Loading...
Minutes 07/14/09 PUBLIC HEARING July 14,2009 Present: Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Jon Stavney Keith Montag Bryan Treu Robert Morris Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session There was none. Consent Agenda Chairman Fisher stated the ftrst item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of July 13, 2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Final Settlement of Agreement between Eagle County and Neils Lunsford for the Xeriscape of the Eagle County Campus Facilities Management Representative C. First Amendment to Easement and Quitclaim Deed: Eagle County Colorado, BCO-Midtown Investments II, LLC, Rocky Mountain Natural Gas LLC and Public Service Company of Colorado County Attorney's Office Representative D. Final Plat for West End (Eagle County File No. PDF-00I0l) County Attorney's Office Representative E. Participating Agreement between Eagle County and Rocky Mountain Youth Conservation Corps Eric Lovgren, Wildftre Mitigation F. First Amendment to Temporary Access Agreement between Eagle County and Gypsum Investors, LLC for Runway Extension Project Rick Ullom, Project Management G. Early Head Start One Time Program Improvement Application and U. S. Department of Health and Human Services Compendium of Required Certifications and Assurance Jennie Wahrer, Children and Family Services Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Stavney indicated that the xeriscape project is finished. 1 07/14/09 Chairman Fisher stated that much of the project was done due to the lawn backing up to the building and the associated drainage issues and leaks. The demonstration gardens were the add ons to the structural corrections. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-G. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2009-066 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Kyle L. Weber, Assistant County Attorney, to act as Attorney In Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with Respect to Colorado Capital Bank Letter of Credit No. 96006622 in the amount of$l45,723.49 for the Account of Arrowhead Valley Developers, LLC Resolution 2009-067 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Kyle L. Weber, Assistant County Attorney, to act as Attorney In Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to Colorado Capital Bank Letter of Credit No. 96006630 in the amount of$219,978.29 for the Account of Arrowhead Valley Developers, LLC County Attorney's Office Representative County Attorney's Office Representative Bryan Treu explained the need for these powers of attorney. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve Resolutions 2009-066 conferring power of attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Kyle L. Weber, Assistant County Attorney, to act as Attorney In Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with Respect to Colorado Capital Bank Letter of Credit No. 96006622 in the amount of $145,723.49 for the Account of Arrowhead Valley Developers, LLC and Resolution 2009-067 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Kyle L. Weber, Assistant County Attorney, to act as Attorney In Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to Colorado Capital Bank Letter of Credit No. 96006630 in the amount of $2l9,978.29 for the Account of Arrowhead Valley Developers, LLC Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. C01I11Ilissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office APPLICANT: DBA: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: REQUEST: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Falcon & Falcon, LLC Cafe Milano Dustin Aipperspach, Owner 429 Edwards Access Road A208-209 Modify Premises Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a permit to modify the premises. The modification will eliminate a deli counter and add a bar, cooler and bar cabinets. 2 07/14/09 STAFF FINDINGS: l. The application is in order, all requirements have been met, and all fees are paid. 2. As no boundary changes to the licensed premises are being made, no posting, publication, is required. CONCERNS / ISSUES: None RECOMMENDATION: Approval DISCUSSION: Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Licensing Authority approve the modification of premises for Falcon & Falcon, LLC d/b/a Cafe Milano. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: REQUEST: EVENT: DATE OF EVENT: REPRESENTATIVE: Central America Foundation, Inc. Special Events Permit "Yarmony Grass Bluegrass Festival" July 31 and August 1, 2009 Kelley Brupbaker, President Scott Stoughton, Event Manager Ranch Del Rio - 4199 Trough Road, Bond Kathy Scriver LOCATION: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: DESCRIPTION: Central America Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization dedicated to helping undeveloped communities in Central America, has requested a special event permit for a two-day music event at Rancho Del Rio in Bond. The event will be held on Friday, July 31, 2009 from 5 p.m. to 1 :30 a.m. and Saturday, August 1, 2009 from 10 a.m. to 1 :30 a.m. The applicant hopes to attract 1000 concertgoers. Rancho Del Rio is currently a multi-use recreation facility located along the Colorado River on 20 acres of private land. The facility offers rental cabins, a liquor store, convenience store, camping area, and various rafting and outdoor activities. The proposed licensed area will not include The Boater's bar (KK's BBQ) or Rancho Del Rio liquor store. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. All fees have been paid. 2. Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on July 2, 2009, 11 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been filed in the Clerk Office. 4. The applicant has provided a detailed alcohol management plan and diagram. 5. The applicant has provided proof of server training. 6. The applicant has obtained a Mass Gathering Permit for this event. 3 07/14/09 . Eagle County Land Use Regulations require property owners to obtain a Mass Gathering Permit for events of 500 or more persons held at venues other than those previously designated and approved specifically to accommodate such events. STAFF CONCERNS / ISSUES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application DISCUSSION: Scott Stoughton spoke to the board. He indicated that his previous event was very successful and had around 300 people in attendance. There were no problems with the event. Chairman Fisher asked how they had prepared for a larger group for their next event. Mr. Stoughton indicated there would be added security. Traditionally this event included mostly campers. He expected to discuss the event with the Sheriffs department as well. The event would be held on July 31 st and August 1 st. It will include lots of bluegrass music. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the application requested by the Central America Foundation for the "Yarmony Grass Bluegrass Festival" to be held at Rancho Del Rio in Bond on July 31 and August 1,2009. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: REQUEST: EVENT: DATE OF EVENT: REPRESENTATIVE: Realm of Caring, Inc. Special Events Permit "Welcome Back Patrons Weekend" July 25th and 26th, 2009 Chris Davis, President Ted Tilton, Event Manager State Bridge - 127 Trough Road, Bond Kathy Scriver LOCATION: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: DESCRIPTION: Realm of Caring, Inc., a non-profit organization dedicated to funding after-school musical education programs and getting instruments in the hands of children, has requested a special events permit for a two-day music event being held at State Bride on Saturday, July 25th and Sunday, 26th, 2009 from 11 a.m. to 1 :00 a.m. The applicant hopes to attract 800 concertgoers. State Bridge currently offers rental cabins and yurts - all other structures were lost to ftre in 2007. