffer from
agricultural land and uses.
Require that all
Final Plats carry a
plat note that notifies prospective lot
owners that Garfield County has
adopted a Right to Fann and Ranch
~ and that copies of this policy
are available from local, land title
comparues.
Require the identification and the
mapping of federal land grazing
permits (BLM and/or USFS).
fil-18
i.O WATER AND SEWER SERVICES
ISSUES
Issues identified during the Comprehensive
Plan Process related tc water and sewer
services are as follows:
• The proliferation of I.S.D.S. on
individual sites should be carefully
reviewed in terms of soil constraints
and drainage characteristics of e:ich ----site;
• High-density development, defined as
exceeding one ( 1) dwelling unit per
one (I) acre, should be located in
areas where central sewage treatment
facilities are
either currently available,
or feasible in the future.
GOAL
To ensure the provision of legal, adequate,
dependable, cost effective and
environmentally sound sewer and water
services for new development.
OBJECTIVES:
7.1
7.2
Development in areas without existing
central waxer and sewer service will be
required to provide adequate and safe
provisions for these services before
project approval.
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.
EXHIBIT 27
' ' ' .
'·
7.3
"
Projects proposing the use of
Individual Sewage Disposal Systems
(l.S.D.S.) will be required to assess
the site's capability to accommodate
these systems prior to project
approval.
J
7.4
7.5
7.6
Development will be required to
mitigate the impact of the proposed
project on existing \vater and sewer
systems.
Garfield County will._st,r9ngly
discourage the proliferation of private
water and sewer systems.
High-density development, defined as
exceeding one (1) dwelling writ per
one ( l) acres, will be required to
assess the potential of connecting into
existing central water and sewer
facilities.
POLICIES:
7. l All development proposals in rural
areas without existing central water
and/or sewer systems will be reqwred
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 proof
regarding logical. legal and economic
constraints will be on the developer.
111-19
7.3
7.4
The County will require developers
proposing I.S.D.S. to provide data
tbnt demonstrates to the Counry that
the proposed site can accommodate
these systems pnor to project
approval.
Where l.S.D.S. is not feasible,
Garfield Coumy will require a sewage
disposal system approved by the State
of Colorado.
7 .5 High densicy-development is
considered urban in nature and
requires appropriate serv1ces.
Through the Zoning Resolution,
Garfield County '-'"Jl strongly
encourage high density development to
locate in areas where these services
are available.
PROGRAMS:
7.1
7.2
A High Groundwater/Septic System
Constraint Map, based on previously
collected technical data, will be
developed and applied in the project
review process to ensure that water
and wastewater systems are designed
in a safe. effective manner. For areas
of the County that have not been
mapped, it shall be incumbent upon
the developer to evaluate the sub-
surfuce conditions and their ability for
adequately treating wastewater that
would be generated by the project.
Modifications to the Zoning
Resolution will include an assessment
of the relationship between existing
central water and sewer systems and
furure zone districts, pa:rticularly as it
relates to density definitions.
EXHIBIT 28
7 .3 In areas identified as having severe
constraints to the use of ISDS. the
developer shall install either
centralized wastewater treaanent
fuciliries. or another engineered design
approved by the State, or shall leave
this land undeveloped.
7.4 A Water Constraints Map, based on
the collection of geologic data. will be
developed and applied to the project
reYiew process to ensure that potable
water systems are designed in a
healthy and safe manner and that an
adequate water supply exists.
8.0 NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
ISSUES
Issues related to the natural environment
identified during the Comprehensive Plan
process are as follows:
•
•
•
Tourism is an integral component of
the economy of Garfield County.
Therefore, it is essential that the
planning process respect the natural
environment that brings residents and
visitors to the County;
The existing Management District
Map, designed to address areas of
rrunor, moderate, and severe
environmental constraints, does not
allow for specific hazards to be
identified and mitigated:
Protection of air and water quality
should be an essential component of
the Comprehensive Plan and
subsequent amendments to the Zoning
Resolution and Subdivision
Regulations;
IIl-20
•
•
GOAL
Development should respect the
nawral contaurs : .. i drainage patterns
on each ind.ividt::.. project site:
Important
visual corridors should be
identified and companion design
guidelines reg:ird.ing s1gnage,
setbacks. buffer areas and landscaprng
should be formally adopted and
enforced by the C Junty.
Garfield Counry will encourage a land use
pattern that recognizes the ef1Vironmenta/
sensiliviry of the land, does not overburden
the physical capacity of the land and is in the
best interests of the health, safey and
welfare of Garfield Counry.
OBJECTIVES:
8.1 The County of Garfield reserves the
right to deny a project based on severe
environmental constraints
that
endanger public health, safety or
welfare.
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
Proposed orojects will be required to
recog:r · .ie physical features of the
lanri · :sign projects in a manner
tt.::: ;: :npatible with the physical
enV'trc·-: . ..:nt.
Garfield County will ensure that
natural dr.llnages are protected from
alteration.
River-fronts and riparian areas are
fragile components of the ecosystem
and these areas require careful review
in the planning process.
Development proposals will be
required to address soil constraints
unique to the proposed site.
EXHIBIT 29
11----.---, -------------:--~-. ------.. -. ------~------
•lO PSI
PRESSURE··
CONrOUR
" 1
11
\! \
.,
...
. .
PROPOSED WATER; SYSTEM LA
j
·!
I :
300,000
GALLON ,.. ,. · ·:
TANK .d~ RAW:.'·.
. ' WATE~(
/
uNe/
'·f /' ' i/' ·t .• I i.~ -' • . . , './ . !·
'• ..
GARFIELD COUNTY
SERVICE AREA
... '
··•· I . r .. \!~----.--. i PJ
" ., ....
40 PSI
PRESSURE CONTOUR.
'
OUT
' 300,000
GALLON
TANK
~
-~
8
Cl
~ • c;;:
Cl;
~
• ~1
8"RAW
WATER LIN 0
"" -r;·.·.··~ .1-s. ·I· ... ·R~ .. ··c·7J~ , . ~ -. . ~· . , . \'"· > •I ~
; RANCH Ar .' • • .. , . . _ . -.· _ -, ;;.<:
.... ~ :SC == ' . '~ ~
'"-·'-..., ~ . · .. :.z.
,, ..
'
,__ PRESSURE CONTOUR
140 PSI (6192)
..... .L ~-.,·~..r, 1· .
. ,, I ,_ .,-. ~o .... ;
NI~ --I. f~j,,1 r.:•1 i. . . ·-_()l N •.·I "" . .· ;,.'·.•!. • ~ · '
-'It'• I
;l\r .'/' .
,
....
.. ..
·-· -~ -r---~ ·-. -r
..
--··'"' ·• ~-• .,, .. ~ •..• !,...._.._ ___ •. : ! . .".: .. -=;..-,. ~ .ir
_, ··~r·
; ,:1
',->;·
\
,.
t/
~ . ',' ,
RISE
WELLFIELD1
, .
~ .....
EA~~ -COU~~l
SEl™S:E AREA i
. l
I ),,
I
I.
' "'. ,-___ _, '
v'l\A11
~ ELD COUNTY SERVICE AREA
ATER SYSTEM CRITERIA
ATER DEMANDS
CRITERIA EQR
COMP PLAN 462
EXISTING ZONING 840
LANDOWNER PROJECTIONS 955
ATER STORAGE
CRITERIA FIRE FLOW
fGALLONSl
COMP PLAN 180000
EXISTING ZONING 180000
LANDOWNER PROJECTIONS 180000
TANK BASE ELEVATION 6500 FEET
RESULTING PRESSURES LOW
HIGH
PEOPLE AVE DAY
DEMAND
fGPMl
1,386 96
2,520 175
2,865 199
OPERATIONAL EMERGENCY
STORAGE STORAGE
fGALLONSl fGALLONSl
57750 138600
105000 252000
119375 286500
40 PSI
140 PSI
EXHIBIT 31
MAX DAY PEAK HOUR
DEMAND DEMAND
fGPMl fGPMl
193 433
350 788
398 895
TOTAL
fGALLONSl
376350
537000
585875
•• ~ l
>,/'
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
PROPOSED DENSITY FOR SERVICE OUT TO CATHERINE'S STORE
APRIL26,
SGM
PROPERTY EQR'S
StFimibar 23
Preshana 80
Ranch at Roaring Fork existinQ 147
Ranch at Roanno Fork oronnsed 25
Ranch Creek 25
undevelooea land between river and c:tv rd 100 80
TOTAL 380
EXHIBIT 32
I • -\
.,_ ,( ' l
JMD
. .'ER SYSTEM COSTS AT COMP PLAN
3MINC
NION OF PROBABLE COST
ITEM/DESCRIPTION
WELLS
DROP PIPE AND PUMP INSTALLATIO
WELL HOUSE
ELECTRIC SERVICE
STORAGE TANK 300,000 GAL
TRANSMISSION MAIN 12'
TRANSMISSION MAIN 8"
HWY BORE
SUBTOTAL
ENGR7%
CONTINGENCY 15o/o
TOTAL
VMD
ESTIMATED UNITS
QUANTITY
2
2
1
1
1
5"'32
5309
200
TOTALEQR'S
COSTPEREQR
EA
EA
LS
LS
LS
LF
LF
LF
UNIT
PRICE
$25,000
$7,500
$100,000
$15,000
$150,000
$40
$30
$400
TOTAL PRICE
$50,000
$15,000
$100,000
$15,000
$150,000
$217,280
$159,270
$80,000
$786,550
$55,059
$117,983
$959,591
452
$2,077
ATER SYSTEM COSTS PROPERTY OWNER PROJECTIONS
3M INC
INION OF PROBABLE COST
),
ITEM/DESCRIPTION
WELLS
DROP PIPE AND PUMP INSTALLATIO
WELL HOUSE
.
ELECTRIC SERVICE
STORAGE TANK 300,000 GAL
; TRANSMISSION MAIN 12' , TRANSMISSION MAIN 8"
J HWY BORE
SUBTOTAL
ENGR 7%
CONTINGENCY 15%
.,i
TOTAL -
ESTIMATED UNITS
QUANTITY
" " 2
2
2
10290
8130
<I()()
TOTALEQR'S
COSTPEREQR
EA
EA
LS
LS
LS
LF
LF
LF
UNIT
PRICE
$25,000
$7,500
$100,000
$15,000
$150,000
$40
$30
$400
EXHIBIT 33
TOTAL PRICE
$100,000
$30,000
$200,000
$30,000
$300 000
$411 600
$2<13,900
$160,000
$1,475,500
$103,285
$221,325
$1,800, 110
955
$1,885
-: ,
" ;I.:: ~
~ •• ·1 ~
.. . . . , ·-~
, .1 ...... -, ·-
. ·-;::::,:
.
