Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Staff ReportPC 3/24/99 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PROJECT: Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plan LOCATION: The proposed district is located in portions of Sections 14-16, 19-23, 26-35, T.6S., R88 W; portions of Sections 24, 25, 35 and 36, T6S, R89W; and portions of Sections 3-9, T7S, R88W more practically described as an area known as the south portion of Spring Valley off of County Roads 114 and 115. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Spring Valley Sanitation District is proposing to amend the existing district boundaries established in July of 1979, to address regional wastewater treatment needs. The existing district boundaries include 1787 acres of land that is made up of portions of the Los Amigos Ranch PUD, CMC Campus, Auburn Ridge and Pinon Pines apartments. The proposed district would add 10,726 acres of land that is made up of other portions of the Los Amigos Ranch PUD, Spring Valley Ranch PUD, Lake Springs Ranch PUD, the Kendall Ranch and other lands. The entire district would be 12,513 acres in size, if the amended service plan is approved. The existing district has 189.5 EQR's or an estimated Populations Equivalent of 664 people. The proposed amended district would have a projected total of 1,571 EQR's and a Population Equivalent (PE) of 5,499 people. All of the projections are based upon the proposed plans of various property owners in the area and some estimations on other properties. Also included in the projections are estimates of EQR's and a PE based upon the proposed Comprehensive Plan densities. According to the applicants interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan, there could be 4,057 EQR's and a PE of 14,201. The existing wastewater treatment facility can treat up to 53,000 gpd or 189.5 EQR. Additional service requests have come from property owners within the district and outside the district boundaries. A wastewater collection system and a 550,000 gpd treatment facility are being designed to meet the regional wastewater treatment needs of the area based upon the anticipated density. The treatment facility will be designed to meet tertiary discharge requirements. The existing wastewater is collected in a gravity sewer line system, but due to topography, wastewater lift stations and associated forced mains will be needed to -1- accommodate much of the proposed new and expanded service area. The collection system will be designed to accommodate additional flows from property to the north and west. The estimated cost of the construction of the new plant and associated infrastructure originajlly was $5,100,000, but after further analysis has been reduced to $4,100,000. (See pgs. o— /B ) The 20 year operating and maintenance costs are estimated at $1,800,000. Several property owners in the District service area will make capital cost contributions to fund construction of the plant: and related infrastructure. Additional funding may come from credit enhanced revenue bonds or a low-interest revenue -based loan from the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. Tap fees and service charges will be used to repay construction obligations and annual operation and maintenance of the facility. H. ISSUES AND COMMENTS A. Colorado Revised Statutes - C.R.S. 32-1-101, et. seq. Within 30 days of the filing of a service plan with the County Clerk and Recorder, the Clerk and Recorder is required to deliver the service plan to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to take one of the following actions: 1. Approve, without condition or modification, the service plan. 2. Disapprove the service plan. 3. Conditionally approve the service plan subject to additional information being submitted or the modification of the proposed service plan. The Board of County Commissioners "shall disapprove the service plan unless evidence satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented": 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. 3. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. 4. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the plan if evidence satisfactory to the Board of any of the following, at the discretion of the Board, is not presented: -2- 1. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the County or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. 2. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and service standards of each County within which the proposed special district is to be located and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1). 3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-108, C.R.S.. 4. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long-range water quality management plan for the area. 5. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served. The following are responses to the statutory criteria: 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. The Spring Valley area has a number of already approved developments requiring sewage treatment. One development was approved with the requirement that a central sewage disposal system be developed for the project. Other older developments are being revised and will require central sewage disposal facilities if they are going to be approved as envisioned. The other property proposed for inclusion in the district would need central sewage disposal, if they are developed. 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. The present system is inadequate to meet the immediate and near future demands for sewage treatment for the existing development in the area. The present system is at capacity and there are other property owners within the existing district boundaries wanting service. The other properties to be included in the district would far exceed any capabilities of the existing treatment capabilities. 3. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. The proposed district will need to invest an estimated $4.1 million to build all of the infrastructure to meet the proposed demand for service. Of that -3- cost, $2,937,566 will be the cost of the new treatment facility. The remaining portions of the cost will be for lift stations and force mains. Bob Szrot, County Engineer has reviewed the application and supplemental material submitted and concluded that there are still que,Ado s about the method and cost of treatment facilities. (See letters pgs. /`/-4¢' ) He has a number of questions related to the District's ability to provide sufficient and economic service to the area. There is no demonstration of the ability to meet the discharge standards. There is a question about the sufficiency of the service, given the proposed design. 4. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The district has commitments from a number of the proposed landowners to pay for the cost of the capital improvements, along with proposed loans. Included is an analysis by Blake Jordan, bond counsel for the County. (See letter pgs. '— / ) Mr. Jordan has provided some suggested language for inclusion in the Service Plan that has been used by other Counties in the approval of a Service Plan. Staff would suggest that if the Service Plan amendments are to be approved, the suggested language be included as a part of the final Service Plan amendments. The following discussion addresses the reasons for denial by the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the County or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. The District has made the statement that the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District is not willing to provide service. There is a letter supplementing the application from the RFWSD legal counsel stating that the district is not capable of handling the sewage disposal needs of the SVSD (See letter pgs. 32- "3t- ). This is based upon the RFWSD having a 600,000 gpd maximum capacity identified in their service plan and number of existing commitments to other properties in their service area and expanded service area. Staff finds this to be in conflict with representations during the Cattle Creek Ranch PUD application that the RFWSD could grow to up to 1.2 mgd. -4- The supplemental documentation submitted for the application states that it will cost $8.1 million to connect into the Roaring Fork Sanitation District (See attached pgs. /2-. - / % ). The construction cost of the infrastructure to connect the Spring Valley area to the RFSD facilities is projected to be $1,987,897, with $6,126,900 in tap fees. It appears that portions of the projected connection cost are being totally attributed to the Spring Valley Sanitation District that will more than likely be shared by other property owners needing to connect with the RFSD. The actual cost to the Spring Valley Sanitation District would probably be at least 25% less than projected. The tap fee costs are not really a fair comparison, since the individual hookups to the Spring Valley Sanitation District will be subject to tap fees too. If a fair comparison were to be done, then perhaps it should include a comparison of tap fees and equivalent costs for capital construction.. As noted in the County Engineer's memo, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission recently instituted a new policy regarding the consolidation of facilities. The policy requires a financial feasibility analysis of connecting to facilities within a five (5) mile radius of a proposed new or upgraded plant as a part of the site application process. The documentation submitted with this application does not appear to adequately answer the question of consolidation. 2. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and service standards of each County within which the proposed special district is to be located and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1). As noted previously, the CDPHE has established Preliminary Effluent Standards for the Spring Valley Sanitation District. It is staff's understanding that these standards are not changed in a significant manner for the approval of a site application for a sewage disposal facility. The District has stated that they will meet the standards imposed by the State. It has not been demonstrated to staff that the district can meet the effluent standards being imposed The standards to be imposed are very difficult to meet and the plans submitted leave a lot of questions about the proposed treatment facility being able to meet the limits.. 3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-108, C.R.S.. The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area I notes three different designations on the Proposed Land Use Districts Map. The majority of the proposed new service area is identified as being Medium Density Residential -5- (6 to less than 10 ac/du), with a smaller areas identified as Low Density Residential (10 and greater ac/du) or Existing Subdivision. The present district is located in an area identified as Existing Subdivision and Public Institution. The projected densities do not appear to be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan designations. The Water and Sewer Services Goal states the following: To ensure the provision of legal, adequate, dependable, cost effective and environmentally sound sewer and water services for new development. The following objectives are relevant to the proposed service plan : 7.1 Development located adjacent to municipalities or sanitation districts with available capacity in their central water/sewer systems will be strongly encouraged to tie into these systems. 7.4 Development will be required to mitigate the impact of the proposed project on existing water and sewer systems. 7.5 Garfield County will strongly discourage the proliferation of private water and sewer systems. The following policies are relevant to the proposed service plan : 7.1 All development proposals in rural areas without existing central water or sewer systems will be required to show that legal, adequate, dependable and environmentally sound water and sewage disposal facilities can be provided before project approval. 7.2 Where logical, legal and economic extension of service lines from an existing water and/or sewage system can occur, the County will require development adjacent to or within a reasonable distance, to enter into the appropriate agreements to receive service. The burden of proof regarding logical, legal and economic constraints will be on the developer. The proposed service plan amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of developing a central sewage disposal system for an area. 4. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long-range water quality management plan for the area. -6- The Water Quality Management Plan for Region 11(208 Plan) identifies a need for an analysis of the Spring Valley area populations, consolidation of facilities and treatment requirements prior to the approval of any additional site applications. (See pg..3% ) Subsequent approval of the SVSD site application has occurred, but without the analysis identified. The present application has provided additional analysis of these issues, but as noted previously, is not convincing in the arguments for the preferred alternative. S. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served. If development is to occur in the proposed service area, a central sewage disposal system is appropriate and is in the interest of the area to be served. The primary question is still whether or not SVSD should expand or try to connect to the RFWSD. III. RECOMMENDATION Disapprove the proposed service plan amendments based upon the lack of satisfactory evidence that: 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. 2. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. 0 em1-1eQ cep-���C 5e /e/ -7- LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH CYNTHIA C. TESTER GREGORY J. HALL DAVID H. McCONAUGHY KELLY D. CAVE DAVID A. MEISINGER* TOM KINNEY *Admitted is Wisconsin only LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Don DeFord, Esq. Garfield County Attorney 109 Eighth Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RECEIVED MAR 1 1 1999 March 11, 1999 1011 GRAND AVENUE P. 0. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261 FAX: (970) 945-7336 Itlaw@sopris. net Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plari Dear Don: Per your request, the Spring Valley Sanitation District ("District") hereby submits supplemental information for the District's Amended Service Plan filed with the Garfield County Clerk & Recorder's Office on February 5, 1999. This letter also confirms the District's agreement to postpone the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission hearing for such Amended Service Plan to March 24, 1999. As a point of clarification, the District is submitting the Amended Service Plan and the enclosed supplemental information pursuant to C.R.S. §32-1-207(2), which requires approval by the Board of County Commissioners of material modifications to the service plan as originally approved. A resolution of approval by the Board,of County Commissioners under the statute is to be adopted in substantially the same manner as is provided for the approval of an original service plan; therefore, the District has submitted its service plan and supplemental information with the intent to satisfy the criteria for "service plans" contained in C.R.S. §32-1-203. If your interpretation of the statutory provision differs from the District's, please inform me at your earliest convenience. Enclosed is a letter from Dean Gordon, P.E., the District Engineer, which addresses review comments contained in the February 22, 1999 staff memo to the District from Bob Szrot, P.E., County Engineer. We anticipate that the clarifications contained in Mr. Gordon's letter will allow the County Engineer to confirm his recommendation of approval of the District's Amended Service Plan. Also enclosed is a letter from the District Engineer addressing information and clarifications you requested in our telephone conversation at the end of February. The District Engineer's letter includes a breakdown of capital costs, and please note that the District's estimate of capital cost for construction of a new regional wastewater treatment facility has decreased from F:119991Letters-Memos1SVSADeFord-ltr-1, wpd LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. Don DeFord, Esq. Page 2 March 11, 1999 the total cost identified in the Amended Service Plan. The letter also contains confirmation of the District's ability to meet preliminary discharge parameters established by the State. I must emphasize that, pending the State's final determination on the discharge parameters, the District will proceed with alternative discharge options, including direct discharge to Landis Creek and land application in the Spring Valley area. Finally, the District Engineer has detailed the costs required to transport effluent from entities requesting central sewer service in the Spring Valley area to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District site located near the Aspen Glen Subdivision. As you can see, the costs associated with infrastructure and transportation to the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District are prohibitive (approximately $3 Million more than the District option). In addition, the enclosed letter from the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District confirms that such District is unable and unwilling to accept and treat sewage from the Spring Valley area. I trust the enclosed information will provide a comprehensive supplement to the District's Amended Service Plan, and we