Contents:

the PDF file. This is a 6.3 Mbyte file and will take about 36 minutes to download at 28.8. To view and print the file, you will need to download and install the free Acrobat Reader Program.

Monument concrete batch plant hearing May 12

View photos of the Rockwell Ready-Mix Concrete Plant Site

The Monument Board of Trustees will hold a public hearing May 12 at 6:30 p.m. at Town Hall, 166 Second St., to consider the appeal of Kalima M. Masse, president of Rockwell Ready-Mixed Concrete, Inc., regarding the denial of issuance of a business license, by the Monument town clerk, for a concrete batch plant to be located on Washington Street at Highway 105. This is the property the town once bid on, authorized by the previous board, at a federal auction. The town was the winning bidder, but Mayor Betty Konarski and the current board chose not to buy the property, forfeiting $10,000 in earnest money. Masse acquired the land at a subsequent federal auction.

Masse sent a letter dated March 20 to Konarski requesting an appeal of the October 2002 denial. As the basis for her appeal, Masse claimed that the town clerk’s decision was "arbitrary and capricious" and that the clerk "exceeded her jurisdiction and abused her discretion in denying the application" and "failed to make specific findings as to why she denied the application." Masse further claimed that the clerk’s denial of the business license "is a thinly veiled and illegal attempt to rezone the property [704 N. Washington St.] on which we proposed to conduct our business, thereby avoiding a formal process involving notice and opportunity for protest, and denying us due process and equal protection." Additionally, Masse claimed this denied her "the right to use our land in a manner consistent with existing zoning ordinances and the historic use" and "is an attempt to take our property without compensation."

If granted a business license for the concrete batch plant, Rockwell may be able to operate without obtaining traffic and environmental studies and approvals, possibly bypassing existing environmental and traffic issues and the public hearing processes.

Masse previously appeared before the board on April 15, 2002, as the president of GeoTech Corporation. At that meeting, Masse described her corporation’s plan to establish a recycling business on the 5-acre parcel. The first phase of the business would have been to recycle yard waste. She pointed out that local fire departments felt there was a need for such a facility in the area because of the high fire danger. Gary Flanders, also of GeoTech (and currently listed on the business license application for Rockwell), further explained that the proposed recycling facility would recycle tree slash, brush, old roofing, concrete, and asphalt, turning these into products such as mulch and driveway materials. Masse and Flanders then asked the board to consider passing an emergency ordinance to allow their service to begin at once. They claimed that their request was supported by the El Paso County Sheriff’s Office, as well as the fire districts of northern El Paso County. They further asked that their request be put on an agenda very soon. Their request for permission to begin work was denied on the grounds that they had not yet submitted an application, including a plan, to the planning department. GeoTech took no further action on its proposal.

View photos of the Rockwell Ready-Mix Concrete Plant Site

Revised Wal-Mart traffic report submitted, planning commission hearing could come in June

W-M NEWS - At presstime, OCN learned that Wal-Mart is considering increasing the size of the proposed store from 186,245 sq. ft. to 206,000 sq. ft. According to Carl Schueler, assistant director of county planning, if that change is pursued, the site plan and traffic report would have to be revised again and the project would not come before the planning commission until July at the earliest.

On April 7, Wal-Mart submitted to the El Paso County Department of Transportation a revised traffic impact analysis prepared by CLC Associates in Spokane, Wash. The supercenter is proposed on the 30-acre parcel on the south side of Baptist Road, directly across from King Soopers—just south and west of the Monument town limits.

Submission of the revised report means the project may resume moving through the county process. Depending on the outcome of the county’s review of the analysis and other submissions, a hearing before the El Paso County Planning Commission could come as early as June 17, with a Board of County Commissioners hearing in July.

Last October, the county planning department requested the revised traffic impact analysis to address several significant deficiencies found in the prior study, dated April 2002, submitted with the application. In particular, the April 2002 report

1. Was based on obsolete traffic counts.

2. Did not model traffic resulting from completing the connection of Jackson Creek Parkway-Struthers Road south to connect with Northgate Road. That traffic could have a significant impact on the turning movements for access to the store.

3. Did not model any access to the church and adjoining houses to the east of the project.

The revised report contains a much longer list of road improvements needed prior to opening the store in the event the county and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) do not complete their planned improvements to Baptist Road and the Baptist Road/I-25 interchange. It is very likely the county and CDOT improvements will not be completed until 2008 or beyond. Under these circumstances, the prior report called only for widening Baptist Road, to accommodate two eastbound lanes along the store site’s frontage, and signals at the I-25 southbound ramp/Baptist Road intersection and the intersection of Baptist Road and Leather Chaps. The revised report says:

The source of funds for these improvements is not identified.

County agencies and the Town of Monument are reviewing the traffic impact analysis report and other Wal-Mart submissions. According to Carl Schueler, assistant director of the county planning department, the project will not be included in the May 20 planning commission hearing. Planning commission hearings are held on the third and, if needed, fourth Tuesdays of each month, so the project could be heard on June 17 or 24. Once the planning commission renders a recommendation, since there is a rezoning involved, there must be a minimum 30-day notice prior to holding a hearing before the county commissioners. That would mean the county commissioners’ hearing could come in July.

**********

For more information on this project and to provide comments, contact Carl Schueler, Assistant Director, El Paso County Planning Department, 520-6300, CarlSchueler@elpasoco.com. Mail comments and questions to the El Paso County Planning Department, 27 E. Vermijo, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903-2208.

Additional information is available at www.ourcommunitynews.org/top_stories.htm#wal-mart and www.CoalitionTLC.org/wal-mart.htm, or by calling John Heiser at 488-9031.

Fire district merger working group reaches an impasse

View a photo of the JWG meeting April 22

The fire protection district merger joint working group (JWG) consists of two representatives each from the Tri-Lakes district, the Woodmoor-Monument Fire Protection District, the Palmer Lake Volunteer Fire Department, and the Donald Wescott Fire Protection District. The JWG held two meetings in April. Having reached an impasse, no further meetings are currently scheduled.

The meeting was attended by Chuck Cornell and Scott Russell, representing the Palmer Lake department; Charlie Pocock and John Hildebrandt, representing the Tri-Lakes district; Bill Lowes and Brian Ritz, representing the Donald Wescott district; and Tom Conroy and Russ Broshous, representing the Woodmoor-Monument district. Conroy presided.

The first item addressed was the protest filed to require that JWG meetings be open to the public, with posting of meeting announcements and preparation of minutes. The JWG has been meeting in private. The JWG’s attorney, Raule Nemer, says there is a good legal basis for meeting in private, but she urged the group to consider the political implications and impact on public acceptance of its recommendations.

With one vote recorded for each department, the group voted 3-1 to hold open meetings. The lone dissenter was Palmer Lake. Russell said Palmer Lake’s position is that holding open meetings would inhibit the debate and that the "sunshine law" open meetings statute does not apply since only two representatives from each department attend the meetings. The sunshine law applies when three or more members of a board attend.

The board unanimously appointed Conroy as the JWG point of contact for dissemination of information.

Broshous presented a working paper entitled "Merger Considerations," which looks at a possible three-way merger of the Tri-Lakes, Wescott, and Woodmoor-Monument districts. In it, he examined two of the districts’ needs:

1. The Tri-Lakes district would require the use of volunteers, a property tax rate not to exceed 7 mills, use of the Tri-Lakes ambulance service, and the construction of a station at Roller Coaster Road and Highway 105.