'
--.··
' __ )
TOWN OF CARBONDALE
INTERCEPTOR SEWER COSTS
MARCH 1999
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
this alternative includes alignment along county road l 00
NO. ITEM/DESCRlPTION ESTIMATED
OUANITTY
1 12" PVC SEWER 0-10 FT 0
2 12" PVC SEWER 10-15 FT 15000
3 12" PVC SEWER 15-20 FT 0
4 18" PVC SEWER 0
5 RIVER CROSSING l
6 MANHOLES 72
7 LANDSCAPE RESTORATION I
8 MOBILIZATION/DEMOB l
9 LIFT STATION 1
IO FORCEMAlN 700
SUBTOTAL
ENRG7%
CONTINGENCY 10%
TOTAL
UNITS UNIT
PRICE
LF $35
LF $37
LF $75
LF $50
LS $40.000
EA $2,000
LS $25,000
LS $15,000
LS $75.000
LF $30
NOTE:
This estimate does not include any easement aquisirion costs
EXHIBIT 35
TOTAL PRICE
$0
$555.000
$0
$0
$40,.JOO
$144.000
$25.000
$15,000
$75,000
$21,000
$764,000
$53,480
$76.400
$893,880
0
Aspen C
Assimilative Capacity of River
Scenario 4-WJ .6MGD , Basalt .8MGD
20 ··-·· Basal! Mid Val Carbon ~. AspenV
LV'7 LazyG
~
Sopris V Ranch
Mobile
Aspen G
-~
1000
800
~
__J
--())
E ~ 600
(1J
c
0
E
E
<( 400
cu .......
0
I-
200
2.6
0
Aspen C
'
Assimilative Capacity of River
Scenario 5-No WJ Ranch, MEGA Plant
102.2
-
32.2
Aspen V MEGA plant Aspen G
·s ~I\-, ~o~~ \jci~
.. \\r.n( . f'l\·
936.7
0:--
,..,
..... ......
I i:Q ......
I
::i:: x
r.l
•"-·~,
I
J ·-' BBC V1EWPOINT • !998-llJIJIJ • BIJC llcJ'<zrcb "-' C.nz.,,,/tzlza Page 5
~ ..,rivate:
:L1t Costs
·,BBC Managing Direcror
·pervised rhe Las Cruces
nd similar work in Gree-
lorado.
:gin, BBC idenrified those
:nenr services used by
Jvernmenr depanmenrs
·isions. From there, a case
on algorirhm was devel-
\ customized sofr,vare
ndicared how charges
change for inrergovem-
consumpcion of rhese
------------~
Sc.
' as Ratepayers
• ;_ .; • ~1 '.·~ •• : ••
xes
_,-
ayor and City Council
I Does Grovvth Drive Development?
! Ir's a classic case of the chicken I found the growrh issue con· !
I
and the egg. Which comes fitst -fronting its pipeline expansion.
population growth or mirasmzc-I (BBC examined case studies
I ture development? For many throughout the West and spe-
. years, road construction faced cific conditions in Mesa County.
heated debates on this score. Case studies nationwide rev..Jed
Now BBC is finding that water that anticipated growth would
and wastewarer infrasrructure is still occur if the pipeline were
being painted with the same nor expanded, bur in unpre-
brush. Is wacer infrastructure rhe dicrable pamrns and undesir.ble
chicken and popularion growth locations from a public planning
the egg, or vice vers.a? This is the standpoint. The impacr on Mesa
question wacer districts, uriliries County would be negative and
and public or quasi-public warer considerable: Grand Juncrion
enriries are facing from con-and Mesa County had anrici-
stituenrs and regularory agencies pared growrh parrems and
concerned a.bour growrh. togcrher concentrated public
Frequently, warer utiliries and faciliry and service efforu around
dimicrs are blamed for bringing the urban area. Mesa County's
growrh roan arr:-A because rhey considerable investment in these
install the basic infrasrrunure, projecrs would be wasred if Ure
\v:.1.rer supplies, rre:icmenc, scor-J.ge
and transmission !incs before the
new neighbors move in. BBC has
examintd this issue co determine
if rhe development of \varer ser-
vice infr-.iscrUC[ure drives growch,
or if \Vacer disrriccs 11re simply
responding co anricipaced, and
\'irrually intvJCable, gro\vth.
111e U ce \\11uer Conservancy
Discricc in Grand Junction.
(olorac.lo. tOund rhcn1sclvc.-s
1..'J.ughr up in chis controversy over
11ropos1;:J .11ld poctnr1al Jc:velop-
rllt'llt on rhe \\,.escern .Slopt· nc:ar
GromJJunmun. Ucc bo<lly
nt'td.tJ rn replace a derenoracing
\vacer tr-Jnsnllssion line. bur
J.nt1cipat1ng increasing \vJrer ser-
vice needs, U ce \van red co enlarge
rhe pipeline ro accommodate
planned developments. Throu~h
the public input process. Utt
EXHIBIT 38
~-------
did not expand the pipeline, forc-
ing more dispersed growrh in
unexpecred areas.
BBC found that growth is the
"chM:Un" and at lease in this
instance, wacec infr.isrruccure is
the "egg." When wacerucilicies
rm a proactive srance and
develop water inframuccure in .
advance of growth, they a.re often
simply responding co migration
trends foreosted by scare and
local govemmenrs responsiole for
land use planning.It/
Ed Harvey a11d Dougjeavons
have also addrtssed this issue for
C=hel/Q Valley Water District
!Pa/111 Spri11gs, CAJ a11d the
Northern lf'<tter Comervaucy
Distrirt (Uit•elaud, COJ.
MVMD
WATER SYSTEM COSTS AT COMP PLAN
SGM INC
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
NO. ITEM/DESCRIPTION
1 WELLS
2 DROP PIPE AND PUMP INSTALLATIOI
3 WELL HOUSE
4 ELECTRIC SERVICE
5 STORAGE TANK 300,000 GAL
6 TRANSMISSION MAIN 12'
7 TRANSMISSION MAIN 8"
8 HWY BORE
SUBTOTAL
ENGR 7%
CONTINGENCY 15%
TOTAL
MVMD
ESTIMATED UNITS
QUANTITY
2
2
1
1
1
5432
5309
200
TOTALEQR'S
COSTPEREQR
EA
EA
LS
LS
LS
LF
LF
LF
UNIT
PRICE
$25,000
$7,500
$100,000
$15,000
$150,000
$40
$30
$400
TOTAL PRICE
$50,000
$15,000
$100,000
$15,000
$150,000
$217,280
$159,270
$80,000
$786,550
$55,059
$117,983
$959,591
'462
$2,077
WATER SYSTEM COSTS PROPERTY OWNER PROJECTIONS
SGM INC
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
NO. ITEM/DESCRIPTION
1 WELLS
2 DROP PIPE AND PUMP INSTALLATIOI
3 WELL HOUSE
4 ELECTRIC SERVICE
5 STORAGE TANK 300 000 GAL
6 TRANSMISSION MAIN 12'
7 TRANSMISSION MAIN 8"
8 HWY BORE
SUBTOTAL
ENGR 7%
CONTINGENCY 15%
TOTAL
ESTIMATED UNITS
QUANTITY
4
4
2
2
2
10290
8130
400
TOTALEQR'S
COST PER EQR
EA
EA
LS
LS
LS
LF
LF
LF
UNIT
PRICE
$25,000
$7,500
$100,000
$15.000
$150 000
$40
$30
$400
.
TOTAL PRICE
$100 000
$30,000
$200,000
$30.000
$300 000
$411 600
$243,900
$160,000
$1,475,500
$103,285
$221,325
$1,800,110
955
$1,885
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
BASALT, COLORADO
FINANCIAL STATEMENT
AND
AUDITOR'S REPORT
DECEMBER 31, 1998
t
'
I
I
I
l
I
!
l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Independent Auditor's Report ........................................................................................................ 1
General Purpose Financial Statements:
Combined balance sheet ........................................................................................................ 2-3
Comparative statement of revenue, expenses and changes in retained
earnings and contributed capital ............................................................................................ 4
Combined statement of cash flows ............................................................................................ 5
Comparative statement of revenues, expenditures and
changes in fund balances -fiduciary fund ............................................................................ 6
Notes to the Financial Statements ........................................................................................... 7-14
Supplemental Information:
Comparative balance sheets -proprietary fund ............................................................ 15-16
Schedule of revenues, expenses and changes in retained earnings
-proprietary fund -budget (non-GAAP) budgetary basis .......................................... 17-19
l
I
!
!
l
J
Ux!RATSUKA. CASSADAY & ScIIAus. l.l.P.
Steven T. Hiratsuka
Linda L. Cassaday
Leslie A Schaus
Don W. Gruenler
To the Board of Directors
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Basalt, Colorado
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT
We have audited the accompanying general purpose financial statements of the Mid Valley
Metropolitan District, Colorado, as of and for the year ended December 31, 1998, as listed in the table
of contents. These general purpose financial statements are the responsibility of the Mid Valley
Metropolitan District management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these general
purpose financial statements based on our audit.
Except as discussed in the following paragraph, we conducted our audit in accordance with generally
accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the general purpose financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and
disclosures in the general purpose financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the
accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the
overall general purpose financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion.
Governmental Accounting Standards Board Technical Bulletin 98-1, Disclosures about Year 2000
Issues, requires disclosure of certain matters regarding the year 2000 issue. The District has included
such disclosures in Note 4. Because of the unprecedented nature of the year 2000 issue, its effects
and the success of related remediation efforts will not be fully determinable until the year 2000 and
thereafter. Accordingly, insufficient audit evidence exists to support the District's disclosures with
respect to the year 2000 issue made in Note 4. Further, we do not provide assurance that the District is
or will be year 2000 ready, that the District's year 2000 remediation efforts will be successful in whole
or in part. or that parties with which the District does business will be year 2000 ready.
In our opinion, except tor the effects of such adjustments, if any, as might have been determined to be
necessary had we been able to examine evidence regarding year 2000 disclosures, the general
purpose financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial
position of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District, Basalt, Colorado, as of December 31, 1998, and the
results of its operations and cash fiows for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles.
Our audit was made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the general purpose financial statements
taken as a whole. The accompanying financial information listed as supplemental information in the
table of contents is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the
general purpose financial statements of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. Such information has
been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the general purpose financial
statements and, in our opinion. is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the general purpose
financial statements taken as a whole.