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. All fees have been paid. 2. Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on July 2, 2009, 11 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been filed in the Clerk Office. 4. The applicant has provided a detailed alcohol management plan and diagram. 4 07/14/09 5. The applicant has provided proof of server training. 6. The applicant has coordinated this event with the County Community Development Department, the Department of Environmental Health and the Eagle County Sheriff s Office and is in the process of obtaining a Mass Gathering Permit. STAFF CONCERNS / ISSUES: The applicant has applied for a Mass Gathering Permit for the event but at this time, the permit has not yet been granted. Community Development anticipates that the applicant's application for a Mass Gathering Permit will likely be granted. . Eagle County Land Use Regulations require property owners to obtain a Mass Gathering Permit for events of 500 or more persons held at venues other than those previously designated and approved specifically to accommodate such events. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the application with one (1) condition. CONDITION: The applicant must obtain a Mass Gathering Permit to proceed with the event as described in the Alcohol Management Plan attached to the special events permit application; and In the event a mass gathering permit has not been obtained, attendance at the music event for which the special events permit is being issued must be limited to less than 500 people. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver indicated that the organizer has decided to postpone the event. She introduced the applicant Ted Tilton and indicated that he hoped to hold an event at the same venue in September. Chairman Fisher indicated some concern about the location due to the challenges remaining after the ftre. Ms. Scriver stated that there was no liquor license for the location at this time. The area could be licensed as a special event. The event organizer would need to work with the Sheriffs Department and Community Development Department prior to requesting the permit. Mr. Tilton indicated that a September event would allow more time to make sure all concerns with the location are addressed. Chairman Fisher spoke about the period after the ftre and the fact that the location would not be a public venue until significant work was completed prior to this possibility to make the location safe. Ms. Fisher explained the area where the event would take place, not near the area destroyed by the ftre. Mr. Tilton stated that he hoped some day to bring State Bridge Lodge back. Ms. Scriver stated that the organizers were hoping to draw around 800 people for the event. Mr. Tilton stated that it was intended to be a local event. Chairman Fisher wondered if Realm of Caring put dollars back into the local economy. Mr. Tilton conftrmed that they did. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. 5 07/14/09 Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of Equalization. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Board of Equalization A. Resolution 2009-068 Regarding Presentation of Reports of Assessor of Valuation for Assessment for Taxable Real and Personal Property and List of Actions on Eagle County Real and Personal Property Appeals Assessor's Office Representative Mark Chapin, Eagle County Assessor spoke to the board. He explained that this was the date for reporting original assessed values, pre appeals, and number of appeals. The total assessed value for real taxable property in Eagle was $3,630,782,330, for personal property it was $100,330,430. There were 8,070 appeals received. 3,582 were adjusted, 4,47l were denied, and l7 were withdrawn. Following this there were 31 personal property appeals, 26 were adjusted, 5 were denied, and zero were withdrawn. Post the assessor's level appeals the total assesses value for real property was $3,549,032,930 for personal property $100,583,400 and the total for all taxable property in Eagle County was $3,649,616,330. Chairman Fisher asked whether through the process the adjustments could be generalized. Mr. Chapin indicated that there was no specific reason for adjustment. Chairman Fisher indicated that the board had no knowledge of specific appeals. She thanked the Assessor's staff for their hard work. Ms. Hooper indicated that the first resolution was based on Assessor's changes, but the next consideration was regarding the petitions. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the resolution regarding presentation of reports of assessor of valuation for assessment for taxable real and personal property and list of actions on Eagle County real and personal property appeals. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. B. Resolution 2009-069 Regarding Petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization Attorney's Office Representative Christina Hooper Ms. Hooper spoke about the resolution approving the recommendation of the previously appointed hearing officers. All hearing officers were present. The pre-requisite for filing with the Board of Equalization was filing a protest with the Assessor's office. The hearing officers worked hard this year and other departments helped with the amount of work during this period. At this time there have been 230 recommendations made by the hearing officers. This was the ftrst of many recommended batches needing resolution. Deanna Tully spoke to the board. She appreciated the fact that there was more than one hearing officer. She complimented the assessor's office for their preparation as well as the Attorney's Office. She indicated that the people appealing their values were also well organized and courteous. Chairman Fisher stated that people talking to her in the county compliment the assessor's office, attorney's office and hearing officers. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Resolution Regarding Petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of Equalization and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 6 07/14/09 Economic Stimulus Projects Update Tom Johnson, Public Works Mr. Johnson indicated that they just received word that the Federal Highway Administration had approved $500,000 due to the efforts of Congressman Polis. They were still working on the other applications. The initial money was targeted for the airport interchange. Commissioner Stavney asked about the Red Cliff water treatment funds and the slow timing. Mr. Johnson stated that to his knowledge Red Cliff was on the top of the funding list. He was not able to get a deadline for final authorization. Independent Annual Report from Outside Auditors McMahan and Associates, LLC John Lewis, Finance Director spoke to the board. He acknowledged the concerns of citizens about the use of their tax funds. He introduced Tracy Walters and Mike Jenkins, representatives from McMahon and Associates. Mr. Jenkins presented the report. The report included a lot of useful information to readers of the financial statements. The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report included an overview of the county and its operations. The report included a "Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting" which was awarded to the county for its comprehensive annual financial report for 2007. He commended the Finance Department for their work. Governmental fmancial statements included long and short-term views. Towards the back of the report