2. The Woodmoor-Monument would require that the board of the merged district be representative of the residents served, that the merged district control its own budget, that the mill levy be equal for all residents and businesses, that the district have permanence (e.g., 20 years), and that there be no degradation of service in the merging districts.

To accommodate those positions, the paper assumed all the existing stations would be retained and the Roller Coaster station would be built. It was further assumed the stations would be staffed 24/7 with a fire crew of three paid staff and one volunteer, the Tri-Lakes ambulances would be assigned to the Tri-Lakes stations and the Donald Wescott station, paid staff would be compensated at Woodmoor-Monument rates and benefits, and volunteer benefits would match the Donald Wescott district.

With those assumptions, Broshous’s calculations concluded that the property tax rate in the merged district would have to rise to 7.5 mills for the first four years, after which it could drop below 7 mills. Also, the financial reserves would dip to 3.8 percent in 2006 before returning to about 16.9 percent.

One of the issues noted in the paper was the current debt each of the districts is carrying. The Tri-Lakes district’s debt was shown as $1.556 million. The Donald Wescott district’s debt was shown as $756,000. The Woodmoor-Monument district’s debt was shown as $272,000. The Tri-Lakes district is planning to assume about $881,200 in additional debt to construct its station 2. Broshous said that if all the debt is transferred to the merged district, the property tax rate would have to go above 7 mills.

Hildebrandt objected to some of the assumptions in the analysis. This brought the discussion back to the issue of whether the Woodmoor-Monument station would be redundant. Hildebrandt said all the areas would still be reachable within five minutes even without the Woodmoor-Monument station. The Woodmoor-Monument representatives pointed to the potential degradation in service to some Woodmoor residents. Conroy said, "I don’t want to go to our constituents and say, ‘You guys are losers for the greater good.’"

Ambulance service was another sore point. Hildebrandt cited the Woodmoor-Monument district’s continued use of American Medical Response ambulances. He said, "The ambulance service is the heart and soul of our paid and volunteer service." He suggested that rather than take the leap of faith required with a merger, the districts enter into intergovernmental agreements (IGA) to share services. Pocock seconded that view, saying, "Let’s do what the ESECG study said and move forward incrementally."

Broshous said the Woodmoor-Monument board does not favor a fire authority.

Russell said, "We all need to think what is in the best interest of the entire community."

On that note, the group agreed to review Broshous’s paper and meet again April 22.

The meeting was attended by Susan Miner and Scott Russell, representing the Palmer Lake department; Charlie Pocock and John Hildebrandt, representing the Tri-Lakes district; Bill Lowes and Brian Ritz, representing the Donald Wescott district; and Tom Conroy and Russ Broshous, representing the Woodmoor-Monument district. Conroy presided.

Hildebrandt objected to the salary expense assumptions in Broshous’s paper, saying it resulted in a cost increase of $250,000 to $500,000. Conroy suggested Hildebrandt and Broshous review the numbers off-line.

Broshous said there are three main issues: The number and configuration of stations, in-house or contract ambulance service, and acceptance of the debt.

Hildebrandt said, "My vote would be to form a fire authority and cooperative agreements. Work from the bottom up and align the departments."

Donald Wescott Chief William Sheldon noted that with a fire authority, "Anyone can walk out the door."

Pocock said, "A fire authority can be viewed as an interim step toward a legal merger." He cited a Fort Collins-area fire authority that encompasses 15 stations and has been operating for 15 years. Pocock said, "The chief thought it was the best of all worlds." Pocock also mentioned a Durango-area fire authority that has been operating for two or three years and was helpful in allocating resources in fighting the Missionary Ridge fire.

Sheldon said it would be good to go and talk with both and report back to the JWG.

Broshous said, "We have been consistently against a fire authority." He cited the lack of permanence and budgetary control.

Russell said, "One hiccup and someone is out the door." Broshous added, "Broomfield came apart."

After a short break to let the representatives confer, Conroy called for a vote on pursuing a fire authority. Lowes said, "Wescott does not object to considering a fire authority." Hildebrandt said, "Tri-Lakes supports working toward commonality and formation of a fire authority." Russell said Palmer Lake is opposed, adding, "It would fall apart." Broshous said, "Woodmoor-Monument is against forming a fire authority but is willing to work with any district that is interested in a merger."

The Tri-Lakes and Wescott representatives said they would work together on possible formation of a fire authority. Ritz said, "We need to do the baby steps with the authority." Conroy asked, "Does the authority give you anything we haven’t had for the last 35 years?" Pocock replied, "Perhaps not in fire response but combined training, fire marshal, development plan review, fire prevention education, etc. A fire authority gives an opportunity to develop as you go and wouldn’t preclude a merger."

Miner asked, "If [Tri-Lakes and Wescott] proceed, then would the JWG meet quarterly for updates or go away?" Hildebrandt replied that it would not be needed since updates would be provided directly to the other boards.

All the representatives agreed to report the situation to their boards.

**********

For more information on the JWG, contact Tom Conroy 884-8900 (work), 488-0529 (home), or thomas.conroy@usa.net.

View a photo of the JWG meeting April 22

The board of directors of the Donald Wescott Fire Protection District will hold a public hearing May 15, 7 p.m., at Donald Wescott Fire Protection District Station #3, 15415 Gleneagle Drive. The hearing is to address a resolution for inclusion into the district of approximately 16 square miles bordered on the south by Hodgen Road, on the east by Black Forest Road (Highway 189), on the north by County Line Road (also known as Palmer Divide Road), and on the west by Highway 83.

The developments of Hawk Ridge West; Walden 3, Filing 6, Phases 1 and 2; and Walden 3, Filing 7 are excluded from the resolution. The Tri-Lakes district is already serving them.

The eastern boundary of the Tri-Lakes Fire Protection District is the western boundary of the area proposed for inclusion.

The approximate center of the western side of the proposed area is the intersection of Highway 83 and Highway 105/Walker Road. It is approximately eight minutes (driving time) northeast of the Wescott fire station in Gleneagle and also approximately eight minutes east of the Tri-Lakes Fire Protection District fire station on Highway 105 near Monument. The planned Tri-Lakes district station 2 at Roller Coaster Road and Highway 105 will be within about one-and-a-half minutes from the intersection.

Anyone objecting to the proposed resolution must file their objections in writing.

Subsequent to the hearing, if the Wescott district board confirms the resolution, an election will be held on the inclusion. If approved, the maximum property tax rate imposed will be 7 mills.

A 7-mill property tax rate is expected to yield about $100,000 revenue in 2004, including property tax and specific ownership tax. That amount can be expected to increase in future years.

**********

For further information, contact Donald Wescott Fire Protection District Chief William Sheldon at 488-8680, fax 488-8929, or chiefwfd500@aol.com.

The El Paso County Planning Commission narrowly approved the location for the Tri-Lakes Fire Protection District Station 2 and unanimously recommended approval of the final plat for Hay Creek Ranch at the April 15 meeting.

The proposed two-story manned fire station has 6,576 square feet total, replacing the existing 1,800 square-foot metal equipment shed on the 0.367-acre site on Roller Coaster Road near Highway 105. A residential program is planned with four single firefighters living at the facility while they complete educational programs.

Charlie Pocock, president of the Tri-Lakes board, noted that the property has been dedicated for a fire station since 1982. He presented benefits of having a station at that location and the results of meetings with the neighbors, and he described some of the alternatives considered. He said that even if the entire area develops to a density of 2.5 acres per lot, the station could handle it. Pocock estimated the proposed station would handle about 300 calls per year.