Glenwood Springs, Colorado
April 7, 1999
2425 South Grand Avenue • Suite 106
Glenwood Springs. Colorado 81601
(970) 945-2695 • Fax (970) 928-0740
(ERTi Fi ED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS & CONSULTANTS
1401 17th Street • Suite 400 • Denver. Colorado 80202
1303 I 295-7077 • Fax I 3031 295-68b6
330S. Lincoln• Suile JOI• PO Box773027
Steamboat SprinfiS. Colorado 80477
(9701 879-1787 • Fax (9701 879-1239
j
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
BASALT, COLORADO
Combined Balance Sheet
December 31, 1998
ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash
Cash with County Treasurer
Investments
Accounts receivable:
Property taxes
Customer
Sopris Meadows
System development fee
Developer water line reimbursement
Prepaid expenses
Total current assets
Restricted assets:
TABOR cash reserves
Investments
Total restricted assets
Fixed assets:
Land
Water rights
Water treatment plant and distribution system
Irrigation systems
Sewer treatment plant and collection system
Furniture and fixtures
Less: accumulated depreciation
Net fixed assets
Other debits:
Water augmentation
Bond issue expenses
Amortization of bond issue expenses
Organization costs
Amortization of organization costs
Security deposits
Total other debits
Total Assets
$ 342,312
1,669
1,574,346
257, 108
38,936
24,050
168,343
6,933
2,413,697
23,785
330,401
354, 186
303,487
87,000
2,925,491
124,458
3, 118,401
12.209
6,571,046
(1,410,386)
5,160,660
73,420
65.871
(17,964)
44, 165
(15,456)
675
150,711
$ 8,079,254
-2-
$ 29,950 $
372,262 $ 416,629
1,669 1, 159
1,574,346 1, 160,249
257, 108 240,897
38,936 36,570
78,042
24,050 189,950
168,343 168,343
6,933 6,933
29,950 2,443,647 2,298,772
23,785 21,826
330,401 326,868
354,186 348,694
303,487 303,487
87,000 87,000
2,925,491 2,577,284
124,458 124.458
3, 118,401 2,667.579
12,209 10,364
6,571,046 5,770,172
(1,410,386) (1,200,305)
5,160,660 4,569,867
73,420 73,420
65,871 65,871
(17,964) (9,980)
44, 165 44, 165
(15,456) (14,352)
675 675
150,711 159.799
$ 29,950
s 8,109,204 $ 7,377,132
(Continued on next page)
' l
I
I
I
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
BASALT, COLORADO
Balance Sheet
December 31, 1998
. --:;~ __ ; .. ;. ' :
LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable
Accrued interest
Line deposits
Deferred property tax
Bond payable -current portion
Total current liabilities
Long-term debt, net of current portion:
1996 General obligation bonds payable
Total liabilities
Fund equity:
Contributed capital
Retained earnings (deficit)
Fund balance -unreserved, undesignated
Total fund equity
Total liabilities and fund equity
$ 13,299
8,000
257, 108
4,037
330,000
612,444
3, 130,000
3,742,444
7,760,555
(3,423,745)
4,336,810
$ 8,079,254
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.
-3-
$ $ 13.299 $ 25,014
8,000 4,037
257, 108 8,000
4,037 240,897
330,000 245,000
612,444 522,948
3,130,000 3,460,000
3,742,444 3,982,948
7,760,555 6,918,302
(3.423,745) (3,559,091)
29,950 29,950 34,973
29,950 4,366,760 3,394.184
$ 29,950 $ 8,109,204 $ 7,377,132
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
BASALT, COLORADO
Proprietary Fund ·Enterprise Fund
Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Retained Earnings
and Contributed Capital
December 31, 1998 and 1997
OPERATING REVENUES:
Water service
Sewer service
Miscellaneous
Total operating revenue
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Water system:
Administration
Source of supply
Treatment
Transmission and distribution
Total water system
Sewer system:
Administration
Collection and transmission
Treatment
Total sewer system
Total operating expense
Operating (loss)
Non-operating revenue (expense):
Property taxes
Specific ownership taxes
Delinquent taxes
Interest income
Amortization of bond issue costs
Interest expense
Bond trustee fees
Total non-operating revenue (expense)
Net income (loss)
Retained earnings (deficit), beginning of year
Add: Depreciation charged to contributed capital
Retained earnings (deficit), end of year
Contributed capital, beginning of year
Additions to contributed capital:
Tap fees
Developer-installed assets
Deductions from contributed capital:
Depreciation charged to contributed capital
Contributed capital, end of year
$
$
$
$
177,091
280, 197
4,931
462,219
67,577
26,476
48,681
108,973
251,707
130,581
110.480
99,244
340,305
592,012
(129,793)
239,345
18,714
732
104,458
(7,984)
(191,055)
(1,776)
162,434
32,641
(3,559,091)
102,705
(3,423,745)
6,918,302
200,686
744,272
(102,705)
7,760,555
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.
-4·
$
$
$
$
152,005
267.552
3,368
422,925
53,282
26,090
44,148
82,360
205,880
133,826
88,630
59,373
281,829
487,709
(64,784)
187,743
15,183
801
97,884
(9,088)
(229.244)
(1.489)
61,790
(2,994)
(3,639,865)
83,768
(3,559,091)
6,354,344
432,431
215,295
(83.768)
6,918,302
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
BASALT, COLORADO
Statement of Cash Flows
December 31, 1998
1998 1997
Cash flows from operating activities:
Cash received from customers
s 537,895
s 402,476
Cash paid to suppliers (351,174) (262, 165)
Cash paid to employees (41,368) (35,028)
Net cash provided b)! operating activities 145,353 105,283
Cash flows from non-capital financing activities:
Coun!:i'. taxes received 258,791 203,727
Net cash provided b)! non-capital financing activities 258,791 203,727
Cash flows from capital financing activities:
Tap fees received 366,586 432,431
Bond principal payments (245,000) (130,000)
Interest expense (191,055) (229,244)
Bond trustee fees (1, 776) (1,489)
Acquisition of capital assets (56,602) (257,473)
Net cash (used) b)! capital financing activities (127,847) (185,775)
Cash flows from investing activities:
Interest on investments 104,458 97,884
Net cash provided b)! investing activities 104,458 97,884
Net increase in cash 380,755 221, 119
Cash and cash equivalents. beginning of year 1,891, 758 1,670,639
Cash and cash equivalents, end of year $ 2,272,513 $ 1,891,758
Reconciliation of operating (loss) to net cash
provided by operations:
Net (loss) from operations (129,793) $ (64,784)
Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) to net cash
provided by operating activities:
Depreciation expense 210,081 178,999
Amortization expense 1, 104 1, 104
Decrease (increase) in:
Customer receivables (2,366) (27,299)
System development fees 78,042 5,850
(Decrease) increase in:
Accounts payable (11,715) 10,413
Line deposits 1,000
Total adjustments 275,146 170,067
Net cash provided (used) b)! operating activities 145,353 $ 105,283
Non-cash capital activities:
Developer-installed assets $
5,050 $ 215,295
System development fees 24,050
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.
-5-
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
BASALT, COLORADO
Fiduciary Fund -Conservation Trust
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance
December 31; 1998
REVENUE:
State lottery $ 8,356
Interest 721
Donations 900
Total revenue 9,977
EXPENDITURES:
Recreation facilities 15,000
Total expenditures 15,000
EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (5,023)
Fund balance, beginning of year 34,973
FUND BALANCE, END OF YEAR $ 29,950
The accompanying notes are an integral part of this statement.
-6-
$ 8, 198
658
500
9,356
575
575
8,781
26, 192
$ 34,973
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, BASALT, COLORADO
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 1998
1. Summary of significant accounting policies
The accounting policies of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District, Basalt, Colorado (the District), conform
to generally accepted principles as applicable to governments. The following is a summary of the
more significant policies consistently applied in the preparation of financial statements.
Reporting entity
The Mid Valley Metropolitan District, Basalt, Colorado, was established by state statute. A Board of
five elected Directors governs the District. As required by generally accepted accounting principles,
these financial statements present the activities of the District, which is legally separate and financially
independent of other state and local governments. The District provides water and wastewater
services to portions of eastern Garfield County and western Eagle County. The District has no
component units as defined by GASB 14.
Measurement focus, basis of accounting and basis of presentation
The accounts of the District are organized and operated on the basis of funds. A fund is an
independent fiscal accounting entity with a self-balancing set of accounts. Fund accounting
segregates funds according to their intended purpose and is used to aid management in
·demonstrating compliance with finance-related legal and contractual provisions. The minimum number
of funds is maintained consistent with legal and managerial requirements.
The District has the following fund types:
Proprietary funds -are accounted for on the flow of economic resources measurement focus and
use the accrual basis of accounting. This method is similar to that of a private business. Under
this method, revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded at the time liabilities
are incurred. All assets and all liabilities associated with the District are included on the balance
sheet. Depreciation of all exhaustible fixed assets used by the enterprise fund is charges as an
expense against operations. In compliance with GASS Statement No. 20 the District has elected
to apply only those FASB's, AP B's and ARB materials issued on or before November 30, 1989,
that do not conflict with GASS. Proprietary funds include the following fund type:
Enterprise fund -are used to account for those operations that are financed and operated in a
manner similar to private business or where the governing body has decided that the
determination of revenues earned, costs incurred and/or net income is necessary for
management accountability. The District has one such fund. This fund accounts for all
financial activities associated with supplying water and the treatment of sewage. The District
meters all water sales. The District accounts for tap fees as contributions of capital.
Fiduciary fund -accounts for assets held by the government in a trustee capacity or as an agent
on behalf of others, and includes expendable trust funds. Expendable trust funds are accounted
for in essentially the same manner as governmental funds. The District has one expendable trust
fund, Conservation Trust, that is used to account for funds received and restricted as to use in the
acquisition, development, and maintenance of new conservation sites pursuant to Colorado
Revised Statutes.
-7 -
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, BASALT, COLORADO
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 1998
1. Summary of significant accounting policies (continued)
Assets, liabilities and equity
Deposits and investments
The District's cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits,
certificates of deposit, and cash with the County Treasurer.
Investments are stated at market value.
Fair value of financial instruments
The District's financial instruments include cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable, and
accounts payable. The District estimates that the fair value of all financial instruments at December
31, 1998 does not differ materially from the aggregate carrying values of its financial instruments
recorded in the accompanying balance sheet. The carrying amount of these financial instruments
approximates fair value because of the short maturity of these instruments.
Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles
requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and
disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates.
Property taxes
Property taxes are levied on December 15, of each year and attach as an enforceable lien on property
as of January 1. Taxes are due as of January 1, of the following year and are payable in two equal
installments due February 28, and June 15, if paid in installments, or April 30, with a single payment.
Taxes are delinquent as of August 1. If the taxes are not paid within subsequent statutory periods,
the property will be sold at public auction. The County bills and collects the property taxes and remits
collections to the District on a monthly basis. No provision has been made for uncollected taxes, as
all taxes are deemed collectible.
Risk management
The District is exposed to various risks of loss related to torts; theft of, damage to and destruction of
assets; errors and omissions; and natural disasters for which the District carries commercial
insurance. Settled claims have not exceeded this commercial coverage in any of the past three years.
Prepaid items
Certain payments to vendors refiect costs applicable to future accounting periods and are recorded as
prepaid items.
Fixed assets
All purchased fixed assets are valued at cost. Interest incurred during the construction phase of fixed
assets is refiected in the capitalized value of the asset constructed, net of interest earned on the
invested proceeds over the same period. Depreciation of buildings and equipment used in the enter-
-8 -
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, BASALT, COLORADO
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 1998
1. Summary of significant accounting policies (continued)
Assets, liabilities and equity (continued)
prise fund is computed using the straight-line method over the estimated life of the asset using a half-
year of depreciation in the year of acquisition. Donated fixed assets are valued at their estimated fair
market value when received.
The cost of normal maintenance and repairs that do not add to the value of the asset or materially
extend the assets' lives is not capitalized.
Property, plant and equipment are depreciated over their estimated useful lives of 5 to 1 O years for
furniture and equipment; all other fixed assets use a 20 to 40 year life.
Restricted assets
Certain proceeds of the revenue bond refunding have been set aside for their repayment in
accordance with the bond indenture.
Cash has also been restricted to comply with the TABOR (Amendment 1) requirement for an
Emergency Reserve, since deficit retained earnings cannot be reserved.
Long-term obligations
Long-term obligations of the District consist of general obligation bonds.
Fund equitv
Contributed capital is recorded in the proprietary fund to record amounts received as tap fees or
contributions from developers.