was a tab for the statistical information. Finally, there was an audit section for federal source dollars. He was pleased that the county had received a clean or unqualified audit rating. He turned to the statement of net assets. At the end of 2008 the county had some 254 million dollars of assets in excess of liabilities. Of this 29% was unrestricted. About 67% of net assets were invested in capital. He reviewed specific balances. There were some restrictions within the net assets category. This included the Tabor reserve monies, and net assets targeted for debt service. Total assets increased by 38 million in 2008. Approximately 93 million was liabilities which increased by about 22 million primarily as a result of the jail expansion. He explained how the report was compiled and organized. Governmental assets contributed about $7.1 million of the total with the remainder coming from business type activities. He spoke about the funds compared to the budget. Fund balances increased 17.5 million for the year. The general fund at the end of the year had about 43% of its expenditures for the year. The Road and Bridge Fund had about 36% and the Airport fund about 25%. The county ended the year with a strong fund balance. Mr. Walters spoke to the board. He stated that some funds were eliminated and funds transferred including the justice center fund, contingency fund, Eagle county general obligation fund, debt service fund, and new funds included the justice center authority as well as a new housing authority fund. The transportation fund was being reported as a major fund this year. The budget to actual information was presented in the report. The general fund increased $2.1 million; approximately $3.1 million better than expected. Revenues were higher due to conservative budget for investment income. Taxes were up 4 million from the prior year due to increased valuations for properties and the collection of property taxes. Expenditures were only up .5% from the prior year. The Road and Bridge fund showed a net decrease due to the reduction of construction activity with in the county. Expenditures were up 22% from the prior year but under budget by $2.3 million. The transportation sales tax fund decreased $1.5 million. The Justice Center financing fund was a new fund and so comparisons to prior years were not possible. Chairman Fisher asked if the outlay was in 2009. Mr. Lewis stated that some of the outlay would be in 2009 and some was due to decrease in cost. Mr. Walters spoke about the Open Space fund. Mr. Jenkins added that they believed the county was on strong financial footing. Mr. Walter spoke about their experience conducting the audit working with the departments. Chairman Fisher thanked them for their efforts and also thanked the finance department for their efforts as evidenced through the audit results. Commissioner Runyon asked for the county's grade. Mr. Jenkins stated that the auditors do not give letter grades, but the county had passed with a good grade. Commissioner Runyon took that as an "A". He asked how the county might improve. 7 07/14/09 Mr. Jenkins spoke about specific recommendations which were presented earlier to the Finance Directors and specific departments. He spoke about the health insurance transactions and trustee transactions. Mr. Montag indicated that the management letter would be presented to the board and among the recommendations were some repeat items on which the county needed to get a handle. His goal for the next year was to have very few outstanding issues and continue to improve the county's financial policies. Commissioner Stavney thanked the auditors for their scrutiny. He asked about the transportation function footnote. Mr. Walters explained that in the current year the Finance Director recommended separating these funds rather than including them in the Public Works category. Commissioner Stavney wondered about the fleet category in previous years. Mr. Walters stated that the motor pool fund is consolidated into the other functions as an internal service fund. Chairman Fisher opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Potential Modifications to the Full-cost Allocation Plan for 2010 Maximus Financial Services, Inc. John Lewis, Finance Department Recorded Governor's Energy Office ARRA Funding Priorities Joani Matranga, Western Region Representative Recorded Planning Files 1041-2332 Cordillera Valley Club Stora2e Tank Sean Hanagan, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of this 1041 Permit is for the installation of a buried 2.5 million gallon water storage tank at an elevation of7,600 feet north of Edwards. The tank is proposed to be 142 feet in diameter, 23 feet in height and constructed of concrete. The tank is necessary to allow the Edwards Drinking Water Facility to operate at its design capacity, and to provide greater equalization capacity in the overall distribution system and the capacity to deliver water for fire protection. Once this proposed tank is on-line, the existing water tank situated to the north of the Cordillera Valley Club will be removed. LOCATION: North of the Cordillera Valley Club Subdivision in Edwards, Colorado on White River National Forest Land. FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF CONTACT: REOUEST: 1041-2332/1041 Permit (Matters of State Interest) Cordillera Valley Club Water Storage Tank USFS Property North of Cordillera Valley Club Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority Robert Weaver. AMEC Earth & Environmental Inc. Sean Hanagan and Ray Merry 1041 permit to allow the placement of a new 2.5 million gallon water storage tank 8 07/14/09 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Table file 1. SUMMARY This 1041 permit application by the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (the 'applicant') proposes the installation of a 2.5 million gallon water storage tank to tie into the existing water delivery/storage system managed by the applicant. The current .33 million gallon tank is undersized for the current recommended capacity. This recommended capacity is based on the American Water Works Association's average demand formula which recommends not more that a 50% average demand on a tank. The tanks dimensions are approximately 142 feet in diameter and 23 feet in height. The top of the tanks elevation (7602 feet) is designed to provide hydraulic balancing within the Upper Eagle River Water Authority system. The proposed tanks elevation must be set equal to that of the Arrowhead tank which is located .6 miles up Cresta Rd. The tank will be partially buried into the hillside to assist in the balancing of the system. Earthen berms will be used to cover the exposed sides of the tank not buried. An 8 foot high security fence painted green and black will be erected to maintain security of the site. In addition to the tank infrastructure to connect the tank to the (UERW A) system the proposal includes water transmission lines and electrical lines to provide power to the water tank. A monitoring system will be installed adjacent to the tank to provide monitoring of the water level, valve position, and other parameters. This information can be measured and sent to UERW A continuously. A fire hydrant will be installed at the tank so that the lines may be purged if necessary. 