HomeMy WebLinkAbout1.0 ApplicationOW
40/- 4449. !�
zh-d
1
Ile
a
1
'�-- �y1i�9rrr% - o�' lS� T+��nCt �`/6✓I -
/.iG!d� ,�G.2ou.�S-dfi' �7207w✓!1T-"'L, .
._
Z,5�� -- sllilg-5-
FA
ROBERT DELANEY
KENNETH SALCOMB
JOHN A. THULSON
EDWARD MULMALL. JR.
ROBERT C. CUTTER
SCOTT M. 9ALCOMS
DAVID R. STURGES
LAWRENCE R. GREEN
SCOTT MCINNIS
PAMELA H. PRESCOTT
J DELANEY & BALCOMH, P. a
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
DRAWER 790
GT.S. ooD Sp8 as. COLUBAnp B10o2
February 7;. 1985
Board of County of Commissioners
Courthouse
109 8th Street
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
RE: Landis Sanitation District
Gentlemen:
918 COLORADO AVENUE
945-9546
TELEPHONE
945-2371
AREA CODE 303
Please find enclosed three (3) copies of Modifi-
cation of Service Plan for the proposed Landis Sanitation
District. These modifications were the result of a public
hearing held by the Planning Commission of Garfield County
on February 6, 1985, and as suggested by the proponent of
the proposed sanitation district. Please accept the en-
closure as an addition to the Service Plan heretofore filed
with the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County which shall
be considered by you at your meeting on February 11, 1985.
The enclosed modifications shall be deemed for all purposes
to have been included in the Service Plan when first sub-
mitted.
Additional copies have been furnished to the
Planning Department for distribution to the Planning Com-
mission members and a copy has been furnished to the Clerk
and Recorder.
Very truly yours,
DELANEY & BALCOMB, P.C.
By �L�✓
Jiohn A. Thulson
Attorneys for Spring Valley Hold-
ing, Ltd.
Proponent of the Landis Sanitation
District
MODIFICATION OF SERVICE PLAN FOR THE
PROPOSED LANDIS SANITATION DISTRICT
The following are hereby submitted as modifica-
tions of the Service Plan of the proposed Landis Sanitation
District pursuant to action taken by the Garfield County
Planning Commission at a special meeting held by it on
February 6, 1985, and as suggested by the proponent of the
said proposed district. The modifications are:
(1) All general obligation bonds issued to carry
out the construction of the facilities for Phase I of the
project shall be secured by an irrevocable letter of credit
issued by a United States domestic banking institution
federally chartered under United States banking regulations
for the total amount of all bonds issued, together with an
amount sufficient to repay no less than seven (7) months'
accrued interest on the bonds so issued.
(2) All general obligation bonds issued for the
construction of facilities in all subsequent Phases shall be
issued only through a reputable bonding firm.
(3) The following shall pertain to the sewage
treatment facilities:
(a) The vegetation surrounding the plant
shall be maintained at the cost of the District in a good
and husband -like manner.
(b) The plant shall be located within 250
yards of its presently depicted location unless made un-
feasible due to severe engineering constraints.
(c) The plant shall be operated in an odor -
free manner, such operation to be demonstrated on final
plant design.
(4) The following additional -matters shall per-
tain to annexation of other certain other properties to the
District and the furnishing of services by the District to
properties not included within the boundaries of the Dis-
trict, to -wit:
(a) Existing single-family residences in
existence on date of the formation of the District but not
within the boundaries of the District may contract for
services with the District; provided, however, services to
be provided shall be specifically spelled out in a contract
which shall also require:
(i) That the individual property owner
pay for all sewage facilities leading to the connection with
District facilities, but which facilities shall be con-
structed under the supervision and inspection of the District,-
(ii)
istrict;
(ii) That each property owner will pay
the prevailing tap fee then being charged to residents of
the District;
-2-
(iii) That each property owner shall
pay service charges for operation and maintenance on the
same schedule as residents of the District.
(iv) That each property owner shall be
subject to bylaws, rules and regulations of the District the
same as if included in the boundaries of the District;
provided, however, they shall not be required to pay ad
valorem taxes assessed by the District.
(b) Single-family residences in existence on
the date of the formation of the District shall not be
required to annex into the District; however, they may do so
upon petition, review and acceptance.
(c) Any residences coming into existence
after the formation of the District shall receive service
from the District only upon annexation into the District.
SPRING VALLEY HOLDING, LTD.
LVA
Hal Terrell _ \
Agent and Owners' Representative
Proponent of the Landis Sanitation
District
-3-
GARFIELD COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING/ ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH /BUILDING: 945-8212
TO: Steve Zwick, Assistant County Attorney
FROM: Mark Bean, Planning Department Director/"
DATE: February 8, 1985
RE: Conversation with Robert Flynn, regarding service plan provisions
Mr. Flynn made the following general observations about the types of
provisions that should be included in a "developer" special district.
1) Any provisions for securing bonds need only deal with the first
series, since the "marKet" will take care of any subsequent bonds.
2) The irrevocable letter of credit should be issued to and on behalf
of the actual district, with the initial cost being borne by the
developer. The IAC should be for a term of at least 5 to 10 years.
