Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBURNS ANNEXATION AND ZONING - 23 90, A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITY COUNCILIntray > r13 C Start of. Item 13. Message. Subject: Burns Annexation Sender: Tom PETERSON / CFC52/01 TO: Ken WAIDO / CFC52/01 Part 1. TO: Ken WAIDO / CFC52/01 Part 2. Package. Subject°: Burns Annexation Creator: Tom PETERSON / CFC52/01 Part 2.1. FROM: Diane JONES / CFC/01 TO: DISTRIBUTION Part 2.2. Dated: 02/12/91 at 1315. Contents: 2. Dated: 02/12/91 at 1315. Contents: 2. Susan Kirkpatrick called this morning regarding the Burns annexation. and development proposal. Apparently, the Burns' have scheduled or met with each Council member individually to discuss the annexation and related development issues. Susan stated that while she understands that the provision of water service is bascially a technical issue, her view is that the annexation and subsequent development of the property does beyond the water service issue. More specifically, the Burns' have indicated that they plan, as part.of the development proposal, to dedicate a portion of their property as open space and for public easements. Further, it is Susan's understanding that technically the city can provide water service.to the property (although. it will be more costly to do so). Conseqently, she would like some information from staff as to any trade-offs between water service provision and open space. In other words, if the property owner is willing to dedicate land for open space purposes, is there some way to justify providing the more expensive water service in lieu of what it would have cost the city for- open space? Please let me know when you think you can have a response,as I'm sure we'll discuss this at Council Staff lunch on Monday 1/7. One other point. Burns may request another postponement since they will apparently be meeting with the FC/Loveland Water-District.on Jan 16 to see if the District would be willing to provide water serviceto their property. Susan felt that if they didn't request the postponement, the Council would likely table the matter until after the Jan 16 meeting. End of Item 13. Intray > r14 Start of Item 14. Message. Dated: 02/12/91 at 1316. Subject: Burns Water Service Issue Sender: Tom PETERSON / CFC52/01 Contents: 2. TO: Ken WAIDO / CFC52/01 construction and what the limit really is? Doesn't this have a bearing on property value and thus potential land use? Answer: If this is a rhetorical question then please ignore the following answer. In theory, utility issues should not be the primary factor in determining land use. However, the reality of this situation is. that the cost of developing the area above 5200 will be high because of the water service requirements. This is in direct conflict with any developer's primary objective ... to make money. Developers may have an expectation that the area between 5200 and 5250 can be developed, however the cost of doing so may prohibit that from happening. The options are to either not develop or cut the cost of development (lower the standards). All developers face this dilemma constantly, whether developing along the foothills or on the east side of town. The Burns are facing this issue ricjht now and it appears their ultimate desire is to have the Council approve "lowering the standards" so the development can proceed. Question: What is the present point in the process and what.are any upcoming decision points? Answer: We have (will be sent today) provided Rex Burns with a general.plan of how the City could serve his development. There are numerous variations to this plan and we will be working with Rex and his consultant to try to iron out the details. Because they seem to be interested in pursuing only the lowest cost option (means more $$s for them) they -may not like any of the options we Present to them. This is where the political and technical issues .may get mixed together. The District will also be reviewing the possibility of serving the development. They (the District) are presently waiting for Rex's consultant to provide them with information. Please let me know if you have any questions. Mike End of Item 14. Intray > read Start of Item 15. Message. Subject: Burns Service Request Sender: Tom PETERSON / CFC52/01 TO: Ken WAIDO / CFC52/01 Part 1. TO: Ken WAIDO / CFC52/01 Part 2. Package. Subject: Burns Service Request Creator: Tom PETERSON / CFC52/01 Dated: 02/12/91 at 1322. Contents: 2. Dated: 02/12/91 at 1322. Contents: 2. Part 2.1. u FROM: Mike SMITH / CFC52/01 TO: DISTRIBUTION Part 2.2. The following is in response to a service request from Council Member- Winokur. Council Member Winokur met with Ruth Burns and her daughter Judy Allay on December 2,8th regarding the issue of water supply to the proposed Burns Ranch development located SW of the intersection of Drake Rd and Overland Trail. Some of the proposed development is located above the 5200 elevation which is the upper service limit for the City's system. Council Member Winokur has inquired about: (1) the technical issues involved with this situation, (2) if there was a written response to a October 26th letter from the Burn's consultant (RBD) to the City Planning Dept, and (3) when someone will be answering the Burn's questions regarding water supply. City staff members have provided Rex Burns (Ruth's son and Judy's brother) with considerable information and I have personally met with him on a number of different occasions to discuss this issue. The