Memorandum Only -Total columns
Total columns on the general purpose financial statements are captioned "memorandum only"
because they do not represent consolidated financial information and are presented only to facilitate
analysis. The columns do not present information that reflects financial position, results of operations
or cash flows in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Inter-fund eliminations
have not been made in the aggregation of this data.
Comparative data
Comparative total data for the prior year have been presented in selected sections of the
accompanying financial statements in order to provide an understanding of the changes in the
District's financial position and operations.
2. Stewardship, compliance and accountability
Budgetary information
The Enterprise funds adopt budgets on the Non-GAAP basis wherein tap fees are recognized as
revenue, principal payments on debt and capital expenditures are recognized as expenses and
depreciation expense is not budgeted. All annual appropriations lapse at fiscal year end.
-9 -
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, BASALT, COLORADO
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 1998
2. Stewardship, compliance and accountability
Budgetary information
----------·--------------·------·------
Prior to September 30, the District Administrator (not an elected official) submits a proposed operating
budget for the fiscal year commencing the following January 1, to the Board of Directors (elected
officials). The operating budget, for all budgeted funds, includes proposed expenditures and the
means of financing.
Public hearings are held at the regular Board of Directors meetings to obtain taxpayer input.
Prior to December 1, the budget is legally enacted through passage of a budget resolution. The
Board of Directors may transfer budget items within a department, division or fund without the
passage of a budget resolution.
Appropriations are controlled and the budget is only amended in conformity with Colorado Revised
Statutes, which require a balanced budget. Expenses in excess of appropriations may violate
Colorado Revised Statutes and must be reported to the State Auditor.
Deficit fund equity
As of December 31, 1998 retained earnings for the proprietary fund had a deficit balance of
$ 3,423,745.
3. Detailed notes concerning the funds
Cash and investments
The Colorado Public Deposit Protection Act, (POPA) requires that all units of local government deposit
cash in eligible public depositories, eligibility is determined by state regulators. Amounts on deposit in
excess of federal insurance levels must be collateralized. The eligible collateral is determined by the
POPA. POPA allows the institution to create a single collateral pool for all public funds. The pool is to
be maintained by another institution. or held in trust for all the uninsured public deposits as a group.
The market value of the collateral must be at least equal to 102% of the aggregate uninsured
deposits.
Deposits are categorized to give an indication of risk assumed by the government at the end of the
year. Category 1 includes deposits that are insured, Category 2 includes collateralized deposits held
by the pledging institution's department or agent in the District's name, Category 3 includes
uncollateralized, uninsured deposits. At December 31, 1998, the District deposits are categorized as
follows:
Cash with County Treasurer
Cash on hand
Categorized deposits:
Deposits covered by federal insurance -Category 1
Totals
-10-
Bank
Balance
$
397,537
$ 397,537
Carrying.
Balance
$ 1,669
26
396.021
$ 397,716
MIO VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, BASALT, COLORADO
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 1998
3. Detailed notes concerning the funds (continued)
Cash and investments (continued)
Investments
Colorado statues specify investment instruments meeting defined rating and risk criteria in which local
government entities may invest. The allowed investments include participation in investment pools.
The District participates in the Colorado Local Government Liquid Assets Trust (COLOTRUST) and a
no-load government obligation mutual fund. These investments are not categorized because the
investments are not evidenced by securities that exist in physical or book entry form. At December
31, 1998 the District's investment pool balance in COLOTRUST was $ 1,824,346 with a
corresponding carrying balance of$ 1,824,346. At December 31, 1998 the District is invested in
uncategorized mutual funds in the amount of$ 80,401, book and carrying balance.
Receivables
It is the policy of the District to record the property tax receivable in the year in which the taxes are
levied and to recognize the property tax revenues in the year in which the lien attaches to the
property. Property taxes are reported as a receivable and deferred revenue of$ 257, 108. Customer
receivables total $ 38,936 as of December 31, 1998.
Long-term debt
$ 3,835,000 series 1996 General Obligation Refunding Bonds
The bonds were issued to advance refund the series 1989 General Obligation Refunding Bonds.
These bonds mature in increments from 1997 through 2004. Interest is payable semiannually on June
15 and December 15 at the rate of 4.3% to 5.4%. The advance refunding was undertaken to reduce
total payments by$ 290,531 and resulted in an economic gain of$ 193,748.
Annual debt service requirements to maturity for general obligation bonds are as follows:
Year Interest Principal Total
1999 $ 179,635 $ 330,000 $ 509,635
2000 163,795 425,000 588,795
2001 142,545 520,000 662,545
2002 116,025 620,000 736,025
2003 83,785 725,000 808,785
2004 45,360 840,000 885,360
Total $ 731,145 $ 3,460,000 $ 4,191,145
Defeased (refunded) debt
The general obligation water and sewer bonds, series 1984, were refunded and defeased by the 1985
series. The 1985 series was refunded, called and defeased by the 1989 series, which in turn, was
refunded, called and defeased by the 1996 series. The monies deposited in irrevocable escrow
-11 -
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, BASALT, COLORADO
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 1998
3. Detailed notes concerning the funds (continued)
Long-term debt (continued)
accounts are invested in U.S. Treasury obligations that, together with the interest thereon, would
provide amounts sufficient for payment of all principal and interest on each remaining payment date.
The likelihood of earnings and principal maturities of the U.S. Treasury obligations not being sufficient
to pay the refunding bond issue appears remote. Accordingly, the escrow account and the refunded
bonds are not included in the District's balance sheet.
Contributed capital
The changes in the District's contributed capital account for the year ending December 31, 1998 were
as follows:
Beginning balance
Additions:
Developer installed lines
1998 tap fees
Less:
Depreciation expense
for contributed assets
Total
4. Other information
Water rights
$ 6,918,302
744,272
200,686
(102,705)
$ 7,760,555
The District has received contributed water rights from various developers within the District over the
years. These rights were neither valued nor added to the fixed assets of the District when received
and are not recorded on the balance sheet of the District for any monetary value. As of December 31,
1990 the District's attorney had placed a current market value of$ 180,000 to $ 250,000 on these
rights.
During 1996 the District purchased 1 share of water in the Robinson Ditch for$ 10,000. The District
also received water rights from a developer in the amount of $ 60,000 in lieu of a guaranteed
purchase of 9.23 taps.
In 1997 the District purchased a total of 1.65 c.f.s. in various ditches for$ 17,000 from a resident of
the area.
During 1993 the District began legal action to increase their water allotment from Ruedi Reservoir.
These water augmentation expenses have been capitalized and will be amortized over the life of the
contract if they are awarded by the Water Court.
-12 -
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, BASALT, COLORADO
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 1998
4. Other information (continued)
Leased office space
The lease provides for an annual increase based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index but
this is not to exceed 5%. The total rent for 1998 is $ 5,377.
Lawsuits
The District is a defendant in various lawsuits concerning water rights. Although the outcome of these
lawsuits is not presently determinable, in the opinion of the District's attorney the resolution of these
matters will not have a materially adverse effect on the financial condition of the District.
Developer water line reimbursement
During 1997 the District spent $ 200,906 to install a 12" diameter, looped water line. Agreements
have been reached with landowners that will potentially be served by this main to partially reimburse
the costs over the next seven years. This has been recorded on the balance sheet as a receivable
and contributed capital in the amount of$ 168,343.
Contingent liabilities
TABOR Amendment
In November of 1992, Colorado voters approved Amendment 1 to the state Constitution which is
commonly known as The Taxpayer's Bill of Rights or the TABOR Amendment. The amendment
applies to all units of local government and limits taxes, spending, revenue, and multi-year debt
(excepting bond refundings to lower interest rates and adding employees to pension plans). The
amendment does not apply to units that are defined as "Enterprises". The Mid Valley Metropolitan
District does not qualify as an "Enterprise" for the year ended December 31, 1998.
The amendment defined the District's year end, December 31, 1992, as the initial base year for
purposes of defining compliance with the amendment. The amendment defines infiation and local
growth. Future year's revenue, based upon prior year's revenue, is only allowed to increase based
upon the infiationary and local growth factors. Revenue received in excess of the prior year's revenue
must be refunded to the voters, unless the voters were to approve retention of the excess revenue by
the District. The District placed a question on the November, 1994 ballot that would permit the District
to keep and spend an additional sum of $ 750,000 during the years 1994 through 2004. These
revenues are to be generated from tap fees and normal operating income. The ballot language
specifies that there is to be no increase in the operating mill levy. The ballot question was approved by
the voters.
The amendment requires the District to establish an "Emergency Reserve" which must be equal to 3%
of current year's spending. Conditions under which these reserves may be spent are severely limited.
The District believes that it is in compliance with the provisions of TABOR, as it is currently
understood. Many of the provisions may not become fully understood without judicial review.
-13 -
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, BASALT, COLORADO
Notes to the financial statements
December 31, 1998
4. Other information (continued)
Contingent liabilities (continued)
Year 2000 issue
Like other organizations around the world, the District could be adversely affected if the computer
systems it uses and those used by significant third parties (e.g., vendors, and customers) do not
properly process and calculate date-related information and data. This is commonly known as the
"Year 2000 issue." Management is assessing its computer systems and business processes and
intends to initiate actions being taken by significant third parties that interface with the District. At this
time management is not able to determine the impact, including the costs of remediation, of the "Year
2000 issue" on the District.
Deferred compensation plan (IRS Code Section 403(b))
Beginning in 1994 a deferred compensation plan was provided to the District's employees. Under the
plan the District is not required to match the employee contributions. The District contributed $ 2,450
to the Plan during 1998
Provisions of the Plan require that all contributions be held by a Trustee and are no longer subject to
any claims by the District's creditors.