3) To cover the concern regarding the raising of the mill levy, he
suggested wording be contained in the letter of credit that allowed
the District Board of Directors to call on the letter of credit if an
"unreasonable" increase in the mill levy is necessary to cover the
bonded indebtness. He said the term "unreasonable" is key in that it
protects the District, yet allows for arbitration of what is or isn't
reasonable when the proposed increase is compared with the prevailing
trend in the area. This obviously assumes that the Board of Directors
is not controlled by development interests. Whether or not residents
of the District could challange this type of decision was unclear to
me.
4) He said the proposed IAC to cover the full principal and 7 months
interest was reasonable.
Overall he said that special districts provide a valid function for the
provision of public services and the financing of them. He said we have
to evaluate the projections to determine whether or not tney are
reasonable.
GARFIELD COUNTY COURTHOUSE 109 8TH STREET. SUITE 306 GLENWOOD SPRINGS. COLORADO 81601
X
m'2 ,
GIBSON 6 RENO • ARCHITECTS
February 4, 1985
Mr. Robert Sternberg; Project Planner
Mr. Hal Terrel; Authorized Agent
Spring Valley Ranch
4000 115 Road
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
RE; LANDIS CREEK SANITATION FACILITY
Dear Hal and Bob;
Our Preliminary Design for the approximately 12,000 square foot Sanitary Facility
is modeled on our Snowmass Sanitation Plant Design; with pre-treatment Digesters,
Aeration Basins (2), Filtration, and Administration all enclosed and under roof, with
an adjacent 120' x 150' outdoor Polishing Pond. Like Snowmass, it will be a bermed
and partly subterranean concrete structure which should include the following features:
1. BERMS: At least 950/6 of the roofs and 80% of the walls
would be bermed and irrigated. The berm profile should
include a 2" crushed rock base and an 8" minimum top-
soil finish layer.
2. VEGETATION: The Berms and surrounding Disturbed Areas
should be seeded with a "pasture mix" of nature grasses
composed of Crested Wheat (25%), Brome (25%), Perrenial
Rye (25%), and Canadian Bluegrass (25%). An irrigation
program for the Disturbed Areas should be instituted and
continued throughout the first year, and reviewed thereafter
to blend with surrounding meadowland growth patterns.
3. TIMING: When the concrete roof deck and waterproofing
membrane are in place and inspected, placing of gravel,
topsoil, irrigation pipe, and grass seed can proceed and
should be completed within thirty days. With a three or
four times daily irrigation program, a strong growth of
grasses should emerge and take hold, depending upon time
of year, in the next thirty days.
I look forward to working with you on the realization of this exciting project.
Yo Truly, !
David F. Gibson, A.I.A.
DFG/fh
418 E. COOPER AVENUE #207 ASPEN, COLORADO a1611 303/9255968
— -12o zv-rte /�� 7 �--
i
e,2-
AA
�.- GS
.�
`
... Gi d42 dL��
71
: �� L--
2.5
.I`I%'I7/7��n1����(JY%�....
�w.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is being proposed that a special dis rict be formed to provide
sewage collection and treatment in the pring Valley area. The
formation of the district would result n a quasi -municipal,
non-profit corporation, having powers o management, taxation and
condemnation. The District would be governed by an elected Board of
Directors of five persons. The Landis anitation District facilities
would be non -water exporting facilities that would provide cost
effective service to the users accordin to the service plan.
As presently proposed, the Landis Sanitation District boundaries would
initially include approximately 6,060 a res of land owned by Spring
Valley Holding, Ltd. The service plan ncludes an approximately 3500
acres of additional land, owned by othef parties, that have expressed
an interest in eventually being served y the proposed district.
Giving the district a total potential s rvice area of approximately
9600 acres of land.
The service plan addresses the more im
the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. and the
following figures represent the approv
both projects.
Lake Springs Ranch
Single Family 194
Multi -Family 16
Spring Valley Ranch
Single
Family
1150
Multi -Family
1620
Resort
Hotel
300 rooms
Retail
Space
100,000 Sq, fee
Office
Space
50,000 Sq, fee
adiate development potential of
,ake Springs Ranch P.U.D. The
1 P.U.D. development plans of
By using the assumption that one dwelling unit with 2.8
persons will
generate 250 gallons of wastewater per ay as the equivalent
residential unit (EQR). The service pla notes a need for a treatment
facility that can .treat 2580 EQR or app oximately 650,000 gallons per
day to meet the needs of the previously mentioned developments. The
population equivalent of this system is 7,000 persons.
To meet the State water quality standards, the applicant analyzed
alternative types of treatment facilities with the following
objectives in mind;
1. Capable of meeting water qualitX objectives and standards.
2. In conformance with Federal, St to and Local regulations.
3. Compatible with site conditions, social and aesthetic values.
4. Practical, reliable, and easy t6 operate and maintain.
5. Cost effective.
Three different systems were analyzed, ith the basic difference being
the method of secondary treatment. Ove all, the entire system would
have the following components:
1. Pretreatment - the removal of h rd and dense "grit" particles,
the screening out or grinding up o larger components in the
sewage and the measurement and rec rding of incoming flows.
2. Secondary treatment - the re
mov 1 of carbonaceous biochemical
demands (BOD) and suspended solids (sludge).
- 2 -
0
3. Advanced waste treatment - the
water.