Matt Hood, project manager for Barnes Architects, which is designing the project, presented the design and some of the changes made to accommodate objections from the neighbors. Those changes include switching the residential area from the south side to the north side of the structure.

Neighboring property owners David and Alyce McElhoes objected to the project, citing close proximity to their house, and said that other alternatives were not adequately considered and that the architectural style of the structure is inconsistent with the area. David McElhoes described it as "New York City meets Bonanza."

Neighboring property owner Andy Reed said the building is too big for the lot and would be a detriment to the area.

Commissioner Steve Sery noted that there is a working group looking at the potential merger of Tri-Lakes area fire districts. He said, "I would like to hear from the other districts that this location really makes sense."

Pocock replied, "This is the most logical place to put a fire station." Regarding the potential merger, he said, "I don’t expect anything to happen for two or three years."

Ken Rowberg, director of county planning, said the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners would need to approve the subdivision exemption and waive the restrictions placed on the property in 1982. The architectural design would be subjected to an administrative plot plan review.

Commissioner Joe Salute made a motion for approval. Commissioner Robert Roulier seconded it. The motion passed by a vote of 5-4, with commissioners Sery, Mason, Will Brown, and Terry Bernstein voting against. Mason said the issues with the design should have been addressed before the hearing. Sery said, "I am not satisfied that it fits within the overall plan for Tri-Lakes area fire protection."

The request for subdivision exemption was recommended for approval by a vote of 5 to 4.

The approval of location by the planning commission is a final action and not forwarded to the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The recommendation for approval of the subdivision exemption is forwarded to the BOCC for final action.

The land is located on Hay Creek Road and connects to the western end of Baptist Road. The steep terrain, with Hay Creek running through the property, complicates development. After failing in May 2002 to get approval for a 15-lot plan, the number of lots in the revised preliminary plan was reduced to 10. The planning commission and the county commissioners approved that plan. The final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plan.

The 10 lots range in size from 4.1 to 7.6 acres, with an average of 5.02. Included on the lots is 16.7 acres of dedicated open space, 1/2 mile of creek, and 1/3 mile of access road.

Unlike the hearings on the higher-density proposal, no one from the area spoke against the project. Jamie Hull appeared representing the Hull family, who owns the property.

The planning commission unanimously recommended approval of the final plat. The planning commission recommendation will be forwarded to the BOCC for a final decision.

**********

The county planning commission normally holds hearings on the third and, if necessary, the fourth Tuesday of each month. The next hearing will be May 20. The agenda for that hearing will be posted at http://adm.elpasoco.com/planning/Agendas/PC/PC-Agn.asp. The hearings start at 9 a.m. in the 3rd floor hearing room of the county building, 27 E. Vermijo, Colorado Springs.

For more information on these and other projects within the county, contact the planning department at 520-6300 or visit www.elpasoco.com/planning.

View photos of the BRRTA Open House and Board Meeting

On April 7, the Baptist Road Rural Transportation Authority (BRRTA) held an open house meeting on the preferred design alternative for the Baptist Road corridor from Tari Drive on the east to the railroad tracks west of I-25.

This was the third public meeting on the project. Prior meetings were held March 18, 2002, and October 28, 2002.

Sixty-four people attended the open house. Area residents reviewed the design, asked questions, and made suggestions. Thirty-eight response forms were submitted. Many of the comments were opposed to the proposed Wal-Mart. Several saw no advantages to the plan if it encourages big box development. Others favored the expanded capacity and potential for trail connections.

Many residents expressed concerns about the impact of expanding and regrading the roadway. Ronald Doolittle, a trustee with the Family of Christ Lutheran Church, 675 Baptist Road, noted that the plan calls for the roadbed in front of the church to be lowered 10 to 15 feet. He said that would make the current difficult access much worse and would encroach about 50 feet into the driveway and parking area in front of the building.

Kingswood resident Steve Rempelos, whose property fronts on Baptist Road, was concerned the cuts and fills for the expanded right-of-way would take a significant portion of his property.

Loris and Associates, the design consultant on the project, will develop a preliminary design for the Baptist Road corridor based on the results of the open house and comments and approval of the BRRTA board. The preliminary design is scheduled for completion in the third quarter of 2003.

Since 1987, Baptist Road has been shown as a major east-west arterial on the county’s major transportation corridors plan. At full build-out based on current plans, Baptist Road is projected to carry up to 55,200 vehicle trips per day. The greatest traffic would be seen in the segment from I-25 to Jackson Creek Parkway.

The Baptist Road design project started in October 2001. In 2001 and 2002, the Baptist Road design work cost a total of $112,265. An additional $190,000 is budgeted for 2003, for a total of about $302,000 to complete the process through the preliminary design. Those costs are covered through fees paid by builders at the time building permits are granted.

The cost of preparing final designs and constructing the various improvements is estimated at $9.4 million, not including the upgrade to the Baptist Road interchange. The interchange work is the responsibility of the Colorado Department of Transportation. Funding for that work is not likely until after 2008.

The regular quarterly BRRTA board meeting was held April 11. The BRRTA board is composed of three county commissioners (Jim Bensberg, Chuck Brown, and Wayne Williams) and two Monument board of trustees representatives (Mayor Betty Konarski and Trustee Byron Glenn). BRRTA president Brown was absent. Glenn presided.

District manager Conner Shepherd, of R.S. Wells, LLC, presented the financial report prepared by accounting firm Clifton Gunderson, parent company to R.S. Wells.

Konarski questioned the accounting expense paid to Gunderson. The annual accounting budget is $3,000, of which $1,771 had been spent by the end of March. She suggested the authority get bids for doing the accounting.

Of the annual budget of $5,000 for legal services, $4,278 had been spent. Shepherd said that was because of inclusion work and the school district conflict.

The fund balance at the end of March stood at $312,219.

André Brackin, county department of transportation (DOT) engineering design group supervisor, reported that Wal-Mart submitted a revised traffic impact report.

Brackin also said that DOT plans to advertise within a month for proposals to construct a bridge over the drainage way and mouse habitat that bisects Struthers Ranch. At the February 21 BRRTA meeting, County Administrator Terry Harris reported that one of the issues in his ongoing discussions with the Wal-Mart developer and the Struthers Ranch developer is construction of that bridge. The bridge is needed to complete Jackson Creek Parkway-Struthers Road south to connect to Northgate Road. Harris said, "We will put the $1 million into the bridge." Funding for the bridge could be handled through an Additional Funding Request (AFR) appropriation against the drainage fund.

Peter Loris, president of Loris and Associates, presented the results of the April 7 open house and gave an update on BRRTA’s Baptist Road design project.

He said, "The number one issue was Wal-Mart." He stressed that the project is not being designed for Wal-Mart but is based on commercial development at that location based on the zoning and planning. Resident Steve Sery observed, "There is a big difference between a Wal-Mart and what it is zoned for."

Other major concerns were local property impacts and congestion.

Loris presented the current preferred alternative lane and grade configuration:

Loris said BRRTA would design this segment. Forest Lakes was assumed to participate in the construction costs. Ron Simpson, manager of the Triview Metropolitan District, added that an underpass in that segment for the Santa Fe Trail would add $500,000 to $700,000 to the cost.

