HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL - AGENDA ITEM - 06/07/2011 - ITEMS RELATING TO THE GREELEY BELLVUE PIPELINE ON DATE: June 7, 2011
STAFF: John Stokes _
Lindsay Kuntz
Items Relating to the Greeley Belivue Pipeline on City Property.
A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 070, 2011, Authorizing the Conveyance of a Waterline Easement, Access
Easement, and Temporary Construction Easement on City property to the City of Greeley.
B. Resolution 2011-052 Authorizing the City Managerto Enter Into a Shared Location Agreementforthe Greeley
Bellvue Pipeline to Cross a City Utility Easement.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Greeley is in the process of acquiring the necessary easements for its Greeley Bellvue Pipeline Project.
Greeley has requested easements for its Project across a strip of property owned by the City extending south from
the Poudre River. The property lies outside City limits and is the location of a ditch known as the City Ditch,which is
owned by the City of Fort Collins Utility Department. The City Ditch was constructed in the late 1880s to convey water
to the old Water Works Facility. The Larimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company utilizes this ditch through an
existing easement agreement with the City. The easements requested by Greeley include a .19 acre (8,265 square
feet)permanent waterline easement,a.133 acre(5,808 square feet)temporary construction easement,and an access
easement across the existing ditch access road.
Greeley has also planned to install its pipeline across an existing utility easement containing a 27-inch waterline owned
by the City. In order to protect the City's easement interest and existing utility improvements, Greeley has agreed to
enter into a Shared Location Agreement (SLA) regarding this crossing.
The requested easements and SLA were presented and approved by the City's Water Board at its December 2010
meeting. They were also presented to the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board meeting on December 8,2010.
They were planned to be presented to Council on April 19th, but the item was withdrawn to provide Greeley and City
staff additional time to respond to various concerns raised by citizens.
Greeley has agreed to pay the City for the value of each easement, as well as, City Real Estate staff time.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION
Overall Project Description
The Project involves the installation of about 30 miles of a 60-inch diameter pipeline and is designed to transportwater
from its Bellvue water treatment plant located northwest of Fort Collins to the City of Greeley water customers.
Greeley has already installed approximately 19 miles of the waterline and plans to construct another 6.5 miles of the
waterline system in the next two years. Greeley commenced the overall project in 2003 and plans to complete it by
2013. An Executive Summary for the Project has been provided by the City of Greeley (Attachment 4).
Brief History
As background, Greeley began delivering drinking water from its Bellvue Water Treatment Plant in 1907. Greeley
constructed the original transmission line out of handcrafted wooden stave pipe. Two, and sometimes three, parallel
steel or concrete pipelines provide current transmission capacity. Existing transmission capacity will soon constrain
Greeley's ability to service its customers from the Bellvue Water Treatment Plant due to increasing drinking water
demand. The Project adds capacity to this transmission system for the first time in 50 years.
Unfortunately, the existing 50-year-old transmission line easements are not large enough and were not intended to
accommodate the additional line in many places. Greeley identified its preferred route corridor for the new
transmission line through an extensive analysis that determined it minimized disruption of properties and the public
June 7, 2011 -2- ITEM 19
at large, had moderate environmental impacts, operated on gravity, and ranked the best in terms of cost. Larimer
County approved the location and extent of the preferred route corridor.
In 2004, Greeley approached the City with a request to install a new water transmission line from the Bellvue Filter
Plant to Greeley, with a route going through Fort Collins. In an effort to allow plenty of time for review and
collaboration,this request was made well in advance of the State Statue regulated 60-day Site Advisory Review time
limit.
A Technical Advisory Committee of City staff was formed and met on a monthly basis with representatives of the
project for a year to discuss the pros and cons of several possible route alternatives. City staff from various
departments including Natural Resources, Planning, Engineering, and the Utilities departments worked closely with
the project engineers to analyze any potential impacts to properties in Fort Collins.
The initial investigation focused on land use,environmental factors, impacts to existing structures, historic structures,
natural areas, etc. All parties collaborated to ensure that the location of the proposed waterline would have the least
amount of negative impacts and maximize opportunities for the City. All potential environmental impacts that were
noted were planned to be avoided or temporary only. The proposed routes were then narrowed to one unanimous
decision. The final "Location, Character, and Extent" report was submitted on April 15, 2005. City staff formed a
Technical Advisory Committee and worked with Greeley staff to review the project per Colorado Revised Statute 31-
23-209, using the Site Advisory Review process. This statute limits the City's regulatory review to the location,
character, and extent of the proposal.
The Project was taken before the Planning and Zoning Board per State statute and approved.
In 2006, the Fort Collins City Council adopted Ordinance No. 135, 2006, which authorized the conveyance of
easements on City property located in east Fort Collins near Timberline Road for the Project. In 2008,the City Council
also adopted Ordinance No. 102, 2008, authorizing easements for the Project on City property located at 1000 North
College Avenue. These easements were then conveyed and Greeley has since installed the waterline improvements
in these easement areas.
Current Easement Request
Approximately 19 miles of the waterline has been constructed. The northern segment is one of the last portions of
the Project and involves the installation of the waterline improvements from Shields Street north of Fort Collins west
to the Bellvue Filter Plant. City staff and Greeley staff began meeting in October 2010 to discuss the currently
requested easements and the crossing of the City's utility line. The water pipeline as it crosses the City's property and
adjacent properties will be constructed within a steel casing that will be bored approximately 6 feet underneath the City
property. This section of boring will run for approximately 700 feet and will be constructed by hand. The purpose of
the hand boring is to minimize surface disturbances not only to City-owned facilities, but also to neighboring properties
with natural and cultural resources.
In February 2011, the City Leadership Team presented City staff with a question concerning the number of surface
protrusions planned for Greeley's Project. In SAR #15339 / Greeley Waterline and Natural Areas Easements
(Attachment 5), City staff explained the conditions that would require the installation of these features, as well as
whether they would be installed within the area of the City's easements. Greeley does not plan to install any above-
ground facilities within the requested easement area. Blue marker posts are typically installed at property lines and
fences and other locations to minimize obstructions in the properties. Greeley will work with property owners to
determine the best location to place these markers. Greeley would consider using a natural color to paint any markers,
if requested by an owner. Most of marker locations will be established during construction of the pipeline.
Damage to vegetation will be limited to surface grading necessary for vehicle access across the ditch. The pipeline
will also cross a nearby 27-inch water pipeline owned by the Utilities Department. Greeley plans to cross below this
pipeline with a minimum of 12 inches of clearance between the two pipes. Greeley will work with the Utilities
Department to determine what safety precautions need to be made when crossing this pipe. All work will be performed
under the guidelines of the City's General Resource Protection Standards for Easements or Rights of Way on City of
Fort Collins Natural areas and Open Lands. Property owned by the Natural Area Program will not be affected by the
requested easements.
June 7, 2011 -3- ITEM 19
Additional Issues
As noted in the executive summary, various concerns have been raised by some Laporte area residents as well as
Fort Collins citizens about the northern segment of the pipeline. Many of the concerns are addressed in the attached
letter dated April 25,2011,from Greeley City Manager, Roy Otto,to City of Fort Collins City Manager, Darin Atteberry.
This Agenda Item Summary addresses several of the concerns from the perspective of City staff.
Save the Poudre,a conservation group focused on Poudre River issues, has raised a concern about potential Poudre
River water depletions associated with the new pipeline. Although the primary purpose of the pipeline is to deliver
Greeley's existing water rights portfolio, there is the potential for additional future diversions that could be
accommodated by the pipeline. These potential new diversions could reduce the flow between the Greeley pipeline
diversion near the mouth of the Poudre canyon and the Larimer and Weld headgate, which is located close to Taft
Hill Road. In addition to these diversions, other proposed projects also would have the potential to reduce flows at
certain times in this reach of the Poudre River.
These potential new depletions to the Poudre River, and their potential environmental impacts, are being examined
by the Army Corps of Engineers as part of the Halligan-Seaman Environmental Impact Statement(HS EIS) and the
Northern Integrated Supply Project Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( NISP SDEIS). Impacts
associated with the projects, and potential mitigation of those impacts, will use a Common Technical Platform under
development by the Corps. Given the Corps process, in which the City is participating, staff does not believe that the
Greeley pipeline easement and the SLA request represent the correct forum for a technical consideration of these
issues.
Another issue raised by Save the Poudre pertains to the type of permit that Greeley needs from the Army Corps before
proceeding with the northern segment. Again, regardless of the type of permit required of Greeley, the proper entity
for consideration of that question is the Army Corps,and Greeley's work under the proposed easement and SLA would
in any event be subject to regulation by the Army Corps.
It is important to note that Greeley has been sensitive to the issues raised by local citizens and has made substantive
efforts to address them. For example, Greeley is tunneling by hand for 700 feet on the Brinks' property and an
adjoining parcel to avoid surface damages to natural and cultural resources of concern. Moreover, as noted in Roy
Otto's letter, Greeley participated in an extensive planning process with Larimer County, the entity with land planning
jurisdiction in this area.
Another issue that has been raised by Ms. Brinks concerns the City's ownership of the ditch. The ownership issue
has been reviewed by City staff and discussed with Ms. Brinks over the course of the past several years.
The City acquired the property in 1883 through its eminent domain powers as the location for the original City ditch
which was used to convey water from the Poudre River to the City's original waterworks near Bingham Hill Road in
1883. The City became"seized in fee of the lands and real estate"by order of the Court in the eminent domain case.
The condemnation order was recorded in 1892, in Book 87, page 556 of the real property records of Larimer County.