4Sludge treatment, storage and
disposal of solids (sludge) passi
secondary treatment process.
As noted previously, the major differ
analyzed was the method of secondary
secondary treatment analyzed were:
1. Conventional activated sludge
2. Relex (Sequential Batch
3. Rotating Biological Contractor
basic disinfection of the waste
isposal - the treatment and
g through or produced by the
ce in any of the systems
eatment. The three methods of
alternative ST -1).
(alternative ST -2).
(alternative ST -3).
Technically a fourth alternative was ldoked at by the applicant, which
was the use of the Spring Valley Sanitalltion District facilities.. This
alternative has been ruled out due to he economic feasibility of
extending sewage lines to and expanding of the facility and the
inconsistency with the overall water resource management goal of the
applicant.
An analysis of the construction costs and operation and maintenance
costs of the three systems was provided. The following costs were
identified for an overall system based In the three secondary
treatment alternatives:
ST -1 S�r-2 ST -3
Construction
& :9,300
onstruction $1,729,900 $1,39,400 $2,316,600
Maintenance 104,500 107,300
Based on the monetary costs of each sys em, alternative ST -2 (Rel ex
is the least expensive to build and mai tain. The ST -2 alternative ws
also determined to be the best system a ailable based on an
engineering evaluation.
Given the fact that both developments will be developed in a phased
manner, it is proposed to develop the f cilities in a phased manner.
The following is a summary of the phase :
Stage 1 - Facilities for 800 EQR (200,b00 gal/day) at a cost of
$450,000. These facilities Till meet the first five
Year demand.
Stage la- The addition of facilities t� meet initial
course irrigation at $150,00, needs of golf
Stage 2 - Facilities to increase capac ty to 1800 EQR (450,000 gal/
day) at a cost of $350,000. Projected to meet development
demands through Year 10.
Stage 3 - Facilities to increase capacity to 2600 EQR (650,000
gal/day) at a cost of $460,0 0.
Included in the service plan was an ana ysis of the sewage
transmission system and the winter stor ge
euse of
effluent. The sewage transmision lines are athe nd rmain trunkelinesgto
serve the various areas proposed for de elopment. All neighborhood'
service lines will be installed and pai for by the neighborhood
building developers. The estimated total cost of the main trunk l
is $2,186,000, which would be phased over a five year period. ines
-3-
The service plan notes that the expansion of the
existing Spring Valley Sanitation District facilities
aerated lagoons is not possible in an economic manner.
It would also be necessary to have lift stations and
pressure sewer pipelins to get service from the
existing facility to the proposed district, according
to the service plan. &loth of these reasons are
identified as making economically comparable service
available as infeasible. One option that has �o ben
considered is the expa sin of the existing '�
boundaries, but the develoopment of a new treatment`
facility similar to what is being proposed and in the
same location.
4. The proposed service district is incapable of providing
economical and sufficint service to the area within
its proposed boundarie
The service plan inclu ed an evaluation of various
alternative types of t eatment systems, which resulted
in the selection of th� least costly to construct and
maintain, yet be consistent with the engineering goals
established. As proposed, the sewage treatment facility
could treat 650,000 galons/day, which converts to 2600.
EQR. It is projected hat the Lake Springs Ranch
P.U.D. and Spring Vally Ranch P.U.D. would result in
2580 EQR's being utilied. One area, not included in
the projected demand, is the potential for "caretaker"
units within the DistriIct B, Low Density Residential,
Golf Course area of the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. It
would appear that some consideration of the potential
�(S for "caretaker" units should be included in the
calculated demand for service, since there are 585 lots
that have the option of adding a "caretaker" unit to.
the principal dwelling unit. It should be noted that
the service plan does rot project any demand for the
lands noted as being i the potential service area. It
is stated in the servi a plan that properties annexing
to the district will bq required to provide trunklines
where necessary or share common trunk line costs on a
pro -rata basis and pay equitable tap fees. It could be
assumed, from the basis annexation policy, that the
District will be respo Bible for any treatment
facilities expansion as a result of the additional
demand.
5. The area to be include in the proposed special
district does not have, or will not have, the financial
ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a
reasonable basis.
Enclosed is a memo fro the Garfield County Assessor
which notes that the assumptions of new base are
incorrect, thus the projections for debt service are
incorrect. He also st tes that the enclaves within the
proposed special distr.ct will create administrative
problems for the Count.
It should also be note
district's debt retire
Valley Ranch P.U.D. an
developed in phases.
Ranch would oe the fir
initial increase in th
two years. Yet, Lake
within the initial dis
the proposed District
area of the Spring Val
require any service fr
would seem appropriate
P.U.D. in the district
of the Spring Valley R
that the proposed special
ent is based on both Spring
Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. being
t is assumed that Lake Springs
t to develop and provide the
assessed value for the first
prings Ranch is not included
rict boundaries. Included in
oundaries is the Estate Lots
ey Ranch P.U.D., which will not
m the proposed district. It
to include Lake Springs Ranch
and exclude the Estate Lots area
nch P.U.D.
6. The facility and servic� standards of the proposed
special district are in ompatable with the facikity and
service standards of adjacent municipalities.
7.
While the proposed facilities and service standards are
different than the spring Valley Sanitation Districts
facility and service standards in some ways, they do
not appear to be incompatible.