Loris said design and construction responsibility for this segment rests with the Colorado Department of Transportation. Resident Chester Hamill said he is concerned that congestion during construction of this segment would lead people to use Gleneagle Drive instead. Glenn responded that the contract would require that the current capacity be maintained during construction. Williams said, "If Struthers Road [Jackson Creek Parkway] is completed south before CDOT gets to their project, a lot of traffic would go down Struthers."

Loris said, "This segment is tricky." The design includes two lanes in each direction, with a landscaped median. Problems include the grades and access to the church and houses. The road would be lowered, which would infringe on property lines. Loris said using retaining walls and realigning the road somewhat to the north might lessen some of the impacts. Those issues would be addressed in the preliminary design. Brackin added, "Long-term, those properties will lose access to Baptist Road. We need to come up with a solution." Loris said the current assumption is that BRRTA will design the segment and Wal-Mart would pay for the final design and construction.

Loris said the responsibility for that segment rests with Wal-Mart. Brackin added, "In recent discussions, the county is requiring Wal-Mart to build the road to their southerly property boundary as part of the development." Simpson noted that CDOT plans to build two lanes of Jackson Creek Parkway south to Struthers Ranch as part of the interchange project.

Leather Chaps intersection (675 feet) – Estimated cost $710,000

Loris said it is assumed that BRRTA would design the intersection, Triview would pay for it, and Wal-Mart or BRRTA would build the improvements. Simpson said, "It is not in any of [Triview’s] budgets to do that." Sery noted that the grades leading up to the intersection would have to be reduced.

Loris said the design is for two lanes in each direction to Gleneagle Drive and then one lane in each direction to Tari Drive. He noted significant drainage and right-of-way issues. He said, "It would be a big taking of adjacent properties." Even so, the grade would not be changed significantly and in spots would greatly exceed county standards.

The total construction cost is estimated at $9.4 million not including the interchange and the construction of Jackson Creek Parkway south of Baptist Road.

Sery asked, "Is there any value in going ahead with this earlier without the interchange [improvements]? Wouldn’t we just move the bottleneck to a different location?" Shepherd replied, "It is doubtful our funding will be in place prior to 2007." As to the interchange, Williams said, "CDOT doesn’t know when it will be done."

Resident Steve Waldmann asked how the trail connections would be done. Loris replied that they are planning for a soft surface sidewalk on the south side of the road.

Waldmann questioned Loris’s assertion that the overall plan has been "accepted and endorsed by residents." He noted that the no-build option was not offered, and there was no polling of the citizens.

Hamill said, "Everyone I have talked with would rather not have you touch it at all than to have a Wal-Mart. If it is going in to support a Wal-Mart, we don’t want it."

Williams said, "The plan needs to be done whether there is ever a Wal-Mart. We are not adopting who is [shown as] paying for it."

Sery said, "I don’t want a Wal-Mart, but Baptist Road can’t exist as a two-lane road. All that use it in today’s condition agree it is inadequate."

Williams made a motion to accept the Loris report but postpone the decision on going forward with the preliminary design until the July 18 meeting. The motion was unanimously approved. Brackin said, "We need to finalize the scope of work for the next phase. Then a decision can be made whether to retain Loris or go to bid."

Shepherd distributed copies of a list of categories of documents available. The board adopted a revised resolution prepared by James Hunsaker, from the law firm Grimshaw & Harring, requiring that a requestor "enumerate, as specifically as possible, which records the person would like to review." The resolution also specifies that copies "shall be $1 per page or the actual cost of copies whichever is greater."

**********

The next meeting of the BRRTA board of directors will be Friday, July 18, 1:30 p.m., 3^rd floor hearing room at the El Paso County Building, 27 E. Vermijo, in Colorado Springs. Items on the agenda for that meeting include approval to proceed with the preliminary design and the outcome of discussions with the Lewis-Palmer school district regarding the BRRTA fee for Creekside Middle School.

Articles on prior Baptist Road-related meetings are posted at www.ourcommunitynews.org/top_stories.htm#baptist. There is also background info at www.elpasoco.com/Transprt/baptist_rd.asp and www.coalitiontlc.org/baptist_road.htm.

To get more information and provide comments on the Baptist Road Improvement Project, contact:

View photos of the BRRTA Open House and Board Meeting

There were two scheduled guests for the special board meeting on April 7. Clay Brown, of the Department of Local Affairs, was invited to help the board explore ways to finance public improvements. Barbara Silverman, who works with the private sector through the Colorado Community Revitalization Association (CCRA), was invited to discuss downtown revitalization.

Trustee Christopher Perry asked Brown for information on how to fund a new town hall. Town Manager Rick Sonnenburg asked which instruments allowed for tax increment financing. Mayor Betty Konarski asked about the potential of developing a larger storm water/sewer district. Brown noted Colorado is fortunate to have many ways of financing public improvements. First, the board members should decide what they want to accomplish, who the participants are, and what the scope of the process is going to be. After the project has been defined, town staff can contact an investment-banking firm that is familiar with these types of issues. Most of these firms offer free consultations. The following are some financing options:

General Improvement District (GID): GIDs can fund their improvements by taxes and are fairly easy to create, because only 30 percent of the property owners need to approve formation of the GID. They can construct, operate, and maintain public improvements, such as a new town hall. Also, all of the property in the district does not have to be contiguous. Konarski asked how a GID is influenced by the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) and noted that the town is already at the limit of what it can tax. Brown stated that all of these financing options, if they go to election, or if the town can create them by ordinance, are going to have to meet the TABOR test. No election is required if all the property owners in the district sign the petition needed to form the district. Only district residents and property owners can vote on the debt. The bonds are not the municipality’s bonds, so they would not count against the town’s revenue limits. In Colorado, an entity cannot be in debt more than 3 percent of its net worth; with this type of financing, that is not an issue. Also, the district has the ability to condemn property.

Special Improvement District: These districts are based on assessments and require an election to form. The people who are benefiting from those improvements pay for them. This type of district cannot tax. The only bonds that can be issued are assessment bonds, within the debt limit of the municipality. If the municipality can determine that the improvement benefits the entire town, the town can bear some of the cost, and assess the remainder to the properties affected. Triview Metropolitan District is an example of a special district; however, Brown was discussing special districts for financing purposes, not for providing services.

Building Authority: A Building Authority is similar to a Housing Authority, creating a nonprofit corporation to finance improvements on behalf of the municipality. It has a limited application—for instance, a parking structure, with a revenue stream coming in to pay for the asset. Brown discussed the mechanics of a lease purchase and how it might apply to the building of a new town hall.

Business Improvement Districts (BIDs): A BID is an assessment district used for financing public improvements in a downtown area. Only commercial property can be included in the district. It does not require an election if more than 51 percent of property owners sign the petition needed for formation. BIDs are not yet in wide use in Colorado.

Downtown Development Authority (DDA) and Urban Renewal Authority (URA): A DDA is very similar to a URA. Both are intended to halt or prevent deterioration of property in central business districts. However, a DDA cannot condemn property, and a URA can. A URA has the right to condemn and demolish existing structures, and can sell the property at fair value for development in accordance with its urban renewal plan. DDAs are formed by election; URAs are not. Both DDAs and URAs can use tax increment bonds, which are very complex and require advance planning and public communication. Silverman recommended consulting with other entities that have been successful with tax increment financing for ideas on building relationships with other affected local governments, such as school districts.