When Ms. Brinks' husband Jim acquired the Brinks property in 1977, the deed to Mr. Brinks referenced the City's
ownership, describing the property with the following exception: "except tract to City of Fort Collins by deed recorded
in Book 87 at 556."
The City has continued to use the property for the location of the City Ditch since the late 1800s. After the City's early
use of the ditch, the City leased the property for over 100 years to the Larimer No. 2 Irrigation Company, and in 2010
granted an easement to Larimer No. 2 for continued use of the City Ditch as the location for the Larimer No. 2.
Lastly, City Council recently asked for information regarding the potential for conservation of the Brinks property by
the City's Natural Areas Program (NAP). The NAP has had many discussions with Mr. and Mrs. Brinks about the
possibility of the City either purchasing a conservation easement or a fee interest in the property. Those discussions
were in an advanced stage a few years ago, but faded when the Brinks moved on to other family priorities. The NAP
continues to be interested in the property.
June 7, 2011 -4- ITEM 19
FINANCIAL/ ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Greeley has agreed to pay the following amounts for the easements:
• Permanent Easement-$2,845
• Temporary Construction Easement-$200
• Access Easement-$500
• Staff time to process the request
The value for the easements was calculated using$15,000 per acre. This value was determined by using comparable
market data.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution and the Ordinance on First Reading.
BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
At its December 6, 2010 meeting, the Water Board unanimously voted to recommend approval of the requested
easements.
At its December 8,2010, meeting, the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board unanimously voted to recommend
approval of the requested easements.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Water Board minutes, December 6, 2010
3. Land Conservation and Stewardship Board minutes, December 8, 2010
4. City of Greeley Project Executive Summary
5. Council SAR#15339/Greeley Waterline and Natural Areas Easements
6. Letter from Greeley City Manager re: Easement Acquisition from Fort Collins and the Northern Segment of
Greeley's Bellvue Pipeline Project
7. Powerpoint presentation
Attachment 1
Page 1 of
Greeley Water el i ne
Easement Location Map
J �
{
e
or?�0�
a
CLAYMORE LAKE
ED
N
Area of Waterline Easement
Attachment 1 : Page 2 of 2
City of Greeley Water Pipeline Location Map Detail
7c• blrryl E+ N' €w,4 Tyr C1T7 (%ir
it FORT 47LLM l¢ IJAM14 WUN" wM NO 2
gyp' SOLRhNI1 TERLY Ok CET INLM OF COW
- {IU. NO. 2D10I]OMaM)
OVMEC ELLCR1:
NEW, ���� � ' ,ww, 4 A4 L&ATE0 IN FIELD
SUER i4LFIF�1117ti - - -No. Rl�r�lg�!I � � — — � — �
OUITOO MILLON ESTATES � a*D FLV C
-N — AEC IA, MIS Y Gti
NIL
rL
_ e. x
f - ` NL
4
CL b _ a
I m 05p" ATM
TRXRVsE MD
(DXW 1150 PAGE 1111) 59 h x T
4AMIALL LEF A l My [IJPTPiC EGE1
ME
C� EASDW ]$PHE71T
NdR LVN N. E I 1 F1I" SrAVa UNPANY
IEr- wey 7-xvwi5mQ 4 OF MLO Otl y ti
BOOK 107 PiIL 121 )
OEZAPEd IN DECREE OF OCURT DUB � � � � 4 } ObUrIma" �
JIVE 19, tM3 AW RECDRDEII E, prp}T
5EFT. 151 1622 IN DNIC V, FP
� ! x
AME5 & ORNR5 L. NOI CEUNTY N � 2r Fl. COLLkM � � � � 4 uLfs 5 RNENRS
OWN I W4 WE kUf CANAL NO 3 *ATERL14E � � M W4 014E la
K�- N0. R501S17R AS LOCUM 4EC Ma d55167T1
AEC N0. ZIUM1573 f / `
no. N4. §Aua 6R MEY I�ACETL PTT(> I IN FIELD AEL V. IM1573
OP Rao � � em iffi. wwm
UrAm
wqv%X pan"
I Voos 1711 MUM OMa i ,phi
- - - - - - --- - - - - - -L D�' , 1 - S6-r
o +IQ1r+
0 - Approximate location of requested easements Q - Approximate location of utility line crossing
Attachment 2
Fort Collins Utilities Water Board Minutes
Monday, December 6,2010
(Excerpt of minutes to include Easement Request item only)
Conveyance of Easement for Greeley Pipeline
Water Resources Engineer Susan Smolnik introduced staff from the City of Greeley, Katy
Wiktor and Dan Moore who have been involved with pipeline construction for treated water
delivery to Greeley from their Bellvue treatment plant. The pipeline will cross a small
amount of the City ditch, a Fort Collins Utilities-owned property and a 27-inch Utilities-
owned pipeline.
The easement is required to make a way for construction equipment to reach the area for boring.
The City of Fort Collins' Real Estate department has worked with Greeley staff on both the
required temporary and permanent easement; a total of thirty different easements are involved.
Staff recommended the Board supports the request for the easement.
Board discussion:
Are other permits involved? Staff is in the process of acquiring a nationwide permit, which is a
form of permit from the Army Corps of Engineers.
Will any type of bentonite mud he used? Bentonite material will be used in a limited amount to
provide lubrication as the pipe goes through the dirt.
How will subsidence be managed? Surveys will take place before and after the operation to
insure no more than a half inch of subsidence occurs. Crews will bore under the location to
avoid disturbance of the ditch. Some easement oilers are still being developed, and some
offers have been sent to land owners. As a result, some permissions have been acquired on
this segment.
Is it best to drill when no water is in the canal? Crews prefer to drill in the wintertime, but due
to the depth of the boring, they will encounter groundwater.
Will there be a restoration requirement?Any surface disturbance will be treated within the
City of Fort Collins' Natural Resources standards for restoration.
Capacity of the pipe is quite a bit larger than the water rights Greeley owns to go through it.
What are the plans for using the capacity of the pipe?This pipeline positions Greeley for the
future and prevents the need to go through this area again. Some water rights have been
acquired presently. The pipe will carry water from the Colorado-Big Thompson watershed, as
well as Water Supply and Storage Company water. The flows do not represent any that
would have come through Fort Collins anyway. The point of diversion will be changed to a
point higher upstream.
Can staffspeak to pros and cons? Ms. Smolnik noted, as a City utility, we often have to
request similar easements to serve our customers and would like to he cooperative in these types of
actions when other cities request easements of us. Greeley's request has been sensitive to our
Natural Areas guidelines. These are fairly small impacts. Greeley went through the location and
extent approval with Larimer County.
Motion: Board Member Waskom moved the Water Board recommends that City
Council grant the easements requested by the City of Greeley for a water pipeline.
Board Member Pillard seconded the motion.
There was no further discussion on the motion. Vote on the motion: It passed unanimously.
Attachment 3
MINUTES
CITY OF FORT COLLINS
LAND CONSERVATION & STEWARDSHIP BOARD
Regular Meeting
December 8, 2010
(Excerpt of minutes to include Easement Request item only)
Utility Easement Request City of Greeley
• Figgs: The City of Greeley is constructing a new 60 inch diameter pipeline to
transport water from Greeley's Bellvue water treatment plant to the City of
Greeley and surrounding communities. The City of Fort Collins Utilities
Department owns the City Ditch, a property that will be crossed by the pipeline.
As such Greeley is requesting a 50' permanent easement, a temporary easement,
and a permanent access easement. In addition, Greeley is requesting a shared
location agreement to cross an existing City utility line.
There was a description of the project given by Dan Moore, Greeley Utility Department,
with reference to maps of the pipeline location, which were provided to the Board for
viewing.
Ellis moved that the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board (LCSB) recommends
that City Council approve an ordinance authorizing the conveyance of a permanent
utility easement, a temporary construction easement, and an access easement on City
Utility property to the city of Greeley for construction of its water pipeline. The LCSB
also recommends that City Council approve a shared location agreement to cross an
existing City utility line. Stanley second. It was unanimously approved.
Attachment 4
Project Summary
/ v
City of / \J***\
Colo
Greeley
Greeley Water Pipeline Frequently Asked Questions
1 . Why is Greeley building a new pipeline through Northern Colorado ?
Greeley' s population is growing and , therefore, water demand is increasing . To provide
drinking water to this anticipated population , Greeley is building the first new pipeline from its
Bellvue Water Treatment Plant in over 50 years . This new 60 - inch pipeline will supplement the
two, and in places three, existing 27 - inch pipelines . The upgraded water transmission system
is needed to meet demands within the service area of the City of Greeley and to meet some of
the demands of Windsor, Evans, and Milliken pursuant to outside water service contracts .
2 . Why doesn 't Greeley build a new water treatment plant closer to the City?
Greeley evaluated many options for expanding water treatment capacity, including building
an additional plant in town . The analysis determined that using and upgrading the Bellvue
Water Treatment Plant and transmission system , which has been operating since 1907, was in
the community ' s best interest based on cost, water quality, water rights, and environmental
concerns .
3 . Who is funding this project ?
This project is completely funded by the City of Greeley ratepayers with possible grants to
help manage any impacts to historic sites . No federal funds are involved .
4 . Does this project impact Lorimer County water supply or development ?
No . Greeley has separate water rights and a separate water system . This project does not
promote growth or development in Larimer County .
5 . Who at Greeley can affected parties contact to discuss their concerns regarding the project ?