The proposal is not in substantial compliance with 'a
master plan adopted pursuant to section 30-28-108,
C.R.S. .
As noted previously, t
Ranch P.U.D. did not d
of special districts"
a separate statuatory
service plan was revie
water resource managem
separate sewage treatm
entity would construct
was left open to furth
While it was generally
that a new facility to
the Landis Sanitation
not been demonstrated
Spring Valley Ranch P.
P.U.D. cannot annex in
District and build a s
enlarged service area
consistent with the wa
philosophy of the Land
proponents. The servi
is uneconomical to ext
existing treatment fac
e approval of the Spring Valley
al with the "non-proliferation
ecause that issue was subject to
eview. The then proposed
ed in light of the proposed
nt philosophy and the need for.
nt plant facilities. What legal
own and maintain the facilities
r consideration.
agreed at the P.U.D. approval ;
ated in the area proposed to be
istrict, is appropriate. It has
n the service plan that the
.D. and Lake Springs Ranch
o the Spring Valley Sanitation
parate facility to serve the
n an economical manner and be
er resource management
s Sanitation District
e plan only notes reasons why it
nd service lines and expand the
lities.
The proposal is not inlcompliance with any duly adopted
county, regional, or state long range water quality
management plan for the area.
In 1978, the Colorado L
the Colorado West Area
(CWACOG). When the CM
Associated Governments
formed. The associati<
authority for waste tri
date, the AGNC has had
facilities proposed in
Quality Control Commis:
Plan as their guidance
The service plan notes
have to be approved by
to obtain discharge pe.
Control Division prior
It cannot be stated at
district is, or is not
Plan.
— 7—
Vest Area 208 Plan was adopted by
Council of Governments
COG was dissolved, the
of Northwest Colorado (AGNC) was
�n retained the regional
>atment planning agency. To
a "no comment" position on
the area. The State Water
.ion has also adopted the 208
for the region.
that a site application will
the State. They will also have
,mit from the Water Quality
to actual plant construction.
this time that the proposed
in compliance with the 208
PC 2/6/85
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
PROJECT: Landis Sanitation District
LOCATION: The proposed district is located in
the W 1/2 SW 1/4 and SW 1/4 NW 1/4
Section 14; Section 15; Section 16
except the NE 1/4 NE 1/4; Section
20 except SW 1/4 SW 1/4 and
portions of S 1/2 SE 1/4 SW 1/4;
Section 21; Section 22; W 1/2
Section 23; W 1/2 Section 26;
Section 27; Section 28; E 1/2 and
portion W 1/2 Section 29; NE 1/4 NE
1/4 Section 32; a majority of the N
1/2 Section 33; all of the NW 1/4
NW 1/4; more practically described
as an area located approximately 3
miles southeast of Glenwood Springs
Off of County Road 115.
I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
On July 2, 1984, the Board of County Commissioners approved the Spring
Valley Ranch Planned Unit Development by Resolution No. 84-127. As a
Part of the approval of the P.U.D., the Board and Planning Commission
made a finding that the proposing zoning was in general compliance
with the recommendations set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Part of
that finding was based upon a determination that the policy related to
the non-proliferation of special districts was not relevant to the
proposed re -zoning. It was determined that in the interest of proper
water resource management, a new sewage treatment facility would be
appropriate. Whether or not, the new facility would be the basis for
a new sanitation district, was not deemed to be a relevant issue,
since the Board and Planning Commission would have to review and
approve a service plan for a district.
Subsequent to the approval of the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D., the
Planning Commission revised the Comprehensive Plan. Contained within
the revised plan is the following water and sewer services goal:
Ensure the provisions of legal, adequate, dependable and cost
effective sewer and water facilities and to encourage new
development to locate in proximity to existing sewer and water
facilities.
The following goal objective and policy are relevant to the issue of
special districts:
Objective 5. Discourage the unnecessary proliferation of
private water and sewer systems and special
districts.
Policy 5. The County will approve only those private water
and sewer systems and/or special districts that
meet a specific development need and where the
development cannot obtain the same services from
an adjacent or nearby system or district in an
economically feasible manner.
Whether or not a new special district should be formed is still a
relevant issue and a finding of substantial compliance with the
Comprehensive plan will have to be made by the Board of County
Commissioners and Planning Commission according to C.R.S. 32-1-203.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is being proposed that a special district be formed to provide
sewage collection and treatment in the Spring Valley area. The
formation of the district would result in a quasi -municipal,
non-profit corporation, having powers of management, taxation and
condemnation. The District would be governed by an elected Board of
Directors of five persons. The Landis Sanitation District facilities
would be non -water exporting facilities that would provide cost
effective service to the users according to the service plan.
As presently proposed, the Landis Sanitation District boundaries would
initially include approximately 6,060 acres of land owned by Spring
Valley Holding, Ltd. The service plan includes an approximately 3500
acres of additional land, owned by other parties, that have expressed
an interest in eventually being served by the proposed district.
Giving the district a total potential service area of approximately
9600 acres of land.
The service plan addresses the
the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D.
following figures represent the
both projects.