-14-
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
BASALT, COLORADO
Proprietary Fund -Enterprise Fund
Comparative Balance Sheets
December 31, 1998 and 1997
ASSETS AND OTHER DEBITS:
Current Assets:
Cash
Cash with county treasurer
Investments
Accounts receivable:
Property taxes
Customer
Sopris Meadows
System development fees
Developer water line reimbursement
Prepaid expenses
Total current assets
Restricted assets:
TABOR cash reserves
Investments
Total restricted assets
Fixed assets:
Land
Water rights
Water treatment plant and lines
Sewer treatment plant and lines
Irrigation systems
Furniture and fixtures
Accumulated depreciation
Total fixed assets
Other assets:
Water augmentation
Bond issue expenses
Amortization of bond issue expenses
Organization costs
Amortization of organization costs
Security deposits
Total other assets
TOTAL ASSETS
-15-
$
$
342,312 $ 381,656
1,669 1, 159
1,574,346 1, 160,249
257, 108 240,897
38,936 36,570
78,042
24,050 189,950
168,343 168,343
6,933 6,933
2,413,697 2,263,799
23,785 21,826
330,401 326,868
354, 186 348,694
303,487 303,487
87,000 87,000
2,925,491 2,577,284
3,118,401 2,667,579
124,458 124,458
12,209 10,364
6,571,046 5,770,172
(1,410,386) (1,200,305)
5,160,660 4,569,867
73,420 73,420
65,871 65,871
(17,964) (9,980)
44, 165 44,165
(15,456) (14,352)
675 675
150,711 159,799
8,079,254 $ 7,342, 159
(continued on next page)
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
BASALT, COLORADO
Proprietary Fund -Enterprise Fund
Comparative Balance Sheets
December 31 1998 and 1997
LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
LIABILITIES:
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable
Line deposits
Deferred revenue -property taxes
Accrued interest on bonds
Current portion of long-term debt
Total current liabilities
Long-term liabilities:
General obligation bonds -1996
Total liabilities
FUND EQUITY:
Contributed capital
Retained earnings (deficit)
Total fund equity
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY
-16-
$
$
13,299 $ 25,014
8,000 8,000
257,108 240,897
4,037 4,037
330,000 245,000
612.444 522,948
3, 130.000 3,460,000
3,742,444 3,982,948
7,760,555 6,918,302
(3,423,745) (3,559,091)
4,336.810 3,359,211
8,079,254 $ 7,342, 159
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. RECEIVED JUL
LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH
CYNTHIA C. TESTER
GREGORY J. HALL
DAVID H. McCONAUGHY
KELLYD.CAVE
DAVID A. MEISINGER*
TOM KINNEY
SUSAN W. LAATSCH
*Admitted in Wisconsin only
Commissioner John Martin
Commissioner Larry McCown
Commissioner Walt Stowe
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
July 9, 1999
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
109 Eighth Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Don Deford, Esq.
County Attorney
109 81h
Street, Suite 300
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Mark L. Bean, Director
Garfield County Building
& Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
1011 GRAND AVENUE
P. 0. DRAWER2030
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261
FAX: (970) 945-7336
ltlaw@sopris.net
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Re: Mid Valley Metropolitan District's Garfield County Service Plan
Dear Honorable Commissioners, Mr. DeFord and Mr. Bean:
I am writing on behalf of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District (hereinafter the "District")
which authorized this letter to the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners. The District
respectfully acknowledges the Board's denial of the Garfield County Service Plan on July 7, 1999.
After hearing the Commissioners concluding remarks, the District believes that one of the primary
reasons for the Board's denial was that Preshana Fanns and St. Finnebar would receive sewer service
from the Ranch at Roaring Fork, and thus central sewer service was available in the mid-valley area.
Since these two properties would be provided central sewer service, the Board determined that there
was no need to expand the District's service area.
As you know, the District has been diligently working with Preshana and St. Finnebar
regarding inclusion into the District. Even though the Board denied its expansion, the District wants
to make sure that the Ranch at Roaring Fork is able to reasonably provide sewer service to St.
Finnebar and Preshana. Therefore, the District respectfully requests the Board of Commissioners to
stay or postpone a written final decision on the Garfield County Service Plan to a later date to receive
additional information as to whether sewer service is truly available to Preshana Farms and St.
F: \1999\Letters-Memos\MVMD-BOCC-ltr -2. wpd
9 1999
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
Garfield County Board of County Commissioners
Page 2
July 9, 1999
Finnebar from the Ranch and Roaring Fork. Under C.R.S. § 32-1-204 (4), the board of county
commissioners shall advise the petitioners in writing of its action on the service plan within twenty
days after completion of the hearing. The District respectfully waives this right to a written
decision within twenty days to allow time (45 to 60 days) for the Ranch, Preshana and St.
Finnebar to reasonably negotiate contracts. If an agreement cannot be reached between the Ranch
and Preshana and St. Finnebar, the Board may wish to reconsider its vote on this matter. The
District believes such a postponement of the written decision of the Board on the Garfield County
Service Plan would be consistent with the comments from the Commissioners made at the Hearing
and allow for an informed decision on whether adeqirnte central sewer service options are available
in the mid-valley area of Garfield County.
It is the District's understanding of the law that the Board has the authority to reconsider the
initial vote made on July 7, 1999, by "motion to reconsider" made by one of the three Commissioners
presiding over Wednesday's Hearing.
It is also our understanding that prior to a final decision by the
Board, the Board is free to motion to re-open and continue the Hearing to a later date, under the
Special District Act, C.R.S. §32-1-202(1). The District respectfully urges you to consider this course
of action at the upcoming Board meeting on July 12, 1999.
Please call me or Lee Leavenworth if you have any questions in this regard.
Very truly yours,
Kelly D. Cave
KDC:lln
cc: Board of Directors. Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Kelly Mullane-Johnson, Administrator
David E. Leavenworth, Esq.
Tim Thulson, Esq.
Louis Meyer, P. E.
Herbert S. Klein, Esq.
Scott Miller, Esq.
Ronald
B. Liston
Douglas Pratte
F:\1999\Letters-Memos\MVMD-BOCC-ltr-2.wpd
JUL. b. lYYY 1:28PM LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C. NO. 1320 P. 2/16
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
LOY AL E. LEAVENWORTH
CYNTHIA C. TESToR
GREGORY J. HALL
DAVID H. McCONAUGHY
KELLY D. CAVE
DAVIO A. MEJSINGJ!R•
TOM KINNEY
SUSAN W. 1.AATSCH
"Admitl!:tl in Wisconsin anly
Mark L. Bean, Director
July 6, 1999
Garfield County Building & Planning Department
109 8th Street, Suite 303
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
IOI\ GRAND AVENUE
P. 0. DRA WB& lOJO
GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602
TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261
!'AX: (9711) 945-7336
ltlaw@sopris.net
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Re: Mjd Valley Metrqpolitan District's Garfield Cougzy Service Plan Supplemental
In formation
Dear Mark:
I am writing on behalf of Mid Valley Metropolitan District ("MVMD" or the "District")
to supplement the information for our presentation to the Garfield County Board of County
Commission.ers on July 7, 1999. Enclosed please find a copy of St. Finnbar Land Company's
Petition for Inclusion inco the District dated July 2, 1999. With this Petition for Inclusion, St.
Finnbar, Preshana, and Winter Green Homes/Mumbert Cerise Ranch (all located within the
proposed Garfield County area) have formally requested inclusion in the District for service.
Please feel free to call me with any questions regarding !his matter.
Very truly yours,
LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C.
LEL:lln L
cc: Don Deford, Esq., w/enc. /
Bob Szrot, w/enc.
Louis Meyer, P.E., w/enc.
Board of Directors, Mid Valley Metropolitan District, w/enc.
Kelly Mullane-Johnson, w/enc.
David E. Leavenworth, Esq., w/enc.
Douglas Pratte, w/enc.
Kt:vin Patrick, Esq. w I enc.
Ronald B. Liston, w/enc.
Tim Thulson, Esq., w/i:nc.
Herb Klein, Esq., w/cnc.
JUL. 6. 1999 1:28PM GARFLEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C.
IN THE MATTER OF:
MID VALLEY
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
COUNTY OF GARFIELD
STATE OF COLORADO
)
}
)
)
)
)
}
PEUUQN FOR INCLUSION
NO. 132QP·3P. 3/16
The undersigned, St. Finnbar Land Company, a Colorado corporation, (hereinafter
"Petitioner''), hereby respectfully petition the Mid Valley Metropolitan Dislrict f'District"), acting
by and through its Board ofDirectors, for the inclusion of the land described on Exhibit "A" attached
h=to and incorporated herein by this reference (the ''Property") in the Distriot.
The Petitioner represents t:o the District that it is the owner of one hundred percent (100%)
of the Property, that no other persons or entities own an interest therein except as beneficial holders
of encumbrances, and that no such beneficial holder has any right to object to such inclusion.
The Peti ti Oller represents that the Property is not currently within the boundaries of a special
district, a municipality, or a city md county with the power or ability to provide wastewater
treatment services.
The Petitioner represents that the Property is suited for, and appropriate to, receive the
services of the District.
The Petitioner acknowledges that the District is not required to e.nlarge or extend its facilities
or services beyond those cUIIently existing and that any enlargements or extensions necessary to
serve the Propeny will be undertaken only pursuant to a written agrc:emcnt.
Th.e Petitioner reserves the right to withdt'aw this Petition for Inclusion in the event a
mutually acceptable pre-inclusion agreement between the Petitioner and the District (the "Pre-
Inclusion Agreement'1 is not executed.
The Petitioner hereby requests that the Property be included in the District and that an Order
may be entered in the District Court in and for the County of Garfield, State of Colorado, including
the Property in the District, and that from and alter the entry of such Order, the Property shall be
liable for the full ad valotem mill levies from time to time levied by the District and the full
applicable specific ownership tax. The Property shall also be liable for ita proportionate share of
annual operation and maintenance charges and the cost of facilities and the taxes, rates, tolls,
charges, ssscssmenl!I certi.fied and levied or assessed therefor, as may be specified in the Pre-
I'nclusion Agreement. The Property shall also be subject to the District's rules and regulations as
validly promulgated and as amended from time to time.
The Petitioner hereby requests that the District publish notice of the filing of this Petition
and the plaee, time and date of the public meeting of the Board ofDirectors of the District at which
~-·JUL. b. l ~~~ e 1: C:YfMGAPFJLEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C. NO. 1320'-4 P. 4/16
P.EI~
~
tbia fodtioi\ mJ 'be laeard. AzY hcleiel'!L4 pllnOllJ sball appeer at m litll• ell plue dsho1V
llllUr;I! In 'Wrilizia w:br die l'IRiliosl UOllld.avt ~' 8lJliii"d.
S*n.imd 'lhlll ~ -~ 1999.
STAT.BO!' 4vmzcgr )
) 88, . cOimrY OF fi«1e1€~'a . ) . ·
. . ' . . . . 'The~ Mtlm f'ot Jnchmiot. WN .:klloW11dae4 )JdxelU tJdS _p?~d&y
otzJr-ly ,.19",ily,#?a A. ~1e)w' ofSt.:PifUarl.mldCampuy.
WilPa 'flllt u=1S111ii£5cial "'8L ·
My eamn:alalw ea:pae11:
,rll
' =-• ...1 ·o::C • l"'!L.I
...
•••
'I u l.
· )_l{_L. __ 6. !_9_99 Ll :_2_9PM GARf"lLEAVENWORTH & TESTER
2. 1999 I l: 36AM COMMON" W~ALl'll 1'llU, '
P. C. Na. 1238 N0 .. !320:.sP. 5/16 ·.·
' ' ' ,
-·
. ~
-. • •
..
•'
l,
'
·.
, i!!!!Bt'l' A
PROPERTf gBSCl\]:P'l!ION
A pGrcal ot land aitoated in Lot• &, 12, lJ, an~ 19 0£
Section 31, 'l'awnShip 7 South, ~an9a 97 llll9t of t~ s••th
Prindp~l Merldlan, Gar!ield Co1111ty, Col.,ndo. sdd. !"'.r:llel be.l.nq
""'te po::tiQularli de•url.lled a• foll"""''·
D•~.l.nnl.n9 at. • reba" ~n.! c .. p Mo:ltod L.S. 19591, wh .. nc" the
"'.LtM•s c:airnw.r to i.b'fl' 110.;-1:.lioaet: i:::o:na.d' of DaJ.d Se"l:.J.on JL bes:•
~o<•h 41'08'04' ia1t, l20J.06 leet;
thenca aoueh l!'l7 1
27• we.~, 1J04 ·'' feet,
thence.Sollttr. 2j•4a•H• lleet, 80.58 feet;
·thence souer1 3&'.D4 '4S• 11..a•, u.u feet to tlle centerline ot tlle
RoaJ;".1.ng ro~lr n.l.vcu:: ·
t!!Gnca the follovi~q elg~~ course• ~lon9 •aid centatlLnA of
r.i•ci~•
lJ Nor;t~ &5'57'30" 11 .. e, .s&.75 ·ra .. t,
2) 11o .. th s1'u·u· Heat,. 319.n Eon,.