look forward to meeting with the Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission on March 24, 1999 to further discuss the District's Amended Service Plan. Should you need any additional information or clarifications, please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. LEL:bsl Enclosure cc w/enc : SVSD Board of Directors Anne J. Castle, Esq. John R. Schenk, Esq. Lawrence R. Green, Esq. Glenn D. Chadwick, Esq. Kevin L. Patrick, Esq. John A. Thulson, Esq. Dean Gordon, P.E. William Gibson Hayden Rader F:\1999\Leaers-Memos\SVSD-DeFord-ltr-1.wpd Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. L�` (970) 945-1004 FAX (970) 945-5948 SCHUUESER GORDON MEYER -T. EMGINEERS SURVEYORS GM 118 West 6th, Suite Glenwood Springs, CO 81 - March 9, 1999 Mr. Bob Szrot, P.E., County Engineer Garfield County 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs CO 81601 RE: Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plan Dear Bob: The purpose of this letter is to respond directly to your February 22, 1999, staff memo with review comments. That memo has been forwarded on to me. Referencing your memo, please consider the following: 1. Consistently throughout the Amended Service Plan, we have used the equivalency of 1 EQR = 350 gpd. We have further assumed that an EQR is equivalent to a residential occupancy of 3.5 persons with a daily per capita use of 100 gpd. 2. I felt the easiest way to address your request for additional mapping was to use a colored map for clarification. I have included that map with this correspondence. We would be able to reproduce additional copies of this as needed for hearings before the Planning & Zoning Commission and/or County Commissioners. Those areas indicated as "unallocated" are best explained by referring to the table on Page 1 1 . Item D, Unallocated - Expanded District Service Area, indicates the EQR and population equivalent densities assumed for the unallocated area. All the areas EXCEPT the unallocated areas have been identified in the Amended Service Plan as having an existing or planned development associated with them. The balance of the properties, referred to as unallocated properties, do not have specific development plans and, therefore, were dealt with in the aggregate as shown on Page 1 1 . The last columns indicate what the EQR and population equivalent would be if the Comprehensive Plan approved densities were strictly followed. The middle two columns indicate the density assumed for this Amended Service Plan. All the unallocated areas are included within the proposed service area. 3. With respect to the anticipated facilities to be constructed, attached is a drawing of the treatment facility site showing both existing and proposed facilities. A conceptual sizing of facilities is also shown based on preliminary information from equipment manufacturers. The approximate footprint shown is 2.5 acres. Note that the existing facilities will be abandoned. Alternately, I would like to address your comment by noting the following treatment plant facilities in the area, their size and the approximate area dedicated to wastewater treatment: i March 9, 1999 Mr. Bob Szrot, P.E. Page 2 TREATMENT FACILITY DESIGN CAPACITY ACREAGE City of Glenwood Springs 2.3 MGD 4 Town of Carbondale 1.5 MGD 3.5 Roaring Fork Sanitation District (Aspen Glen) 1.2 MGD 5 Mid Valley Metropolitan District 1.2 MGD 4 Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District 2.4 MGD 7 I have attempted to bracket the Amended Service Plan capacity for the SVSD facility as well as the potential for expansion to 1.5 MGD. You will note there is a wide variation in the acreage devoted to wastewater treatment in all of these situations. That is because the acreage is dependent upon the type of wastewater process utilized and the extent to which the various treatment components are separated from each other which, obviously, in turn is dependent upon the amount of acreage available in the first place. As you will note for the anticipated service needs is 0.55 MGD, an acreage in the amount of 2 to 3 acres is sufficient. Even at a Comprehensive Plan maximum service requirement of 1.5 MGD, 5 acres is sufficient for any anticipated needs. 4. Please see discussion in No. 3 above. In anticipation of the upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission hearing, I would like to discuss both your memo and this response well in advance so that we might have a complete packet of information available at that meeting. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dean W. President DWG:Iec/1 503a 1 1 Enclosure cc: Greg Boecker, Chairman Lee Leavenworth, Esq. SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC (970) 945-1004 FAX (970) 945-5948 • SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER ENGINEERS SURVEYORS 118 West 6th, Suite Glenwood Springs, CO 81 March 11, 1999 Lee Leavenworth, Esq. Leavenworth & Tester, P.C. Attorneys at Law P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs CO 81602 RE: Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plan Dear Lee: At your request, I am providing additional information with respect to the Amended Service Plan submitted on behalf of Spring Valley Sanitation District (SVSD). My understanding is this request for additional information comes from County staff during their review of the plan. Breakdown of Costs Attached hereto are several tables which indicate the breakdown of the estimated capital costs. There are four components to the capital cost figure, the tertiary treatment itself and three different interceptor sewerlines consisting of a pump station and force main for each installation. Please note that, at the time the Amended Service Plan was done last month, the estimated costs for the tertiary treatment plant were $3,971,000. The attached breakdown represents additional work we have done in the interim period on estimating of costs for plant facility. We have had a chance to get further information from potential equipment manufacturers as well as contractors who specialize in the type of work required. The breakdown indicates a total estimated plant cost of $2,937,566. Therefore, this would decrease the total estimated capital costs for the service plan from $5.1 million to $4.1 million. Connection to Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (RFSD) Also attached hereto is a table indicating the estimated costs for connection to the RFSD, formerly known as the Aspen Glen Water & Sanitation District. Those costs are estimated at $8.1 million. Please note, however, that RFSD has indicated that treatment of waste from Spring Valley is not an option they are able to consider. Therefore, these costs should be considered for comparison purposes only and not representative of a viable alternative for treatment of wastes from Spring Valley. Preliminary Effluent Limitations We have received a letter from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) concerning preliminary effluent limitations. The ammonia limitation is the only effluent parameter which is not readily obtainable by existing wastewater treatment I March 11, 1999 Lee Leavenworth, Esq. Page 2 technology. The ammonia limitations given will require that the effluent from the facility be land applied rather than direct discharges to a receiving stream. As you know, discussions have been held with landowners within the district and we believe there are more potential users for effluent than there is effluent available so that using land application will not be a restraint to treatment. I should also point out that we have ongoing discussions with the CDPHE concerning the classification of the receiving stream in Spring Valley, assumed by the State to be Landis Creek. We anticipate that under any reclassification considered, tertiary treatment would still be required, but that tertiary treatment technology exists that would allow direct discharge to the receiving environment. I trust the above addresses the request for additional information from County staff. I would remain available to provide whatever additional information is required. Respectfully submitted, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC. Dea Preside DWG:Iec/1 503a 1 1 .2 Enclosures cc: Mr. Greg Boecker, Chairman, SVSD , a, SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER, INC SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT CONNECTION TO ROARING FOR SANITATION DISTRICT Opinion of Probable Cost March, 1999 1 Gravity Sewer 2 Force Main Highway 82 Bore River Crossing Manholes Air Release Valve Force Main Cleanouts Lift Station Connection to Existing System Seeding Gravel Restoration Aspahlt Restoration Estimated. Quantity 16,300 14,700 150 250 51 1 27 2 4 12.40 325 3,627 AC 30 $ 25 $ 400 $ 400 $ 2,500 $ 5,000 $ 2,500 $125,000 $ 2,500 $ 2,178 $ 20 $ 50 Subtotal Engineering, 7% Contingency, 10% Total Price $489,000 $367,500 S 60,000 $100,000 $127,500 $ 5,000 $ 67,500 $ 250,000 $ 10,000 $ 27,015 $181,350 $1,691,365 $ 118,396 $ 1 69,1 37 TOTAL $1,987,897 Tap Fees TOTAL tables\1503a1 1 1,571 $ 3,900 $6,126,90C $8,114,79- SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT : VALLEY LIFT STATION/FORCE MAIN- Opinton'of Probable Cost EFFLUENT UFT STAT1ON/FORCE MAIN - Opinion of Probable Cost March. 