2. BACKGROUND The Eagle River Water & Sanitation District (ERWSD) operates three wastewater treatment plants located in Vail, Avon, and Edwards. The wastewater treatment plant in Avon was built in 1966, with the most recent expansion of the plant completed in 1997, bringing the capacity of the treatment plant to 4.3 MGD. The Vail wastewater treatment plant was originally constructed in 1969, and was expanded in 1982 and again in 2000; the capacity of the Vail plant in 2.7 MGD. The wastewater treatment plant in Edwards was constructed in 1981, with expansions in 1986 and 2001, providing a capacity of2.95 MGD. The average daily flow through the entire ERWSD wastewater system is 5.5 MGD, with a range of3.7-7.7 MGD. ERWSD currently operates and services 46 water tanks ranging in capacity from 3,000 to 2 million gallons. The proposed CVC tank is designed to replace the existing CVC tank. The proposed tank will have a capacity of 2.5 million gallons. This partially buried tank will be located on property owned by the United States Forest Service (White River National Forest). 3. REFERRALS This 1041 Permit Application was referred to the following departments and agencies with a request for comment: · Eagle County Engineering Department · Eagle County Attorney's Office · Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist · Eagle County Planning Commission · Eagle County Environmental Health · ECO Trails · Colorado State Health Department - Water Quality Division · Colorado Division of Water Resources · Colorado Division of Wildlife · Colorado Water Conservation Board · Colorado Geological Survey · Natural Resource Conservation Service · Berry Creek Metro District · Edwards Metro District · CVC Metro District · US Forest Service · Fire District: ERFPD 9 07/14/09 · Northwest Colorado Council of Governments · Colorado Historical Society · Eagle County Historical society · Town of Avon As of this writing, the following agencies have responded to this 1041 application with comments: Colorado Division of Wildlife: . Please refer to the attached response dated June 15th, 2009 Northwest Colorado Council of Governments: . Please refer to the attached response dated June 29th, 2009 Colorado Historical Society: . Please refer to the attached response dated June 5th, 2009 Eagle County Engineering Department: . Please refer to the attached response dated July 1 S\ 2009 Colorado Geological Survey: . Please refer to the attached response dated June 30th, 2009 Eagle County Planning Commission: . At a work session held by the Eagle County Planning Commission on June 17th 2009, the Planning Commission, acting as a referral agencv onlv, discussed the application with Staff and expressed concerns the regarding site location as well as landscaping and system hydraulics. The planning commission's comments are attached 4. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS A. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 6.04.01, Permit Application Approval Criteria for Matters of State Interest, and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following analysis is provided. The Approval Criteria is numbered and indicated in bold. A summary response is provided with the recommendation indicated in the findings box. (1) Documentation that prior to site disturbance for the Project, the applicant will have obtained all necessary property rights, permits and approvals. The Board may, at its discretion, defer making a final decision on the application until outstanding property rights, permits and approvals are obtained. The following permits and approvals must be obtained prior to site disturbance: · USFS Special Use Permit · Eagle County Building Permit · Eagle County Grading Permit · Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit · CDPHE Discharge Permit [+] FINDING: (1) Riehts. Permits and Aoorovals. The applicant WILL HAVE obtained all necessary property rights, permits and approvals prior to site disturbance. (2) The Project will not impair property rights held by others. 10 07/14/09 The project will not impair property rights held by others. All necessary easements have been procured, and neighboring property owners have been notified of the proposed improvements. Staff believes neighboring private properties will not be negatively affected by this 1041. [+] FINDING: (2) Propertv ril!hts of others. The project WILL NOT impair property rights held by others. (3) The Project is consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. Eagle County Comprehensive Plan speaks to development within the proposed area: 3.7.3 Development Impacts Policies: a. Development in areas critical to the continued well being of Eagle County's wildlife populations should not be allowed. b. Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts. The Comprehensive Plan specifically calls out the impact from the Cordillera Valley Club along with other developments on the north side ofI-70 that impact mule deer habitat. Staff believes that this proposal constitutes development by Eagle County Land Use In addition, The Colorado Division of Wildlife has submitted comments as a referral agency specific to the DOW's comments is concern regarding further development encroachment or disturbance into this mapped winter range. Therefore, staff is unable to make a positive finding and recommends the applicant be required to adequately address this issue working with the CDOW and staff to either demonstrate that any potential negative impacts will and can be "Fully" mitigated. Please see attached memo dated June 3rd, 2009 from the applicant to he USFS providing additional information regarding criteria for site selection. [ - ] FINDING: (3) Consistencv with plans. The Project IS NOT consistent with relevant provisions ole applicable land use and water quality plans. (4) The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all the requirements and conditions. The ERWSD operates 46 water storage tanks in the ERWSD and UERW A service areas. These tanks range in size from 3,000 to 2 million gallons. To this date, no significant operational incidents or malfunctions have occurred. The UERW A prepares a long-range financial plan as part of the budget process each year. The current plan provides for issuance of $11.7 million in revenue bonds in late 2009 or early 2010 to fund the proposed CVC Tank and several other capital projects. The water rates in place are adequate to cover the operations and increased debt service for these projects. [+] FINDING: (4) Expertise and financial capabilitv. The applicant DOES HAVE the necessal v expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements an i conditions. (5) The Project is technically and financially feasible. · Design costs for the CVC tank are currently estimated at $234,00 · Current engineer's estimates run from $2.8 to $5.1 million for the tank and required piping (estimate range based on cost of concrete) 11 07/14/09 · Total mitigation costs will be approximately $412,000 · The UERW A has budgeted approximately $5.1 million for the CVC tank project. These funds will come from revenue bonds as well as water sales revenue · The CVC tanks estimated cost of $5.1 million is estimated to be issued at an average cost of 5.5% over a 20 year period [+] FINDING: (5) Feasibilitv, The Project IS technically and financially feasible. (6) The Project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards. A geotechnical investigation was performed at the proposed tank site to determine appropriate design criteria for the tank. According to the application materials submitted, "[TJhere are no known soils or geologic conditions which would expose the Project to unacceptable risk." The project is not proposed to be constructed on, over or across areas of known hazard areas. HP Geotech has made design recommendations and contained them within their report dated November 19th, 2008. In addition, the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist has performed an analysis (rating) of the subject area and has stated that: "The overall wildfire hazard