· l) ll•cth 6&'50' ll' Woet, 203.3! foet,
41 North 7S'll'Jl'. West, 272.62 faet.
·S) lloi;tll 14'2S'20" Wost, 251,22 bet,
GJ · llO~h B7'H' U' llesc., · 22J.18 £aai:,
7) llortll OB'JO' lS· Nut, l46 .12 teat,
SJ. llorth 6~"51·2s• !Iese, 120,15 feat.;
tlla..ce leo•ing ..aid cen•edine Horen OO'JD'Oo• Weot, UJ.20 faet:
thcnca south 8S'l1•40' Nest, 4!9,8! fqct:
tll•~"" NO<'th OO'OO'Jl• ll•u, 1273.0' £eet1
·t~•nce Nn~th·l9'l1'07• !ast, 471.Je feet;
~hvn~B NQ~tb oo·ao·1a~ Saat, 262.17 twe~;
th•nae Sou1'1t 76'47'40' B~•t, 10J9.7l feet;
· tnenca south 13"12•20· weot, 12D,OO tee•;
I.hence South 81'01'17" lase., 29S.92 fee<;
•henca,so~th 41'30.'29' ~···· "·'' r ..... , th.enc• south s2•i1e•4&'" icaat, l73.ta t.a•t;
tbenn uo11tb 77'4~'52' £au, 311,ot fHI.;
tltence·soutb 7l'H'J2• tast, IJG.J4 teet to th• point o( ·.
lleqlnnlng.
Toqe.,.har wlth aU 0£ Or.•nt~r'~ r!.9ht, <1<1• •nd !.Ut<lr"•t Ill·
ond. r.a a pel'pac.l.laJ. ea•e111en.t. 1'bii:I\ .11 d•.=;r;illecl a• Pa('ceJ. ·e~· . .Ln
'he ~<J-c:'IGll"oW~e., EaOeJft•ht. C:~.an' an•J Mutual neL9#1.SQ te(.lnt6tlpd
· o~tob•~ l2, Ua& in auok 691 ·~ Ja~• 61& unll•r Racep~!.un ,
No. 31~55& i11 the ~o~ord' qC Ch~ CocLLeld Ca111••r, t:uloco•I" CL•z:k
end Recorder, a~r.ept t~~~ po~•lon ot·sald Parcwl •a• ~b>ch .
crant.ur eiga1..,eyed '"' llalph i,. aaiiai.·htn by *'•l'~lnt.y Oee\I i:wc:jJ!i:U.ed
DcJt:en1be.: 7, 1987 ln IJaok; 745 ·at P~9• ''1 uncle' Rac•.,1..i.v11
r-io. l8807l .i.n oai~ eecocd•· ... · ·. •• .. .....
"
·.~._7
'.·'
' '
···----·----·-······' ....... ~ .......... -........... -· ··-'';"'' ·~-'
···-... __ , ...... , ....... .
/U~. 6. 1999r 1:29PMN (I. '"LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C. ,,.,.
HeRlil!FIT S. Kl..Ell<
MIU.AflO J. 21Ml!'1"
OFCOUNSEW
.l'OQUE!..INll L. ia.\RONER
"al!lo adtrllled Ir New 'liirl<
Garfield County
1'P!OFE&$JONAL OOl'IFOAATION
ATTOFINEYS AT LAW
JUly a, 1999
Board of County Commissioners
109 8°0 Street
Glen~ood Springs, CO 61S01
Mark !lean
Garfield County Planning Office
l09 s'" Street
Gle:mrood Springs, co 81601
201 NORT1i MILL Sl'PEel'
SlJTC:co:i
A$Pl;.'I, COLOl'AOO s1a11
1"Cl.: (07QJ G~e-87e0
AA)(; (9701 r;a~.oon
Re: Mid-Valley Met~opolitan District service Plan Amendment
Dear Honorable Commissioners:
! am writing on behalf of Aspen Equestrian Estates, LLC, the
cont !:'act p1.lrcbaser of Presl\ana ii' arms. My cli~nt has closed i'n
escr·:iw on its acquisition of this property ano. the i!.C:tual recording
of il:a deed will occur and July 22, 1999. Aspen Equeetr:l.an Eatl!tti'!s
a.nti:ipa.tes obtaining sewer service from the Mid•valley
Metr;Jpolitan Dist;riot { "MVMD") whose ability to provide that
servLce is dependant upcn your approval of an amendment to its
service plan. Your 11.earing and deliberation on that application
will odour on July 7, 1999. I would appreciate this letter being
made part of the record and your consideration of tho points raised
her .. ln.
Preshana Farms :received a P. u. D. approval from Garfield County
whic:1 :i:-equi:r:ed that it dernonstratei the ability to have sew,.r
serv.Lce p;,:ovided 'from a wastewaeer i:aaility district or owner. "
"Sue;, ooittract @hall provide a mechanism which the residents of the
li'reshana li'arns P.U.D. will participate in the operation of the
W"ast1ewater facility." (ConcU tion No. 3, Garfielcl County
Commissioner Resolution No. 98-11 Approving Modifications to P.O'.!l.
Re:a:oning Plans for Preshana Farm" P.U.1'.). This condition was to
have been satisfied not later than Febr-~ary 9, 1999. Your Board
extemied the dat:e for sat:isfac:tion of thiE1 cond.1!:1on 1,mtil October
4, 1999, based upon our demonstration to you i:ha.~ we have been
working W"ith great diligence and at suh~tantial expensa to obtain
the agreement J;y M'.IMD to serve Preehana ll'arms. lll the absence of
comp;~;;..,,nc:e with this requirem1mt, my client could lose t.he :benefits
of the P. U. D. ;.pproval and be exposed to a isubetantial reduction in
the 47 single family reeidential units approved under the :rr.IJ.o.
Garfield CoUl'lty Board ot County Colllll\issioners
Garfield County Planning Office
July 2, 1999
Pa.ge 2
u;NO. 132012,; P. 7/16
pla.n. A!!! we demonstrated to you when you app;-oved the exten3i<:m in
a satisfa.otion date for tbis resolution, substantial efforts have
bQQn ""'1Q.Qrta~Qr. by my ol~ent in ordQr to sat~sfy ~hie oondition and
the J<!VMO application is the direct result of my client's .,!forts to
obtain the wastewater treatment that this condition requires.
As MVMD now comes before you for ;in amendment to its service
plan necessary to provide the wastew~ter treatment requtred under
the P.U.rl, condition, there has been opposition to this plan
voi1nd by certain memloers of the community who would prefer that
grow~h be limited. They argue that for environmental reasons you
should not approve the service plan amendment. 'I"he substance of
their lll"9'\ll11ent is that if reliable sewer treatment infrastructure
is e;,tendeC. in the valley, you will lose YQU!:' control over land use
deci;ions. Thev fear that the existence of this infrastructul:'e
will cause you to disregard ~he ~omprehensive Plan and approve up-
zoni::i.gs whel:'ever propel:'ties can :Ce set"V"ed. by public sewer treatment
faci.Litiee. Opponents of the M1IMD proposal have turned. what is a
wate::-quality issue into a :r;iolitical/lmd use issue .
. we strongly beli .. ve that water quality is of paramount
impo:rtance in this debate and. that ill the absence of a public sewer
trea,:ment infrastruoture, individual sewer treatment facilities
rang:ing fr= small padcage plants t:o individual Hptic systems will
proliferate in the valley. Properties which have curren~ i!Oning
are 1antitled to develop unlier their zoned densities anli if public
sewe:: facilities are not availabls to them, they will have the
leg~l and phy•ical ability to construct private systems, The
engineering-experta who will provide information to yo\l at your
hear:L:c.g will clearly indicate that the proliferation of individual
private systems is likely to have a damaging effect on water
q\Ul.lity. All of the experts agree that from a water quality
pere1,ective, t:.hc beet way to aeaure water quality iii ii publically
owned wastewater treatment facility.
MY client expects that the Board will make its decision on the
MVM:l plan baaed upon water quality considerations and that it: will
not ;1cknowlease cha fears of the opponents of thie plan that the
Board will be unable to resist the pleas of the developer~ 11eeking
to up-zonEi! their p;i;-operty ai:nply beca:\lse sewer sarvica is
avai:.able. We have far more c:onfidenc:e in your decision-making
p:roc .. ss and the integrity cf yol,l.r existing plans, regulation• emd
polic:ielil than do the opponents of this plilll-Your comprehensive
-·
, ' JY~~· .. ?:~.1.~g9, _!.: 3Q£.'A, • ''"LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C. ~s
Garfield county Board of County commissio~ers
Garfield County Pla."lning Office
J1Jly 2, lSiHl
Page 3
isNO. 13201~e P. 8/16
Plan disi;ourages the proliferation cf individ\lal septic syeteTr.s a.nd
enccllrages ccnsolid;i.tion gf wastewater treatment facilities. You
have il~Sltantial guidance on this i!OliUlll and a refusal to allow
eervice by the Mlll-m will run counter to your astablished plans,
goals ll..!l.d guidelineli.
J'rom my client's perspecti v111, we would vii;iw your denial o:E the
MIJl.1.0 proposal as a frustration of our ability to comply with the
conditions under the ~.U.D. agreement. While the condition states
that JOewer 1Hl:'Vice could be provided either by • w111.stewater
facility district •or owner", the requirement that there be a
mechanism for participation by the residents of PreShana Parms in
the ~peraticn of wastewater facility will be difficult to achieve
in an agreement with a private owner cf a wastewater facility. In
ccnt~ast, participation in the operation of a facility if it is
owne•i by a public special dist:dct is assured. Therefore, th.Ii!
te:::m~ of the condition lead us to believe that your preference ai:
the time of imposing theee conditions wa.s that we obtain seririce
from a public entity. '!'hat is precisely what we have been pursuing
with MVl<ID fo~ the past year.
We sti:ongly urge you to support the r.M!D plan and if it is not
acceptable to you precisely in the form it is submitted, to
cons:Lder appropriate conditions which will harmonize the g-rowth
~onc.~rns of the opponents with the elee.r publir.;: policy of achieving
and protec~ing tha high water quality of the Roaring Fork River.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our concerns.
very truly ygura,
s;\..,irberq\pr••~\02S.~...-
7-0eJUL. 6. 19991f 1 :30PMF1=1otv1LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C. ~3 449 6227
To:
Company:
Fax No.:
from:
Date:
Pages:
Wells, Love & Scoby, LLC
Attomeys at Law
225 Canyon Blvd Boulder, CO 80302
Tel: (303) 449-4400 Fax: (303) 449-6227
Facsimile Transmission
Mark Bean, Director of Planning & Building·
Garfield County
1-970-945-7785
David E. Leavenworth
July 6, 1999
4
(Including this cover page)
NO. 1320 P. 9/16
Message: Please see the attached letter to Hardin Holme5 regarding our '"negotiations" with
the Ranch at Roari.ng Fork. As I believe you are aware, our firm is representing the Mid Valley
Metropolitan .District in certain aspectS of its negotiations with the Ranch regarding possible
consolidation ofwa.stewater treatment taciliries. The District has requested that I forward a copy
of this letter to you in light of the recent statements made by Michael Gerber in bis June 24, 1999
letter to Leavenworth & Tester, which was copied to the Board of County Commissioners and
which has been included on page 32 of their public hearing packet.