Greeley supports an open and honest dialogue regarding this project and takes all citizen
inquiries and comments seriously . The Greeley Water and Sewer Board is the ultimate
governing board regarding the City ' s decisions on the project . Interested parties should
contact Jon Monson , Greeley Water and Sewer Director, at 970- 350-9820 or Dan Moore,
Project Manager, at 970- 350-9814 for more information or to express concerns .
6 . Does Greeley coordinate with local jurisdictions and collect public input ?
Yes . The Larimer County Planning Commission , the Laporte Area Planning Advisory
Committee, the City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board , Weld County, and the Windsor
Board of Trustees have either commented on or approved portions of the project . Greeley
also hosted open house meetings in Fort Collins and Laporte to get feedback from local
residents . Please see the attached timeline that documents all community outreach efforts
Page 1 of 9
Attachment 4
Project Summary
and other project milestones . Specifically for the Northern Segment, Greeley met with the
Laporte Area Planning Advisory Committee in September 2007 to solicit comments and
feedback . Greeley sent written invitations to 29 potentially affected property owners to
attend an October 2007 open house . Both the LAPAC meeting and open house were covered
in the local media . In addition , Greeley staff met with many landowners in the route corridor
throughout the summer of 2007 .
7 . Did Greeley contact potentially affected property owners ?
During the evaluation process, many property owners throughout the area were contacted to
gather information . Property owners who were located along the proposed route were
notified or contacted specifically since they would be directly impacted by pipeline
construction . It would have been unwieldy and unnecessarily disruptive to contact all
property owners on the dozens of preliminary routes .
8 . How were the routes selected ?
The City evaluated dozens of possible routes between the beginning and ends of the pipeline .
Each route was analyzed and ranked by cost, environmental impacts, private property
impacts, and public land use disruption ( such as disruption to schools, traffic, utilities,
businesses, and the general public ) among other things . Greeley proposed a route corridor
that scored the highest taking all these factors into account . The Larimer County Planning
Commission approved the location and extent of this route .
9 . Why not utilize the existing pipeline route ?
Where possible, Greeley follows existing utility or transportation corridors including existing
pipeline routes to minimize disruption to nearby properties . Unfortunately, since the time
Greeley installed its last Bellvue pipeline in the early 1950s, homes, schools, roads and other
utilities have been built in the area , making it impossible to utilize the existing pipeline
corridor in some areas .
10 . Can Greeley choose a different route that would require pumping water?
Certain routes would require pumping instead of letting the water flow by gravity . The energy
consumed by pumping was one of the factors considered in the route analysis . Pumping water
uses large amounts of energy and thus would increase Greeley' s carbon footprint . Cost and
reliability factors also strongly disfavor a pumping alternative . As a result, Greeley uses gravity
to transport water to the City whenever possible . Greeley has relied on gravity for its Bellvue
transmission lines for over 100 years .
11 . Are affected property owners compensated ?
Both the United States and Colorado constitutions require Greeley to compensate landowners
for temporary or permanent use of their properties . Accordingly, Greeley pays landowners for
the fair- market value for both temporary (for example, easements for surveying or
construction ) and permanent easements across their properties . Greeley also compensates
landowners for any damages caused by Greeley' s use of the property .
Page 2 of 9
Attachment 4
Project Summary
12 . How is the easement value determined?
Greeley offers to acquire the necessary pipeline easements at a price based upon the opinions
of a real estate appraiser . Greeley then considers any credible information provided by the
landowner concerning the value of the easements and impacts of the acquisition on the value
of the landowner' s remaining property . Greeley has power of condemnation if an agreement
cannot be reached on the acquisition . In that case, a court- appointed jury or commission of
landowners determines just compensation . In the vast majority of cases, however, Greeley
and the property owner agree on a value outside of court .
13 . After construction of the pipeline, what are the long-term impacts to the property?
Once the pipeline is installed and the ground surface is restored , the pipeline is typically
unnoticeable . The easement agreement prohibits the property owner from constructing
buildings or structures, impounding water, and planting large trees over the pipeline .
However, with the consent of Greeley, utility crossings, roads, driveways, parking lots, and
open space areas are usually permissible . Property owners are paid a fair market value for
temporary and permanent use of their property .
14 . What surface restoration measures will be provided to property owners ?
Greeley restores the surface of the ground , fences, roads and other improvements to the
conditions existing prior to the City ' s activities on the property . Greeley ' s experience along the
earlier phases of the pipeline has shown consistent success in restoring and reclaiming
affected areas following construction . Greeley is also following a set of Best Management
Practices submitted to Larimer County as part of its approval of the Northern Segment .
Greeley' s Best Management Practices manual is available online :
http : //www . greeIeygov . com /Water/ Documents/ Report Best% 20Management% 20Practices
Final September% 202008 . pdf. Below are a few photos documenting restoration after pipeline
construction . More photos are available on the City of Greeley website at
www . greeleygov . com/water .
,L3
r
., ,
J
Page 3 of 9
Attachment 4
Project Summary
0
15 . How long does it typically take to construct a segment ?
Typical construction pace for the pipeline installation varies from about 100 to 200 feet per
day depending on the complexity of construction . This means it may take one or two days for
installation to pass by a residence . Full restoration of the surface for things like pavement,
sidewalks and landscaping takes additional time , but are always accomplished as quickly as
possible .
16 . How will construction of the Northern Segment impact the Cache la Poudre River?
The approved route for the Northern Segment has one direct crossing of the Poudre River .
Based on a previous river crossing in Weld County, the pipeline is expected to result in
minimal and temporary impacts . Greeley will restore the site once the pipe is laid .
17 . Will the pipeline interrupt groundwater flow?
No . The project is designed to allow water to flow freely past the pipe in areas with a high
groundwater table . Trench plugs are used to assure that groundwater will continue to flow
across the pipe and not along the trench .
18 . Will the pipeline affect the historic properties in the area ?
The approved route through Laporte is along the abandoned rail bed of the Greeley, Salt Lake
& Pacific Railroad . Utilizing the area previously disturbed by the old rail bed construction helps
minimize new environmental impacts . Greeley is aware of the historic designation and
significance of this railroad . Greeley will work with property owners, community members
and the relevant state and federal agencies to assess any potential impacts to the historic
structures . If there are going to be any adverse impacts to the structures, Greeley will seek
ways to avoid , minimize, or mitigate these impacts .
Page 4 of 9
Attachment 4
Project Summary
19 . Will the pipeline have an adverse affect on endangered or rare animals or plants ?
The Northern Segment of Greeley ' s pipeline could pass through areas with potential habitat
for the Preble ' s meadow jumping mouse, the Ute ladies ' -tresses orchid and the Colorado
butterfly plant . There could also be raptors nesting in the area . Greeley anticipates that it will
address Preble ' s mouse and raptor concerns largely through seasonal timing of construction
and avoidance of potential habitat . Based on past experience, Greeley does not expect the
Ute ladies ' -tresses orchid or the Colorado butterfly plant to be present in the construction
area , but will mitigate impacts if necessary .
20 . Will the approved route result in significant road closures or utility disruptions ?
No . Some short-term road closures and utility disruptions may be necessary depending on the
final pipeline alignment . Roads are crossed in a variety of ways, but closures typically do not
last more than several days and an alternative route will be provided . The selected route
crosses few streets and utility lines, therefore disruptions will be minimal .
Page 5 of 9
Attachment 4
Project Summary
( :in of
Greeley
Greeley 's Bellvue Pipeline Project Timeline
For the last 100 years, the City of Greeley ' s Bellvue Water Treatment plant at the mouth of the Poudre Canyon
has treated drinking water for Greeley. The pipeline delivers drinking water from the plant to the city and is
integral to ensuring a reliable water supply for Greeley water customers . Today, Greeley is building a new 30-
mile, 60- inch pipeline to supplement the existing pipelines to accommodate the water demands of anticipated
population growth .
To build this pipeline, Greeley conducted extensive engineering studies to determine a route that would have
the least impact and would ensure that the water could flow by gravity. Gravity flow eliminates the need for
expensive, power-consuming pumping facilities . Because this route goes through the cities of Fort Collins,
Windsor, and Laporte, as well as unincorporated sections of Larimer and Weld counties, Greeley conducted an
extensive public outreach effort to ensure that the concerns of residents and city and county government
officials would be heard and addressed .
The pipeline is being built in five segments . A segment may be broken up into several phases . Below is the
chronology of the pipeline through the fall of 2010 . As of the fall of 2010, approximately two thirds of the
pipeline has been built .
• December 17, 2002 — Design work on the pipeline begins and the design engineer is hired .
• April 13, 2003 — The Windsor Board of Trustees approves the Utility Plan Review of the Chimney Park
Segment.
• July 24, 2004 — The Windsor Board of Trustees approves the Utility Plan Review of the Farmer ' s
Segment.
• September 14, 2004 — The Larimer County Planning Commission approves the location and extent of
the Farmer' s Segment .
• November 29, 2004 — The Chimney Park Segment that runs through the town of Windsor is completed
and put in service .
• May 26, 2005 — Greeley holds an Open House with residents of Fort Collins to inform them of the
location and extent of the Fort Collins Segment and to solicit their concerns and input .
• June 15, 2005 — The Larimer County Planning Commission approves the location and extent of the Fort
Collins Segment .
Page 6 of 9
Attachment 4
Project Summary
• June 16, 2005 — The City of Fort Collins Planning and Zoning Board approves the location and extent of
the Fort Collins Segment .
• February 22, 2006 — The Farmer's Segment is completed and put in service .
• September 18, 2007 — Greeley briefs the Laporte Area Planning Advisory Committee ( LAPAC ) on the
location and extent of the Northern Segment . LAPAC prepared comments that were forwarded to the
Larimer County Planning Commission .