Konarski asked if any small communities like Monument use any of these strategies. Silverman noted there are communities that do. DDAs and URAs are flexible and not subject to TABOR.

The town’s current needs are for storm water drainage and a new town hall. The town is constrained by being a statutory town, as opposed to being home rule.

Leroy Schmidt, owner of the McDonald’s in Monument, appeared before the board to comment on the planned closure by the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) of the I-25 off-ramp near the truck weigh station. He predicts the financial impact of the closure on local businesses will be severe. He would like the town to adopt a resolution to present to CDOT, requesting they keep the existing exit open. This issue will go on the board’s agenda after the next CDOT meeting.

Trustees Christopher Perry and George Brown, who live in an adjoining neighborhood and have no pecuniary interest in the outcome of the hearing, stated they could act in an unbiased manner. Konarski noted she had been on the planning commission when this project was first proposed, but felt she, too, could make an unbiased decision.

Steve McFarlane, for applicant McFarlane Development, LLC, requested approval of a Minor Plat and Final PD Site Plan for a total of 32 single-family detached dwellings on a 10-acre site. The original application in 1999 had proposed 41 detached and attached dwelling units.

The board opened the public hearing on this application on March 17, then continued the hearing to April 7 to allow time to gather further information concerning the application.

The board has reviewed the following:

The trustees and concerned neighbors requested the planning staff obtain additional information related to the application.

1. Require 10 percent public land dedication (which the applicant has proposed along Dirty Woman Creek (10 percent was the dedication requirement when this application was originally considered).

2. Require cash in lieu of land (cash equal to the market value of 10 percent of the property).

3. Count private open space areas within the proposed development against the requirement for public land dedication.

Discussion ensued about drainage, and the difference between detention and retention ponds. Detention ponds hold back the water and release it at a slow rate. They do not retain the water. Konarski stated the land issue should be handled separately from this project’s approval process, and the state’s interest in mouse mitigation trades should be handled separately.

Tom McClarnan, of GMS, Inc. elaborated on the drainage criteria. The developed piece of ground cannot impose a burden on already developed property. He discussed the technicalities of sizes of pipes and ponds.

Town Planner Mike Davenport reported that after recalculating the mouse habitat line on his own, he noted that there are actually two lines due to the use of old drawings and a 15-foot distortion factored in because of copy machine distortion. He advised that a surveyor deal with this issue. A survey would determine how many lots would be affected, from radius and parallel line points of view.

Angie Bratsch and Robert Burgess commented on the drainage problem and the retention pond. Burgess noted that nothing had been done to address the spacing between buildings. Regarding drainage, he noted that water would still go into the storm sewer, which everyone agrees is incapable of handling that amount of water. He further discussed children’s safety and possible devaluation and damage to neighboring property. He was concerned that the mouse line might result in empty lots with no homes, full of weeds. He urged the town to wait to approve the entire project until an alternative plan for mouse lots is in place.

Arrin Seal, of JR Engineering, addressed the drainage issues again. The detention pond is designed with a water quality feature. This feature would hold the water a little longer so dirt could settle, and the water released would then be cleaner. In a little less than two days, the water should be gone. Overflow would only be in a 100-year storm event; the pond was designed for the 100-year event. A grate would keep children out of the detention pond’s drain. The homeowner’s association would be in charge of keeping the grate free of debris.

Lisa Hickey, attorney for McFarlane, noted that the board needs to consider that this project fits into the town’s master plan. She further noted her client has made extensive changes to the plan to meet the desires of neighbors. Trustee Brown asked McFarlane about the mouse habitat. He noted that the mouse issue resulted in John Laing homes losing money and therefore selling off the rest of the land because of the loss of the mouse lots. McFarlane was comfortable with the JR Engineering survey (following Fish and Wildlife guidelines).

Glenn made a motion for approval with conditions: that dependent on the mouse habitat line, the potentially affected lots be held up for any type of building permits until this issue is resolved, and that should overlot grading begin, and they grade on lots that are later determined to be mouse lots, that the developer reseed those lots, and also to include existing staff recommendations. Town Attorney Gary Shupp suggested that instead of restricting building permits, restrict the sale of those lots, because the lots shouldn’t be sold in the first place if in fact they are not going to be built upon. Glenn and Orten accepted Shupp’s amendment, saying the lots can’t be sold. Davenport noted the specific lots, and not the entire subdivision, should be identified in the amendment. He felt it would help to clarify the area of concern. He further suggested the applicant prepare an exhibit that goes parallel rather than using the arc, and that the area of concern is what the difference is between the arc drawing and the parallel drawing. He felt this would be a good way to identify the lots in question until a definitive answer is received from USFWS. The motion passed 5 to 1 by roll call vote, with Perry dissenting.

The board previously discussed certain town zoning and subdivision regulations that limit potential development in the downtown area, specifically parking and water supply regulations. Recently the planning department received several inquiries about potential businesses or development in and around the historic downtown area. The planning department is requesting policy direction regarding several matters.

1. Parking: Last year the board determined the previously adopted requirement for paved parking was not retroactive. The planning department recently received the following question: Would a change of use in an existing older structure in the downtown area (the B zone district) require the existing unpaved parking area to be paved? Davenport’s interpretation is "no," unless the change in use required an expansion of the parking area. The board of trustees agrees. Konarski noted the board’s goal was to encourage more business development downtown.

2. Water Supply: Much of the downtown area was developed before the town adopted standards or regulations regarding water supply. Current water standards require a larger parcel of land than what is the typical lot size in the downtown area. For example, there are lots in the downtown area that are 8,000 square feet or less. Under current regulations, often a lot twice that size would be needed for a single family dwelling. This could limit downtown development in several ways.

(a) A restaurant, which is a desirable use in the downtown area, often has a high water usage; under current regulations, it might require a larger lot than the typical lot size downtown.

(b) In other communities, allowing residences to locate above businesses has been encouraged as a way of aiding downtown. However, the combined first-floor business and second-floor residential space may exceed the available water underground. Does the board want to consider a change in the water supply standard, as it is applied to the downtown area?

The water availability regulations have impacted development opportunities downtown. Usually renters, not owners, live above shops. The future water supply is a significant issue. Davenport wants to know the views of the board because there is a conflict between the existing policies. The staff has been taking the more conservative approach, based on the water regulations. Public Works Superintendent Tom Wall said easing the restrictions currently in place in the downtown area would dramatically change the allocation. He said the town is allocating water that’s disproportionate to what they’ve allowed for other pieces of property. If more water is allowed in one place, less will be allowed somewhere else. Another undeveloped property somewhere else in town will be affected, for example.

Bob Krassa, the town’s water attorney, said this is really a question for a water engineer. He noted that it might be helpful to distinguish between high-consumptive use components and low-consumptive use components. Consumptive use is the difference between water that’s pumped out of the ground or from a creek and what’s put back in. Homes and restaurants have a small consumptive-use factor (5 or 10 percent). In contrast, outdoors uses, such as lawn irrigation and car washes, are highly consumptive. Most of the water that is applied to a lawn never makes it back to the stream system. The water demands could be reanalyzed based on revising how those two uses are looked at. He recommends having different standards for the downtown area, so there’s no real net loss to the total picture. Davenport mentioned putting better xeriscape regulations in place as part of the landscape regulations. The consumptive-use grid needs to be examined and reworked so there is no actual net loss.