for the CVC tank area is High. This rating is based on fuel types present, topography, slope, access, and water supply. " Although the proposed site is located in an area of high ftre danger, no specific mitigation is required other than defensible space due to the nature of the proposed structure. [+] FINDING: (6) Risk from hazards. The Project IS NOT subject to significant risk from natur I hazards. (7) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. The proposed CVC tank is intended to improve the level of service to existing development in the Edwards area and in no way is intended to serve any specific future development. The existing land use at the proposed CVC tank site is open space (resource Preservation) within the White River National Forest. Adjacent to the parcel to the South is open space in the Cordillera Valley subdivision. Water storage facilities are an allowed use within the RP zone district. [+] FINDING: (7) Land use paUerns, the project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns as a result of this 1041 Permit application. (8) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments affected by the Project to provide services, or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. The project will not place any demands on local government services or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. The proposed project will benefit government services by providing additional water storage for wildftre fighting and ftre protection at high elevation. [+] FINDING: (8) Service Capacitv. The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on t e capability of local governments affected by the Project to provide services, or exceed the capacity f service delive s stems it exceed the ca acit of service delive s stems. (9) The Project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents ofthe County. 12 07/14/09 The proposed project will not create any undue financial burden on existing or future residents of Eagle County. The proposed project is to be funded by issuance of bonds. Debt service is to be paid by existing fees. · Design costs for the CVC tank are currently estimated at $234,00 · Current engineer's estimates run from $2.8 to $5.1 million for the tank and required piping (estimate range based on cost of concrete) · Total mitigation costs will be approximately $412,000 · The UERW A has budgeted approximately $5.1 million for the CVC tank project. These funds will come from revenue bonds as well as water sales revenue · The CVC tanks estimated cost of$5.1 million is estimated to be issued at an average cost of5.5% over a 20 year period [+] FINDING: (9) Financial Burden. the Project WILL NOT create an undue fmancial burden on existing or future residents of the County. (10) The Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. The project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. Approval of this 1041 will not result in the loss of any productive agricultural or recreational lands. [+] FINDING: (10) Protection of local economy. The project WILL NOT significantly degrade am current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. (11) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. No land development activity is proposed that will adversely affect the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experiences within the Cordillera Valley Club. The location of the tank thought located on public lands is not accessible to the general public using the existing road. Residents from CVC have some seasonal access that will not be affected by the tanks construction. [+] FINDING: (11) Protection of recreational opportunities, The Project WILL NOT have a si nificant adverse effect on the ualit of recreational 0 ortunities and ex erience. (12) The planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. The proposed CVC tank will be a closed-top tank to limit losses from evaporation. In addition, when the tank needs to be drained for routine maintenance, the water will be routed back into the UER W A system, rather than dumped through the outfall. The only time outfall will be used is in the unlikely event of an emergency tank draining. The UERW A has adopted a Water Conservation Master Plan that has been approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and is designed to encourage the efficient use of water. As provided in the application, the draft was completed in 1996 but never adopted. Staff recommends the applicant work with Eagle County staff to ensure current best management practices used in design, construction and operation of any new water storage and transmission lines and tat the Authority update the 1996 plan to reflect today's standards for water conservation and BMP's. [ -] FINDING: (12) Resource Conservation, The planning, design and operation of the Projec DOES reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. 13 07/14/09 (13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality. Air emissions include exhaust from vehicles carrying personnel to and from the tank site during construction and during ongoing maintenance activities. Also, fugitive dust will be created during excavation of the tank site and installation of new water lines. Generally, disturbance from grading of access roads and the tank site will be minimized by the implementation dust suppression plan submitted with any future grading permit. As well, best management practices will be employed and all disturbed areas will be re-vegetated. [+] FINDING: (13) Air lIualitv. The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade air quality. (14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. The proposed plans call for the 2.5 million gallon, concrete storage tank to be almost entirely buried. In addition, the applicant proposes to construct a berm and to revegetate said berm with new landscape plantings of native vegetation to blend with the surrounding areas. Further, the applicant proposes to paint any exposed portions of the concrete tank with a color that blends the tank with the natural surroundings. Finally, the applicant has provided photos taken from points within and outside the subdivision, demonstrating that the proposed improvements will generally not be visible from Highway 6 or 170. Staff believes the aforementioned improvements and mitigation techniques, tank location in combination with existing, vegetation that will surround the new tank site, will significantly reduce or mitigate any visual impacts from this improvement. [+] FINDING: (14) Visual quality. As mitigated, the Project WILL NOT significantly degrade visual quality. (15) The Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality. No off-site discharges into surface water bodies in the vicinity are anticipated. Plans will be developed, in accordance with State Regulations for Stormwater Management, to include Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as: · Sedimentary controls (erosion control fence and straw bale checks) along and around the construction site; · Re-vegetation of all disturbed areas; · Weekly monitoring of all installed fencing and management of petroleum products or other potentially hazardous materials used during construction. [+] FINDING: (15) Surface water lIualitv. The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade surface wa er quality. (16) The Project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality. The Project will have little or no effect on the quality of groundwater in the area or on groundwater recharge. There are no anticipated "discharges" from the system into ground water. [+] FINDING: (16) Ground water lIualitv. The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade ground wat r quality. (17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. There are no jurisdictional wetlands or riparian areas identified within the Project area. 14 07/14/09 [+] FINDING: (17) Wetlands and riparian areas. The Project WILL NOT significantly degrad wetlands and riparian areas. (18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. In a memo dated June 15th, 2009 from the Division of Wildlife, Bill Andrea was quoted as saying: "The project is located in mule deer migration corridor, winter range, winter concentration area and elk winter range and severe winter range. The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan specifically addresses development within this area contained within section 3.7.3 "Development Impacts"". A discussion regarding this fmding as related to Eagle County Comprehensive Plan can be found as a response to finding number 3 above. Please see the detailed response received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. [ - ] FINDING: (18) Terrestrial or aquatic animal life. The Project Will degrade terrestrial or aql atic animal life or its habitats. (19) The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. Results of the a USFS Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment indicated that the project would not significantly degrade any terrestrial or aquatic plant life or plant habitat. [+] FINDING: (19) Terrestrial plant life. The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate terrestritll plant life or plant habitat. (20) The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. A geotechnical investigation was performed at the tank site to determine appropriate design criteria for the tank site. According to the application materials submitted, there are no known soils or geologic conditions which would expose the Project to unacceptable risk. The project is not proposed to be constructed on, over or across areas of known hazard areas. [+] FINDING: (20) Soils and I!eolol!ic conditions. The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriora e soils and geologic conditions. (21) The Project will not cause a nuisance. Construction activities will occur during the 2010 construction season. Construction traffic to and from the site will be short-term and will not have significant nuisance impacts. There are no exterior light fixtures or other mechanisms associated with the proposed improvements that will generate noise, glare, or odors. Generally, disturbance from grading of access roads and the tank site will be minimized by the implementation of a dust suppression plan submitted with any future grading permit. As well, best management practices will be employed and all disturbed areas will be re-vegetated. Construction is planned to be conducted during daylight hours. [+] FINDING: (21) Nuisance. The project WILL NOT cause a nuisance outside what is typical of general construction. 15 07/14/09 (22) The Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic, or archaeological importance. Colorado Historical Society is not aware of any significant historic properties within the project area or any concerns regarding the protection of cultural resources in the Project area. Staff is further not aware of any areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance associated with the Project site. [+] FINDING: (22) Paleontolol!ical, historic or archaeolol!ical areas, The Project WILL NOl significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. (23) The Project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. The project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. [+] FINDING: (23) Hazardous materials. The Project WILL NOT result in unreasonable risk of tl e release of hazardous materials. (24) The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the Project outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. There are no significant losses of any agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources with the County, nor is there a loss of opportunity to develop such resources. There is however an impact and possible loss of natural resources to include Mule Deer winter range (please see discussion in finding 3 above). The proposed provides reliable, additional water storage and fIre flow. The benefits of the Project clearly outweigh any real or perceived losses accruing to the County and its citizens. [+] FINDING: (24) Benefits outweil!h losses, The benefits accruing to the County and its citizeI s WILL outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industri I resources within the County or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. B. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.02, Additional Criteria Applicable to Municipal and Industrial Water Pro;ects, and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following additional analysis is provided. The proposed CVC tank will be a closed-top tank to limit losses from evaporation. In addition, when the tank needs to be drained for routine maintenance, the water will be routed back into the UER W A system, rather than dumped through the outfall. The only time outfall will be used is in the unlikely event of an emergency tank draining. The UERW A has adopted a Water Conservation Master Plan that has been approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and is designed to encourage the efficient use of water. As provided in the application, the draft was completed in 1996 but never adopted. Staff recommends the applicant work with Eagle County staff to ensure current best management practices used in design, construction and operation of any new water storage and transmission lines and tat the Authority update the 1996 plan to reflect today's standards for water conservation and Best Management Practices. [+] FINDING: (1) Efficient use, The Project SHALL emphasize the most efficient use of wate , including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water, where viable. 16 07/14109 (1) The Project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. The proposed CVC tank is needed for the UERW A to operate at its design capacity and will not result in excess capacity in water services or duplicate services. [+] FINDING: (2) Excess capacitv / duplicate services. The Project SHALL NOT result in exce~s capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. (2) The Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project. The Project (system) has been designed specifically to add capacity to serve based on the needs of current and future residents of this existing regional development and based on the ftre suppression needs of the Eagle River Fire Protection District and State Health Department requirements. [+] FINDING: (3) Necessity. The Project SHALL BE necessary to meet community development an~ population demands in the areas to be served by the project. (3) Urban development, population densities and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. No Stormwater systems have been proposed as part of the project. [+] FINDING: (4) Protection of Aquifer Recharl!e Areas. N/A c. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.03, Additional Criteria Avvlicable to Ma;or New Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Svstems and Ma;or Extensions of Existing Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Svstems, and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following additional analysis is provided. (1) The Project shall be reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project, or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. The Project is necessary to meet community development and population demands. Specifically, the proposed Project (system) has been designed to allow the UERW A system to operate at its design capacity and provide ftre fighting capacity at high elevations. [+] FINDING: (1) Necessitv or rel!ulatorv / technolol!ical compliance. The Project SHALL b reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in th areas to be served by the Project or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. (2) To the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment facilities shall be consolidated with existing facilities within the area. No new wastewater or water treatment facilities are proposed in conjunction with this application. 17 07/14/09 [+] FINDING: (2) Consolidation offacilities. To the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment facilities SHALL be consolidated with existing facilities within the area. (3) New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities. No water or sewage treatment facilities are proposed with this application. [+] FINDING: (3) Proper utilization of existinl! treatment plants. New domestic water and sewage treatment systems SHALL be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities. (4) The Project shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development. No growth is anticipated as a result of the proposed CVC tank. The tanks purpose is to allow the UERW A's system to operate at capacity and to add fIre protection for the area. [+] FINDING: (4) Financial and environmental capacitv. The Project SHALL be permitted in thos areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension ca be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth an development. D. Special Use Permit Waiver: In accordance with Chapter II, Article 3, Section 3.310.1.2, Waiver Provision. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Special Review Use Permit application for water and sewer projects may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners upon a written petition by the applicant showing that: 3.310.I.2.a. A permit application pursuant to Chapter 6, Sections one through five of the Eagle County Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest has been submitted to the Eagle County Permit Authority relative to this land use which would be the subject of a special use permit application. 3.310.I.2.b. Compliance with the Special Use Review Permit requirements would be unreasonably burdensome for the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver of the Special Use Review Permit requirements as such application would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective. E. Recommended Motion: Table In the event the Eagle County Permit Authority approves File No. 1041-2332, waiving the requirement for Special Use Review Permit staff requests incorporating the following conditions: 1. A wildlife mitigation plan which is acceptable to the Division of Wildlife, be submitted prior to or along with the grading permit associated with the project 2. Applicant shall follow recommendations outlined in the HP Geotech report dated November 19, 2009 18 07/14/09 3. Applicant will provide documentation that the project has been completed as proposed 4. Except otherwise modified by this permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the applicant's request. The application proposed the construction of a buried 2.5 million gallon water storage tank as well as a water main to connect the tank to the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (UERW A) water distribution system. The proposed Cordillera Valley Club (CVC) water storage tank was designed to replace an existing tank located on US Forest Service land. Construction of the tank would increase storage capacity, be more efficient, provide better wildfIre fighting capabilities, and decrease visual impacts associated with the existing tank. Additional information was still required to demonstrate that wildlife impacts would not be significant. Staff proposed 4 conditions. Robert Weaver, AMEC Earth & Environmental Inc, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He spoke about the individuals responsible for the request. He stated that the applicant was prepared to provide a Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Plan that would satisfy the CDOW. He spoke about the site selection criteria and stated that no other available sites met all the criteria. Commissioner Runyon wondered what triggered the needed capacity and wondered why CVC did not put a larger tank in early on. He asked how many residents this tank would serve in the future. Mr. Weaver stated that the tank was needed to meet existing system requirements for fIre protection and provide for future growth. Mr. Merry spoke about water storage requirements. He stated that a larger tank was needed to meet safe drinking water requirements and provide proper flow for firefighting. Mr. Weaver explained the site requirements and the reason this property was chosen. The water authority looked at alternative sites, which included the Beard Creek site, the Scudder Webster site, and CVC south site. He stated that wildlife habitat disturbance could not be avoided. However, they would provide a wildlife mitigation plan that would mimic natural terrain and they would work with the DOW to provide seeding that would be wildlife palatable. Additionally they would contribute to the wildlife Heritage Program fund. Chairman Fisher asked why they would not keep both tanks for additional storage. Todd Fessenden, Water Division Manager with Eagle River Water and Sanitation stated that having two tanks would not achieve the water quality goal or manage the amount of water stored and only complicate the distribution system. Mr. Merry asked that the Clerk enter the memo received by Sean Hanagan and Ray Merry dated July 13, 2009 from AMEC be entered in the record as "Exhibit A". Mr. Weaver stated that the Wildlife Habitat Mitigation Plan would include an inspection and maintenance program to assure that the plan was successful. He spoke about the list of categories of the types of conservation programs and measures that were being implemented by the ERWSD and Authority. The District had educational programs to encourage water efficient landscaping and irrigation and conducted water audits to help commercial and industrial entities identify where they could increase system efficiency. The implemented program involved a leak detection and repair program and the Authority provided financial incentives to encourage efficiency. Commissioner Stavney asked if staff was prepared to change their findings for criteria 12. Mr. Merry stated that the 1041 process necessitated that the applicant be efficiently utilizing the water resource. In light of the memo, dated July 13, 2009, staffwas satisfied with the efficient utilization criteria. Mr. Weaver stated that the proposal met the county's approval criteria. Mr. Merry suggested that the board hear from the Division of Wildlife. Bill Johnson from the US Forest Service spoke. He believed the problem with the proposal was that it was planned for National Forests Lands. He preferred the tank be somewhere else. All other alternatives should be eliminated fIrst. He believed that there were other sites available to the applicant. This property was critical big game winter range. The US Forest Service was in the early stages of analyzing the proposal and was not ready to make a decision. Mr. Merry stated that in light of the testimony finding number 1 would be difficult for the applicant to arrive at this time. Mr. Weaver stated that he understood that it would not be possible to build the tank without Forest Service approval. 