Lake Springs Ranch
Single Family 194
Multi -Family 16
Spring _Valley Ranch
more immediate development potential of
and the Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. The
approved P.U.D. development plans of
Single
Family
1150
Multi -Family
1620
Resort
Hotel
300 rooms
Retail
Space
100,000 Sq. feet
Office
Space
50,000 Sq. feet
By using the assumption that one dwelling unit with 2.8 persons will
generate 250 gallons of wastewater per day as the equivalent
residential unit (EQR). The service plan notes a need for a treatment
facility that can treat 2580 EQR or, approximately 650,000 gallons per
day to meet the needs of the previously mentioned developments. The
population equivalent of this system is 7,000 persons.
To meet the State water quality standards, the applicant analyzed
alternative types of treatment facilities with the following
objectives in mind:
1. Capable of meeting water quality objectives and standards.
2. In conformance with Federal, State and Local regulations.
3. Compatible with site conditions, social and aesthetic values.
4. Practical, reliable, and easy to operate and maintain.
5. Cost effective.
Three different systems were analyzed, with the basic difference beinc_
the method of secondary treatment. Overall, the entire system would
have the following components:
1. Pretreatment - the removal of hard and dense "grit" particles,
the screening out or grinding up of larger components in the
sewage and the measurement and recording of incoming flows.
2. Secondary treatment - the removal of carbonaceous biochemical
demands (BOD) and suspended solids (sludge).
- 2 -
3. Advanced waste treatment - the basic disinfection of the waste
water.
4. Sludge treatment, storage and disposal - the treatment and
disposal of solids (sludge)
secondary treatment process. passing through or produced by the
As noted previously, the major difference in any of the systems
analyzed was the method of secondary treatment. The three methods of
secondary treatment analyzed were:
1. Conventional activated sludge (alternative ST -1).
2. Relex (Sequential Batch Reactor) (alternative ST -2).
3. Rotating Biological Contractors (alternative ST -3).
Technically a fourth alternative was looked at by the applicant, which
was the use of the Spring Valley Sanitation District facilities. This
alternative has been ruled out due to the economic feasibility of
extending sewage lines to and expanding of the facility and the
inconsistency with the overall water resource management goal of the
applicant.
An analysis of the construction costs and operation and maintenance
costs of the three systems was provided. The following costs were
identified for an overall system based on the three secondary
treatment alternatives:
Construction
Operation &
Maintenance
ST -1
$1,729,900
104,500
ST -2
$1,389,400
89,300
ST -3
$2,316,600
107,300
Based on the monetary costs of each system, alternative ST -2 (Relex)
is the least expensive to build and maintain. The ST -2 alternative ws
also determined to be the best system available based on an
engineering evaluation.
Given the fact that both developments will be developed in a phased
manner, it is proposed to develop the facilities in a phased manner.
The following is a summary of the phases:
Stage 1 - Facilities for 800 EQR (200,000 gal/day) at a cost of
$450,000. These facilities will meet the first five
year demand.
Stage la- The addition of facilities to meet initial needs of golf
course irrigation at $150,000.
Stage 2 - Facilities to increase capacity to 1800 EQR (450,000 gal/
day) at a cost of $350,000. Projected to meet development
demands through Year 10.
Stage 3 - Facilities to increase capacity to 2600 EQR (650,000
gal/day) at a cost of $460,000.
Included in the service plan was an analysis of the sewage
transmission system and the winter storage and reuse of the sewage
effluent. The sewage transmision lines are the main trunk lines to
serve the various areas proposed for development. All neighborhood
service lines will be installed and paid for by the neighborhood
building developers. The estimated total cost of the main trunk lines
is $2,186,000, which would be phased over a five year period.
-3-
11
Effluent reuse and winter storage will require a separate system of
pipes and storage ponds. It is estimated, in the service plan, that
spray irrigation use of the treated effluent could achieve a 653
recharge of the Spring Valley aquifer. To develop this system, it
will be necessary to have a total storage capacity of 280 acre feet
for the winter period when spray application is not possible.
Overall, this part of the system is estimated to cost $1,140,500. It
is proposed to dispose of the treated sludge by invectinq it into
agricultural lands for fertilization.
To finance the construction and basic operation and maintenance costs
of the proposed system, a special district has been proposed. The
Service Plan notes the following:
Capital Requirements - Basic capital requirements would be funded
by the issuance of general obligation
bonds. For the analysis, it was assumed
that the bonds would have an interest rate
of 11.53 with an underwriting discount of
33. It was also estimated that the bonds
would be repaid by a mill levy (10 mills)
and sewer tap fees ($1,500/tap). Based on
these assumptions and the phased construc-
tion schedule, the following bonds would
be issued:
Series 1985 - $1,475,000
Series 1987 - 1,355,000
Series 1990 - 1,985,000
Series 1997 - 835,000
Total - $5,650,000
Service Charges Revenues would be generated in the
following manner to pay debt service,
and operation and maintenance costs:
1. Monthly Sewer Service Charge - It is
estimated that this charge would be
$10 to $15 per month per EQR.
2. Server Standby Charges - This fee would
be contained in contracts between the
Developer and land buyer, or may be
guaranteed by the Developer. This fee
would insure partial District income
for debt service.
3. Connection Charge - This charge would
be for the inspection of any hook-ups.
It is assumed that outside builders and general contractors will
take the responsibility for construction of specific neighborhood
facilities and that these facilities will be turned over to the
District when they are completed.