There is $40,000 in the FY2003 budget for a salary survey and possible salary adjustments deriving from the survey. Of the $40,000, there is $28,000 in the General Fund, and $12,000 in the Water Fund. The director staff (excluding Davenport, by his choice) and the town manager sent out 14 Request for Proposals to in-state firms that do this kind of work, according to the Colorado Municipal League. The town received 10 responses and interviewed six of those firms. After extensive discussion and checking of references, the selection committee is recommending the town hire Jaramillo & Associates, for a fee of $8,500. A motion to accept the proposal, not to exceed $8,500, passed unanimously.

On March 14, Orten and Wall attended a meeting hosted by the El Paso County Health Department regarding measures to fight West Nile Virus. The county sent the town an invoice of $3,528.90 and the support documentation arising from that meeting. Wall indicated the public works department can handle the commitment of eight hours a week of staff time during the 19-week mosquito season.

The town manager suggested the following options:

1. Not pay

2. Pay the invoice and request financial support from Triview Metropolitan District.

3. Pay the invoice and request 60 percent ($2,117.34) reimbursement from Triview Metropolitan District, since their landmass is 60 percent of the town.

4. Pay 40 percent of the invoice ($1,411.56 and send a copy of the invoice to Triview Metropolitan District with a request that they pay the 60 percent balance. Mosquito control is the responsibility of Triview in their district and is the responsibility of the town in the balance of the town limits.

Orten recommended the town pay the entire invoice to avoid any future problems. He made a motion, seconded by Trustee Glenda Smith, to pay the invoice in full. Orten noted the town should open a conversation with Triview to see if they are willing to discuss paying a portion of the cost. He volunteered to talk with Triview manager Ron Simpson about this and will bring a report back to the next meeting.

GMS, Inc.(various invoices) $11,825.05

The motion to pay the invoices passed unanimously.

The El Paso County Planning Department sent the town a copy of the Struthers Ranch application and requested comments. The application for this development was before the board of trustees on September 16, 2002. This revised application decreases the number of lots from 188 to 180, and increases open space and habitat preservation from 42.8 to 44 acres. It also added a buffer strip along Chaparral Hills Subdivision. Planning staff recommended approval. The motion to approve passed unanimously.

The El Paso County Planning Department sent the town a copy of the Spencer Real Estate setback variances application and requested comments back as soon as possible. Planning staff recommended denial.

This application for office/warehouse development was before the board of trustees on January 21. This referral is to consider recommendations about the request for setback variance only. The applicant is requesting setback variances for the retaining wall only. All buildings are within the county-required building setbacks. The building site has an elevation change of 50 vertical feet from the east property line down to Beacon Lite Road on the west. The applicant has stepped the buildings 4 feet in elevation (east to west) in order to absorb some of the elevation change and stay within the building codes. The planning staff did not recommend approval, based on the fact that the steepness of the property is not exceptional or peculiar to this property; other properties in the area also have steep terrain. Additionally, the extensive grading proposed in this site and removal of existing trees is contrary to the goal of the Tri-Lakes plan to maintain an attractive visual corridor along I-25. A motion to support staff’s recommendation to not support the application passed unanimously.

Kalima Masse of Rockwell Ready-Mixed Concrete is appealing the decision of the town clerk to deny a business license for a concrete batch plant in October 2002. Shupp recommended the board of trustees allow the appeal for a due process situation. The board scheduled the administrative hearing for a special meeting on Monday, May 12, at 6:30 p.m.

Sonnenburg reported on the following items:

1. The Town received the Tree City USA designation for FY2002.

2. The sandblasting of the worn red curbs in West Oak Ridge has been completed.

3. The candidates for staff civil engineer have been selected for interviews during the next two weeks.

4. The Mitchell Avenue bike lanes and Santa Fe Trails pedestrian crossings projects have been advertised for bidding, with an opening date of April 25. The bids will likely be presented to the board of trustees at its May 5 meeting.

5. The El Paso County Solid Waste Management Department has made arrangements with Lewis-Palmer School District 38 to hold a household hazardous waste collection day in the north parking lot of the school administration building on Saturday, May 31. The town’s Police and Public Works Departments will be providing assistance. A flier will be included in the town’s May newsletter.

At 8 p.m. the board went into executive session to receive legal advice concerning the Second Street right-of-way acquisition eminent domain case and to conduct the annual review for Sonnenburg.

The executive session adjourned at 9:15 p.m.

Monument considers water fund revenue for new town hall

April 21: Mayor Betty Konarski explained that the Monument Board of Trustees is exploring relocation of the town hall and ways to finance a new town hall complex. Town Planner Mike Davenport estimates that a new town complex would cost $2.5 million. During the public comments, citizens who had been watching the town budget over the years expressed doubts about the need for a new town hall complex and voiced concerns about using voter-approved sales tax money earmarked for future, long-range water infrastructure needs to finance a new town hall.

John Self, from the public finance department of Wells Fargo Bank, spoke about how to use the town’s existing cash flow. One percent of Monument’s sales tax is currently earmarked for water system improvements. Self suggested the town could use that money to finance a new town hall. He provided the trustees with two sample election questions for voters. One, a Certificate of Participation (COP)–like the type used by the county commissioners to finance the El Paso County jail project–would be an amendment, asking permission to use 1½ percent of the existing sales tax for a new town hall. A second election question, for sales tax revenue bonds, would increase the town’s debt to finance a new town hall. Self noted that entering into debt can be a problem with voters. He described the COP as "a glorified lease purchase" and noted it would cost $40,000 to $50,000 more because of the need for title insurance. Investors consider a COP riskier, requiring higher insurance as compensation. Self also noted that between now and November, interest rates could rise. In that case, the rate could be higher for a COP.

In reply to a question by Trustee George Brown, Town Manager Rick Sonnenburg explained that the ballot question would have to ask for 0.38 percent of a penny to make about $185,000 a year available from the water fund for the new town hall. Self suggested allocating $215,000 to cover the possibility of a drop in sales tax revenues.

Konarski concluded by noting there were two issues to consider: Is there public support for a new town facility? And if so, how should it be financed? She then solicited public comments.

Former Monument Mayor Leon Tenney noted that the Public Works facility is too small and shouldn’t be located in a residential neighborhood, as it is now. He added that the police station is also inadequate. He thought the current town hall structure would be adequate in size for the existing staff if the public works and police departments relocated. He suggested a joint state trooper/town police facility in the current Park & Ride on Highway 105. Tenney proposed offering the public three possible sites for a new town hall, if it had to be relocated. He suggested a site west of I-25, a site east of I-25 along Jackson Creek Parkway, and expansion of the existing site.

John Dominowski, who owns commercial property in downtown Monument, commented that he would like to see the plan for the new town complex before he sees the ballot issue. He also expressed concern about historic downtown Monument not being the town center. Dominowski thought there should be a study as to location and real costs. He added that the concepts the board was discussing were based on a good economy and asked about the risks of going into debt at this time. He noted that Monument is in a growth corridor and may fare better than the rest of the state. He favored setting funds aside now and allocating funds through a vote, so they’re earmarked for a new town facility. He questioned the wisdom of taking money away from the water fund during a time of severe drought.

Tim Schutz agreed there is a need for improvements to the town facilities. He expressed concern about the impact on the current water funds. At the beginning of the 2003 budget year, there was about $2.4 million in the water fund; however, it is being drawn down by capital projects to $400,000 by the end of this year. He urged the trustees to examine the projects they were contemplating financing from the water fund. Also, he thought it was important to go to the voters with the question and not use the COP method, which could alienate voters.