1999 No. Item/Description No. . Item/Description .. • Estirnateti' • • Quantity 'Units Unft ' : • . Price • • Total Price 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 5,000 3 5,000 2 Lift Station 1 LS $ 125,000 3125,000 3 Force Main 11,000 LF $ 15 $165,000 4 Cleanouts 44 LF $ 250 $ 11,000 5 Power 1 LS $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Subtotal 3331,000 Engineenng, 7% $ 23,170 Contingency, 10% $ 33.100 TOTAL 3387,270 $ 50 S 500 EFFLUENT UFT STAT1ON/FORCE MAIN - Opinion of Probable Cost March. 1999 No. Item/Description Estimated Quantity Units Unit Price Total Price 1 Mobilization/Demobilization 1 LS 3 5,000 $ 5,000 2 Lift Station 1 LS 3125,000 3125,000 3 Force Main 11,000 LF $ 15 8165,000 4 Cleanouts 44 LF $ 250 $ 11,000 Subtotal 3306,000 Engineering, 7% $ 21,420 Contingency, 10% $ 30,600 TOTAL $358.000 LOWER BENCH UFT STATION/FORCE MAIN - Opinion of Probable Cost March. '1999 No. Item/Description Estimated Quantity Units- Unit Price Total Price 2 Force Main 6,100 LF $ 25 $152,000 6 Air Release Valve 1 EA $ 5,000 $ 5,000 7 Force Main Cleanouts 9 ' EA $ 2,500 $ 22,500 8 Lift Station 1 LS 8125,000 8125,000 9 Connection to Existing System 1 EA $ 2,500 $ 2.500 10 Seeding 4.06 AC $ 2.178 8 8,850 12 Asphalt Restoration 10 Ton $ 50 S 500 Subtotal 8316,850 Engineering, 7% $ 22,180 Contingency, 10% $ 31,685 TOTAL 8370,715 aoies\ SPRING VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY OXYDATION DITCH 550,000 gpd capacity SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER CALCULATED: LOM FILE SVSD date february 22. 1999 NO. 17 EM16ESCRIFMON ESTIMA • QUANTITY UNITS UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE 1 PRETREATMENT BLDG EXCAVATION 900 CY S7 54.200 CONCRETE 125 CY S400 550,000 BUILDING 1295 SF 5100 5129.500 FLUME 1 LS 51.500 51.500 MISC GRATING 1 LS 58,000 58.000 MECHANICAL BAR SCREEN 1 LS 550.000 550,000 PLANT PIPING 300 LF 520 58.000 FLOW MEASUREMENT 1 LS 54.000 54.000 GRIT EQUIPMENT 1 LS 545.000 I 545,000 MISC BAFFLES, WEIRS, CHANNEL GATES 1 LS 52,500 S2 500 MISC FITTINGS AND VALVES 1 LS 1500 51.500 MANUAL BAR SCREEN 1 LS 2500 I 52500 000R CONTROL 1 LS 20000 1 520.000 TOTAL5322.700 2 CONTROL BUILDING EXCAVATION 500 CY 57 53.500 CONCRETE 80 CY 5400 532.000 BUILDING 1200 SF 5100 5120.000 ELECTRIC 936 SF 325 I 523.400 RAS PUMPS 2 EA 315.000 530,000 WAS PUMP 2 EA 515.000 1 530,000 SCUM PUMP 1 EA 1 510.000 1 510.000 RAS.WAS METERS 2 EA 53.000 56.000 !PIPING. VALVES AND FITTINGS 1 LS 1 515.000 1 515.000 I BLOWER FOR DIGESTOR ANO GRIT 1 LS 550.000 1 550.000 LAB EQUIPMENT 1 LS 1 520.000 1 520.000 TOTAL I S339.900 3 AERATION BASINS 2 1 T I EXCAVATION 12,278 CY 57 585.944 ICONCRETE 482 CY 5400 5192,800 I FOUR (41 HIGH SPEED AERATORS 1 ILS 5165.000 5185.000 I TWO (2) 3 HP SUBMERGED TURBINE MIXERS 1 LLS 540.000 540.000 IMISC PIPING WALKWAYS. RAILS ECT 1 I LS 520.000 520.000 ELECTRIC 1 LS 1530.000 I 530.000 ENCLOSURE (none) 0 SF I 540 I SO TOTAL. 5533.744 4 DIGESTOR EXCAVATION 1388.89 CY 'CY 57 59.7 72 CONCRETE 250.00 S400 5100,000 DIFUSSERS 2500.00SF 58 520.000 MISC PIPING 1.00 _LS 510.000 510,000 HATCHES. WEIRS. GRATING ECT 1.00 LS 54.000 54.000 BUILDING 2500.00 SF S80 5200,000 SLUDGE DEWATERING1.00 LS 5100.000 5100.000 CDCR CONTROL 1.00 LS 520,000 520.300 TOTAL 5463.722 25% CONTINGENCY TOTAL 5 PER GAL PER DAY 7 $587,513 $2,937,566 5.3410287878788 5 CLARIFIERS 2 EXCAVATION 1395.58 CY 57 59,769 CONCRETE 180 CY 5600 5108,000 SLUDGE COLLECTION EQUIPMENT 2 LS 550.000 5100,000 ENCLOSURE 2034.72 SF 550 5101,738 ELECTRIC 1 LS 515,000 515,000 MISC PIPING/SCUM EQUIP 1 LS 515,000 $15,000 TOTAL S309,736 e SITE WORK YARD PIPING 400 LF 350 520.000 SITE GRADING 1 LS 520.000 520.000 YARD VALVES 8 EA 5500 51,000 SPUTTER BOX 3 EA 55,000 515,000 MANHOLES 5 EA 51,500 57,500 DEWATERING 1 LS 50 50 GRAVEL SURFACING 500 TONS S18 59,400 LANDSCAPING 1 LS 515.000 515,000 ELECTRIC SERVICE 1 LS 525.000 525,000 ACCESS ROAD 1 LS 1 550.000 $50.000 TEMP TOILET 1 LS I 55,000 55.000 CLEAR AND GRUB 1 LS 57.500 57,500 TE?v1P OFFICE 1 LS 35.000 55,000 SITE ELECTRIC 200 LF 515 53.000 MOB/DEMOB 1 LS 550.000 550.000 EMERGENCY GENERATOR 1 ILS 530,000 530.000 TOTAL $266,000 7 CHLORINE CONTACT/DECHLORINATION (EXCAVATION 250 CY I 57 S1,750 I CONCRETE 70 CY I 5500 535.000 WIERS AND GATES 1 LS 55.000 55.000 SCUM SKIMMER A. 1 LS 510.000 510.000 GRATING 1 LS 55.000 S5.000 I RAILS 1 I LS 52.500 52.500 IEFFLUENTMETER 1 I LS I 55.000 55.000 GAS CHLORINATION 1 LS 520.000 520.000 SULFUR DIOXIDE 1 LS 520.000 $20.000 GATES 2 EA 52.500 55.000 MISC PIPING 1 ILS I 55.000 55.000 TOTAL -.:-,,;-.....:!;!.7... $114;250 PLANT TOTAL $2,350.053 25% CONTINGENCY TOTAL 5 PER GAL PER DAY 7 $587,513 $2,937,566 5.3410287878788 Garfield County ROBERT B. SZROT, County Engineer B. SZROT, County Engineer February 22, 1999 Memorandum To: File Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District — Amended Service Plan I have reviewed the February, 1999 Amended Service Plan document and have the following comments. I feel that it is a well -needed concept to provide centralized regional solutions for wastewater treatment. The expansion of the sanitary district, increasing waste treatment to tertiary standards, and the planned reuse of effluent flows are logical remedies for this service area. I have several minor issues that I would like to see addressed prior to adoption of this document. 1) Page 6 — I would like to see a correlation included that specifically relates EQR's to gpd flows. For the purpose of this report — approximately how many gpd's = 1 EQR? I have seen several definitions in the industry and would like clarification to this question. 2) Ill -A, III -B — I would like to see one map (in addition to those presented) that overlays the existing service area with the future intended service area. This would help relate visually the proportionality of the geographic dimension changes. I also would like to know why some areas are "unallocated" and the specific meaning of this concept as it relates to this report. Does this term represent non-inclusion of these areas into the service area? 3) Section IV. General Description of Facilities to Be Constructed — I would like to see a conceptual sketch of the anticipated future treatment facility with the associated anticipated processes. Please show the anticipated process flow for achieving tertiary treatment and approximate sizes of process units. Although this does not need to be a "formal" presentation, I would like to know anticipated tank sizes, 109 8th Street, Suite 300, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363 (970) 945-5004 FAX (970) 945-7785 ir,...� .. ___. digester size, sludge processes, and see how the footprint of these processes are anticipated to occupy the existing plant site. 4) In relation to Comment 3 — The future planned waste treatment plant will process .5MGD flow rates. The Comprehensive Plan figures would anticipate maximum density flows of 1.5MGD. With the consideration of the existing plant site at 9.8 acres — contractually expandable to 25 acres and the anticipation of reusing effluent water within the service area, I would like to see the following question addressed in conceptual form: Could the current site accommodate an expansion of the future .5MGD plant to 1.5MGD and will the future plant be designed (and have room) to add parallel processes to facilitate an expansion from .5MGD to 1.5MGD. I would have no expectations nor requirements to have any kind of documentation for this 1.5MGD expansion — at this time, but feel that a little forethought might be in order and would like a brief conceptual comment included as to the possibility of this scenario. In conclusion, I was pleased to see the concept of regionalized tertiary wastewater treatment being brought forward in such a cooperative manner. Aside from several clarification issues and foresight concerns, I would support this Amended Service Plan for the Spring Valley Sanitation District. March 17, 1999 Garfield County Memorandum To: File Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District — Amended Service Plan — Addendum ROBERT B. SZROT, County Engineer This memo is intended to compliment the previous February 22, 1999 memo pertaining to my review of the February, 1999 Amended Service Plan. I had previously discussed several minor concerns relating to correlation of EQR's, defining unallocated areas, and general descriptions of the facilities to be built. Since this memo, I have received a copy of the