III.COMMENTS
1. The formation of a special district requires the filing of a
service plan with the County Clerk and Recorder and then action
by the County Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners must take
action within thirty (30) days of the regular meeting at which
the service plan is presented to them. Within the thirty day
period, the County Planning Commission is required to study the
service plan and present its recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners. The Board can take any of the following
actions:
1. Approve, without condition or modification, the
service plan.
2. Disapprove the service plan.
3. Conditionally approve the service plan subject to
additional information being submitted or the modi-
fication of the proposed service plan.
- �Z-
Any action to disapprove the service plan can be based on any of
the following:
1. There is insufficient, existing or projected, need
for organized service in the area to be serviced by
the proposed special district.
2. The existing service in the area to be served by the
proposed special district is adequate for present and
projected needs.
3. Adequate service is, or will be, available to the area
through other existing municipal or quasi -municipal
corporations witnin a reasonable time and on a
comparable basis.
4. The proposed special district is incapable of providing
economical and sufficient service to the area within
its proposed boundaries.
5. The area to be included in the proposed special
district does not have, or will not have, the financial
ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a
reasonable basis.
6. The facility and service standards of the proposed
special district are incompatible with the facility and
service standards of adjacent municipalities and
special districts.
7. The proposal is not in substantial compliance with a
master plan adopted pursuant to section 30-28-108,
C.R.S.
8. The proposal is not in compliance with any duly adopted
county, regional or state long range water quality
management plan for the area.
The above noted criteria for denial will be the basis for staff
comments. The following comments will address each criteria
separately:
1. There is insufficient existing and projected need for
organized service in the area to be serviced by the
special district.
As noted previously, the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. and
Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. have received approval for
2980 dwelling units, a 300 room resort hotel and
commercial retail and office space area. All of these
uses will require the use of sanitary sewer
facilities. It is reasonable to say there is a
projected need for organized service.
2. The existing service in the area to be served by the
proposed special district is adequate for present and
projected needs.
The existing Spring Valley Sanitation District
facilities have an approximate capacity of 50,000
gallons/day. To accommodate the projected need of the
Landis Sanitation District an additional 650,000
gallon/day capacity would have to be added to the
existing facilities.
3. Adequate service is, or will be, available to the area
through other existing municipal or quasi -municipal
corporations within a reasonable time and on a
comparable basis.
i'C'
The service plan notes that the expansion of the
existing Spring Valley Sanitation District facilities
aerated lagoons is not possible in an economic manner.
It would also be necessary to have lift stations and
pressure sewer pipelines to get service from the
existing facility to the proposed district, according
to the service plan. Both of these reasons are
identified as making economically comparable service
available as infeasible. One option that has no ben
considered is the expansion of the existing
boundaries, but the development of a new treatment
facility similar to what is being proposed and in the
same location.
4. The proposed service district is incapable of providing
economical and sufficient service to the area within
its proposed boundaries.
The service plan included an evaluation of various
alternative types of treatment systems, which resulted
in the selection of the least costly to construct and
maintain, yet be consistent with the engineering goals
established. As proposed, the sewage treatment facility
could treat 650,000 gallons/day, whicn converts to 2600
EQR. It is projected that the Lake Springs Ranch
P.U.D. and Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. would result in
2580 EQR's being utilized. One area, not included in
the projected demand, is the potential for "caretaker"
units within the District B, Low Density Residential,
Golf Course area of the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. It
would appear that some consideration of the potential
�(5 for "caretaker" units should be included in the
calculated demand for service, since there are 585 lots
that have the option of adding a "caretaker" unit to
the principal dwelling unit. It should be noted that
the service plan does not project any demand for the
lands noted as being in the potential service area. It
is stated in the service plan that properties annexing
to the district will be required to provide trunklines
where necessary or share common trunk line costs on a
pro -rata basis and pay equitable tap fees. It could be
assumed, from the basis annexation policy, that the
District will be responsible for any treatment
facilities expansion as a result of the additional
demand.
5. The area to be included in the proposed special
district does not have, or will not have, the financial
ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a
reasonable basis.
Enclosed is a memo from the Garfield County Assessor
which notes that the assumptions of new base are
incorrect, thus the projections for debt service are
incorrect. He also states that the enclaves within the
proposed special district will create administrative
problems for the County.
It should also be noted that the proposed special
district's debt retirement is based on both Spring
Valley Ranch P.U.D. and Lake Springs Ranch P.U.D. being
developed in phases. It is assumed that Lake Springs
Ranch would oe the first to develop and provide the
initial increase in the assessed value for the first
two years. Yet, Lake Springs Ranch is not included
within the initial district boundaries. Included in
the proposed District boundaries is the Estate Lots
area of the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D., which will not
require any service from the proposed district. It
would seem appropriate to include Lake Springs ;ranch
P.U.D. in the district and exclude the Estate Lots area
of the Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D.
6. The facility and service standards of the proposed
special district are incompatable with the facility and
service standards of adjacent municipalities.
While the proposed facilities and service standards are
different than the Spring Valley Sanitation Districts
facility and service standards in some ways, they do
not appear to be incompatible.
7. The proposal is not in substantial compliance with a
master plan adopted pursuant to section 30-28-108,
C.R.S.