Trustee Brown said he did not favor using revenue from the water fund. He thought the police station should be a priority and liked Tenney’s idea of working with the state troopers to share a facility. He was opposed to putting this issue on the ballot. He also stated that he favored expanding the current town hall, possibly adding a second story.

Trustee Byron Glenn asked for an update on Triview Metropolitan District’s outstanding balance of $100,000 for Jackson Creek Parkway. He also noted there was the potential settlement issue with Sally Beck (for the Second Street right-of-way acquisition) that could have an impact on the budget. Town Treasurer Judy Skrzypek explained that the Triview item will appear as a balance outstanding in 2002 and a payment in 2003.

Skrzypek also reviewed the sales tax revenue projections for the first quarter of 2003. She projected $344,986 through March 31. The actual 2002 revenues for the same three months were $365,341. Skrzypek explained that the 2002 sales tax collected was higher due to retroactive adjustments from years prior to 2002 that were added to the actual 2002 revenues.

1. GMS, Inc $39,777.25 (Various invoices)

2. Triview Metropolitan District $12,929.91 (Various invoices)

A motion to pay the invoices passed unanimously.

A motion to increase the town manager’s salary by 2.5 percent passed unanimously.

Trustee Frank Orten reported on his discussion with Ron Simpson, Director of Triview Metropolitan District, about West Nile Virus abatement. Triview has its own program in place to treat stagnant water with larvicide. Orten wasn’t comfortable asking Triview to reimburse the town for some of the costs already paid by the town to El Paso County. He suggested the town absorb the costs and not involve Triview. Trustee Christopher Perry wanted to be sure the town doesn’t "double-treat" the Triview area (Jackson Creek). If Triview is taking care of half the town and Monument is treating its half (outside of Jackson Creek), then the county should not charge Monument for treating 100 percent of the town. The cost is based on population and square mileage. Orten agreed to check with the county to make sure Monument is not being overcharged.

Sonnenburg reported that he would be meeting the following week to start the paperwork with the Colorado Department of Transportation for a traffic light in front of Safeway. Interviews with staff engineer candidates are in progress. The salary survey consultant has begun his work. Sonnenburg also noted there are vacancies on the Planning Commission, Public Works Committee, and Police Advisory Committee. The town is advertising in the Tribune, and there will be an article in the May issue of the town newsletter.

At the next meeting, the board will discuss lodging taxes and will continue the discussion about a new town hall. The meeting adjourned at 8 p.m.

Triview metro board considers rate and tap fee increases

View a photo of the meeting

The Triview Metropolitan District Board of Directors held its regular monthly meeting April 23. Bondholder Tom Phelan and several district residents were in attendance. Proposed changes to tap fees and water and sewer rates were discussed, with a decision postponed to the June 22 meeting.

Rick Blevins, of Jackson Creek Vision Development, reported that CLC Associates’ preliminary design for Jackson Creek Parkway is completed and will be reviewed by the district’s engineering consultants Nolte and Associates. Last month, the Triview board approved a $9,500 payment to CLC for preparing the design, which is needed as part of the Monument Towne Center proposal. Blevins said bids would be solicited next month to prepare the final construction design.

Funding for the road project is being sought from the Colorado Department of Transportation and additional potential purchasers of Triview bonds. Blevins said Tim and Tom Phelan’s Centre Development of Colorado Springs would purchase additional Triview bonds to cover any shortfall.

Prior Jackson Creek Parkway studies have estimated the cost to build a four-lane divided road from Baptist Road to Higby Road at about $5 million. The current plan is expected to cost somewhat less than that since only two lanes would be built from the northern edge of the Monument Towne Center project to Higby Road.

District engineer Chuck Ritter of Nolte and Associates reported the district received tentative approval from Union Pacific railroad for the realignment of the crossing to access the wastewater treatment plant.

Ritter said it is expected to take about six months to complete planning for the expansion of the wastewater treatment plant. The jointly owned plant serves the Triview district, the Donala Water and Sanitation District, and the Forest Lakes Metropolitan District; it is reportedly approaching 90 percent of capacity.

The board approved cleaning of the drinking water storage tank for $2,850. The cleaning is done while the system is in operation.

Ron Simpson, manager of the district, reported that there was a meeting two weeks earlier with Wal-Mart representatives. So far, there has not been any response to Triview’s recommendations. (For more on the Wal-Mart project, see the article on page 2.)

Simpson said Triview’s application for a Great Outdoors Colorado (GoCO) grant was not approved. The district applied for lottery funds to improve the Heights Trail and trickle channel landscaping. He added that in August, the Town of Monument is planning to submit an application for park-related funding; he said he would look into Triview’s possible participation in that application.

The board unanimously approved Simpson’s recommendation to accept a landscaping proposal from Timberline and allocate up to $65,800 from district reserves to cover landscaping along Leather Chaps. The approved Timberline proposal includes erosion control, fencing, irrigation, and replacement of dead trees. Blevins reported that Classic Homes and two other Homestead area builders have agreed to contribute $5,000 each toward the cost. He said he is continuing to solicit builder participation and added that the contributions will reimburse the reserve fund.

Simpson reported that the district is waiting for approval from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the habitat conservation plan submitted for the Monument Creek interceptor. The interceptor is a planned 5,000-foot sewer line to serve proposed commercial and industrial properties west of I-25. He said there has not yet been a response regarding the proposed exchange needed for Jackson Creek filing 5 of two habitat parcels.

Simpson said draft agreements between the district and the Jackson Creek filing 5 developer, Miles Grant, are being reviewed. They include a subdivision improvement agreement and documents covering the proposed public facilities authority. Simpson said the developer wants to start grading. Blevins added that until the agreements are approved, the district would not be in a position to inspect any infrastructure installed by the developer. Simpson noted that the district has not yet reviewed the plans for the commercial and townhouse portions of the project, which is proposed for north and east of King Soopers.

Simpson asked, "How do we want to work with the Palmer Divide Water Group?" The Palmer Divide group has six entities participating: Donala, Monument, Palmer Lake, Triview, Woodmoor, and a Douglas County district. The goal of the group is to study joint water projects. Simpson said last month’s payment of $1,700 covers the district’s current commitment.

Peter Susemihl, attorney for the Triview district, said, "The big issue is the well field in Douglas County. Do you spend dollars on that knowing that long-term it is not the solution, or do you pursue surface diversion you won’t need for 30 years?"

Phelan asked about obtaining water from Greenland Ranch just north of the El Paso county line. Susemihl replied, "It is reserved by the owners. We would have to negotiate with the present owners."

Simpson also questioned the need to pursue a satellite well field, saying that another 10 to 12 wells could be drilled within the district. Blevins added, "You have to get [the water] here," referring to the pipes and pumps needed to bring the water from the proposed well fields to the district.

Simpson said, "It is just a matter of time until [water] is an issue–10, 15, 20 years. Everyone is groping for solutions." In the meantime, he said the Donala, Forest Lakes, Monument, and Woodmoor districts are working on establishing interconnections for use in emergencies.

In response to a question from Monument trustee Byron Glenn about the condition of the aquifers, Simpson said, "The current problem is providing storage capacity for peak demand caused by irrigation. So far, there is no supply issue." He later cautioned, "There is a lack of consensus. No one really knows. There is expert testimony on both sides of the issue." He noted that Colorado Springs is considering drilling 49 wells and pumping 10 million gallons per day.