February 4, 1999 letter pertaining to Preliminary Effluent Limits; Spring Valley Sanitation District addressed to Mr. Dean Gordon. This letter has raised some concerns about the ability of the proposed Spring Valley wastewater treatment facility to be able to meet effluent discharge standards and the cost economics and process sizing involved in meeting the proposed standards. I must insist that a more in-depth analysis be conducted to demonstrate how the proposed processes will meet the Total Ammonia discharge limitations for the stated values. I would like to see detailed descriptions of anticipated influent and effluent values for each process parameter. Of primary concern is the discharge limits to the adjacent tributary of Landis creek. Initially this creek was credited with a dilution flow rate of .1 cfs. The assumption was made that the existing dilution flow was primarily pure water. Subsequent discussions have raised question to the existing quality of this water and its ability to dilute the proposed effluent flows. The listed discharge limitations for Total Ammonia for November (.35mg/I), December (.35mg/I), and January (.09mg/I) reinforce the requirement to have better documentation of the proposed plant processes and their respective removal rates. From discussion with several industry professionals and literature review, it appears that Total Ammonia (as N) is typically present in discharge effluent at rates in excess of 1.0mg/I in even the most advanced systems. This rate would be out of compliance for all months except February. -2/- 1 109 8th Street, Suite 300, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601-3363 (970) 945-5004 FAX (970) 945-7785 Comment was heard that there might be plans for an effluent storage facility that would hold the discharge waters until a time that they would be able to achieve discharge into the Landis tributary, I have not seen any plans for this scenario. A final note is the question of economics. I would like to see if the process costs have changed with this new information. In addition, there has been a rejection of the possibility to pipe wastewater to the Aspen Glen facility as being cost prohibitive, yet the majority of this cost is based on $6M in tap fees. I would like to see a more representative breakdown of capital structure costs with the piping option. I have also been advised that the upcoming State regulations will examine more closely these economics if a treatment facility is within 5 miles to the area of need. still support tertiary wastewater treatment in a regionalized setting, however, I must withdraw my support until more clarification is documented in light of seemingly unattainable effluent limitations for this proposed facility. Robert B. Szrot, P.E. Garfield County Engineer �2z 2 1• • f. RECEIVED FEB 9 7 iss5 STATE OF COLORADO .op coy rav Bill Owens, Governor Jane E. Norton, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado Laboratory and Radiation Services Division 8100 Lowry Blvd. Denver CO 80220-6928 (303) 692-3090 • 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Phone (303) 692-2000 Located in Glendale, Colorado http://www.cdphestate.co.us February 4, 1999 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Mr. Dean W. Gordon, P.E. Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. 118 West 6th, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Subject: Preliminary Effluent Limits; Spring valley Sanitation District Dear Mr. Gordon, This letter provides preliminary effluent limits for a surface water discharge as requested in your letter of October 16, 1998. This discharge would be located a a new treatment facility adjacent to a small unnamed tributary ofLandis Creek, Colorado River Ban stream segment 3 of the Roaring Fork River Sub -Basin of the Upper . The discharge flow used for this evaluation was 0.45 MGD, which is assumed to be the 20 year design flow from the facility. This stream segment is classified for the following uses: aquatic life, class 1 cold; class 1 recreation; drinking water; and agriculture. The annual acute and chronic low flows utilized in this evaluation are 0.1 cfs and 0.1 cfs, respectively. Because the stream segment is not classified Use Protected or Outstanding Waters, these limits have been establishedhe water quality thata asrelated to adopted narrative and numeric significant degradationnofof standards. Under regulations criteria the proposed discharge will not result in a significant. degradation due to the limits being capped at a 15% of the assilative capacity of the stream. f Background concentrations for the parameters evaluated, with the exception ole artoa- residual chlorine (TRC), were assumed to be zero because the discharge is very neartte top of the collection area for the receiving str Allowable instream total ammon; and there are no perm dischargers above this proposed discharge point concentrations were evaluated using the Colorado Ammonia Model and pH/temperture dat for a similar stream. Metals limits may be considered at the time the permit is written. • Under these conditions, the limits as noted on: the following page would apply. SW 23 Mr.Dean W. Gordon, P.E., Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Inc. Page 2 of 2 February 4, 1999 Parameter BOD„ mg/1 TSS, mg/1 Total Coliform, #/100 ml Oil and Grease Total Residual Chlorine, mg/1 Total Ammonia (as N) , mg/1 January February March April May June July August September October November December -a b Limitation Rationale 30/45 a State Effluent Regulations 30/45 a State Effluent Regulations 34/68 e 10 b 0.002/0.003 f 0.09 1.19 0.96 0.53 0.21 0.21 0.36 0.23 0.71 0.51 0.35 0.35 d d d d d d d d d d d d State Effluent Regulations State Effluent Regulations Water Quality Standards Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Water Water 30 -day avg./7-day avg. (geometric mean for fecal coliform) daily maximum 7 -day avg./daily maximum f 30 -day average/daily maximum Quality Standards Quality Standards Quality Standards Quality Standards Quality Standards Quality Standards Quality Standards Quality Standards Quality Standards Quality Standards Quality Standards Quality Standards c minimum -maximum d 30 -day average If you have any questions please call me at 303-692-3615. Sincere Lynn Kimble, P.E. Water Quality Control Division, Permits and Enforcement Section XC: Phil Segeman. Permits Unit. WQm Duane Watson. D.S., Field Support. Wpm To Sennett. Groundwater and Standards. Wpm 4'GaitteIC tar lealth WS -3 file Sherman & Howard LL.C. Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 109 8th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW 633 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 3000 DENVER, COLORADO 80202 TELEPHONE 303 297-2900 PAX 303 298.0940 OFFICES IN: COLORADO SPRINGS RENO • LAS VEGAS February 23, 1999 Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plan Ladies and Gentlemen: We are special counsel to the County with respect to the review of the above - referenced Service Plan amendment, and this is in response to a request from the County Attorney's office to review and comment on the financial provisions in such amendment. It is our understanding that the District is an existing Title 32 sanitation district, and that it is proposing an amendment to its Service Plan to deal with projected new development. The section that we examined had to do only with the new debt or other financial obligations which the District could incur under the amendment. I. GENERAL STATE LAW RESTRICTIONS First, it should be pointed out that the financial section does not limit in any material way any kind of obligation the District could issue, whether that obligation is payable from ad valorem taxes or system revenues. Thus, the only limitation which would apply would be those under existing state law. Whether this is appropriate or not depends upon how the County views this matter. As I discussed with the County Attorney, it has become somewhat common to place restrictions in the Service Plan upon the issuance of obligations by a special district payable from an ad valorem mill levy. On the other hand, Districts will ordinarily try to resist such limitations on the theory that state law already puts restrictions on their abilities to incur financial obligations (e.g., TABOR, the Special District Act itself, and the original Article XI, Section 6, Colorado Constitution limitations). It may also be true that limitations in the Service Plan on that ability will result in increased borrowing costs. Consequently, the first suggestion I have is that the County evaluate whether it feels any restrictions are necessary or appropriate in this case. With respect to limitations inherent in state law now, the following is an excerpt from the portion of the Special District Act (Section 32-1-1101, C.R.S.) which places restrictions on the