As noted previously, the approval of the Spring Valley
Ranch P.U.D. did not deal with the "non-proliferation
of special districts" because that issue was subject to
a separate statuatory review. The then proposed
service plan was reviewed in light of the proposed
water resource management philosophy and the need for
separate sewage treatment plant facilities. What legal
entity would construct, own and maintain the facilities
was left open to further consideration.
While it was generally agreed at the P.U.D. approval
that a new facility located in the area proposed to be
the Landis Sanitation District, is appropriate. It has
not been demonstrated in the service plan that the
Spring Valley Ranch P.U.D. and Lake Springs Ranch
P.U.D. cannot annex into the Spring Valley Sanitation
District and build a separate facility to serve the
enlarged service area in an economical manner and be
consistent with the water resource management
philosophy of the Landis Sanitation District
proponents. The service plan only notes reasons why it
is uneconomical to extend service lines and expand the
existing treatment facilities.
8. The proposal is not in compliance with any duly adopted
county, regional, or state long range water quality
management plan for the area.
In 1978, the Colorado West Area 208 Plan was adopted by
the Colorado West Area Council of Governments
(CWACOG). When the CWACOG was dissolved, the
Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado (AGNC) was
formed. The association retained the regional
authority for waste treatment planning agency. To
date, the AGNC has had a "no comment" position on
facilities proposed in the area. The State Water
Quality Control Commission has also adopted the 208
Plan as their guidance for the region.
The service plan notes that a site application will
have to be approved by the State. They will also have
to obtain discharge permit from the Water Quality
Control Division prior to actual plant construction.
It cannot be stated at this time that the proposed
district is, or is not, in compliance with the 208
Plan.
IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS
1. The meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and
complete, that all pertine t facts, matters and issues were
submitted, and that ai'i 41�� were heard at that meetin
OL/).e"2"74 //r yr (�Z43
2. The Planning Commission has studied rtne proposed service plan and
has authorized the Chairman of the Planning Commission to present
its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
3. The Planning Commission has considered the criteria for
disapproval contained in Part 2 of the Special District Control
Act (32-1-101, et seq., C.R.S., as amended), and its
recommendation is in conformance therewith.
—IT-`—
GARkELD COUNTY ASSESSOR
LELAND H. (LEE) HUNTER Court House
Phone 945-9134 109 8th Street Suite 207
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601
To: Mark Bean, Director Planning Department
From: Lee Hunter, County Assessor
Date: January 30, 1985
RE: Landis Sanitation District Service Plan
I have reviewed the above referenced service plan and
found it to be accurate except for the following item:
In Table III, I refer to House Bill No. 1051 (copy attached)
setting the next base year as 1985 to be implemented in
1987. This also affects other projection tables throughout
the report.
As a reminder, the assessed value for the land as it now
exists is $45,550, and principally classified as
agricultural. In accordance with C.R.S. 31-1-102 (1.6) (a)
(b), the value will increase once the land is no longer used
for the production of agriculture products. Once development
has begun, the assessor's office should be notified in
January of each year as to the amount of development
completed during the previous year. This becomes development
cost thereby causing an increase in the total value.
We are governed by C.R.S. 39-1-110 which states that there
exists a May 1 deadline for the formation of a special
district to be in effect for the current year.
In closing, I would like to state that due to the exceptions
the work load for this office is affected considerably.
There currently exists three separate areas that are
excluded from the special district; but, within its proposed
boundaries. These are listed below along with the owner's
names and respective acreages:
I. Cabrinha
4.74
Ac.
Clarke
5.02
Ac.
Franta
6.63
Ac.
Williams
8.26
Ac.
Klink
8.00
Ac.
Total
32.00
Ac.
In the event that the proposed areas would be formed into this
special district, nine small parcels .could create another three
taxing areas within its boundaries. This may seem minimal to
some; but, it creates havoc with taxing districts, files, maps,
and record keeping. Instances such as this have previously
occurred in which taring areas are broken up by the creation
of these special districts.
I would like to see an all encompassing boundary which would,
alleviate some of our problems. .
II. McVey
10
Ac.
Zito
6
Ac.
Total
16
Ac.
III. Carlson
40
Ac.
In the event that the proposed areas would be formed into this
special district, nine small parcels .could create another three
taxing areas within its boundaries. This may seem minimal to
some; but, it creates havoc with taxing districts, files, maps,
and record keeping. Instances such as this have previously
occurred in which taring areas are broken up by the creation
of these special districts.
I would like to see an all encompassing boundary which would,
alleviate some of our problems. .
C
1984
HOUSE-BILL_NO. 1051.
BY REPRESENTATIVES Kirscht, Bath, Groff, Heim, Larson, Mielke,
and -Neale;.
also SENATORS Soash and Stewart. _...
CONCERNING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION DATES
FOR THE NEXT REASSESSMENT -CYCLE -IN THE BASE YEAR CYCLE
USED IN PROPERTY TAXATION.
Be.i_t=enacted by the General: Assembly of the State of Colorado:
SECTION .1. 39-1-104 (10), (10.1) (a), (12) (h), and
the introductory portion to 39-1-104 (12.2) (a), and
!!f.139-1-104 (12:2)-(b), Colorado Revised Statutes, 1982 Repl.