Glenn said, "Our board would like to see drought restrictions imposed [by the district]." Simpson replied, "We haven’t made a decision on that."

Richard Giardina and Kevin Burnett of Rick Giardina and Associates, presented the preliminary results of the utility rate study they have been doing for the district. Giardina, who has been doing utility rate analysis for 24 years, said the rate structure could be refined now that the district has several years of usage and cost data. Giardina emphasized that the rate structure must be supported by the cost of providing service. The rates must be set so the district meets it debt service and cash reserve requirements. He said many districts set rates to allow a 25 percent surplus in covering the debt service; however, the Triview study was done with no surplus. He added that the study encompassed repayment of existing and proposed new debt. The working capital reserve was set at 17 percent of the annual budget, about 60 days of reserve. Industry norms are 45 to 90 days.

Giardina recommended residential water tap fees paid by developers be raised from the present $4,450 to $7,365, a 66 percent increase. He said that because of the district’s agreements with the bondholder, the residential wastewater tap fee must be kept at $4,100. Giardina recommended the tap fee for the reuse water system, which currently has no users, be raised from $1,000 to $2,458. The tap fee for commercial, office, and industrial (COI) users would be calculated as a multiple of the residential rate based on the size of the tap. Giardina noted that the proposed tap fees fall between the higher fees in Woodmoor and the lower fees in the Donala district.

In order to make the water, wastewater, and water reclamation systems self-sufficient, Giardina said that the revenue collected from the water system would have to increase 9 percent for 2003 and then remain at that level. The revenue generated by the wastewater system would have to increase 25 percent in 2003 and then 7 percent additional each year from 2004 through 2008. The revenue from the reclamation system would have to increase 151 percent in 2003, 10 percent in 2004, and then remain at that level.

The current monthly water rate structure has a $20 minimum charge that includes 6,000 gallons. From 6,001 through 30,000 gallons per month, the additional cost is $2.50 per 1,000 gallons. Above 30,000 gallons per month, the additional cost is $3.50 per 1,000 gallons. He called this "an inverted block structure." He said that compared to a fixed charge plus a rate that applies to the first gallon used, the present structure is not very conservation-oriented. He said, "There is not much price incentive for anyone to conserve."

Giardina outlined two options to achieve the water revenue targets:

1. An across-the-board 9 percent increase.

2. A conservation-oriented inverted block structure for residential users and a uniform rate of $2.30 per 1,000 gallons for COI. The residential users would pay a fixed charge of $6.25 per month and then a rate of $2.00 per 1,000 gallons for the first 6,000 gallons per month. The rate would rise to $2.80 per 1,000 gallons between 6,000 to 20,000 gallons and to $3.64 per 1,000 gallons for all usage above 20,000 gallons per month.

He said that while an inverted block structure is effective for promoting residential conservation, for COI it is less effective than education and water audits since utility bills represent a small part of overall operating costs. Giardina suggested that a refinement would be to charge COI $2.80 per 1,000 gallons for irrigation, to match the typical summertime residential rate. COI irrigation is metered separately.

Fifty-two percent of the current residential bills show usage of less than 6,000 gallons per month. They would be charged the lowest rate. Thirty percent of the bills show usage between 6,000 and 20,000 gallons, and 18 percent show usage over 20,000 gallons per month. During 2002, the 600 residential accounts used 82.3 percent of the total water consumed. The 20 COI accounts used 17.71 percent.

Compared to option 1, Giardina said option 2 would mean 76 percent of residential bills would be lower, while 24 percent would be higher. Applying the same comparison to COI, 92 percent of the bills would be lower, while 8 percent would increase. The top seven water consumers are all COI. Their bills would decrease by 39 percent to 49 percent. The heaviest users would see the greatest percentage decrease.

Simpson said, "King Soopers does a lot of wash down of floors in the meat department and deli. It is unbelievable how much water they go through. Their usage is really high."

Triview resident Sonja Beaudoin expressed concern about the potential perception that the district would be lowering the rates for the proposed big box stores and shifting the burden to the residential users. Giardina said that (under option 2) the COI at $2.30 per 1,000 gallons would still be paying more than most residential users, who would be paying $2.00 per 1,000 gallons for the first 6,000 gallons.

While the residential water users would bear a larger share of the cost of the water system, with wastewater, the situation is reversed. Currently, residential customers pay a flat wastewater charge of $22.50 per month. COI pays a charge of $10 plus a volume charge of $1.25 per 1,000 gallons of water used. Since wastewater is not metered, for residences it is estimated using average water consumption from November to February when irrigation is not a factor. It is assumed residential irrigation water does not end up in the wastewater treatment system. Since COI irrigation water is separately metered, it is excluded from the wastewater charges.

Giardina outlined two options to achieve the wastewater revenue targets:

1. An across-the-board 25 percent increase.

2. A fixed charge of $9 per month per residential tap equivalent and then a volume charge of $1.77 per 1,000 gallons of water used.

Compared to option 1, Giardina said option 2 would mean 97 percent of residential bills would be lower, while 3 percent would be higher. Applying the same comparison to COI, 100 percent of the bills would increase. The increase would be between 14 percent and 20 percent.

The options for reuse water charges were:

1. An across-the-board 9 percent increase.

2. A fixed charge of $6.25 per residential tap equivalent plus a rate that is 90 percent of the lowest water rate.

The board postponed a decision on the proposed changes to the fees and charges. Simpson was asked to prepare recommendations and associated resolutions and ordinances for consideration at the May 28 board meeting.

Simpson reported that the district is spending $2,000 per month on mosquito control. Altosid briquettes are used to treat standing water. He said the county health department has requested funds from the district to help with the $70,000 countywide mosquito control program. Glenn added that the town board is researching the basis for the assessments. It was suggested that the town and the district share in the costs assessed to the area.

The district’s current debt level is $23 million, including developer loans. Much of the debt is "limited tax liability" bonds with no required payment schedule. Currently, annual payments are less than the debt service, so the total debt is increasing each year. The $23 million does not include the proposed indebtedness to build Jackson Creek Parkway. Bondholder Phelan said, "We are more than interested in getting this paid off."

Blevins added, "The original service plan authorized the district to issue $55 million." He added that the debt is outside the constraints of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).

**********

The Triview Metropolitan District Board of Directors normally meets on the fourth Wednesday of each month, 4:30 p.m., at the district offices, 174 N. Washington St. The next meeting will be May 28.

For further information, contact the Triview Metropolitan District at 488-6868.

View a photo of the meeting

Gamer’s Haven: Brian Jennison, Tommy Fletcher, and Peter Jennison will operate a computer rental, sales, and service business with recreational paintball at 797 Highway 105. Phone 243-1789 for more information.

Outdoor Space Design: Jon Walsh will operate a landscape architecture consulting service. For information, call 487-2839.

Due to bad weather, the festivities took place inside the town hall. In preparation for the event, Eilene Facinelli led a group of volunteers who filled more than 2,000 plastic eggs with treats. Melissa Gray donned a costume and played the role of the Easter Bunny’s helper. About 50 children enjoyed games and goodies.

The Chuck Pyle concert at the Estemere carriage house is scheduled for Thursday, May 8. Also, Kaye Book is planning a dance at Pinecrest on Friday, June 13.

The council approved George Reese’s request for spaces to park seven additional vehicles on Highway 105, in front of the former cabinet shop.

Bill Johnson requested that the cou