issuance of tax -supported bonds: "(6) (a) The total principal amount of general obligation debt of a special Sherman & Howard LLC. Garfield County, Colorado February 23, 1999 Page 2 district issued pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, which debt is issued on or after July 1, 1991, shall not at the time of issuance exceed the greater of two million dollars or fifty percent of the valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the special district, as certified by the assessor, except for debt which is: (I) Rated in one of the four highest investment grade rating categories by one or more nationally recognized organizations which regularly rate such obligations; (II) Determined by the board of any special district in which infrastructure is in place to be necessary to construct or otherwise provide additional improvements specifically ordered by a federal or state regulatory agency to bring the district into compliance with applicable federal or state laws or regulations for the protection of the public health or the environment if the proceeds raised as a result of such issue are limited solely to the direct and indirect costs of the construction or improvements mandated and are used solely for those purposes; (III) Secured as to the payment of the principal and interest on the debt by a letter of credit, line of credit, or other credit enhancement, any of which must be irrevocable and unconditional, issued by a depository institution: (A) With a net worth of not less than ten million dollars in excess of the obligation created by the issuance of the letter of credit, line of credit, or other credit enhancement; (B) With the minimum regulatory capital as defined by the primary regulator of such depository institution to meet such obligation; and (C) Where the obligation does not exceed ten percent of the total capital and surplus of the depository institution, as those terms are defined by the primary regulator of such depository institution; or (IV) Issued to financial institutions or institutional investors. (b) Nothing in this title shall prohibit a special district from issuing general obligation debt or other obligations which are either payable from a limited debt service mill levy, which mill levy shall not exceed fifty mills, or which are refundings or restructurings of outstanding obligations, or which are obligations issued pursuant to part 14 of this article." The primary restriction is in 6(a), which basically requires that the assessed valuation of the District be twice the principal amount of any bonds, except for a de minimus exception of $2,000,000. Note that limited mill levy obligations payable from a mill levy of 50 or less are permitted by 6(b) regardless of amount (as are refundings which shouldn't be relevant here, since the District has no outstanding debt). If the County feels that such restrictions are sufficient, then it could (a) rely upon the state law restrictions, or (b) place such state law restrictions in the amended Service Plan against the event that the above statute is changed in the future. Obviously, the County could also choose to insert additional restrictions. For example, I have seen Service Plans which do not permit the $2,000,000 de minimus exception on Sherman & Howard L.L.c. Garfield County, Colorado February 23, 1999 Page 3 the theory that even that amount of debt might cause the mill levy to become too high. With respect to revenue obligations (i.e., obligations not payable from ad valorem taxes) Title 32 does not place restrictions upon such obligations. However, the Municipal Bond Supervision Act does restrict those obligations, as well as obligations payable from taxes, and thus the County could logically conclude that sufficient controls exist with respect to any type of such obligation. The Municipal Bond Supervision Act provides that no obligations can be issued without an exemption or registration. There has not to date been any registrations of any obligations, and the conventional wisdom is that there probably will not be, because the exemption provisions describe almost every transaction which could be marketed in any event. The exemptions are as follows: "(b) Any issue of general obligation bonds where the total obligation represented by the issue together with any other general obligation of the district does not at the time of issuance exceed the greater of two million dollars or fifty percent of the valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the district as certified by the assessor; (c) Any issue of bonds that is rated in one of its four highest rating categories by one or more nationally recognized organizations which regularly rate such obligations; (d) Any issue of bonds by a district in which infrastructure is in place which has been determined by the board of such district to be necessary to construct or otherwise provide additional improvements specifically ordered by a federal or state regulatory agency to bring such district into compliance with applicable federal or state laws or regulations for the protection of the public health or the environment if the proceeds raised as a result of such issue are limited solely to the direct and indirect costs of the construction or improvements mandated and are used solely for those purposes; (e) Any issue of bonds secured as to the payment of the principal and interest on the debt by a letter of credit, line of credit, or other credit enhancement, any of which must be irrevocable and unconditional, issued by a depository institution: (I) With a net worth of not less than ten million dollars in excess of the obligation created by the issuance of the letter of credit, line of credit, or other credit enhancement; (II) With the minimum regulatory capital as defined by the primary regulator of such depository institution to meet such obligation; and (III) Where the obligation does not exceed ten percent of the total capital and surplus of the depository institution, as those terms are defined by the primary regulator of such depository institution; (f) Any issue of bonds insured as to the payment of the principal and interest on the debt by a policy of insurance issued by an insurance company authorized to Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Garfield County, Colorado February 23, 1999 Page 4 do business as an insurance company in this state and authorized for such risk by the insurance commissioner appointed pursuant to section 10-1-104, C.R.S.; (g) Any issue of bonds not involving a public offering made exclusively to accredited investors, as that term is defined under sections 3(b) and (4)(2) of the federal "Securities Act of 1933" by regulation adopted thereunder by the securities and exchange commission; (h) Any issue of bonds made pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; (i) Any issue of bonds by a district which has principal amounts payable from moneys other than the proceeds of an ad valorem tax, where the total of such obligations represented by the issue, together with other such bonds of the district, does not at the time of the issuance exceed two million dollars; (j) Any issue of bonds of the district issued to the Colorado water resources and power development authority which evidences a loan from said authority to the district; and (k) Any issue of bonds by a district that contains territory subject to an intergovernmental annexation agreement between the city and county of Denver and Adams county dated April 21, 1988, made pursuant to section 30-6-109.5, C.R.S." Again, the above provisions apply to both general obligations and revenue obligations, and you will notice certain similarities between the limitations in this statute and those in the Title 32 statute. Again, if the County determines that these restrictions are sufficient and that the chances that they will be changed later is slight, it could logically determine that no further restrictions need to be placed in the Service Plan amendment. II. POSSIBLE ADDITIONS TO THE SERVICE PLAN In the event the County determines that there is a risk that an inordinate amount of bonds could be issued by the District, and wishes to restrict those issuances, I have prepared the following provisions which could be inserted into the Service Plan. Similar provisions have been included in various other service plans on which I have worked in the past, and while they do place material restrictions upon the ability of the District to issue obligations, they are also something which should not unduly limit the District or make its obligations unmarketable. In most instances, they are simply a restatement of the above laws with certain changes (such as the removal of the $2,000,000 de minimus exception), and thus there would be no danger that future changes in those laws would unduly expand the District's authority to