If you have any questions reganfing it, please feel free to call me.
Caaficleadalhy Slalcmat
This fllosimil~ meuop contains information which is atlonley.pri>ileged and c;onMential, mid \\!lich is intended !lJr I.be :iole
-of lhM: •bovo-111!11l.CCl .... ~picnL 1! yoo arc nol the intcuL:d rccipi<nt, you arc notified Iha! any di.....w.atJ.on, distribution or
"'!'Ying of this '""""'uni""'ion is strictly prohlbiuid. T!you haw Teooivcd this eomrounicalicm in mor. pies .. iznmodiately
110tify Wells, Love A Scolly, LLC. by telcpholu>, llftd rct1lm llbe origjnal m~ ro Wcll!i, Low & Scuby, U.C ol 22S Canyon
Blvd., Boul<L:r, CO 80302 via Ilk IJnjt.md sum:. Postal s.m.... y.., will be: r~ b' your reuonable IO!cphone and
mailing eO\llS iu®md. in complying w:ilh 1he1JO rewm iMtructiOD$. TbDGk Yoll-
7--0eJUL. 6. !99931 1: 30PM FROMLEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C. a3 .:1..:1.s 6227
C;lr,1110 ~. WELLS
YW'IU..1A1¥1 A. LOVI:
TERR'I' w. si:eev
C~).jt; N. 111.,QC~WICJ(
El:IWARO I.. Sl!A'lfil
Ci. f'l'!NRY ~It.A.Ka
GAl\Y 9, ClolC:t:io.
WEL.LS, LOVE & SCOBY, Ll..C
,w~ "'.Lt,,,,
~!I .C.t.N ... QN 80ULEV,&RO
aoul.b•A. COLQAACllO !ilo:JOZ
T£LLPMON!it ~.11.r.o..c14.0(I
Tl!!:UCOPllEff ~2/114111~::.27
July 6, 1999
NO. 1320 P. 10/16
o.-.v1g c.. l.~'llEMWOi:t'rl1
Gi.J!N ... lltttAl'flt!NDUM'-
Via U.S. Mail and facsimile to 303-6:28-3729
Mr. Hardin Holmes
Ireland Stapleton Pryor & Pascoe, P.C.
1675 Broadway, 26"' Floor
Denver, CO 80202--4716
Re: Wastewater Treatment Consolidation
Dear Mr. Holmes:
Enclosed is a copy of the June 24, 1999 letter from Michael Gerber, Chainnan of the Board
of Directors of the 'Ranch ac Roaring Forlc Homeowners' Association to Leavenwonh & Tester,
P.C. dated June 24, 1999 which we discussed last Wednesday. I must reiterate that Michael
Gerber's letter, and its tone, do not, in my view, assist consolidation negotiations between Mid
Valley Metropolitan District and the Ranch in any way and may, in faet, prove counterproductive.
Frankly, it also leaves us wondering whether the Ranch intends to respond to the Mid Valley's
latest offer at all.
Approximately three weeks ago, you reconfirmed the intention you have expressed to me
for several rnonths now, to prepllre a counter-propo:>al to the last Mid Valley propow to the Ranch
at Roaring Fork. You funher indicated at that time that we could expect ro receive the Ranch's
counter-proposal before Mid Valley's July 7, 1999 hearing with the Garfield County Board of
County Commissioners to discuss the Mid Valley's proposed Gariield County Service Plan. It is
now. apparent that no such counter-proposal will be forthcoming before that meeting as promised.
We take exception to the asserlion made in Michael Gerber's letter to Leavenworth &.
Tester (and by copy also made to the Boatd of County Commissioners of Garfield County) that
"the Board of[the Ranch] Homeowners Association {has] negotiated with the Mid Valley
Metropolicin District with a view to con501idating [the Ranch's and Mid Valley's] wasiewater
treatment services." In our opinion, this statement is simply not ttue.. While it is true that
discussions between the Ranch Board and the Mid Valley Board have occurred over the last iwo
years. the Ranch Boa.rd has yet to enter meaningful negotiations with Mid Valley. The Mid Valley
Board of Directors has in good faith made two serious written consolidation offers to the Ranch,
neither of which has received a serious written response or counter·proposal of any kind, despite
repeated requestS by Mid Valley that the Ranch respond.
After months of meetings and informal discussions during the summer ofl 998, Mid Valley
fir.;t provided an offer to the Ranch to consolidate wastewater treattnent &cilities by letter dated
October 30, 1998. Louis Meyer, Mid Valley's District Engineer, and I, personally attended and
7-.0eJUL. 6. 199931 I :31PM f"ROtJLEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C. ~3 44.9 6227 NO. 1320 P. 11/16
presented that proposal to the Ranch' .Board of Directors. My subsequent requests in discussions
with both you and Michael Gerber in December for a qualir.ative response indicating the Ranch's
position regarding Mid Valley's offer went unh~ded.
On December 16, 1998 during a conference call attended by Michael Gerber, George
Hoffenbeck and yourself, representing the Ranch, and Theodore Guy and Jeny Burnaman,
representing Mid Valley, among othefs, the general nature of the-lunch's concerns Wefe finally
clarified, but the discussion again left unclear what the Ranch preferred. It 'MIS clear that the site
Mid Valley had chosen was considered problematic. The Ranch also made clear that it believed
time iNas of the essence. Your expressed concern that Mid Valley's plans involved too many
unknowns, particularly in the context of the many required loci! and state approvals, was
understandable. The only issue really clarified, however, was that the Ranch preferred an alternate
site -a site with potentially significant wetland concerns. At the conclusion of that telephone
conference,
the Mid Valley Board agreed to direct its engineer to investigate the Ranch's prefeired
alternate site. Mid Valley further suggested proceeding with certain procedural applications, such
as a service plan amendment and a 404 pennit. to resolve some of the unceminties of concern to
the Ra.ti.ch.
During a subsequent telephone conference between you, Michael Gerber and myself on
January 8, 1999, you informed me rhat me Ranch obj~ted to Mid Valley's plan to proceed, at its
own e"Pense, with a 404 pennit application to determine the extent of wetlands mitigation.
requirements on the Ranch's preferred site. As a consequence, the extent of wetlands mitigation
requirements remains unresolved. As you know, the Ranch has also objected to Mid Valley's
attempt to clarify its ability to perform by submitting a service plan to Garfield County for
planning consideration.
On January .17, 1999, Michael Gerber and Charles Holloway, President of the Ranch ac
Roaring fork Hoineo'Mlers Association, finally wrote to Mid Valley i11 response to its October 30,
1998 offer. rejecting the offer. The Ranch's January 17 letter stated only that the .Board believed
the Ranch homeowners would reject the October 30 offer if presented without change. The Ranch
pt"esented no counter-offer or meaningful suggestions es to what would be acceptable to the
Ranch.
On January 26, during a telephone CQnference between you, Michael Gerber and myself;
you advised that you believed that direct disc~ons v.ith the developel' with wbom Mid Valley
has contracted to provide westewatei-treatment services could be more fruitful. fn an attempt to
salvage the negotiations Mid Valley consented and arranged to have Art Kleinstein of Wintergreen
Homes meet privately with you. He later reported that he also could not advise what exactly
would be required to obtain Ranch approval of consolidation.
On February 19, 1999, the Mid Valley Board wrote to the Ranch and proposed a new offer
to the Ranch attempting to address what the Mid V:illey Board understood to be the Ranch ·s
principal concerns. Most significantly, Mid Valley agreed to accept the Ranch's preferred site
despite the
likelihood of wetland mitigation requirements and to limit the proposed plant to sub-
regional capacity.
On March 5. 1999 you advised that concerns remained with the selected site. As r
understood it, the new concerns primarily involved the size of the site and the fear that Mid Valley
would later seek to significantly eii:pand the site. You further requested that Mid Valley and the
7-.0EJUL, 6. 1999a1 I :31PM FROt--LEAVENWORTH & TESTER. P. C. a3 .149 6227 NO. 1320 P. 12/16
Ranch's engineers be allowed to resolve certain site specific concerns directly between
themselves. A!. you know, Mid Valley consented to our engineers working directly to resolve site
specific concerns. In addition, on May ZO, 1999, Theodote K. Guy, President of the Mid Valley
Board of Directors. again wrote to the Board of Directors of the Ranch to clarify and modify Mid
Valley's February 19, 1999 consolidation offer. Specifically. Mid Valley agreed to reduce the
acreage required for the site and agreed to contractually 1:ommit not to expand the site in the
future.
Now we are advised that a formal written counter-proposal from the Ranch to Mid Valley's
latest offer will not be forthcoming, despite your repeated assurances that the Ranch would
respond.
As you have requested,. I will forward to the Mid Valley Board o{Directora your latest
request that Mid Valley provide the Ranch Board with a .finn date by which service could be
assumed available through consolidation, but as I have now stated on several occasions, I seriously
doubt that they will respond. The Mid Valley Board has, as you know, previously expressed its
unwillingpess to negotiate further with i!Self and I am sure this request will be viewed in that light.
Finally, I would appreciate you passing on ta the Ranch Board my personal belief that if
the Ranch Board chooses to wait until it has received site applio=ation approval from·the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Envfronment before further responding to Mid Valley's
consolidation proposals, as you indicated they may, it will likely put at risk the possibility of
serious future negotiations. It would be ntremely difficult to view such a decision as one made in
gQOd faith.
We request again that the Ranch BOOl'd provide Mid Valley a counter·proposal for
consideration. The counte!'-proposal must be received no Jar.er than Thui:sday, July 15, 1999 to
allow consideration by the Mid Valley Board at its next regular meeting. If the Ranch Board is
unable or unwilling to do so, we request that the Raneh Board take the action it indicated to us
some months ago that it would take if it could not reach a decision regarding consolidation, and
for:ward the Mid Valley proposal to the Ranch homeowners for their direct consideration. We are,
of course, aware that Michael Gerber has forwarded his June 24 letter to the R.a.nch homeowners
along with a brief and incomplete description of Mid Valley· s offer to the Ranch. The Ranch's
failure to mention in its undated newsletter to its homeowners that Mid Valley was offering free
taps to all existing homeowners borders, in my view, on bad .filith. This newsletter also can only
leave us questioning whether the Ranch is negotiating in good faith. If Mid Valley's proposal can
not be objectively and accurately presented to the Ranch membership, the Mid Valley Board has
made clear iis intention to do so itse1£ I would hope that would not be necessary.
cc: Board of Directors, Mid Valley Metropolitan District
s-d of County Commissioners, Oarl!eld Couniy
Marie &all, Garlield CoW1ty Building It. Planning
Loyal Leavenworth, Leavenworth 8r. Tit.lier, P.C.
Vf'l)Tru,ly g S:--
~feav""en=WOit=hc:----...
David Akers, Water Quality Control DivisiolL CI>PH&E
Dwain P. Watson. Environmental Proteet.ion Specialist, CDPH.lE
Tom Bonoctt, Senior Water Quality Planner, CDPH&f
JUL-J UL. b. I ~ ~ ~3 I : J lP M lEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C.