information that Ruth 1.and Judy are seeking could be easily provided by Rex. Never the less, here is the present status of the situation; As early as July 1990, Water Utility staff members provided written information to the Planning Dept which was forwarded to the Burns regarding the.City's problems related to serving areas higher than the 5200 elevation and possible solutions to providing service to Burn's proposed development. Apparently ignoring the information provided earlier; Burn's consultant, RBD Inc., sent a letter dated October 26, 1990, to the Planning Dept suggesting that an "in -line" booster pump station would solve the problem....a solution which was determined to be not acceptable back in July. I met with Rex, his consultants and representatives from planning on November 26th to discuss possible solutions. During that meeting I told Rex and .his consultant that, as was outlined in the July information we provided them, the "in -line" booster pump station was not an acceptable solution. Why? These types of buried, metal pump stations are maintenance intensive and would provide a lower level of reliability than the existing system-. They are a disaster waiting to happen. When I worked for the Colorado Springs Water Utility the utility purchase two of these "in -line" booster stations as temporary solutions to pressure problems until more reliable, permanent facilities were constructed: They are not a reliable permanent solution. Back to the meeting. During the meeting we all agreed to pursue the following course of action: 1. The Water Utility Staff would provide Rex's consultant with a preliminary layout of the necessary improvements the City would require in order to provide service to Rex's development. This is more detailed information than provided back in July. Development of that information is almost complete... should be complete by the middle of next week. It should not be a surprise that the design the City would find acceptable will cost more to build than the one proposed by the Burns family and their consultant. 2. That Rex would pursue obtaining water service from the Fort Collins -Loveland Water District as an alternative to getting service from the City. In that area of town, the District can serve a higher elevation than the City because the District's water tank is higher. I agreed to attend the District's Board meeting on December,18th to provide any support or answer any questions regarding why the City could not serve Rex's development.. At Rex's request, I also wrote a letter to the District regarding such. At their meeting on the 18th, the District Board told Rex they would consider Rex's request and get back to him later....I think that will be in the middle of January or so. Rex's mother (Ruth) was also at the Board meeting. More specifically, the answers to Council Member Winokur's three questions are as follows: . 1. The technical issues focus on whether the City should expand its water system. utilizing facilities which cost less up front but will result in higher maintenance and operation costs, and will provide a level of service less than what is provided.to theother customers. There are consultants that will say that these buried, metal "in - line" booster stations are the greatest thing since sliced bread. We strongly disagree with that opinion. 2. There was a written response to the October 26th letter from RBD to the Planning Dept. That response consisted of the written "Project Comment Sheet" (standard form used to reply to proposed development activity) and a copy of the July memo which outlined the service options. 3. I would be happy to call Rex Burns and remind him of what he agreed to at the Nov 26th meeting and the status of such. In short, it appears that the Burns family is trying to pursue a political answer to a technical problem. Mike End of Item 15. Intray > read Start of Item 16. Message. Subject: Burns Update Sender: Tom PETERSON / CFC52/01 TO: Ken WAIDO / CFC52/01 Part 1. TO: Ken WAIDO / CFC52/01 Part 2. Package. Subject: Burns Update Creator: Tom PETERSON / CPC52/01 Dated: 02/12/9.1 at 1324. Contents: 2. Dated: 02/12/91 at 1324. Contents: 2. Part 2.1. FROM: Mike SMITH / CFC52/01 TO: DISTRIBUTION Part 2.2. Just a brief .update on the Burns water service issue: Late last week Rex Burns submitted his consultant's study/report to the District for consideration. The bottom line is the recommended improvements will cost about $280,000. The annual additional O&M costs are projected to be about $19,400 per year. The consultant is also recommending that a GID be formed to "handle" the annual O&M costs!! The following is a quote from the report: "THE GID WOULD CONTRACT WITH THE DISTRICT TO PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE FACILITIES. THE GID WOULD THEN TURN ALL ITS REVENUES OVER TO THE DISTRICT AS PAYMENT FOR THE COST OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES. THE DISTRICT WOULD REQUIRE, AS A CONDITION OF PROVIDING WATER SERVICE FOR PROPERTIES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA,, THAT PROPERTY OWNERS CONSENT TO INCLUSION IN THE GID. THE GID BUDGET AND ASSOCIATED MILL LEVY WOULD BE SET ANNUALLY BY THE CITY UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE DISTRICT." The consultant also estimated that the additional mill levy would be about j:53 mills. That is all for now. Let me know if you have any questions. I will keep you informed of new information as I receive it. Mike End of Item 16.