issue obligations. FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS The District may authorize, issue, sell, and deliver such bonds, notes, contracts, reimbursement agreements, or other obligations evidencing or securing a Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Garfield County, Colorado February 23, 1999 Page 5 borrowing (collectively, "Bonds") as are permitted by law; provided that, without the prior written consent of the County, the following limitations shall apply: 1. All Bonds, regardless of whether the District has promised to impose an ad valorem mill levy for their payment, shall be exempt from registration under the Colorado Municipal Bond Supervision Act, or shall be registered under such Act. 2. The principal amount of any issue of Bonds for the payment of which the District promises to impose an ad valorem property tax ("General Obligation Bonds"), together with any other outstanding issue of General Obligation Bonds of the District, may not at the time of issuance exceed fifty percent (50%) of the valuation for assessment of the taxable property in the District, as certified by the assessor, except that the foregoing shall not apply to any of the following issues: (a) an issue of General Obligation Bonds for the payment of which the District has covenanted to impose a maximum mill levy of not more than 50 mills (a mill being equal to 1/10 of 1¢) per annum; provided that, such General Obligation Bonds may also provide that in the event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after the date of approval of this Service Plan by any change in law, change in method of calculation, or change in the percentage of actual valuation used to determine assessed valuation, the 50 mill levy limitation herein provided may be increased or decreased to reflect such changes, such increases or decreases to be determined by the Board in good faith (such determination to be binding and final) so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by the mill levy, as adjusted, are neither diminished nor enhanced as a result of such changes; (b) an issue of General Obligation Bonds that is rated in one of the four highest rating categories by one or more nationally recognized organizations which regularly rate such obligations; (c) an issue of General Obligation Bonds secured as to the payment of the principal and interest by an irrevocable and unconditional letter of credit, line of credit, or other credit enhancement issued by a depository institution qualified as defined in section 11-59-110(1)(e), C.R.S.; (d) an issue of General Obligation Bonds insured as to payment of the principal and interest by a policy of insurance issued by an insurance company qualified as defined in section 11-59-110(1)(f), C.R.S. Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Garfield County, Colorado February 23, 1999 Page 6 (e) an issue of General Obligation Bonds not involving a public offering made exclusively to "accredited investors" as defined under Regulation D promulgated by the federal Securities and Exchange Commission; (f) an issue of General Obligation Bonds made pursuant to an order of a court of competent jurisdiction; (g) an issue of General Obligation Bonds issued to the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority which evidences a loan from said authority to the District; or (h) an issue of General Obligation Bonds which are originally issued in denominations of not less than $500,000 each, in integral multiples above $500,000 of not less than $1,000 each. As you can see, the above restrictions eliminate the $2,000,000 exception discussed above, and also remove some of the other exemptions in the statutes that counties have objected to in the past on transactions I have worked on. At the same time, these provisions allow the District to do typical issues which have adequate security or which have other protections for the taxpayers (such as private placements to accredited investors, who are presumably more able to bear the risk of an investment). It should be noted that the typical exemption for issues sold to the Colorado Water and Power Authority is still present in the above formulation. I have discussed this with the County Attorney, and this financing program is one which is often used by issuers to obtain a lower interest rate since the program offered by the Authority basically uses federal money to secure the obligations. The Authority itself has a stringent evaluation program to make sure the issuer is able to repay the obligations, and thus both the Special District Act and the Municipal Bond Supervision Act contain exemptions for such obligations. III. CONCLUSION It is up to the County whether it feels in this circumstance that the normal state law restrictions should be relied upon (with the possibility that such statutes could be changed in the future) or whether a version of those restrictions should be placed in the Service Plan, thus insulating the County from changes in law and allowing it to make specific changes in those statutes. For Districts for which there is little possibility that it will issue more obligations than it can reasonably pay, some additional restrictions in the Service Plan are appropriate. The above suggestions are based upon the presumption that this District does require such provisions, which may or may not Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Garfield County, Colorado February 23, 1999 Page 7 be the case. In the end, it is a judgment call by the County based upon all the facts and circumstances. Sincerely, SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C. Blake T. Jordan LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH CYNTHIA C. TESTER GREGORY J. HALL DAVID H. McCONAUGHY KELLY D. CAVE DAVID A. MEISINGER* TOM KINNEY *Admitted in Wisconsin only LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW March 16, 1999 Mark Bean, Director Garfield County Regulatory Office & Personnel Department of Development 109 Eighth Street, Suite 303 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 1011 GRAND AVENUE P. 0. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 TELEPHONE: (970) 945-2261 FAX: (970) 945-7336 Itlaw@sopris.net VIA HAND DELIVERY Re: Spring Valley Sanitation District Amended Service Plari Dear Mark: Enclosed please find a letter to our office from Larry Green on behalf of the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District ("RFWSD"), in response to a request by the Spring Valley Sanitation District ("SVSD") as to whether RFWSD would be willing and able to provide wastewater treatment services to existing and future SVSD users. This letter is submitted to you as supplemental information for the SVSD Amended Service Plan, which includes an analysis of cost and feasibility of obtaining wastewater treatment services from RFWSD. SVSD examined the possibility of consolidation with RFWSD in 1998 as part of its proposed plant facility upgrade and expansion. RFWSD indicated its existing site is sufficient for a tertiary treatment facility which could serve its Service Area and Expanded Service Area, but could not provide service to the Spring Valley area. The contents of Mr. Green's letter confirms this conclusion, which was reached by the RFWSD Board in November, 1998. The enclosed letter is intended to supplement the SVSD Amended Service Plan; as such, please include copies of the letter with the materials to be considered at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on Wednesday, March 24, 1999. F: \ 1999\Letters-Memos \S VSD-Bean-Itr- I .wpd -32- i LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. Page 2 March 16, 1999 Thank you for your assistance in this matter, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. GJH:lln Enclosure cc: SVSD Board of Directors, w/enc. Lawrence R. Green, Esq., w/enc. Anne J. Castle, Esq., w/enc. John R. Schenk, Esq., w/enc. Glenn D. Chadwick, Esq., w/enc. Kevin L. Patrick, Esq., w/enc. John A. Thulson, Esq., w/enc. William Gibson, w/enc. Hayden Rader, w/enc. Dean Gordon, P.E., w/enc. F: \ 1999\Letters-Memos \S V SD-Bean-Itr-1. wpd Very truly yours, LEAVENWO TH & TESTER, P.C. H -35- • • BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW (PORMERLY DELANEY & BALCOMB, P.C.) JOHN A. THULSON EDWARD MULHALL, JR. $corr BALcoMe LAWRENCE R. GREEN TIMOTHY A. THULSON LORI J.M. SATTERFIELD EDWARD B. OLszEWaa P. O. DRAWER 790 818 COLORADO AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 DAVID SANDOVAL OENOY M.HEMEL CHRISTOPHER L COYLE VIA HAND DELIVERY TO: Loyal E. Leavenworth, Esq. Leavenworth & Tester, P.C. P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Dear Lee: Telephone: 970.945.6546 Facsimile: 970.945.9769 February 25, 1999 Or COUNSEL: KENNETH BALCOMB Re: Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District/Spring ValIev Sanitation District I am