• October 2, 2007 — Greeley holds an Open House with the residents of Laporte to inform them of the
location and extent of the Northern Segment and to solicit their concerns and input .
• October 17, 2007 — The Larimer County Planning Commission approves the location and extent of the
Northern Segment .
• March 7, 2008 — The first phase of the Fort Collins Segment, the Mulberry Phase, is completed and put
in service .
• December 16, 2008 — Construction of the second phase of the Fort Collins Segment, the Vine Drive
Phase, begins .
• August 10, 2009 — Settlement reached with several Laporte area landowners that allowed Greeley
access to their properties to gather biological, historical, and geotechnical data .
• August 20, 2009 — Site visit and tour of Point of Rocks area with U . S . Army Corps of Engineers, State
Historic Preservation Office, City of Greeley representatives, Point of Rocks area property owners and
other interested parties .
• September 29-October 1, 2009 — Cultural resource survey performed for Point of Rocks area .
• Fall 2009 - Vine Drive Phase construction is completed .
• November 2009 — Water Department staff and consultants finalize an alignment that avoids the
historic bridges located within the Larimer County approved Northern Segment route .
• December 2009 — Preliminary alignment maps sent to Point of Rocks area property owners .
• Winter 2010 — Construction of the third phase of the Fort Collins Segment, the UP Railroad Phase,
begins .
• April 2010 — Water Department staff begin sending easement offers to Northern Segment property
owners .
• April and September 2010 — Cultural resource surveys performed on remaining acreage of Northern
Segment.
Page 7 of 9
Attachment 4
Project Summary
• September 2010 -- Report detailing the findings of the Point of Rocks area cultural resource survey
sent to U . S . Army Corps of Engineers for review.
• Fall 2010 — UP Railroad Phase construction completed .
• December 2010 — Biological Assessment sent to the U . S. Army Corps of Engineers for review .
• January 2011 -- Report detailing the findings of the cultural resource surveys performed on the
remainder of the Northern Segment sent to U . S . Corps of Engineers for review.
• Fall 2011 - Construction of the Northern Segment to begin .
• Spring 2013 — Construction of the Northern Segment to be complete .
• To be determined - Construction of the Gold Hill Segment to begin .
• To be determined — Construction of the Gold Hill Segment to be complete, thus completing all
construction of the new pipeline
Page 8 of 9
Attachment 4
Project Summary
City of /
Colorado
Greeley
Northern Segment Alternatives
Evaluation Process
The City of Greeley evaluated dozens of possible alternatives to make the final six- mile connection
between the end of the existing pipe at Shields Street in Fort Collins and the Bellvue Water Treatment
Plant at the mouth of the Poudre Canyon . The various alternatives were eventually combined into 18
different possible pipeline routes . Each of the 18 routes was then ranked by cost, land use disruption ,
and environmental effects ( e . g . aquatic resources, Preble ' s mouse, raptors, forest, with historic sites
noted ) . Based on this evaluation , Greeley narrowed the 18 possible routes :
Approved Alternative
The alternative selected by Greeley and approved by the Larimer County Planning Commission would
affect the fewest parcels of land — 28, would cause the least amount of public disruption ( i . e . , road
and driveway closures during construction ) , and would allow Greeley to utilize gravity to transport
water — thus saving on power costs and reducing Greeley' s carbon footprint . The approved
alternative follows Greeley' s existing pipeline for approximately two-thirds of the Northern Segment .
It then follows existing railroad right- of-way for much of the remainder of the segment .
Northern Parallel Alternative
This alternative was one of the first evaluated because we wanted to find corridors that were
previously used . This alternative parallels our existing pipeline for a great majority of the Northern
Segment . It was eliminated because, during our evaluation , we found that we do not have a sufficient
easement to construct another pipeline parallel to our existing one without impacting dozens of
private properties . Since construction of the existing pipeline in 1952 , the Cache la Poudre School and
significant housing developments were built on both sides of the pipeline along both Vernon Drive
and Shannon Drive . This alternative would affect 65 parcels of land , twice as many as the approved
alternative .
54-G Alternative
The 54-G alternative follows the existing pipeline for about a third of the Northern Segment and then
follows along County Road ( CR ) 54- G for most of the remainder of the segment . This route would
cause the greatest amount of public disruption as it would cause substantial road closures along 54-
G , Laporte ' s main transportation artery, for almost a year . It also would affect 153 parcels of land in
the business district and surrounding residential areas, five times as many as the approved
alternative .
Page 9 of 9
Attachment 5
Council SAR#15339/Greeley Waterline and Natural Areas Easements
From: Debra Unger On Behalf Of Darin Atteberry
Sent: Friday, February l l, 2011 11:53 AM
Subject: RE: Leadership Team Follow-up: January 24. 2011 (Council SAR 915339/Greeley
Waterline and Natural Areas Easements)
Mayor and Council
Please see the following response from Helen Matson, Real Estate Services Manager; and
Jon Haukaas, Water Engineering Field Operations Manager, re: the follow-up inquiry at the
1/24/1 l Leadership Team meeting concerning the Greeley Waterline and Natural Areas
easements:
a. Staff is asked to provide some added explanation as to why there are so many surface
features (protrusions) on Natural Area easements (a recent SAR response cited a
large number, i.e. 99 protrusions) and who none in a recent report related to the
Greeley Waterline:
■ Protrusions associated with waterline pipes: The number of protrusions
depends on the length, size and purpose of the pipe. Smaller diameter pipes
need flushing hydrants, control valves, and vacuum breakers at shorter
spacing distances.
■ Greeley waterline pipe: The proposed easement for the Greeley waterline is
less than a tenth of an acre and the pipe is a 60 inch diameter pipe. A pipeline
of this diameter will not include flushing hydrants as the size of hydrants and
their connection leads are too small to effectively flush this size main. Valves
will be so large that they are only installed at the ends where they connect to
the facilities such as pump stations or treatment plants. Additionally vacuum
breakers are only installed at the high points of the pipeline to eliminate any
air that becomes trapped in the pipes. The Greeley waterline will be installed
under the irrigation ditch which creates a low point. Therefore, there won't
be any protrusions associated with this pipeline.
■ Cathy Fromme pipeline: The pipeline on Cathy Fromme Prairie is several
miles long and the diameter of the pipe is 20 inches. Due to the length and
the diameter of this pipeline, protrusions discussed above as well as other
types of surface structures related to their operation are required.
b. Is there a difference in our Real Estate policies/procedures between negotiations
related to natural areas vs. waterlines?
■ The City uses a variety of easement forms when it grants easements for
utilities on its property. In some instances, particularly in the case of
older easements, the easement language is very general and does not
specify in detail the facilities to be installed in the easement. In more
recent years, the documents used by the City to grant easements have
generally been more narrowly written and often require City approval of
1
the plans for the facilities to be installed. In the case of easements on
Natural Areas or other properties of particular concern, detailed plan
review and specific resource protection and restoration standards are
routinely required. Greeley representatives have indicated that in the case
of the proposed water line crossing of the City's ditch property northwest
of town, Greeley will comply with resource protection and restoration
standards such as those used for easements on City Natural Areas
properties.
c. In the January 20, 2011 SAR 415339 staff response, it was stated "The plans are in
the preliminary design stage and are typically cont completed until all land acquisitions
and easements have been finalized. " To some, this implies that staff looses negotiation
clout for details about protrusions (how many where the protrusions are located and how
their appearance can be minimized) if the "design" is done after acquisitions and
easements are finalized. Please comment.
■ As noted under b, above, the forms used by the City to grant easements have
evolved over time and the City generally does require some degree of City
plan review either in advance of granting an easement or as a condition of
proceeding with construction once an easement has been granted. This has
become more common over time, and in some instances where the City is not
in a good negotiating position, the requirements imposed may be less
stringent.
■ It is important to note that when the City purchases properties for any reason,
these lands are almost always encumbered with easements and our purchases
are made subject to these easements.
d. In this same response, it was stated: "Natural Areas do have guidelines and
standards to protect their areas during work. " What about "after"work?
■ The Natural Areas Easement policy and the easement form used for
easements on Natural Areas require restoration and post-restoration efforts,
and require maintenance ongoing of facilities installed. In addition to
consideration for the easement,typically the easement holder is required to
pay the Natural Areas Program a fee for post-restoration monitoring, weed
treatment, replanting, and other vegetation management. To insure the City
has on-going protection, specific language is included in the Easement Deed
and Agreement that says that any activities in the Easement Area shall be
completed in accordance with the Grantor's then current specifications for
comparable work on natural areas properties, if any.
Please let us know if you would like any further information. Debra Unger Executive
Administrative Assistant City Manager's Office P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580
Tel: 970 221 6266
2
ATTACHMENT6
Ciwof
reee
Apri1,25;20,1 1
Mr. Darin Atteberry, City Manager
City of Fort Collins
300 Laporte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Re: Easement Acquisition from Fort Collins and the Northern Segment of Greeley's
Bellvue Pipeline Project
Dear Darin:
This letter responds to your request this week for the City of Greeley to provide you,
your staff, and Fort Collins' City Council members with supplemental information regarding
the Northern Segment of Greeley's Bellvue Pipeline Project and the pending easement
acquisition. First off, the City of Greeley wants to thank you and your staff and legal counsel
for the professional and cooperative manner in which they have worked with Greeley's staff
and legal counsel in developing and preparing the easement acquisition documents. We
hope this letter helps you and your Council better understand this important project and the
underlying easement request.