I
'
Rec:entlr yav 14C!liwld a celrtllled fell.ar l'ram tile attorneys rJ ltle Mia Vaky
McetQpofi!.1111 Oi:s1rid CIMc:elnillQ JOI&" (ee!lngs llbou\ IJejng S411'Vi!d by II ptOposed
mcpen$iatt at Mid Va~ 5llt'tice -· That lel!.ef llso ~Ills! !hat if you
dldn'l i9ply In 1111!1 negatlw, tf1eY woukl re;og111ze your lack ti 1 raply as a
pc$1MI lfldlellllol'l 1111111"111 """"' fnlai >ti in Ceing S8M!d lly Mi4 Vlllfey.
Tfl• ~ Of 1lllS ll8ltel' is'tri lhllP you undentlnd wmt Is ra me and lo
~you to respund to die c:llallenge 'M! are Jadng.
All :ww ~ i.en •miiidi111'*11111 Ille Wrclgl«r, Ille 11t1111J he been In
dhO"Sio'lS wlltl Mlct Wley flit ll'lll9 !Nn a '/Qt. They 11211e;~ IO tx.ild
1111.4 milfGn galkJn Pl' Oly plwt1t an OQr property· ~ fO:seMI a
pcoulaflon of 1a.ooo people. Tiie pf:am they want to llul'ld is ~a limes larger
man our ~ plai!t. Upoo Ollf' reNs:aJ. tllay c-;arne badt With a modified plan
10 butld a '400,000 galtcm plant on our ~rty • on a site lh1t coUlc:I tie
elqlll1ded ID f ,..00,000 gellans. We believe the inlent is
to nmke111e Flanc:lt O Raar1nv Fort Ille re~nt o1 an m11: ~e llllSfl8•m c1
llS ICI Sasllt
TIN tact Ja Oteta -S ore majcr ~ gf land ~en rne'Randl :Ind El
Jebll wilOS8 lfevelaglMftt pGi'18 camct ba ·~ lllllil tn~ haw wastewllm'
sel\'fce. One ptn:el. Ille ce.twJ Ra.tdl, is 2Q!llyi!!Q fer a major;-In
housing deltsCr Ind II Oley C8il be guaral'lteed ..,... water S41Mte. their
•pplle8llolt 11111 l'ftaiW c:llll1Sldemior cy tne C®nly CommlsslonetS. We do ITOI
well! la e~ wlde:sp1 cad development in I.lie VaUey. A3 1ne ;mom Slates,
if you Dulld ii. Ille)' will ctme.
Our ,.... l'cals Is not !IV muc:ii fg n:ts1st developmei1C as ft ~ ic '""""" 111.11
llll•litr al life that• 1111 CUll'elllly wijqo. WOuld You Dice to se11 >11 rnajor
MW91' ll'Ulrll'Sl1C plant on ou•·1Htaperty, CCntplate wllft S/Udg&-rBlring lludl$
an<t Ille l)OSSlbillty of lllQl'll, smll'ld gr QlfQr intrusion? The Rarn:fi Cl ~oa!Mg
Fonr ha Is gwrn p1.n 11111111ovatellljldate our wastW'tler ln!alln"11t biol'rty.
. Tiie nnanc:ino ha ~ 'WI ailed, b.11 lhe ~ nas been adY1lQl!ng lhal we
J0111 Mid Valley • e mlllilr llf •CIOllSGlidallOll".
T1lete -1-.:i ~ Ulef yau sn di! to help insure lhe prllftrmi'OIT ut your
eavRnment and the ~ ar your prope11y valun. T) Came kr Ille Ciiunl)'
CO<rlmdaianel"• l!Metina on .i.Jr 1111 ar a:ao a.m. 11 Ille~ in GI~
•lld 8&1pPoff our~-•l"I wlfl Dill .elllnfl fOl1n lite R.ailell's.gppo::siliurt ID
11111 Pltll' lad bpMSICn Ind 2) Si;n. es • ~r Of Iha ~nl:ll's po:sitiofl
Ill •ad in Iii. 9lldclsed leuertD the~--
W. cannot ovenlllfe Ille 1mpol1ano: ot llU matter. Please grte< It You ptURlll
•"'2 utmast llhl11tiDn.
97092~NO. 13201".lilp, 13/16
TOTAL P.02
JUL. 6. 1999 1:32PM LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. C.
July 1, 1999
Garfield Board of CoUllty Commissioners
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81610
NO. 1320 P. 14/16
re: MVMD Garfield County Service Plan relationship to Garfield County
Comprehensive Plan
Dear Commissioners:
A:; you know from Planning Commission discussions, numerous newspaper articles, and
personal conversations, there are many people who anticipate land use cltanges based on
the provision of water and wasr.e water services by the Mid Valley Metro Disuict to.the
Garfield County region between El Jebel and Catherines Store Road. To address the
Garfield County Service Plan proposal as it might affect land use, the folloWing is a.ii
observation of how the extension of waste water and water services into Garfield ,
County by the Mid Valley Metro District (MVMD) will affect the ability of land devel-
opment/land. conservation proposals to meet the Garlield County Comprehensive Plan.
We feel that the Mid Valley Metro District's proactive response to providing environ-
menrally sound waste water treatment and water distribution to future growth areas,
even at a Comprehensive Plan level of density, will insure that there is flexibility in
future land use proposals to meet the goals and objectives outlined in the
Comprehensive Plan.
The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan has a housing goal that seeks. to provide all
types of housing ensuring lhat current and fu'ture residents have equitable housing
opportwrities which are designed to provide safe, efficient residential stnictures that are
compatible with and protect the natural envirownenL The current i:oning for this ser-
vice plan area allows minin11,1m lot sizes of two acres without ccnttal water and sewer. It ·
is. impossible to create a diversity of housing types with this lot size. To insure a mix of
housing types and affordability, a variety of lot sizes and unit types are req!rired .. As.
well. if there is to be any opportunity for on site affordable housing mitigation, smaller ·
single family lots and multi family units will be needed. These afforoable units will
requite centnl water and sewer. The MVMD service plan proposal leaves (iarfield ·
County with the fleubility to meet ii.$ housing goals as it reviews land use application:;
trying to meet their new affonfable housing guidelines for this area in the future.
' . . ' . .
The transportation goal includes options for the use of modes other than. the single occu-
pant automobile. Tue majority of the proposed service plan resides on the Roaring Fork
~"@~
post office box 1<77 ·
1002 IDurm 1111•
bofal~ colorodo 81621
phone (970) 9l7-3690
, •• (970) 9274261
l111.dstudiofilcomp1serve.~m
...
. · .. ·.
LEAVENWOKTH & TESTEl P. ~ NO. lJ2U P. 15/16
1 11 n. rJ, 1 ~ g p 1 a ,. a It i 1 t: ct • r' I a 111 J p la 11 11 ; n 1. ,; , ,,. 111 • ,, ~ 1 1 pl 11 " "i rt t
valley floor contiguous to the transit corridor Highway 82. No matter what the density
of land use proposals approved in this area. all lands that are contiguous with the transit
corridor will have the opportunity to coordinate transit .nops with the Roaring Fode:
Transit Agency or whatever transit entity is in place in the future. This benefit will give
people an alternative to driving in single occupant automobiles. The upper end of this
service plan is also within 1 1/2 miles of the major RFI'A park and ride facility in EI
Jebel. Short coltlmutes to transit centers from this service plan area will afford people
alternative modes of transportation.
The reell:ation, open space, trails, and agricultural preservation goals in the
Comprehensive Plan relate ta the promotion and retention of these land uses in.Gar:field
County. Clustering development on lots smaller than two acres with central water and
· sewer retains or creates open space, recreation, and agricultural land Illies by giving
landowners the flexibility to cluster development off lands apPtopriate for open' space.
Subdivisions with two acre lots, individual sewage disposal systems, and individual
wells will not promote the clustering of development due to engineering considerations
for the seperation of wells and septic. Again, the MVMD service plan will give _
Garfield County the flexij>ility to meet its open space, mils, recreation, and agricnltural
preservation goals.
The'water and sewer services goal pursues the provision of legal, adi:quare; dependable,
cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and war.er services for new develop-
ment. The MVMD has looked at the economics of waste water ireaunent and water dis-
tribution at a variecy of densities including the Comprehensive Plan density. It is their
opinion that it is economically viable to construct, maintak. and operate these. facilities
at comprehensive plan densities. Higher than comprehensive plan densities aie not ·
required for this proposed service plan leaving any comprehensive plan aniendinents to
the discretion of the Garfield County Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners in future land use processes.
The MVMD service plan proposal to build, operate, and maintain a ~te water facility
is an environmentally sound alternative to waste water treatment versus the proliferation
of individual septic systems on the valley floor even at comprehensive plan densities.
Goals in the Comprehensive Plan relating to the natura1 environment encourage land use
patterns that recognize the environmental sensitivity of the land, and are in the best
interest of the he2ilh, safety, and welfare of Garft.eld County. Again, elwtering develop-
ment away from environmentilly sensitive areas and avoiding the use of individual
sewage disposal systems works towards meeting this goal.
posl office l>o• 107
JQ02 lmuen W.c
b:uol~ ovlorado 81621
phono (970) 927-3690
f1lll (970) 927 4261
lllldslUdio@eompus""'o."""'
"
·:'
' -... ~·.
"'
<!UJ.i, U. ijjj l, JJf!Yl
\. NU. !3lU f, l Ii/ l Ii .. :-. .· ,_ ..
As written in an article regarding the expansion of water utilities from a BBC Research
and Consulting Newsletter entitled Does Developmem Drive Growth?; ·
"BBC eJCamined specific case studies throughout the west and specific conditions
in Mesa County. Case studies nationwide revealed that anticipated growth would
still occur if the (water) pipeline were not expanded, but in unpredictable pat-
terns and undesirable locations from a public planning standpoint."
"When water utilities take a proactive stance .and develop water infrastructure in
advance of growth, they are often simply responding to migration trends forcast-
cd by state and local governments responsible for land use planning."
· Again, based on the above observations, we believe that Mid Valley Metro District's
proactive response to providing environmentally sound waste water treatment and water
distribution to future growth areas, even at a Comprehensive Plan )evel of density, will
insure that there is flexibility in future land use prop0sals to meet the goals and objec-
tives outlined
in the Comprehensive Plan. ·
Cum:ntly the Land Studio is working on land development and land conservation pro-
jects in Garfield County. Some of these projects reside within the service plan area pro-·
posed by MVMD and some lie outside of this area. This information is not designed to ·
influence your decision regarding land use issues, but to let you know bow· a planner
worldng with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan can better meet the goals and
objectives in this document w:ith the provision CJf water and waste water services to the
service plan region. ·
Please find enclosed a copy of the quoted BBC Research and Consulting Article so you
can review the context in which the above statements were made. . We appreciat.e your
attention to this issue. · ·
Respectfully,
The Land Studio
by: (~ Dougfa$~Pratte
'•
post.office boJ< 107
10021 ....... n lime
bual~ oolcrado 81621
pa-(970) 927-3690
t.x (970) 927-4261
ianditudlo@~c.>111
. ·.';