writing on behalf of the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District (the "Roaring Fork District"), formerly known as the Aspen Glen Water & Sanitation District. As you will recall, by letter dated October 19, 1998, Greg Hall of your office inquired whether or not the Roaring Fork District would be willing and able to provide wastewater treatment services to the present and future users of the Spring Valley Sanitation District. Since that letter, the Board of Directors of the Roaring Fork District has had a number of discussions on this issue, most particularly at its meetings on October 28, 1998 and November 25, 1998. Throughout these discussions, it has been the unanimous and consistent conclusion of the Board that the Roaring Fork District is unable to provide sewer service to the Spring Valley area. I have advised you and the Spring Valley Sanitation District Board of this conclusion on a number of occasions, but, as a result of a request by Garfield County, you have now asked that I offer a written explanation of the Roaring Fork District's decision. The Service Plan for the Roaring Fork District was approved by Garfield County after a lengthy series of public hearings on January 31, 1994 by Resolution No. 94-008. A major part of the foundation of the Service Plan was a study commissioned by Aspen Glen Golf Partners at the request of the Colorado Department ofHealth entitled "Wastewater Management Study, Lower Roaring Fork Planning Area" (the "Wastewater Management Study"). The purpose of the Wastewater Management Study was to determine the most cost effective and appropriate wastewater treatment facility for the proposed Aspen Glen development and the surrounding area. The Wastewater Management Study, and hence the Service Plan, identified a "Service Area" and an "Expanded Service Area" which could potentially receive wastewater treatment service from a facility located at the proposed site of the Roaring Fork District's facility. The Wastewater Management Study also considered the Spring Valley area and concluded that it would not be appropriate for the Roaring Fork District and its proposed site to provide service to the Spring Valley area because it would be prohibitively expensive and the proposed site would be inadequate. The Wastewater Management Study concluded: "If it is necessary for Spring Valley to upgrade their system, the most feasible approach will be to provide improvements to the existing treatment plant at Spring Valley rather than extend an interceptor line to the nearest regional treatment plant." The Service Plan thus proposed that the Roaring Fork District be conveyed a site of approximately 6.5 acres, which would be large enough to accommodate a tertiary treatment facility which could provide service to the Roaring Fork District's Service Area and Expanded Service Area as identified in the Service Plan. As submitted, the initial draft of the Service Plan proposed that such facility would be constructed to a maximum capacity of 320,000 gallons per day. However, during the public hearing process, and as a result of Out -of -District Service Contracts approved by Garfield County as part of the Service Plan, the proposed Service Plan was amended to provide that the Roaring Fork District's site would be the site for a regionalized wastewater treatment plant which would have an ultimate treatment capacity of 600,000 gallons per day, the estimated total capacity need for the Roaring Fork District's Service Area and Expanded Service Area. Consistent with the terms and conditions of the approved Service Plan, and the. underlying Wastewater Management Study, the Roaring Fork District now owns a site of 6.5 acres. It owns and operates a tertiary wastewater treatment plant having a constructed and operating capacity of 107,000 gallons per day, with preliminary designs for expansion to an ultimate capacity of 600,000 gallons per day. The Roaring Fork District believes that if it were to provide service to the Spring Valley area it would be unable to provide service to its own Service Area and Expanded Service Area as identified in its Service Plan. The District has concluded that its first responsibility is to satisfy the present and future needs of property owners within its own Service Area and Expanded Service Area. Its treatment plant and site are designed to enable the District to satisfy that responsibility. The Roaring Fork District has thus concluded that it is not able to provide wastewater treatment service to the Spring Valley area. A portion of the minutes from the Roaring Fork District's Board meeting of October 28, 1998 setting forth this conclusion is attached. . Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions in regard to this matter. Very truly yours, BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. LRG/bc Encls xc: David Burden Ian Hause Louis Meyer Greg Boecker NOV- 3-98 03:31P Joey Fetzko 19709634538 Y-. Y ROARING FORK WATER & SANITATION DISATRICT 9929 HIGHWAY 82 ♦ CARBONDALE, COLORADO 81623 PHONE (970) 963=6277 • FAX (970) 963-4538 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 28, 1998 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:40 a.m. /toll Call Board members present included David Burden, Mark Norris and Dale McKay. Also present were Ian Hause, District Administrator, Larry Green, Attorney for the District; Louis Meyer, District Engineer; Scott Leslie, District Operator, Joey Fetzko, District Secretary and Stephanie Swan. Designated Election Official Aooroval of the September 23, 1998 Minutes M/SIC Mark Norris and Dale McKay to approve the September 23, 1998 Minutes Attorney's Report Spring Valley Sanitation — Larry will send letter stating our service plan. site and facility is designed per the original study which excluded the Spring Valley area Louis will review letter. Board authorizes president to sign letter. MJSIC Dale McKay and Mark Norris to authorize. . .‘0/gree GtQL 17Y it ' engdOr. frn4 biome Point Sources in Garfield County Municipal Point Sources Municipally owned wastewater facilities are in generally good condition in Garfield County. During the late 1970s and through the early 1980s concern for projected growth emanating from the energy industry led to expansion or construction of new wastewater facilities in most municipalities. As a result most wastewater facilities are fairly new and in good operating condition. The following municipalities have completed construction for new facilities in the past five years: Glenwood Springs, New Castle, Silt, Rifle, and Rifle South Metropolitan District. The Town of Parachute receives treatment through the Battlement Mesa Incorporated facility which has also been constructed in the past five years. Adequate capacity for treatment of future growth exists in all of these facilities. Zhe most critical municipal point source needs in Garfield County relate to planning needs for the Spring Valley area. This area, to the southeast of Glenwood Springs, has several proposed developments and sanitation districts. The Lake Valley Sanitation District and the Landis Sanitation District should work in conjunction with Garfield County, and other local developers to determine the scope of development concerns, and the best means of sewage treatment and disposal in the Spring Valley area. This planning effort should analyze populations, consolidation of facilities and treatment requirements for the Spring Valley area. This plan recommends that facility siting efforts should be delayed, and any site approvals withheld until such an analysis and L study is completed. Non—municipal Point Sources in Garfield County Currently non—municipal point sources do not present a threat to water quality in Garfield County. The Battlement Mesa Incorporated facility, which serves the Town of Parachute, as well as the Battlement Mesa development, is currently operating a lagoon treatment facility rather than the activated sludge treatment facility constructed in 1982. This system is much less complicated and less expensive to operate than the mechanical facility. The H Lazy F Mobile Home Park facility has experienced some problems in the past; improved operations have solved these problems. This facility is also located in the bottom of the drainage that both the Colorado Mountain College facility and proposed Spring Valley developments are located within. Inclusion of this facility in any study efforts for the Spring Valley area would be wise. 'ee/711---12r Diet -‘74 /.7 ,c4; aa407 • /. 3 //%c„, ja' _ is 74j 4,-_miii0/ 0 3,e e) ar �a o X • y •v) / J /ze eos- /) / // d'1 -Zr70 dm& -7) /I ' � `d/ LCA ) k ,4 1d!�(s� d fa1-/fin • p..L ^vo i^ /107' /aL 1122 I. //4e -e,/_. Gar7/ei- X/9 ® 4-70-61, /-( �Q�Gr�.�- L ��r�o�t tet„ vir4-4-41-- • 417 . 4/1_ ' /4'99 mt/i4eyx 4-/a,s- is #.14_ — • �y .r.-�c-r_s�tti4i r.¢f�-rta✓xti e jt CG� / .�ss2LT