By way of background, Greeley began delivering drinking water from its Bellvue
Water Treatment Plant in 1907. For over 100 years the plant has provided high-quality
drinking water to Greeley customers, including some Laporte residents. Greeley
constructed the original transmission line through Laporte out of handcrafted wooden stave
pipe. Two, and sometimes three, parallel steel or concrete pipelines provide current
transmission capacity. Existing transmission capacity will soon constrain Greeley's ability to
serve its customers from the Water Treatment Plant due to increasing drinking water
demand. The current project adds capacity to this transmission system for the first time in
over 50 years.
The overall project involves the installation of about 30 miles of 60-inch pipeline from
Greeley's Bellvue Water Treatment Plant to the City's distribution system. Due to logistics and
cost considerations, the City is constructing the transmission line in segments. The segment
at issue here, the Northern Segment, is one of the last portions of the transmission line. The
Northern Segment will connect the previously constructed and fully,operational Fort Collins
Segment with Greeley's Bellvue Plant.
As summarized in Item No. 28 of your City Council agenda packet, dated April 19,
2011, the Fort Collins City Council previously authorized the conveyance of two easements
on Fort Collins-owned property to the City of Greeley for the Fort Collins Segment..Greeley
Darin Atteberry
April 26, 2011
Page 2
has already installed approximately 19 miles of the line, and is scheduled to begin
construction this year on the Northern Segment. Greeley commenced the overall project in
2003 and plans to complete the construction of the Northern Segment in 2013. Against this
background, Greeley would like to address certain specific issues:
1. Greeley considered numerous factors in its route selection.
Greeley's consulting engineer evaluated dozens of possible route segments
for the Northern Segment. The consultant eventually combined these route
segments into 18 potential routes for the entire Northern Segment. Some of
the potential routes could have affected hundreds of properties. The
consultant then scored each of the 18 routes by cost, environmental and
energy impacts, and land use disruption to narrow down the alternatives.The
analysis also considered other important effects such as traffic and business
disruption. For example, a route that crossed or disrupted 20 developed
properties scored worse than a route that crossed two undeveloped
properties.
Greeley further evaluated three of the potential routes and presented the
results to Lorimer County as part of Greeley's obligation to get Location and
Extent approval from the County. The three routes evaluated were:
(1) A route through downtown Laporte along County Road 54G that
passed directly in front of the grammar and middle schools and many
businesses:
(2) A route following the existing Greeley transmission lines through two
subdivisions, which would require the demolition of at least two (possibly
more) residences and go right through the Cache La Poudre School football
field; and
(3) A route following the existing Greeley transmission lines by 65% of
the way but detouring through agricultural land to avoid two subdivisions.
Unfortunately, many of the existing 50-year old transmission line easements
are not large enough, nor were they ever intended to accommodate the
additional line. Greeley identified the last route corridor (3) as its preferred
route because it minimized disruption of properties and the public at large,
had moderate environmental impacts, operates on gravity, and ranked the
best in terms of cost. Lorimer County approved the Location and Extent of
the preferred route.
2. Greeley's selection of a route corridor for the Northern Segment. included
coordination with local jurisdictions and public input.
Darin Atteberry
April 26, 2011
Page 3
As it has with previous phases of this project, Greeley filed an application with
the Larimer County Planning Commission to review the Location and Extent of
its proposed pipeline route corridor for consistency with the County
Comprehensive Plan. Greeley voluntarily submitted the application two
weeks earlier than usual to allow review by the Laporte Area Planning
Advisory Committee ("LAPAC"), which occurred September 18, 2007. LAPAC
provided input to the Planning Commission based on its review. Greeley also
sent a copy of the application to the Larimer County Environmental Advisory
Board, which also provided input to the Larimer County Planning Commission.
Greeley held an open house in Laporte on October 2, 2007. The City
provided notification of the open house at the LAPAC meeting and on the
pipeline project website. Additionally, Greeley mailed direct notification to all
property owners that may have pipe installed on their property along with a
map of the possible pipeline location. The Planning Commission approved
the Location and Extent of Greeley's preferred route corridor, with conditions,
at its public meeting on October 17, 2007.
One of the conditions placed on Greeley's Location and Extent review
approval was for Greeley to develop and implement a Best Management
Practices ("BMP") manual specifically for Northern Segment construction. The
BMP manual is intended to minimize short- and long-term disturbance to
affected lands, including mitigating effects on local habitats, ecosystems,
crops, vegetation, water quality, surface and groundwater flow
characteristics, and landowners. Greeley sought and received input from
Fort Collins' staff on the BMP manual. Greeley also provided copies of the
BMP manual to all affected landowners located on the Northern Segment.
3. Greeley is in the process of receiving verification of coverage for the project under a
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Nationwide Permit.
As it did for other pipeline segments, Greeley requested verification of
coverage under Nationwide Permit No. 12 (Utility Lines) from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. As part of its evaluation, the Corps requested information
regarding threatened and endangered species, cultural resources, and the
depletive effects of the project on the Poudre River. Greeley has conducted
both biological and cultural resource surveys throughout the entire Northern
Segment. Greeley sent reports on those surveys to the Corps for review.
Specific to cultural resources located in the vicinity of Fort Collins' City Ditch
property, the Corps determined that there will be no adverse effect to the
seven historic properties eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places ("NRHP"): the Brinks Farm, the Greeley Salt Lake and Pacific Railroad
(two segments), the Pleasant Valley and Lake Canal, the Larimer County
Canal No. 2, the New Mercer Ditch, and the Claymore Lake Return Ditch.
The no adverse effect determination is largely based on Greeley's plans to
Darin Atteberry
April 26, 2011
Page 4
utilize tunneling, which allows pipeline construction to avoid all of the historic
and prehistoric structures and cultural features at sites eligible for NRHP listing
in the area, except for the historic farm pastures through which the pipeline
will pass. In addition to tunneling, Greeley will employ further protections and
reclamation practices to limit impacts to cultural resources including having a
professional archeologist on-site to inspect excavations and other
construction activities.
The Corps is also examining the depletive effects of Greeley's Bellvue Pipeline
Project along with several other anticipated projects that may affect the
Poudre River. This analysis will rely on a model known as the Common
Technical Platform. Greeley and Fort Collins are active participants in
developing the Common Technical Platform and both have submitted data
to the Corps to assist in the analysis. The results of this modeling are expected
sometime this year.
The Poudre River has been subject to agricultural and municipal diversion for
well over 100 years. Greeley will be the first entity required to mitigate the
depletive impacts of such a diversion.
Greeley provided the Corps introductory information on depletions in
September, 2008. The Corps' authorization for this project will allow Greeley
to divert Colorado River, Laramie River, or changed agricultural water that is
currently diverted from the Poudre River. The only difference will be the point
of diversion, which will move from the current agricultural ditch to the Greeley
Water Treatment Plant Intake Pipeline. Since both the existing and future
diversion points are located upstream of Fort Collins, the project will not affect
Poudre River flows through the City of Fort Collins.
4. Greeley's pipeline will not materially affect groundwater flow.
Some landowners have expressed concern that the Northern Segment may
interrupt groundwater flow in certain areas. This concern is apparently based
on the experiences that others had with the installation of another pipeline in
the area. Greeley will design and install its pipeline in a way that allows water
to flow freely past the pipe (but not along it) in areas with a high groundwater
table. Greeley will utilize trench plugs, engineered backfill, and similar
methods to ensure that groundwater will continue to flow post the pipe and
not along the trench.
Additionally, one of the suggestions of the BMP manual is for Greeley to
develop a groundwater management control plan. Greeley is currently
implementing its groundwater control plan, which includes actively
monitoring groundwater wells Greeley recently installed throughout the entire
Northern Segment. In fact, Greeley has asked permission to install
Darin Atteberry
April 26, 2011
Page 5
groundwater monitoring wells on property near the Fort Collins' City Ditch
property.
Greeley is aware of concerns raised by certain landowners whose property the
Northern Segment will affect. Contrary to some assertions, Greeley takes these concerns
seriously and has taken extraordinary steps to address them, including tunneling for a
section of the pipeline. Notwithstanding, transmission infrastructure is a fundamental
necessity of all utilities. Moreover, anyone who receives service from a utility does so
because someone else's property is burdened by an easement, such as the Fort Collins
water pipeline located on an adjacent property that Greeley's pipeline will cross. It is
unavoidable. We ask your Council to consider this reality when evaluating Greeley's
easement request, as Greeley would if asked the some by Fort Collins. In addition, Greeley
assures you that it is following all federal, state, and local regulations while balancing the
needs of the citizens of Greeley with the concerns of others.
The Corps of Engineers is the lead regulatory agency analyzing the effects of
Greeley's project and is consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State
Historic Preservation Office, among others. Greeley has complied with all of the information
requests from the Corps and other federal agencies involved. The request before your
Council is for an easement across a strip of property owned by the City of Fort Collins
(approximately 0.19 acre permanent easement and 0.133 acre temporary construction
easement). Greeley worked diligently with Fort Collins staff and legal counsel on the
easement forms. This included presentations before the Fort Collins Water Board and the
Land Conservation and Stewardship Board. Both Boards unanimously approved Greeley's
request for the easements.
Greeley has sent or is currently sending offers to landowners who will be affected by
Northern Segment pipeline construction. Greeley has already acquired ten of the 24
permanent easements. To allow time to review and respond to landowners' comments
and concerns related to Greeley's offers, easement acquisition must start well in advance
of construction and on a parallel track with studies required by the Corps. Greeley must
obtain the necessary easement acquisitions from all affected landowners prior to
construction.