Vol., as amended, are amended to read:
_.- 39-1.104. Valuation for assessment. (10) (a) For the
years 1983 through 1985 19 , the 19 level of value and the
manuals and associated data published fortheyear 1977 by the
,-_a;administeator and: approved,_:by the advisory, committee to the
administrator shall be utilized for determining actual value
of: -real. pro perty..in.any county of: -the state as reflected in
the abstract -of assesement.for;:each such year.
- ._... -.
(b) During -the .years 1983 through 3985 1986, in
=-preparation for implementation in the year 1986 1987, the
a ,,respective assessors shall.conduct revaluations of all taxable
_a areal property utilizing -the 1984;1985 level of.value and the
csmanuals_ and associated data published for the year 3984 1985
._„by the.admi.nistrator and approved by -the advisory committee to
_.:_::the administrator: e:;-- -
(10.1) (a) Beginning with the property tax year which
commences January 1, 3986 1987, a reassessment cycle shall be
instituted with each cycle consisting of two full calendar
years. At the beginning of each reassessment cycle, the base
CapCap—itallletters indicate new material added to existing statutes;
dashes through words indicate deletions from existing statutes and
such material not part of act.
year and level of value to be used during the reassessment
cycle in the determination of actual value of real property in
any county of the state as reflected in the abstract of
assessment for each year in the reassessment cycle shall
advance by two years over what was used in the previous
reassessment cycle; except that the base year and the level of
value to be used for the years 1986 -and -1987 1987 AND 1988
shall advance by seven•EIGHT years over what was used for the
years 1983 through 3985 1986, so that for the years 3986 -and
1987 1987 AND 1988 the 1984 1985 level of value is used.
(12) (h) For property tax years 1982 through 1985 1986,
rail transportation property, as defined in section 39-4.1-102
(2), assessed pursuant to article 4.1 of this title.
(12.1) Subsection (12) of this section and this
subsection (12.1) are repealed, effective January 1, 1986
1987.
(12.2) (a) For property tax years commencing on or after
January 1, 1986 1987, the requirement 'stated in subsections
(9) to (11) of this section that the actual value of real
property be determined according to a specified year's level
of value and manuals and associated data published by the
administrator for said specified year and approved by the
advisory committee to the administrator shall apply to the
assessment of all classes of real property, including but not
limited to the following classes of real property:
(b) This subsection (12.2) shall take effect January 1,
3986 1987.
SECTION 2. 39-4-101 (2.5) and (3), Colorado Revised
Statutes, 1982 Repl. Vol., as amended, are amended to read:
39-4-101. Definitions. (2.5) "Public utility" means,
for property tax years 1982 through 1985 1986, every sole
proprietorship, firm, partnership, association, company, or
corporation, and the trustees or receivers thereof, whether
elected or appointed, which dors business in this state as an
airline company, electric company, rural electric company,
telephone company, telegraph company, gas company, gas
pipeline carrier company, domestic water company selling at
retail, pipeline company, or coal slurry pipeline. This
subsection (2.5) is repealed, effective January 1, 1986 1987.
(3) "Public utility" means, for property tax years
commencing on or after January 1, 1986 1987, every sole
proprietorship, firm, partnership, association, company, or
corporation, and the trustees or receivers thereof, whether
elected or appointed, which does business in this state as a
railroad company, airline company, electric company, rural
PAGE 2- HOUSE BILL NO. 1051
STATEMENT OF FLAVEN M. CERISE
RE: SERVICE PLAN APPLICATION OF LANDIS
SANITATION DISTRICT
The purpose of this statement is to clarify what I have been
previously quoted as saying on January 14, 1985 regarding the
Service Plan Application for the Landis Sanitation District. This
matter has been set for public hearing before this Board on February
11, 1985 as required by State - law. The Garfield County Planning
Commission will review the application prior to that time and make
its recommendations.
It was and is inappropriate for me, as a member of the Board
of County Commissioners, to comment on the merits of the proposal
and of my decision on the entire application prior to or outside the
scheduled public hearing. My comments of January 14, 1985 were
intended to be a reference to the action of the previous Board of
Commissioners in approving the rezoning for the Spring Valley Ranch
Planned Unit Development. My statements were made to inform my
fellow Commissioners regarding a matter of policy which I believed
had been addressed in the rezoning approval. The applicant for the
formation of the Landis Sanitation District is Spring Valley
Holding, Ltd. They were also the applicant for the rezoning of the
Spring Valley Ranch.
It was my recollection on January 14, 1985 that conditions had
been attached to the rezoning decision of the prior Board which had
a direct bearing on the service plan -application of the Landis
Sanitation District, as itwasdescribed to me by the County Staff.
To the extent my earlier comments could be interpreted as indicating
that I have made a final decision on the merits of the proposed
service plan, I do now state that I have not done so. I am prepared
to exercise my discretion, as a member of the Board of
Commissioners, in reviewing the service plan application for the
Landis Sanitation District in an impartial and unbiased manner and
in accordance with Colorado law and the prior decisions of this
Board.
RECORD OF CONVERSATION
DATE: OUTGOING: /C
TIME:U
//lJ • �S / / / INCOMING:
FILE : L� i�S '5aly a7 /10 j X�;' CONTACT-
COMMENTS:
ONTACT_COMMENTS:
FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED
i