19 07/14/09 Chairman Fisher stated that without permission of the Forest Service this proposal could not move forward. Mr. Weaver stated that it was possible that the authority could acquire this parcel ofland through the Eagle Valley Land Exchange. The problem for the authority was that the additional storage capacity was needed immediately. The risk and exposure associated with waiting to develop more storage capacity was unacceptable. The information that was needed by the Forest Service was fragmented and needed to presented in an acceptable fashion. The other issue was the sequencing process. Mr. Weaver believed the solution to that would be to approve a permit with conditions. Chairman Fisher asked about the Beard Creek site. Mr. Weaver stated that the land was acquired in a land exchange and the applicant had every intention of using it but there were problems found later with the site. Gary Brooks spoke. He stated that his fIrm was hired to do an evaluation on the Beard Creek site and found that the access was unacceptable. In order to mitigate the problems they would have to build a retaining wall that would require road widening and this would impact homeowners. Chairman Fisher asked if the county would be required to upgrade the road. Mr. Brooks stated that the property owners requested that the district upgrade the road as a condition of allowing the tank to be built. Mr. Morris stated that he did not know the history of the parcel but whenever there were new building permits issued it was required that the roads be upgraded before further development. He was not aware of any pending application. Chairman Fisher wondered what would happen to the Beard Creek property if it were not used for a water tank. Mr. Weaver stated that there was a covenant on the property and it could only be used for a water tank and could not be sold or used for anything else. Bill Andree from the Division of Wildlife spoke. He stated that this was the second application of its kind in two years they have had to deal with and it has become a precedent that the impacts of a development should be moved out onto public lands. He believed this was a bad precedent to set. The applicant had not been granted permission to use the land so he believed the application was premature. If the Forest Service and the County were to approve the project there should be a mitigation plan in perpetuity. The Wolcott water tank did not allow construction during the winter range period and they would ask the same for this project. Chairman Fisher asked when the construction time was proposed. Bob Bates of Bates Engineering stated that the scheduled completion date for the tank would be May 28, 2011. Construction would begin this August or September pending approval and would cease sometime in November when snow conditions would prohibit construction. Commissioner Stavney wondered if it would it be possible through an aggressive mitigation plan to increase the winter habitat in the area. Mr. Andree stated that the Forest Service and BLM had strict requirements. However, there were projects that could be done. Commissioner Runyon asked the applicant if fIre protection was considered at the time of building permits. Denise Gelden stated that the timing of the tank coincided with the Edwards drinking water facility. Their job as a water provider was to find a way to provide water to the development approved by the cities and by the county. Commissioner Runyon wondered if there was a real issue of safety. Mr. Gelden stated that they supported the fIre fighting agencies. They had been working to get this tank in place since 2001. Mr. Weaver stated that the county's approval criteria for these facilities discouraged creating too much excess capacity in the system and did not like to have projects built solely in anticipation of growth. Chairman Fisher wondered how long before the capacity of this tank would become compromised. Mr. Gelden stated that the proposed tank was designed to serve a larger area and would serve the public for many years. Commissioner Stavney stated that the Beard Creek site seemed like a viable site. Mr. Weaver stated that the Beard Creek site would only accommodate about 1 million gallons of water and additional storage would be needed somewhere else. Chairman Fisher asked Mr. Andree about the suggested road closure. Mr. Andree stated that the road could remain open for hiking but would be closed for motorized use. If the forest service issued a permit, the permit would allow the applicant to maintain the road to the water tank. 20 07/14/09 Chairman Fisher stated that she felt uncomfortable suggesting an approval without the consent of the Forest Service. Mr. Gelden stated that both approvals were needed. The applicant request that they get approval of the 1041 permit with a condition requiring that the Authority get a permit or acquire ownership of the property to utilize the permit. Commissioner Stavney stated that the criteria not yet met had to do with wildlife. He believed that this matter needed to be resolved before moving forward. Commissioner Runyon stated that the application could be tabled pending a determination by the Forest Service. Mr. Weaver stated that if the water treatment plant went down, the storage capacity would fall below the necessary reserve levels to fight ftre. Commissioner Runyon expressed concern with putting in a larger tank and then believing that another 1000 units could be built in the Edwards area. He suggested that the file be tabled. Mr. Merry suggested that if the board wished to table the file, that it be tabled to a date specific as to avoid reissuing public notice. Mr. Morris stated that the board could table the file for 40 days without the applicant's consent. He wasn't sure whether 40 days would be helpful. He suggested that the applicant request to table the file further out. Chairman Fisher wondered the cost of building a tank such. Mr. Weaver stated that the estimated cost was $2.7 million. Mr. Hanagan stated that the permit authority could continue the hearing for not more than 60 days unless a longer period was agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Weaver believed that 60 days would be sufficient. Commissioner Runyon asked Mr. Merry his opinion on the file. Mr. Merry stated that in looking at the technical information he agreed with the need for the increase in capacity. He believed that the applicant used sound engineering principals to determine the need to serve this lower pressure zone. Todd Fessenden spoke about the balance needed for water storage and stated that they were merely trying to catch up. Commissioner Runyon stated that he would like to see a detailed written response from the Forest Service. Commissioner Stavney stated that based on criteria he did not see the Forest Service being an issue. The two outstanding negative findings were wildlife and a wildlife mitigation plan. Chairman Fisher asked the applicant if they had received sufficient direction from the board and if 60 days would be enough time to provide a wildlife mitigation plan. She also requested that the applicant work on a "Plan B". Mr. Weaver stated that the Authority had narrowed it down to two feasible options. The Forest Service asked that they provide an engineering analysis so they could make a finding that there was not suitable private land sites and they were in the process of assembling the document. They also understood that whatever sites were used, a satisfactory wildlife mitigation plan would be required. Commissioner Runyon moved to table the file until September 1, 2009. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Attest: - Clerk to the Bo d VJY"~ 21 07/14/09