Greeley appreciates the opportunity to share its perspective on this important
project. Please let us know if you have any additional questions or would like any further
information.
Sincerely, �
R . t /
City Manger
Fort Collins City Council
Regular Meeting
June 7 , 2011
Items Related to the Greeley Bellvue Pipeline
on City Property
Lindsay Kuntz , Real Estate Specialist III
John Stokes , NRD Director
otY o
1
' F�t
Subject
• Ordinance No . 054 , 2011 , Authorizing the
Conveyance of a Waterline Easement , Access
Easement , and Temporary Construction
Easement on City property to the City of Greeley .
• Resolution 2011 -038 Authorizing the City
Manager to Enter Into a Shared Location
Agreement for the Greeley Bellvue Pipeline to
Cross a City Utility Easement .
2
�tr�
Greeley Bellvue Pipelin Project Overview
• Installation of approximately 30 miles of a 60- inch
diameter pipeline to expand pipeline capacity from
Greeley' s Bellvue filter plant to Greeley water
customers .
• Approximately 19 miles of the pipeline has been
constructed .
• Pipeline is being built in segments .
• Greeley commenced the Project in 2003 and
plans to complete it by 2013 .
otY o�
F�
3 t
Northern Segment of Project
• This is one of the last segments of the project and
involves the installation of the waterline from
Shields Street north of Fort Collins west to the
Bellvue Filter Plant .
• Final design has been completed
• Cultural resources and biological surveys are
complete and have been sent to federal agencies .
• Offers to buy easements are being sent to
landowners .
4
�trh
Request
• Easements requested include a permanent
easement, a temporary construction easement ,
and an access easement on City Property known
as the City Ditch owned the City' s Utilities
Department .
• Greeley needs to cross an existing waterline
easement , also owned by the Utilities
Department , with their pipeline .
• City staff has requested Greeley to enter into a
Shared Location Agreement to protect the City' s
waterline easement and associated utility
improvements .
C o�
�F�
5t
City Property Detail
• The City Ditch was acquired in 1883 and
constructed in the late 1880 ' s to convey water to
the old Water Works Facility .
• The Larimer County Canal No . 2 Irrigating
Company utilizes this ditch through an existing
easement agreement with the City of Fort Collins
(the " City" ) .
• The waterline Greeley wishes to cross with their
pipeline was acquired by Fort Collins in the
1950 ' s .
Olt
try
City Property Location
Area of Waterline Easement
a
PF
/ li
• The Access Easement will allow access to City
Property and the Permanent Easement using
existing ditch roads and trails .
• The water pipeline will be constructed within a
steel casing that will be bored approximately 6-
feet underneath the City Property .
• Greeley plans to cross below the City' s existing
water pipeline with a minimum of 12 inches of
clearance between the two pipes .
s
�tr�-
• Damage to vegetation on City Property during
construction will be limited to surface grading
necessary for vehicle access across the ditch .
• There are no above-grade facilities planned within
the easement area .
• The Fort Collins Utility Department will determine
what safety precautions need to be made when
crossing the City' s utility pipe .
• All work will be performed under the guidelines of
the City' s General Resource Protection Standards
for Easements or Rights of Way on City of Fort
Collins Natural areas and Open Lands .
oty of
9
F�t��
Additional Issues
• Potential additional depletions to the Poudre River
• Federal permitting
• Efforts to avoid resources of concern
• City ownership
• City interest in conservation of the Brinks '
property
10
try
1
Staff Recommendation
• City staff has reviewed Greeley' s plans for their
Project and have found the requested easements
and utility line crossing acceptable .
• City staff recommends the adoption of the
Ordinance authorizing the conveyance of the
easements and the Resolution authorizing the
Shared Location Agreement for the City' s utility
line .
C or
11
�Ltf�
ORDINANCE NO. 070, 2011
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CONVEYANCE OF A WATERLINE EASEMENT, ACCESS
EASEMENT, AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON CITY
PROPERTY TO THE CITY OF GREELEY
WHEREAS, the City owns a certain parcel of real property located in Larimer County,
Colorado, known as the City Ditch (the "City Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Latimer County Canal No. 2 Irrigating Company (the "Canal Company")
utilizes the City Property through an existing easement agreement with the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Greeley ("Greeley"), is in the process of acquiring the necessary
easements for its Bellvue Waterline Project, which will transport water from Greeley's Bellvue
Water Treatment Plant to Greeley water customers (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, as part of the Project, Greeley has asked the City to convey to it a permanent
easement and a temporary construction easement on the City Property as described in Exhibit"A",
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and Greeley has asked the City to convey
to it an access easement on the ditch access road to reach the City Property (collectively the
"Easements"); and
WHEREAS, the requested permanent easement is .19 acres in size and the requested
temporary construction easement is .133 acres; and
WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated whether the Easements would interfere with the City's
intended use or the Canal Company's use of the Property, and has concluded that no such
interference would result from the Easements; and
WHEREAS,as consideration for the Easements, Greeley has agreed to pay the City$3,545
for the.Easements, based on the estimated fair market value of the Easements, and to also pay the
cost of the City staff time required for the processing of the Easements; and
WHEREAS, City staff has negotiated easement forms that provide for City rdview and
approval of construction plans for the portions of the Project on the Easements, for avoidance of
surface and other potential impacts from the construction and operation of the improvements, and
for restoration of the Easement areas in accordance with the City's Natural Areas Resource
Protection Standards; and
WHEREAS,the permanent easement,temporary construction easement and access easement
documents negotiated by staff,dated April 15,2011 (the"Easement Documents"),are on file in the
office of the City Clerk and available for inspection; and
WHEREAS,City staff has identified no negative impacts to the City or the City Water Utility
that would result from the grant of the requested Easements or installation of the waterline; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2010, the proposed Easements were presented to the Water
Board for consideration, and the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the
Easements; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2010, the proposed Easements were presented to the Land
Conservation and Stewardship Board for consideration,and the Land Conservation and Stewardship
Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Easements; and
WHEREAS, Section 23-111(a)of the City Code provides that the City Council is authorized
to sell, convey, or otherwise dispose of any and all interests in real property owned in the name of
the City for a part of the City's utility system,provided that the Council first finds,by ordinance,that
such sale or other disposition will not materially impair the viability of the affected utility system
as a whole and that it will be for the benefit of the citizens of the City and in the best interests of the
City.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS as follows:
Section 1. That the conveyance of the Easements to Greeley as provided herein will not
materially impair the viability of the affected utility system as a whole and will be for the benefit of
the citizens of the City and in the best interests of the City.
Section 2. That the Mayor is hereby authorized to execute such documents as are
necessary to convey the Easements to Greeley, on terms and conditions consistent with this
Ordinance and in a form substantially the same as the Easement Documents, together with such
additional terms and conditions as the City Manager, in consultation with .the City Attorney,
determines are necessary or appropriate to protect the interests of the City,including,but not limited
to, any necessary changes to the legal descriptions of the easements, as long as such changes do not
materially increase the size or change the character of the easements.
Introduced,considered favorably on first reading,and ordered published this 7th day of June,
A.D. 2011, and to be presented for final passage on the 5th day of July, A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-2-
Passed and adopted on final reading on the 5th day of July, A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-3-
Exhibit "A"
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Exhibit PE—City of Fort Collins
(1 of3)_
A parcel of land being part of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter(NI/2 NW 1/4)of Section Thirty-two(32),
Township Eight North(TAN.),Range Sixty-nine West(R.69W.)of the Sixth Principal Meridian(&P.M.),County of
Latimer,State of Colorado,and being more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at the Northwest Comer of said Section 32 and assuming the North line of the Northwest Quarter
(NW 1/4)of said Section 32,being monumentalized by a stone set in concrete with"1/4"etched on the South side on
the East and and not being monumenmlized on the West end said West end being calculated from existing swing ties
found in the field and existing monument records,said West end was not able to be monumentalized at the time of this
survey because of lack of access due to landowners unwilling to allow anyone onto their properties,as bearing South
89-25'17"East,being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane Coordinate System,North Zone,North American
Datum 1983=07,a distance of 2660.37 feet,with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto:
THENCE South 00°36'55"West along the West line of the Northwest Quarter(NW I/4)of said Section 32 a distance
of 126.96 feet; -
THENCE South 79'27'07'East a distance of 157.01 feet;
THENCE South 90000'00"East a distance of 21.31 feet;
THENCE North 82"20'03"East a distance of 303.85 feet to the Southwesterly line of the fast parcel of land described
in that Decree of Court recorded September 15,1892 in Book 87 at Page 556 of the records of the Larimer County
Clerk and Recorder,said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE continuing North 82e20'03"East a distance of 214.21 feet to the Northeasterly line of that parcel of land
described in Exhibit D in that Easement Deed With Terms and Conditions recorded August 3,2010 as Reception No.
20100044752 of the records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder,said Northeasterly line of that parcel of land
described in said Exhibit D being Forty(40)feet,as measured at right angles or radially,Northeasterly of and parallel
with the centerline of the Larimer County Canal No.2,said point being the beginning point of a curve,said curve being
non-tangent to aforesaid line;
THENCE along said Northeasterly line of that parcel of land described in said Exhibit D,mom or less,also being along
the arc of a curve which is concave to the Southwest,a distance of 53.20 feet,said curve having a radius of 375.00 feet,
a central angle of 08007'43"and a long chord bearing South 4805 PX'East a distance of 53.16 feet;
THENCE South 82020'03"West,non-tangent to aforesaid line,a distance of 199.43 feet to the Southwesterly tine of
said fast parcel of land described in said Decree of Court;
The following Two(2)courses and distances ere along the Southwesterly lines of said first parcel of land described in
said Decree of Court:
THENCE North 57-101IT'West a distance of43.00 feet;
THENCE North 62e25'17"West a distance of 20.92 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said parcel of land contains 8,265 sq.R or 0.190 acre,more or less(t).
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
I,Michael Chad Dilks,a Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor do hereby state that this Property Description
was prepared under my personal supervision and checking and that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief. -
Ic
O
P ,
V
a p93 38106 SS 0
°�s,l l•Y yolk Je
Michael Chad Dina-on behalf of King Surveyors,Inc.
Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor#38106
KING SURVEYORS,INC.
650 East Garden Drive
Windsor,Colorado 80550
(970)686-5011 _
IN:2007111-A
P:@0071I I\property descriptions\ESMT-FORT COLLINS-NO2 CANAL-40FC—PE—RI.doc
Last printed 11/2R010 1:11:00 PM
NORTHWEST CORNER
SEC. 32, T.8N.,RAW
NORTH QUARTER CORNER v
LGT/ OWlb7AyBS SEC. 32, T.8%,RAW A
SSgYBFLAVJ (CALCULATED POSITION FROM SWiNC TIES FOUND STONE IN CONCRETE WITH 0
RAC AV 727yy POINT OF COMMENCEMENT oUDRE)z011L/NE EAR/MER '1/4' ETCHED ON SOUTH FACE
N F C"7r C,!& AV z 7
W it►Ly+; CACHE _ ___ BASIS OF BEARINGS::* S89'25'1YE _ 2660.37 m
nl+ONKT OF BEGINNING rbi
m 9.pµRJ, / �
a � —— — ——— —m ➢ Ls--- 4` ' Cj MT L#SfWF\T No7E 6 T l
gFYOPf47RTLlZLQUSb / l $ -
' 40 BOOX87PAOBS56 unrRrseRAVA:s'
_ 8 265 SO.F. . AT EASEMENT B6I51SIAVRAOB37S
0.190 ACRE NOX.? / RW AV LVIS7/S
/ im wzmm�m
d B'B ►� RAADAULEFJ b \ L'-————_ R�AYASIt'K6/tGP F.{
RBCAU.9aDY17 AltRJUNK o .SEE EASEMENT —————— t i / /
o w NOTE J I I EASEAIENT 1••i k
P IN / 07
B�III.........111 NOTE: This exhibit drawing Is not If /zONLWE ar NEW MEA'CER D/TCy/
m intended to be a monumentalized
$ land survey. It's sole purpose Is as MAWS BZWS I 'oy y,
n o graphic representation to aid in the N BA2R11DlPA�RrB q`fiy y SEFEAS1rMEN7 N07F!
visualization of the written property + RFCAgx 8f0/d77➢ / / rLJ
d} A description which it accompanies. m RWMA M / / .SEE EAZYfWN07E 5 ^
o The written property description RBC MOW AUMO � [J ..
E -i..n supersedes the exhibit drawing
=umi~ =0F1VRTC1ZLWS l l
05 o= BOOK87PAGE556 l )
-;n O N 0 O. NORTH SIXTEENTH CORNER /
SECe. 31 UK, R.69W.
m A xx N 632.f o 0 FOUND/5 REBAR W/2j'ALUM CAP
0 0§ =i STAMPED ' 7662 1994' /
mom
Zo
00 C
D
O tom 0 % �o
N z v; 38106 o -'�'0
r;d.y,�(prQ b z
2 b
0 c1 0 ....O J 200 100 0 200 m
n
I
b
PI Michael Chod Dilka — on behall of King Surveyors, Inc. ai
Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor 138106 1"= 200'
Exhibit "A"
NS
PROPER DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT PE (3 Of 3) Nk NW} SEC. 32,L7
PROPERTY 8N., R.69W.
LINE TABLE
LINE BEARING ILENGTH
Lt 79'27'07"E 57.01'
L2 S90'00'00"E 2 .31'
L3 N82'20'03"E 303.85'
1-4 N82'20' 14.21'
L5 S82-20.03"W 199.43'
L6 N57'10'17"W 43.00'
L7 5'17"W 20.92'
CURVE TABLE
CURVE LENGTH RADIUS I DELTA I CHORD I CH BEARING
Cl 1 53.20' 1 375.00'108'07'43" 53.16' 1 S -51.36"E
EASEMENT NOTES
/J 20'6l5UV11MC4R4V EASEMENT 70 771E MAUN7 N
S7A7E 7ELE71I0WE ANO 7EZEOWAFW CCWRANY
(606W 1159 PACE im)
2/01'ERHEA0 ZZEC7RIC LINE AS LOC47E0 4V F7EL O
Jf-TO'EZE07RIC EASEMENT 70 POBUC SER4ICE
CWRANY a'CXOfAOO(BOAY 1017 PAGE 121)
4)a'lY 0�Ea47 CIXL/NS W4)F9LINE AS ZOCA71D AV
/ZZO PER RA/N7E0 L0C47ES
5V EASEMEN7faR 77//S wA)MhvEMOSr LIKELY ,
FRAM 711E-1E 7#0 00CUME1173.'
of BAGW 1071 PAGE IRS
OA7ED 7/-J-1954 ANO 9Z W ZV 7-7B-195B
SWE7C11 IN 7H/S OOe'UMENT aW r GENERALLY
CaV4YDES Xf7H A07VAZ WA7ERUNE LOCARaV
bf BMW L711 PAGE 499
447E0 11-J-1954 AND RECCIPDED 11-16-1969
NO SPEGf7C LOC4RCW 67k£H IN 7H1S CVCU0EN7
6/70',91MY EASEMENT FRAY 771E 677Y a-Fa47
CIXUNS 70 LAR/MER 0IX/N7Y CANAL Na 2 1/7R/CARNO
CAf7RANY--40'Na47HEAS7EAT Y @ JO'SEV7HNES7ERL Y
a-CEN7Z7&/NE aF CANAL (REC Na 10 1 0 00 4 4 732f
p 0 ICF
• �i
v: 38106 o
O
Michael Chad Dilko - on behalf of King Surveyors, Inc.
Colorado Ucensed Professional Land Surveyor #38106
KING SURVEYORS, INC.. PROJECT 2007111-A
650 Et Garden Drive I Vrmdsor,Colorado 80550 DATE:11/02/2010
East
honc 70 686-5011 fac(970)686-5821 CUENT:AECOM WATERLINE-N/BOYLE ENGINEERINGAL-40
P (`� ) � DWC:ESMT-FORT COLLINS-NO2 CANAL-40FC-PE_R1
wvw.ldngsurveyon.mm DRAWN:MCD CHECKED:MCD
Exhibit "A"
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Exhibit TCE—City of Font Collins
(1 of 3)
A parcel of land being part of the North Half of the Northwest Quarter IN 1/2 NW I/4)of Section Thirty-two(32),
Township Eight North(17.8N.),Range Sixty-nine West(R.69W.)of the Sixth Principal Meridian(6a'P.M.),County of
Lorimar,State of Colorado,and being more particularly described as follows: -
COMMENCING at the Northwest Comer of said Section 32 and assuming the North line of the Northwest Quarter
(NW 1/4)of said Section 32,being monumenmlimd by a stone set in concrete with"1/4"etched on the South side on
the East end and not being monumentaliaed on the West and,said West and being calculated from existing swing ties
found in the field and existing monument records,said West end was not able to be monumentalired at the time of this
survey because of lack of access due to landowners unwilling to allow anyone onto their properties,as bearing South
89.25'17"East,being a Grid Bearing of the Colorado State Plane Coordinate System,North Zone,North American
Datum 19832007,a distance of 2660.37 feet,with all other bearings contained herein relative thereto:
THENCE South 00-36'55"West along the West line of the Northwest Quarter(NW I/4)of said Section 32 a distance
of 126.96 lmtp -
THENCE South 79'2TOT'East a distance of 15TO1 feet;
THENCE South 90"00'00"East a distance of 21.31 feet; _
THENCE North 82'20'03"East a distance of227.16 feet;
THENCE North 47-48'58"East a distance of 47.17 feet to the Southwesterly line of the first parcel of land described
in that Decree of Court recorded September 15,1892 in Book 87 at Page 556 of the records of the Latimer County
Clerk and Recorder,said point being the POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE continuing North 47-48'58"East a distance of 45.10 feet;
THENCE North 70-15'20"East a distance of 108.55 feet to the Northeasterly line of that parcel of land described in
Exhibit D in that Easement Deed With Terms and Conditions recorded August 3,2010 as Reception No.20100044752
of the records of the Lorimer County Clerk and Recorder,said Northeasterly line of that parcel of land described in said
Exhibit D being Forty(40)fee;as measured at right angles or radially,Northeasterly of and parallel with the centerline
of the Latimer County Canal No.2,said point being the beginning point of a curve,said curve being non-tangent to
aforesaid line;
THENCE along said Northeasterly line of that parcel of land described in said Exhibit D,more or less,also being along
the arc of a curve which is concave to the Southwest,a distance of 132.78 feet,said curve having a radius of 375.00
feet,a central angle of 20'17'16"and a long chord bearing South 63'04'05"East a distance of 132.09 feet;
THENCE South 82'20'03"West,non-tangent to aforesaid curve,a distance of 10.78 feet;
THENCE North 63.52'16"West a distance of 88.94 feet;
THENCE South 70-15.20"West a distance of 120.77 feet;
THENCE South 47'48'58"West a distance of 28.09 feet to the Southwesterly line of said first parcel of land described
in said Decree of Court;
THENCE North 62°25'1T'West along the Southwesterly line of said first parcel of land described in said Decree of
Court a distance of 31.97 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Said parcel of land contains 5,808 sq.ft.or 0.133 acre,more or less(t).
SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT
1,Michael Chad Dicke,a Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor do hereby some that this Property Description
was prepared under my personal supervision and checking and that it is me and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
l
O UC
O . Hq
O
'v= 38106 c
0�.,If.j.yoto J
m
Michael Chad Dilka-on behalf of King Surveyors,Inc.
Colorado Licensed Professional Land Surveyor#38106
KING SURVEYORS,INC.
650 East Garden Drive
Windsor,Colorado 80550
(970)686-5011
IN:2007111-A '
P:VG071I I\pmperty d"criptionslESMT-FORT COLLINS-NO2 CANAL40FC_TCE_Rl.doc _
Last printed 1122010 1:08:00 PM
NORTHWEST CORNER
SEC. 32, T.8N.,R.69W. NORTH QUARTER CORNER v
[t7TMYXvfAWeyrAfus SEC. 32, T.BN., R.69W.
Sam"Fffm (CALCULATED POSITION FROM SWING TES ""r'CR FOUND STONE IN CONCRETE WITH
&WAV.72M POINT OF COMMENCEMENT .m RO)N/NE 6F LARLYLN -1/4'ETCHED ON SOUTH FACE
ab„ 110INIT OF BECINMNC PDuY CGy/NIY CANAL NO 7
ra CACHE - BASIS OF BEARINGS: } 58925'17'E — 2660,37' -
rt �T 'cane 6 C o
7
EA.S 'NTNOlES �� O
grYOFMRTCOLL/NSW /
BOPK87PAOB55 I /A.IWO's IM PACE&
5,808 S0. F. IW EASENLNT BOOd'An"IBBW
0.133 ACRE t NOTE? l IPBCAT2dWld7/9
r �C RAADALLLEF& u L------ , L A>z [t�roG
0 RBG AV"]" 0 .SEF EA-gYVVr--————
9 a IN NOTE! —T SENFNTN07 I-{ k
P NOTE: This exhibit drawing Is not Is? ROIKTNE C,ATW&maw LVTCTy
Intended to be o monumentaiized
$ Iond survey. It's sole purpose Is as 74,1ffi•S BRWXS b
a graphic representation to aid in the N B0kX1&VPAiN= I 4 -%T FA.SD"T NOTE 4 ^
' vlsuollzatlon of the written properly w RBCAYL BfOLRA➢ n
description which it accomponles, m RBC AU lA I'm \ / / SEE EAARENT NOTF 5
eEC>z The written properly description RBCNO kS4
o0 m supersedes the exhibit drawing. I / N
m '•n CFTY0PR7RT L19LL➢1'S l p
'riw�mi BOO.Y87PAOBS5if
no 10 N O NORTH SIXTEENTH CORNER
A O;N N SECs.31k32, T.8N.,R.69W
m f o o FOUND/5 REBAR W1(2}'ALUM CAP \ /
m0�o j STAMPED "LS17662 1994' '•x /
0E, Z
owo > a o f�
Z O_ m o
O O
EI
am
Z
!, N O
i 9 38106 o
p E
22 O 14�.'j{�10.(u i o
z F,p•., ,r P
$n O 200 100 0 200 A
0
I of
o Michael Cha Dilka - on behalf of Xi ng Surveyom, Ine. m
E
Colorado Ucensed Professional Land Surveyor/38106 14= 200'
Exhibit "A"
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION F.�I-LIT TCE 3 Of 3 FORT COINS
.8N
N� NW} SEC. 32. T R.69W.
LINE TABLE
LINE BEARING LENGTH
Li S7927'07'E 157.01'
L2 S90'00'00'E 21.31'
L3 Na22 03'E 2 7 16'
L4 N47'48'58'E 47.17'
L5 N4 ' '58' 45.10'
L6 N70'15' 0' 108.55'
L7 S8 '03'W 10
L8 N63'52'16*W 88.94'
L9 S70'15'20'W 120 77'
L1 0 947-48'S8'W 28.09'
L71 N6275'7'W 1 31.97-
CURVE TABLE
CURVE LENGTH I RADIUS I DELTA I CHORD CH BEARING
Cl 132.78' 1 375.00' 20'17'16' 1 132.09' 1 S63'04'05'E
EA.SEMEJVT N07F5
V 10'C6MML9✓1C9770V EASEMENT 70 AF MLYINTADY
STATE IEZE.-WOW ANO 7ELEa4A1N CGMPANY
elbm '1159 PACE 11Bf
)O/ERNEAO ELECTRIC LINE AS Z=47ED'1N 17a,0
3J 30'EZEC7R/C EASEA7ENT 70 PUBVC SERNLY'
C6WRANY 01 COLarADO(Boar 1047 RA4F 1-V
4J a7Y al Fa4T C0ZLINS IYA7ERLWF AS LOG7ED 1111
17LW PER PA6V7EO LOC97h-S
5V EASEMENT 7ZW 7N1S N'A)Z?FL1NE MAST LIKELY
f.?OM 711Er'7NO 961ZOOVV7S
o/R=W 7077 PAGE 19.9
,9,4W 11-3-193f ANO RECOYDEO 7-TB-195B
SKETCW 1N R11S,904VVSVT 6MY L2"NERALLY I
CCYNC/0ES OV71 AOM& W.O 7ERUNE LOCADLW
bf BMr 4371 PAC--499
DA7E77 11-3-19541 ANO REGLWOED 11-16-4969
NO SPEOf70 LOG9ROV O'YEN 1N 7N1S,90CVh1ZNT
9)70'D1MV EASEMENT ERaM 7NE CYTY a'"FOOT
allINS 70 LARIMER COUNTY CANAL NO 1 LQP7G4DNG
r 1:YNPANY--40'N64)NE4S7FRLY R.70'SOUD7NEX)VPLY
a'LL9V7E/Yr 1NE a<CANAL (REC NO 1010 0 0 4 4 751f
OPp.D0 Li
Nq0
9e� 38106o
°s�l�2-so14•'P
O 'J
Michael Chad Dilka — on behalf of King Surveyors. Inc.
Colorado Licensed Profeeaional Land Surveyor #38106
KING SURVEYORS, INC. PROJECT H0:2007111-A
650 Emt Gatdcn Drive I Windsor,Colorado 80550 DATE:11/02/2010
CUENT:AECOM WATER/BOYLE ENGINEERING
phone:(970)686-5011 E=(970)6865821 'DWG:ESMT—FORT COLONS-1,102 CANAL-40FO—TCE—Rl
www.ldllgsunreyors.com DRAWN:MCD CHECKED:MCD
RESOLUTION 2011-052
OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SHARED
LOCATION AGREEMENT FOR THE GREELEY BELLVUE PIPELINE
TO CROSS A CITY UTILITY EASEMENT
WHEREAS,on November 3, 1956,the City acquired an easement for a 27-inch pipeline to
serve certain areas northwest of Fort Collins,which easement was recorded on July 18, 1958, in the
real property records of the Larimer County Clerk and Recorder at Reception No. 746577(the"City
Easement"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Greeley ("Greeley"), is in the process of acquiring the necessary
easements and other permits and approvals necessary for its Bellvue Waterline Project, which will
transport water from Greeley's Bellvue Water Treatment Plant to Greeley water customers (the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS,as part of the Project,Greeley has asked the City to consent to the encroachment
on the City Easement of the Project, and specifically the installation of Greeley's new water
transmission line across and under the City's existing 27-inch water pipeline; and
WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated whether the proposed construction and location of the
Greeley water pipeline would interfere with the City's intended use of the City Easement or the
City's improvements, and has determined that no such interference would result from the proposed
encroachment; and
WHEREAS, in order to provide for the protection of the City's interests through the
documentation of agreement to terms and conditions for the proposed Greeley encroachment, City
staff has negotiated with Greeley a Shared Location Agreement providing for City review and
approval of construction plans for the portions of the Project on the City Easement, and for notice
to the City in connection with work on the City Easement in the future; and
WHEREAS,the proposed Shared Location Agreement,dated April 15,2011,is on file in the
office of the City Clerk and available for inspection; and
WHEREAS,City staffhas identified no negative impacts to the City or the City Water Utility
that would result from the entering into the Shared Location Agreement and allowing the Greeley
Project to proceed as requested; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2010,the proposed encroachment was presented to the Water
Board for consideration along with the related easements being requested by Greeley for the Project,
and the Water Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the Easements; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2010, the proposed encroachment was presented to the Land
Conservation and Stewardship Board for consideration along with the related easements being
requested by Greeley for the Project, and the Land Conservation and Stewardship Board voted
unanimously to recommend approval of the Easements; and
WHEREAS,Article II,Section 16 of the City Charter empowers the City Council of the City,
by ordinance or resolution, to enter into contracts with other governmental bodies to furnish
governmental services and make charges for such services or enter into cooperative or joint activities
with other governmental bodies; and
WHEREAS, Section 29-1-203 of the Colorado Revised Statutes also provides that
governments may cooperate or contract with one another to provide certain services or facilities
when such cooperation or contracts are authorized by each party thereto with the approval of its
legislative body or other authority having the power to so approve; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT
COLLINS that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Shared Location Agreement on
the terms and conditions referenced herein, together with such additional terms and conditions as
the City Manager, in consultation with the City Attorney, determines are necessary or appropriate
to protect the interests of the City.
Passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins this 7th
day of June A.D. 2011.
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk