The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1.0 FIA Correspondence & Reports• August 21, 1984 Mr. Dennis Stranger Director, Department of Development Garfield County Courthouse P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Dennis: t'. :Shp , .7 1984 This letter is being sent to outline the agreement between Storm King Mines and Grand River Hospital District with regard to the impact mitigation in connection with the Storm King Mine Project. The parties agree as follows: Storm King Mines will require all contractors and subcontractors to: \-\ 1) Have Worker's Compensation Insurance. 2) Have health care insurance for their employees and the dependents thereof to cover other than job-related accidents or agree to have Storm King Mines deduct 10% of their total contract payments until Storm King Mines receives certifica- tion that all health care payments are completed. This provision shall not apply to companies with less than ten employees, except that when such company receives a contract and it, in turn, contracts with another larger company to perform the work, then the company performing the work shall meet the provi- sions if it has ten or more employees. When insurance is provided, it shall provide for at least hospitalization and Emergency Room coverage. The deductible shall not exceed $500 per family per year, and the co -payment provision shall not exceed 20%. When the 10% withholding option is selected, the funds shall be placed in an interest-bearing escrow account and held in trust. The Hospital District will be notified when a contractor has completed its portion of the job and the District will then provide a listing of all outstanding accounts for that con- tractor's employees within 30 days. Any funds held in escrow in excess of that amount may be released at that time to the contractor. The District will coordinate collection efforts with the contractor for an additional 60 days on the outstanding accounts. After the 60 days have lapsed, the total amount of the outstanding accounts will be paid to the Hospital District from the escrow account and the uncollected accounts will be assigned to the contractor. it 1 Mr. Dennis Stranger August 21, 1984 Page Two 3) Have insurance carrier either accept assignment of benefits or make benefit check payable jointly to the patient and provider. 4) Maintain and make available forwarding addresses on current and terminated employees, and make available anticipated termination date on temporary employees when this is known. 5) Assist with attempts to obtain employee consent for voluntary payroll deductions to avoid garnishment procedures after reasonable efforts have been made by the Hospital District to collect unpaid bills. Grand River Hospital District will: 1) Maintain accurate records. 2) Follow a reasonable collection protocol. 3) Consult with the project manager or individual subcontractors, as needed. GRAND RIVER HOSPITAL DISTRICT STORM KING MINES By Edwin A. Gast, AdministratoriS. Are4tz,-.--SII By �(F-ict j°eside -t, Operations July 27, 1984 • VVwJ V ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. /7/2 -/----- Engineering & Environmental Consultants-/- — P.O. BOX 519 • AUSTIN, TEXAS 78767 (512) 327.6840 �;� TWX 9108741393 Mr. Scott J. Miller Air Pollution Control Division Colorado Department of Health 222 South 6th Street Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Dear Mr. Miller EH&A Job No. 3507 E H Assoc Aus 0 CO. PLANNER I recently received a copy of a letter ( ate July 2, 1984) which you sent to Storm King Mines, Inc. (SKM) concerni he air quality permitting of SKM's proposed Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine. Thi letter was forwarded to me by Mr. Sam Arentz, SKM Vice -President of Operations. Espey, Huston & Associates, Inc. (EH&A) is under contract toOSKM.to provide assistance in several air quality activities, including perting. Mr. Arentz has asked me to respond to your letter since I am the EH&A Task Manager for the air quality permitting tasks and am familiar with the permitting activities accomplished to date. You are correct in your letter that SKM plans to operate an underground mine in Garfield County and that a Colorado Air Pollution Control Division (APCD) permit has not been issued for the proposed mine. At the time you sent your letter, you were apparently unaware, however, of a considerable amount of mine -related air permitting activity which had been taking place for more than a year. On May 12, 1983, Mr. Arentz and members of the EH&A staff met in Denver with various members of the APCD staff, including Mr. John Plog, Mr. Alan Dresser, and Mrs. Beth Baird. The purpose of this meeting, held at SKM's request, was to introduce the project. The meeting focused on two topics: (1) the hydraulic mining technique to be used at the mine and (2) the APCD permitting requirements for the mine. Since that meeting, telephone contact and written correspondence has been maintained between EH&A and APCD personnel. The bulk of these contacts occurred between July, 1983 and March, 1984. Most of them involved Mr. Plog and either Mr. John McKie of EH&A or me. Other conversations involved Mrs. Baird, Mr. Barry Andrews, Mr. Tom Tistinic, and other members of the APCD staff. These conversations were centered around the exact requirements for permitting/exempting this mine, which will be the first large-scale hydraulic mine in the country. In addition to meetings in Denver and phone conversations between the APCD staff and EH&A on permit requirements, APCD staff members visited the project site in September, 1983 and reviewed the ongoing air quality monitoring program there. e 1 1 ESPEY, HUSTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. Mr. Scott J. Miller July 27, 1984 Page 2 To help clarify the permitting situation, I sent Mr. Plog a letter (dated January 26, 1984) which provided a preliminary mine description and requested specific rulings on exempting certain facilities, on certain emission factor assumptions, and on the number of permits required. EH&A has prepared draft APEN/permit applications based on Mr. Plog's verbal response. These are currently under review by SKM and will be submitted shortly. Let me emphasize that SKM does not intend to construct or operate the Coal Ridge No. 1 Mine without the proper permits (including APCD permits). Quite the contrary, SKM and EH&A have endeavored to work closely with APCD personnel in developing the permit applications. We intend to continue a cooperative working atmosphere with the APCD throughout the permitting process. I trust this letter responds to your concerns. If you have any questions, however, please feel free to call me. Best regards, Julian A Levy, Jr. Senior Staff Meteorologist JAL/dl cc: Sam Arentz, Storm King Garfield County Sanitarian Steve Frey, EPA Region 8 Dick Fox, APCD Denver Terry Echols, EH&A 1 • Clagett Memorial Hospital E. Dene Moore Memorial Home Grand River Home Health Grand River Hospital District July 19, 1984 P.O. Box 912.701 East 5th • Rifle, Colorado 81650. 303-625-1510 Mr. Sam Arentz Vice -President, Operations Storm King Mines 9137 East Mineral Circle Englewood, Colorado 80112 Dear Sam: I have reviewed the results of our earlier discussions with John Johnson at Valley View Hospital, and provided him with a copy of John Woodruff's letter of May 30. It would appear that the details that remain to be worked out during our meeting on the 24th are minor. The only issues that remain to be resolved appear to be the determination of what minimal benefits should be required of the contractors and subcontractors, and some discussion on the size of the company all of this would apply to (for example, I would want to avoid a situation where a company with less than ten employees would get a major contract and then turn around and subcontract with another firm that is larger). If you have any questions before we meet, give me a call. Sincerely, Edwin A. Gast Administrator EAG,(I sh XC: "Dennis Stranger John Johnson rin { j JUL2 31984 ISI GARFIELD CO. PLANNER LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH KEVIN L. PATRICK JAMES S. LOCHHEAD PETER A. MILWID LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK dr LOCHHEAD, P C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW June 6, 1984 Steve Zwick, Esq. Assistant Garfield County Attorney P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 1011 GRAND AVENUE P. 0. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261 EfEIVP i, JUN (� 19' 4 COLRITY F;► L, . Y Re: Storm King Mines/Riverbend Homeowners Association Dear Steve: Enclosed, per your request, are two pieces of correspon- dence, one from this firm to Sam Arentz and one in response to my letter by attorneys for Storm King Mines. The Homeowners will be sitting down with Storm King Mines to work out the method of the mitigation measures conceptually agreed to by Storm King in their latest correspondence. We request that any land use submission require the the implementation, on a timely basis, of the points of concern which have been agreed upon by the parties. Only with the incorporation of such mitigation measures would the Homeowners Association believe the issue of compatibility of uses in the area be resolved. Please review this and advise me what position the staff may take as to the implementation of these conceptual points within the conditions of approval of any land use submissions prepared and applied for by Storm King Mines. I appreciate the oppor- tunity to provide this comment. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCHHEAD, P.C. Kevin L. Patrick KLP:psb cc: John Masur Storm King Mines May 30, 1984 Mr. Edwin A. Gast, Administrator Grand River Memorial Hospital District P.O. Box 912 Rifle, Colorado 81650 Dear Mr. Gast: 4rFlr,,7-,...E.-,?7,7F,wil_ . , ,,, , MAY 3 11984 11 GARDELLI CO. PLANNER This letter is being sent to outline our position regarding the potential impact of non-payment of health services as detailed by your letter to Mr. Dennis Stranger dated April 24, 1984. First and foremost, health-care facilities are necessary for the well-being of our employees and to that end we are committed to seeing to it that there are no financial failures as a result of our activities or our personnel and their families. Secondly, since our project is closer to Glenwood Springs than to Rifle, we believe that a majority of our personnel will be residing in the Glenwood Springs - New Castle area and utilizing Valley View Hospital. Thus, your facilities will be impacted by a minority of the health-care cases. Storm King Mines does provide and pay for an excellent health- care program, for all of its employees and the employees' depend- ents. Thus, there will be no failure -to -pay situation from our personnel and their. families. Further, we carry workman's compen- sation insurance covering all accidents which occur on the job. Storm King Mines, through its insuror, does guarantee that no bill will remain unpaid for any of its employees and their fam- ilies, including the deductible amount of our coverages. We wish to make the point that our company should not be expected to guarantee the payments for health care for our subcontractor employees and their families. For our contractors and subcon- tractors, we will make certain that they: 1) Have Workman's Compensation insurance 2) Have health care insurance for their employees and the dependents thereof to cover other than job-related ac- cidents or agree to have us deduct 10% of their total Storm King Mines, Inc. • 9137 East Mineral Circle • Englewood, CO 80112 • (303) 792-2625 r • Mr. Edwin A. Gast Page Two May 30, 1984 contract payments until we are certain that all health care payments are completed. 3) Insist that all employees and their wives are given identification cards regarding their health-care insur- ance coverages. Storm King Mines wishes to assure you that we will work diligently to make certain that your statements resulting from our project, are paid. We will attempt to maintain and to make available for- warding addresses on terminated employees. We will assist in attempting to establish voluntary payroll ded- uctions to avoid garnishment procedures after reasonable efforts have been amde by the hospital to collect unpaid bills. Sam Arentz and I enjoyed the meeting we had with you on May 23rd and thank you for taking the time to explain your position and requests. We trust that our discussions and these written com- mitments alleviate your concerns and will mitigate this potential problem. Please advise us at any time we can provide further information on this subject. I enclose a copy of our present health coverage conditions. Yours truly, t)),‘,4g hn C. Woodruff Administrative Manager JCW/jkl Enclosure cc: Mr. Dennis Stranger/ P.S. Under Point 2) above, we agreed that this would apply only to those companies with ten or more employees. • .••Roaring Fork School District RE -1 Box 820 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Telephone (303) 945-6558 May 15, 1984 Mr. Larry Velasquez, Chairman Garfield County Commissioners P. 0. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Dear Larry: DWIGHT L. HELM, Superintendent ROBERT. D. LAFFOON, Assistant Superintendent DR. JAMES L. BADER, Assistant Superintendent In regard to Storm King Mine fiscal impact statement, we generally have little problem with it. There are a couple of items that will need attention during the minitoring/mitigation phase. First, the projected student increase of forty-nine to one hundred fifty-one students (Scenario A & B) could have considerable impact on Glenwood Springs Elementary School and whether we decide to rebuild or remodel. We need to do one or the other. We are close to the maximum number of children on a rela- tively small site, so any kind of impact needs to be monitored. The report states that the increase only amounts to 2%, but that relates to the district as a whole and not the Glenwood Springs area, where more than likely the im- pact would be felt. Secondly, there is a question regarding taxation of mine properties. The por- tal and above ground improvements are in RE -2 District, but much of the coal is in RE -1. Would we benefit any from property tax on the underground coal or is there some other form of taxation available, i.e., mineral lease, sev- erance, etc.? The report shows most of the tax revenues going to RE -2. In summary, I feel that Storm King has done a good job of looking at the total project in a fair manner. Of course, some will disagree with various parts of the projections, such as spatial allocations, but all in all, it looks good. If the monitoring and mitigation phase is handled well, the project will cer- tainly be a benefit to our ailing economy. Sinc ly yours, v Dwight Helm /mlw cc: Dennis Stranger, Dir. of Dept. of Development I. --fVF,77-J;) _7-1), kA `� , \-_ MAY161984 i GARFIELD CO. PLANNER WILLIS V. CARPENTER ANDREW S. KLATSKIN JANELL KINZIE CARPENTER & KLATSKIN, P C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1500 DENVER CLUB BUILDING 518 SEVENTEENTH STREET, DENVER, COLORADO 80202, May 11, 1984 i,.; Kevin L. Patrick, Esq. Leavenworth, Patrick & Lochhead, P.C. P.O. Drawer 2030 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Storm King Mines and Riverbend Homeowners Association Dear Mr. Patrick: f I j TELEPHONE- (303) 534-6315 As you know, our office represents Storm King Mines, Inc. ("SKM"). We have reviewed with SKM officials your letter of April 17, 1984, expressing the concerns of the Homeowners Association about SKM's proposed mining develop- ment. We will respond to these matters as you have numbered and identified them. 1. Road Improvements. It is the intention of Storm King to make improvements to County Road 335 to the extent that its operations have an impact on that road. Most probably, this will not involve improving the road all the way to the Riverbend Subdivision, since vehicles involved in SKM operations will be using only a portion of this road. At the least, SKM will improve the road to the standard and for the distance required by the County regulatory authorities From the I-70 interchange to the point where a new road diverges to the Storm King facilities, the road will be upgraded to haulage standards (better than access road requirements) during the pre -construction period. After production begins, it is likely that Storm King will pave that portion of the road, even though this will not be required by the County. Prior to transport of coal from the proposed operation, SKM will improve County Road 335 to meet County specifications for such usage. In the interim g Kevin L. Patrick, Esq. May 11, 1984 Page 2 the access road will be constructed to the mine surface facilities. As the number of employees during this period will be limited, the road will not suffer adversely and areas of concern (namely the hole near the New Castle mine triple) can be mitigated. 2. Price Guarantees. SKM is willing to discuss price guarantees for the homes of members of the Riverbend Homeowners Association and for the unimproved lots owned by such homeowners. It is our proposal that Storm King will pay for an independent appraisal of each property at its value in 1983 prior to the announcement of the SKM development. SKM would be willing to guarantee the price of that appraised value to the home- owners. Any homeowners who are dissatisfied with the value established by such an appraisal could provide an alternative appraisal within 60 days at their expense; the guaranteed price would then be based on an average of the two appraisals, provided that the second appraiser is independent and approved in advance by SKM. It must be understood that any such price guarantee is totally contingent upon Storm King obtaining its mining permit as requested. Furthermore, such a guarantee will be effective only after construction is begun on the railroad or other surface facilities which impact the subdivision. The guarantee will be exercisable only upon presentation of a bona fide offer from a third party to purchase a home or lot from a homeowner, and if the guarantee is exercised, Storm King shall have the option to purchase the house or lot at the guaranteed price or to pay the difference to the seller. We recommend that such a purchase by Storm King be exempted specifically from any listing agreements between a homeowner and a real estate broker to avoid paying a commission on a guaranteed buyout. Homeowners wishing to sell their property would be well advised to contact Storm King in advance, since an informal market may be available through Storm King personnel and facilities. Kevin L. Patrick, Esq. May 11, 1984 Page 3 3. Landscape Plan. It is the intention of Storm King to work with Garfield County, Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, the Bureau of Land Management and the Riverbend Homeowners Association on an acceptable landscape plan to mitigate the visual and noise impact of SKM operations. Reasonable berming and vegetation screening will be provided. Storm King will attempt to assure that these efforts are satisfactory to the homeowners, although it is unlikely that all railroad and mining operations can be fully screened from view and hearing. Mitigation of such impact will be the goal. 4. Noise and Dust Suppression. Storm King will take reasonable measures to suppress dust and noise from its facilities and will limit its loading operations to daylight hours to the greatest extent possible. The best good faith efforts will be made to schedule train loading and hauling operations during non -sleeping hours. However, no guarantees can be provided by SKM that these operations will be conducted only during daylight hours. Such scheduling matters can have a drastic economic impact on SKM, their customers and on the railroad. Contrary to your assumption that such a requirement is easily achieved, it is virtually impossible for SKM to guarantee only daylight operations without seriously jeopardizing the economic viability of its operations. Additionally, SKM has virtually no control over the railroad. 5. Truck Hauling. To the extent that truck hauling is used during pre -production, Storm King will take adequate dust and noise suppression measures in connection with such truck haulage. Water trucks will be used to limit the dust, and hauling will take place only during daylight hours. 6. Water Quality Improvements. Storm King will be happy to work with the homeowners to improve water quality in the subdivision. If Storm King develops an ample potable water supply, it would be willing to make such water available to the Riverbend residents by piping water to the edge of the subdivision. (SKM will not become involved with improving or upgrading the water lines within the subdivision). In exchange, Storm King would hope to integrate the existing Kevin L. Patrick, Esq. May 11, 1984 Page 4 Riverbend water supply into its operations without jeopardizing deliverable quantities or water rights. It is also likely that additional storage facilities will be provided if the two water systems are integrated. More definite information on the sources and quality of water supplies to be used in the SKM operations will be available in the next 60 days. Our response to the alleged "representations" of Storm King, which you have set out in Subparagraphs A through D, is on a somewhat different level, since these are obviously matters which have nothing to do with any negative impact of the SKM operations. The matters described in Subparagraphs B and D have never been promised by Mr. Arentz or any other representative of SKM, and will not be provided by Storm King. The company cannot and will not become involved with the internal operation or maintenance of the subdivision or with any services which are or should be provided by local government or other public entities. In regard to Subparagraph A, Storm King is willing to install a pedestrian gate and construct a designated pathway across its property for pedestrian use in maintaining access to BLM property. Such access would be only for residents of the Riverbend Subdivision and would require a waiver and release by such residents of any SKM liability in connection with the use of such access. In regard to Subparagraph C, if the homeowners evaluate the installation of a television satellite disk receiving station and agree to pay all required fees and royalties for the use of such a station, Storm King will provide to the Homeowners Association the capital to purchase and install such a satellite disk based upon reasonable competitive bids. All ongoing repair and maintenance obligations, and any fees and royalties for the use and operation of such a disk would necessarily be the obligation of the Homeowners Association. We hope that the positions of Storm King as outlined in this letter can provide some further direction for a 1 Kevin L. Patrick, Esq. May 11, 1984 Page 5 productive dialogue with the Homeowners Association. SKM is willing to make its operations as compatible as possible with the interests of the homeowners, within reasonable economic limits. Obviously, if Storm King provides to the homeowners the benefits which are being discussed, we would expect the homeowners to cooperate and work with Storm King in obtaining the necessary County approvals for zoning and permitting. Some of these matters will need to be dealt with in the near future, so your prompt response to this letter would be helpful. We look forward to discussing these matters with you further; please feel free to call the undersigned or Willis Carpenter. Sincerely yours, Janell Kinzie CJK:deg • • STORM KING MINES FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PLANNING COMMISSION/ADVISORY COMMITTEE REVIEW May 2, 1934 • • PROJECT: Storm King Coal Mines Fiscal Impact Analysis OWNER: Storm King Mines LOCATION: The coal mine development project is located in portions of Townships 5 and 6 South, Range 89 and 90 West. The surface facilities are located approximately 3 miles east of New Castle on the south side of the Colorado River. SITE DATA: The property is located on about 3,750 acres of land (both private and Federal government) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to develop an underground coal mine. The project site is located on both private and Federal (leased) land on and along the Grand Hogback (Coal Ridge) near New Castle. Surface facilities are located primarily on hilly and benched lands above the Colorado :liver on the north side of the Grand Hogback, yet well above the floodplain of the Colorado River. The City of Glenwood Springs lies six air miles due east. The area is largely rural in character and consists primarily of undeveloped land. The major land use of the site is for agriculture. The character of the neighborhood is agricultural and residential. Access to the project site is primarily via County Road No. 335 east from the New Castle interchange with I-70. Rail access will be from the east via the existing Colorado Midland railroad grade. Secondary access to the project site will be via South Canyon which will be used only to access a ventilation and escape shaft at a remote point on Horse Mountain. Another ventilation shaft may be developed at the very west end of the project site new the New Castle, 1-70 interchange. Surface facilities include water handling and clarification equipment, a rail loadout, railroad spur, offices, change house, shops, water and sewage treatment facilities, electrical distribution facilities, refuse disposal and water impoundment. The rail loadout will consist of a gravity loading structure, serviced by a covered conveyor, transporting coal from the clean coal slot storage facility. The slot storage facility is an enclosed building. A dual purpose access -haul road will be used for the transportation of coarse refuse. The road will provide regular access to the impoundment facility for construction and service vehicles. Secondary access roads will be used for access through the periphy of the disturbed area. • • The project workforce is anticipated to stabilize at approximately 258 employees. The workforce is projected to pea, at 272 in the year 1989. BACKGROUND Pursuant to Section 5.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution (the Fiscal Impact Mitigation Program) Storm King Mines, on September 22, 1982, submitted a Statement of Intent to apply for land use permits to the Garfield County Board of Commissioners. Three public meetings were held during the Pre -Application process and a summary of comments prepared and presented to the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing on January 16, 1984. The Board issued a Pre -Application Report on February 6, 1984. The Pre -Application Report identifies the following subjects for inclusion in the Fiscal Impact Analysis: 1. The location and purpose of the Major Project; 2. Estimated construction schedule; 3. Number of employees for construction and operating work force; 4. Direct and indirect tax bases and revenues associated with the project; 5. Demonstration of consistency with local land use plans; 6. Total direct and indirect population associated with the project, including the rate, distribution, and demographic characteristics of the propulation change; 7. The direct and indirect effects of construction and operation of the Major Project within the impact area, including but not limited to the following: a. Economic base; b. County services; c. Housing; d. Transportation; e. Sewer and water facilities; f. Solid waste facilities; g. Public safety and fire protection; h. Educational facilities; i. Health services and hospital facilities; j. Recreation facilities; k. The fiscal impacts of the Major Project on public facilities and services of each government entity in the impact area. 8. Definition of impact areas: a. A list of each government entity in the impact area; and b. The basis for inclusion or exclusion of each government entity in the impact area. 2 • • MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES A. Comments from local govenment entities: 1. The Grand River Hospital District has presented a number of concerns and mitigation strategies. See letter, pages 5,'- 2. The New Castle Ambulance Service requests that the Fiscal Impact Analysis include emergency medical systems. 0,006-12_ 3. The City of Glenwood Springs notes a deficiency in administrative space. See letter pages 81-9 B. Staff Comments: 1. The countywide sales tax for the Library is 1/4 percent rather than 1/2. The projections of County revenues should be adjusted accordingly. 2. There is a math error in Table 5.3.1-A - General Government space should be calculated based on 1500 square feet/1000 population rather than 1640 square ft./1000 population. 3. The normal practice in Garfield County is not to project any Federal grant revenues. The inclusion of Forest Service and Mineral Lease revenues will need to be monitored if projected. 4. The basis for severance tax projection should be noted. 1984 legislation should be taken into account. 5. It is not exactly clear what is projected under the revenue categories of Other Governmental Units, Charges of Service, and Other Taxes. This may be difficult to justify in the revenue projection. The County has not recognized those type revenue sources as predictable in evaluating other fiscal assessments. 6. Revenue sharing is also a revenue source that is difficult to forecast. 7. Transportation elements are given a very cursory review in the FIA. The project sponsors will be responsible for reconstruction and maintenance of any County roads affected by the development. The County prefers to utilize a more conservative revenue forecasting approach for fiscal planning purposes rather than the method incorporated in the FIA. For impact analysis, however, the method of projecting impacts is acceptable. Factoring out revenues, as noted above, will still probably result in a positive fiscal balance for the County. Note: 3 • • FINDINGS A. Proper publication was provided as required. B. The meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties, including the Storm King Mines Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee were heard at the meeting. C. The Storm King Mines Fiscal Irnpact Analysis conforms to Section 5.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and addresses the directive found in the Pre -Application Report Storm King Mines dated February 6, 1984. RECOMMENDATION The Fiscal Impact Analysis is generally adequate and a mitigation program may be prepared based on the Fiscal Impact Analysis. There are however a few deficiences as noted in Major Concerns and Issues. The following items should be addressed in the mitigation program. A. Housing for the employees of the Major Project; B. Public services and facilities including operating costs necessary to mitigate impacts of the Major Project; C. Capital costs of construction of new or expanded public facilities necessary for each government entity to provide service required by the Project or by the employees of the Project and their households. D. Delay or abandonment of the project. E. An emergency service plan addressing fire protection, ambulance service, hospital and emergency medical services shall be prepared and approved by the various entities providing services. The plan shall be reviewed by the Garfield County Public Health Officer. F. Public safety service including space requirements shall be addressed. G. Mitigation plans for school facility impacts shall be prepared. H. The project sponsor, in conjunction with the County, shall be required to develop and implement a monitoring program to gauge the effectiveness of the mitigation plan. I. The Fiscal Impact Analysis shall be considered adequate for purposes of preparing a mitigation plan, for a period of one year from the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. • • Grand River D Hospital District Clagett Memorial Hospital E. Dene Moore Memorial Home Grand River Home Health April 24, 1984 Mr. Dennis Stranger Director, Department of Development Garfield County 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Storm King Mine Project P.O. Box 912 • 701 East 5th • Rifle, Colorado 81650 • 303-625-1510 (thrid -00 Q73L .. K361 g adb 1, ! r�cLu rf� Dear Dennis: As we discussed at the Advisory Committee Meeting on the Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Storm King Mine Project, the Grand River Hospital District considers one of the primary impacts of this type of development to be the risk of significant bad -debt expenses as a result of non-payment for services provided to the project's tempor- ary work forces. If provision is not made for payment in full for healthcare ser- vices provided to such workers and their families, we can only expect that the past experience with other projects will be repeated with the hospitals and, ultimately the taxpayers of Garfield County, having to cover a significant dollar amount in uncollectible accounts. In order to avoid such a situation in the future, we propose that the following be required of all contractors and subcontractors on the project: 1. That comprehensive health and accident insurance be carried for all employees and their families; 2. That all group insurance carriers be required to accept assignment of benefits or make benefit checks payable to both the employee and the healthcare pro- vider; 3. That employees and their spouses be provided identification cards with proof of insurance; 4. That the healthcare provider follow a reasonable collection protocol, in con- sultation and co-operation with the project manager or the individual subcon- tractors, including provision by the employer of the anticipated termination date of the construction employees when requested by the healthcare provider; • • Mr. Dennis Stranger April 24, 1984 Page Two 5. That each contractor/employer be required to work with Grand River Hospital District in obtaining the employees consent for a payroll withholding program for those hospital bills not covered by insurance. 6. That each contractor/employer on the project be required to obtain forwarding addresses for each employee at the time of termination of employment and make that address available to the District. The District is willing to consider effective variations or alternatives to the foregoing, but cannot be expected to provide services to employees of the project and their families without payment. The likely consequence of a failure to address this impact is the financial failure of our hospital. Our community cannot afford such a result. We would be happy to entertain further discussion of these matters at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, v � Edwin A. Gast Administrator EAG/lsh if�� rel {, � � �• lilt APR 1984 •'crr!ELD CO. PLANNER • • April 27, 1984 New Castle Ambulance Service Box 224 New Castle, CO 81647 j'IT i II D l APR 3 o 1984 J1 (tikrIELD CO. PLANNER Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission Attn: Dennis Stranger 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Storm King Fiscal Impact Analysis Dear Commissioners, The Storm King Mine's proposed fiscal impact analysis does not take into full consideration the impacts associated with the development of the mining operation as it effects the area's emergency medical systems, generally, and the ambulance services of New Castle, Silt and Glenwood Springs, specifically. We would respectfully request that the applicant expand the scope of the study to include an evaluation of the fiscal consequences associated with the construction, primary, and secondary work forces under the local and non -local hire assumptions, as it relates to the impact area's emergency medical systems. Respectfully, Aleta Newman, President New Castle Ambulance Service,Inc. cc: Garfield County Commissioners April 25, 1984 Mr. Dennis A. Stranger Garfield County Development Director 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Dennis: I regret that I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting of the Storm King Mines Fiscal Impact Analysis Advisory Committee. Please accept the following comments on SKM's fiscal assessment of the proposed coal mine: 1. The Fiscal Impact Assessment (FIA) is comprehensive in scope and adequate in terms of detailed analysis. SKM's proposal to hire as much as 76 percent of their workforce is to be encouraged. This policy plus the comparatively slow build-up in mine employment enhances the positive impacts of this project. Coal mining is an historic activity in this valley and from a county -wide perspective it is my judgement that this project will be easily accommodated. For Glenwood Springs specifically, the mere existence of a 1978 lease of City coal reserves to SKM indicates our support of the project. The project will undeniably be a financial benefit to the City of Glenwood Springs. 2. The inventoried standards and capacities are accurate with one exception - existing capacity for police administration (see Table 5.2.2-A page 5-4). Column four shows a zero surplus for general government administrative space. This masks a severe deficiency for the police function. Currently, 17 certified officers and three clerks share 1484 square feet of office space. It is the police chief's opinion that this is half the minimum space require- ment to carry the department through the 1980's. Thus, the column should indicate a deficiency of 1500 square feet for police admin- istration. 3. Regarding geographic allocation of population growth, it is recog- nized that this is a sensitive issue. I concur in the consultant's conclusion that it was reasonable to allocate growth based on existing patterns. Particularly supporting this view are the small scale of the project and the slow build-up in employment. -- S `;06 ..00 L1? ULLN:RINGS, COLORADO 81601 303'9'5-2575 • • Nevertheless, the location of the mine creates the potential for nega- tive impacts on the smaller communities such as New Castle. This is true because relative changes in actual population distribution affect them more and because of their "cross-roads" location vis-a-vis the mine. On the subject of crime, for instance, I am reminded that in the period 1980-81, fully 19 per cent of all contacts by City of Glenwood Springs police were with individuals directly associated with energy development. New Castle has all the potential for becoming the miners' "watering hole". Thus, monitoring of crime statistics and place of employee residence must be included in the county -required mitigation program. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FIA. I look forward to meeting with the Advisory Committee and the County P&Z on May 2nd. Sincerely yours, John M. Fernandez Planning Director JMF/gp enc. Clagett Memorial Hospital E. Dene Moore Memorial Horne Grand River Horne Health Grand River llospital District April 24, 1984 Mr. Dennis Stranger Director, Department of Development Garfield County 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Storm King Mine Project P.O. Box 912. 701 East 5th • Rifle, Colorado 81650. 303-625-1510 Wind To C1?LL, v j gaciVs Ll._.cki.8g,gL-,-.-Lig 4 • rR Dear Dennis: As we discussed at the Advisory Committee Meeting on the Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Storm King Mine Project, the Grand River Hospital District considers one of the primary impacts of this type of development to be the risk of significant bad -debt expenses as a result of non-payment for services provided to the project's tempor- ary work forces. If provision is not made for payment in full for healthcare ser- vices provided to such workers and their families, we can only expect that the past experience with other projects will be repeated with the hospitals and, ultimately the taxpayers of Garfield County, having to cover a significant dollar amount in uncollectible accounts. In order to avoid such a situation in the future, we propose that the following be required of all contractors and subcontractors on the project: 1. That comprehensive health and accident insurance be carried for all employees and their families; 2. That all group insurance carriers be required to accept assignment of benefits or make benefit checks payable to both the employee and the healthcare pro- vider; 3. That employees and their spouses be provided identification cards with proof of insurance; 4. That the healthcare provider follow a reasonable collection protocol, in con- sultation and co-operation with the project manager or the individual subcon- tractors, including provision by the employer of the anticipated termination date of the construction employees when requested by the healthcare provider; • 1 Mr. Dennis Stranger April 24, 1984 Page Two 5. That each contractor/employer be required to work with Grand River Hospital District in obtaining the employees consent for a payroll withholding program for those hospital bills not covered by insurance. 6. That each contractor/employer on the project be required to obtain forwarding addresses for each employee at the time of termination of employment and make that address available to the District. The District is willing to consider effective variations or alternatives to the foregoing, but cannot be expected to provide services to employees of the project and their families without payment. The likely consequence of a failure to address this impact is the financial failure of our hospital. Our community cannot afford such a result. We would be happy to entertain further discussion of these matters at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, L. Edwin A. Gast Administrator EAG/lsh 10 firems,-� .--__ APR 21;1984 ,`4r,ELD co. PLANNER LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH KEVIN L.PATRICK JAMES 5. LOCHHEAD PETER A.MILWID • • LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & LOCIIHEAD, P C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW April 17, 1984 Mr. Sam S. Arentz, III, Vice President Storm King Mines 9137 East Mineral Circle Englewood, CO 80112 Re: Riverbend Homeowners Association Dear Mr. Arentz: 1011 GRAND AVENUE P O. DRAW rR 203P GLENwO0b SPRINGS.00LORADO 51601 TELEPHONE: (303) 945-2261 APR 181984 GA�[fJELD CO. L PLANNER At our meeting of April 13, 1984, I indicated that we would be providing you with a list of the homeowners' specific con- cerns so that you could know the position of the homeowners toward your company's proposed development and come back to us with proposals on mitigating those concerns. This list is intended to be general in nature and to highlight what we con- sider to be the major areas where we believe an industrial use development will adversely impact the existing residential character of the neighborhood. 1. Improvements to County Road 335 from the Interstate Interchange to Filing One of the Riverbend Subdivision. The increase in laborer traffic and heavy truck traffic on County Road 335 will require the widening and improving of the road. Improvements should be made prior to the increase in vehicular traffic. We would propose to sit down with the County Road Supervisor and develop an acceptable road improvement plan. 2. Providing Price Guarantees at a Mutually Acceptable Price for Existing Improved and Unimproved Lots. The imposition of a heavy industrial use adjacent toexis int residential use necessarily detracts from the desirability of the residential market in the subdivision; this has already occurred to a cer- tain degree by SKM's announcement of its development plans. SKM has publicly indicated to Garfield County and the homeowners that they believe they will enhance the value of the develop- ment. If SKM is correct, this requirement will not result in any risk or expenditure on the part of SKM. Per your request, we would consent to providing SKM with a right of first refusal for any bona fide offer received for a price guaranteed lot or residence. 3. Landscape Plan to Mitigate Industrial Impact on Residential Character of the Subdivision. A landscape plan LEAVENWORTH, PATRIC}S OCHHEAD, P. C. Mr. Sam S. Arentz, III April 17, 1984 Page 2 mutually acceptable to the homeowners and SKM should be deve- loped which would provide a berm and vegetation screen shielding all railroad and mining operations from subdivision view. This would assist in noise control. A good example of what can conscientiously be done for a coal loadout facility is the landscape plan provided by Snowmass Coal's loadout facility on Highway 82 four miles northwest of Carbondale. 4. Dust and Noise Suppression. In addition to the requirements for dust suppression control which will be imposed upon your operations by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Board and Colorado Department of Health, we would like to see periodic suppression techniques (sealants) applied to any railroad spur which runs adjacent to the subdivision. Unit train loading and hauling operations should be confined to the daylight hours (7:00 AM - 7:00 PM). This requirement is easily achieved and is fundamental to any agreement with the homeowners. Perhaps more than any other impact on the residen- tial character of the area will be the sound pollution problems with loading and moving rolling stock during the evening hours. 5. Prior to Train Loadout Facilities Becoming Operational, Truck Loadout Problems Should be Mitigated. The timing of your production may be advanced of your train loadout facility's construction completion, which may necessitate truck hauling. The homeowners expect that all mitigation measures set forth in 1, 2 and 4, above, would be implemented prior to truck hauling of production. 6. Improvement of Water Quality for Central Water System. As you are aware from our meeting, the homeowners are presently involved in litigation against Mr. Cunningham (Case No. 81CV239). I have provided you with copies of the Court's pleading file which indicates that Cunningham Construction and Development Company and Mr. Cunningham personally, will be required to improve the water and sewer systems in accordance with the homeowners desires and demands. Nevertheless, physical water facility improvements will not answer the question of poor water quality. We would therefore seek to work with SKM to locate and utilize a better physical water source for the sub- division. This would be a requirement prior to any future use of SKM of the central water facilities. Additionally, any new demand placed upon the system by SKM would, according to our engineers, require enlargement and improvement of the present central water and sewer systems. In addition to these points, we expect that all representa- tions made by you to the homeowners and county officials would be provided. Specific representations include: LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK OCHHEAD, P. C. Mr. Sam S. Arentz, III April 17, 1984 Page 3 • A. A method of access to BLM property for pedestrian use of subdivision residents; B. Installation of paved roads and street lights in the subdivision; C. Installation of a television satellite disk receiving station for the subdivision; and D. Construction of a small structure to house the pumper fire truck which the Town of New Castle has indicated may be given to the homeowners. Per out meeting of April 13th, these concerns are being expressed to describe problems which the homeowners believe must be mitigated to avoid opposition to your proposed industrial development. The method of mitigating these concerns will, of course, require dialog to assure that such are satisfactorily mitigated. We believe these concerns are fairly and conservatively put forth and are ones in which any reasonable and conscientious resource company should expect and fairly answer. The minor costs associated with these mitigation items should already be a part of your overall project budget since the project was ini- tated and the resources purchased with knowledge of the present zoning and character of the area. We look forward to solving the concerns that exist and request that adequate time be provided to answer these concerns and reduce them to an agreement prior to the initiation of any land use proceedings by SKM. It is our desire to settle the matters between us prior to land use proceedings since such would necessitate the homeowners to take an adversarial position to the project to preserve their property rights. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH, PATRICK & lsr Kevin Patti KLP:psb cc: Mr. John Masur Mr. Mark Bean Earl Rhodes, Esq. Steven Zwick, Esq. HEAD, P.C. Richard D. Lamm Governor • DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES David H. Getches, Executive Director Boa- MINED am` MINED LAND RECLAMATION DIVISION DAVID C. SHELTON, Director April 12, 1984 Board of Commissioners Garfield County P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Sirs: ` IAP R 1. 6 1:934 COUid7Y C 'wiSSAS i — 6) I' - i '..1!" ryrye ,: f. 1 1./ F t Iii APR 1 6 1884 GARFI LD CO, i)LiiL!{ Pursuant to Title 34, Article 33, Paragraph 3 of the Colorado Revised Statues of 1973, the Mined Land Reclamation Division hereby issues notice that, on April 3, 1984, an application for a permit to conduct coal mining operations, File No. C-84-065, by Storm King Mined, Inc., 9137 East Mineral Circle, Englewood, Colorado 80112, was deemed complete for the purposes of filing. All reviews and comment periods as provided in the Act and the Regulations promulgated thereunder initiate from this day of filing. The applicant proposes to conduct underground coal mining operations on 3,750 acres located in Garfield County approximately 6 miles west of Glenwood Springs and 3 miles east of New Castle. The proposed facilities will be accessed by taking the New Castle I-70 interchange south to County Road 335 then east approximately 1 mile to the mine access road. The legal description of the proposed permit area is as follows: Township 6 South Range 90 West Section 2 - a portion of the D&RGW rail corridor for a possible siding Section 3 - a portion of the D&RGW rail corridor for a possible siding Section 4 - NW 1/4, E 1/2 NE 1/4, N 1/2 SW 1/4 and the NW 1/4 SW 1/4 for use as refuse disposal area Section 5 - NE 1/4, N 1/2 NW 1/4 and S 1/2 SW 1/4 for access Section 6 - That portion south of the Colorado River some of which will be used for load -out, preparation plant and portals Section 7 - N 1/2 NW 1/4, NE 1/4 for underground mine Section 8 - N 1/2, N 1/2 SE 1/4 and NE 1/4 SW 1/4 for underground mine Section 9 - S 1/2 and S 1/2 N 1/2 for underground mine Section 10 - S 1/2 and S 1/2 N 1/2 for underground mine 423 Centennial Building, 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Tei. (30') 866-3567 AP • • -2-- Section 16 - N 1/2 NE 1/4 and NE 1/4 NW 1/4 for underground mine Township 6 South Range 91 West Section 1 - SE 1/4 and S 1/2 NE 1/4 for underground mine Township 5 South Range 89 1/2 West Section 36 - a portion of the D&RGW corridor for a possible siding Township 5 South Range 90 West Section 34 - That portion south of County Road 335 and the south edge of Phase II of the Riverbend subdivision Section 35 - That portion south of the Colorado River Section 36 - That portion of the N 1/2 that is south of the Colorado River and the extension into the S 1/2 along the old Colorado Midland railroad bed The above mentioned tracts of land are shown on USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle map of Storm King Mountain. Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the office of the County Clerk and Recorder in Glenwood Springs, Colorado and at the Mined Land Reclamation Division, Room 423, 1313 Sherman Street, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 866-3567. Written comments, objections, or request for an informal conference must be filed at the Division by 5:00 p.m. on May 7, 1984. Sincerely \\J' Herron Rec amation Specialist JH/th Doc. No. 0716 IN REPLY REFER To: • • United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Glenwood Springs Resource Area P.O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 March 13, 1985 Mr. Mark Bean Garfield County Department of Development 2014 Blake Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Mr. Bean: 2920 C-38480 (7-162) h'ttik � b 1985 � U GARFIELD CO. PLANNER This office has recently completed an environmental assessment in association with Storm King Mines' proposed coal mine located immediately east of New Castle, Colorado. During review of the draft environmental assessment, we received a comment from the Colorado Historical Society (copy attached) recommending that all private land be surveyed for cultural resources prior to actual construction. The Bureau of Land Management's role in authorization of this facility is relatively minor and necessary federal permits may not be immediately required. Consequently, we are not in a position to require cultural resource survey of all affected lands. We wanted to make you aware of the concerns of the Colorado Historical Society. You may wish to consider its concerns during your permitting of certain aspects of the project. We appreciated your cooperation during preparation of the environmental assessment and look forward to working with you on other projects. Enclosure Sincerely yours, James R. Owings Area Manager PRE -APPLICATION REPORT STORM KING MINE Report Prepared by the Garfield County Board of County Comnissioners, Garfield County, Colorado February 6, 1984 INTRODUCTION The Pre -Application Report of the Storm King Mines project is prepared pursuant to the requirements of Section 5.08.04.06 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. The purpose of the Pre -Application Report is threefold. The report includes: 1. A summary of comments received concerning the project. 2. A description of the scope, approach and schedule for the preparation of the Fiscal Impact Analysis. 3. A discussion of any exemption from the provisions of the Garfield County Fiscal Impact Analysis and Fiscal Mitigation Program procedures. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project site is located on both private and Federal (leased) land on and along the Grand Hogback (Coal Ridge) near New Castle. Surface facililites are located primarily on hilly and benched lands above the Colorado River on the north side of the Grand Hogback, yet well above the floodplain of the Colorado River. The City of Glenwood Springs lies six air miles due east. The area is largely rural in character and consists primarily of undeveloped land. The major land use of the site is for grazing. Access to the project site is primarily via County Road No. 335 east from the New Castle interchange with I-70. Rail access will be from the east via the existing Colorado Midland railroad grade. Secondary access to the project site will be via South Canyon which will be used only to access a ventilation and escape shaft at a remote point on Horse Mountain. Another ventilation shaft may be developed at the very west end of the project site near the New Castle/I-70 interchange. Surface facilities include water handling and clarification equipment, a rail loadout, railroad spur, offices, change house, shops, water and sewage treatment facilities, electrical distribution facilities, refuse disposal and water impoundment. The rail loadout will consist of a gravity loading structure, serviced by a covered conveyor, transporting coal from the clean coal slot storage facility. The slot storage facility is an enclosed building. • • A dual purpose access -haul road will be used for the transportation of coarse refuse. The road will provide regular access to the impoundment facility for construction and service vehicles. Secondary access roads will be used for access through the periphy of the disturbed area. The project workforce is anticipated to stabilize at approximately 258 employees. The workforce is projected to peak at 272 in the year 1989. PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT ENTITY COMMENTS Storm King Mines filed a Statement of Intent to apply for land use permits with the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners on September 22, 1983. On October 4, 1983, Garfield County suggested that Storm King Mines conduct two public informational meetings prior to the Pre -Application meeting with the Board. Storm King Mines filed a Pre -Application Notice for a permit on November 18, 1983. Upon receipt of the Pre -Application Notice the Board: 1. Notified the local government entities within the impact area that will be affected by the project; 2. Transmitted a copy of the Pre -Application Notice to the affected government entities; 3. Advertised a summary of the Pre -Application Notice in the Glenwood Post newspaper on December 7, 1983 and the Valley Journal newspaper on December 8, 1983; and 4. Filed a copy of the Pre -Application Notice with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder. The recommended public meetings were held in Glenwood Springs on December 12, 1983 and in New Castle on December 13, 1983. Storm King Mines made a presentation to the Garfield County Planning Commission on December 14, 1983. The Board of County Commissioners conducted the Pre -Application Meeting required in section 5.08.04.05 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution on January 16, 1984. There were numerous comments about the Storm King Mine project that were made at the public information meetings and the Pre -Application meeting. The comments can be generally catagorized into two types of concerns; land use and fiscal concerns. The summary of the conuuents follows. LAND USE ISSUES Comments were received concerning: 1. The duration of the development and operation of the mine; 2. The visual impacts of the surface facilities; 3. The rail and highway accesses to the site; 4. The impacts on the Riverbend Subdivision; 5. The mine impacts on domestic and agricultural water systems in the area; 6. The access to existing recreation areas abutting the property; 7. The project's impacts on wildlife in the area; 8. The dust suppression techniques that may be utilized for the project; 9. The noise of the operation; 10. The safety aspects of the project, particularly along the proposed railroad tracks; and 11. The preservation of agricultural lands within the project boundaries. FISCAL IMPACT ISSUES Conhuents were received concerning: 1. The market destinations of the coal; 2. The duration of the development and operation of the mine; 3. The size of the workforce; 4. The potential fluctuation in the local economy; and 5. The amount of money generated for the City of Glenwood Springs from royalty payments. • • SCOPE OF STUDY The scope of study comprising the Fiscal Impact Analysis shall include the following subjects: 1. The location and purpose of the Major Project; 2. Estimated construction schedule; 3. Number of employees for construction and operating work force; 4. Direct and indirect tax bases and revenues associated with the project; 5. Demonstration of consistency with local land use plans; 6. Total direct and indirect population associated with the project, including the rate, distribution, and demographic characteristics of the population change; 7. The direct and indirect effects of construction and operation of the Major Project within the impact area, including but not limited to the following: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. J. k. Economic base; County services; Housing; Transportation; Sewer and water facilities; Solid waste facilities; Public safety and fire protection; Educational facilities; Health services and hospital facilities; Recreation facilities; The fiscal impacts of the Major Project on public facilities and services of each government entity in the impact area; 8. Definition of impact areas: a. A list of and b. The basis entity in APPROACH each government entity in the impact area; for inclusion or exclusion or each government the impact area. Storm King Mines shall prepare two impact scenarios for review as part of the Fiscal Impact Analysis. One scenario shall assume that a high proportion of the total Storm King workforce will consist of local residents hired for the project. A second scenario shall assume that a high proportion of the project workforce will consist of a of non -local workers who will move into the area to work on the Storm King project. -4- SCHEDULE Storm King Mines has indicated that 45-60 days will be required for the preparation of the project Fiscal Impact Analysis. The project sponsor has indicated that the Fiscal Impact Analysis shall commence immediately upon completion of the Pre -Application Report. EXEMPTIONS Storm King Mines has not requested any exemptions to the provisions of the Fiscal Impact Mitigation Program per section 5.08.04.05 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution. C0IORADO HISTORICAL, SOCIETY Colorado State Museum 1300 Broadway Denver, Colorado 80203 February 5, 1985 Bill Kight Bureau of Land Management 50629 Highway 6 & 24 P.O. Box 1009 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Storm King Mines, C0-077-4-55 Draft Environmental Assessment Dear Mr. Kight: Thank you for the opportunity to review the above document. Our comments are as follows: 1. Page 29 - I. Cultural Resources: Because there is federal involvement in this project we request that the private land be surveyed in the same manner as the federal land. 2. As this project progresses, we anticipate working with your office on the determinations of eligibility and effect. If this office can be of further assistance, please contact Jim Green at 866-3392 or 866-3395. Sincerely, tte4u4 7/4),/de,;,„ Leslie E. Wildesen Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer LEW/WJG:ss • • GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: 945-8212 / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: 945-2339 / BUILDING: 945-8241 MEMORANDUM TO: Dennis A. Stranger, Director of the Department of Development FROM: Mark L. Bean, Senior Planner DATE: January 10, 1984 RE: Comments on Storm King Mine Fiscal Impact Analysis from City of Glenwood Springs John Fernandez called to say that he had briefly discussed the fiscal impact analysis with the new City Council. He was not authorized to write a letter in their behalf, but has verbally noted the following comments: 1. That the fiscal impact analysis identify the issues and benefits of a unitization agreement between the City and Storm King regarding City revenues from the coal production. There was some concern about the starting and stopping of operations and the affect that it would have on revenues, particularly if the City owned resources are mined. 2. That the visual impact from the I-70 corridor be minimized. Overall, the Council was supportive of the development. 2014 BLAKE AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 • . United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Grand Junction District Office 764 Horizon Drive Grand Junction, Colorado 81501 Mr. Jim Drinkhouse, Chairman Garfield County Commissioners P. 0. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Dear Mr. Drinkhouse: January 5, 1984 -162 2920 The Bureau of Land Management is considering a private sector land lease under Section 302(b) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. The land would be utilized for coal refuse disposal by Storm King Mines of Englewood, Colorado. I have enclosed a map and a copy of the notice of realty action for the lease proposal to assist you in reviewing and commenting on the proposal. Should you have any questions on this matter, please contact either myself or David Atkins at (303) 945-2341. Comments on the proposal must be received within 45 days. Sincerely, Aulk 4ALi C)C;/ -�. Aid District Manager Enclosures: Notice of Realty Action Map orl • • UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Agency: Bureau of Land Management Action: Non-competitive Lease of Public Land in Garfield County, Colorado Summary: The following described land is being considered for lease under Section 302 of the Federal Land Policy and Managernent Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2762, 43 U.S.C. 1732) at no less than the appraised fair market rental estimated to be approximately $20,040 annually, or $1,670 per month. Sixth Principal Meridian T. 5S., R. 90W., Section 35: S1/2SE1/4, E1/2SE1/4SW1/4 T. 6S., R. 90W., Section 4: Lots 2,3,4, S1/2NW1/4, SW1/4NE1/4 Section 5: Lot 1, SE1/4NE1/4 The area described aggregates 410.41 acres in Garfield County, Colorado. The land is located approximately 7 miles west of Glenwood Springs, Colorado, and lies immediately south of the Colorado River. Lease of the above described lands has been proposed by Storm King Mines of Denver, Colorado, for the disposal of refuse generated by their proposed coal raining operations. Their proposed mine involves non-federal lands and minerals and is located immediately south and west of the proposed refuse area. The Bureau of Land Management is considering the long-term non-competitive lease to Storm King Mines to authorize and collect rental at the appraised fair market value of the use. The lease would be dependent upon the organization filing a lease application including information required by Title 43 Code of Federal Regulations, part 2920.52. The terms and conditions applicable to any lease issued under this notice are those in 43 CFR 2920.7. Information about the proposal can be reviewed in the Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Resource Area Office, 50629 Hwy. 6 and 24, P.O. Cox 1009, Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602, telephone (303) 945-2341. The lessee would be required to reimburse the United States for reasonable administrative and other costs incurred by the United States in processing the lease and for monitoring construction, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of the facilities authorized. The reimbursement of costs would be in accordance with the provisions of 43 CFR 2920.6. For a period of 45 days from the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register, interested parties may submit comments to the District Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Grand Junction District Office, 764 Horizon Drive, Grand Junction, Colorado 81501. Any adverse comments will be evaluated by the District Manager, who may vacate or modify this realty action • • and issue a final determination. In the absence of any action by the District Manager, this realty action will become the final determination of the Department of the Interior. 12/15/83 /s/ Wright Sheldon Date Wright Sheldon, District Manager Grand Junction District• Office 1 it II fr/ 11 J // f OKANLIG LODGE, Ll oow N LLIAr • r Park d 36 ''31 Kl M LaAd i, La4r/j • °•k. yP 6 y% "reek• 1� •// Stor EEK Mo King ntatn �) 1111, )1 �l • STANiI AI{ J 0 Winit Point N M s N G iZ li n`t�• 11� GLENWOOD SPRINGS FISH HATCHERY Fuataun 36 I'AIt.4LLEI • Tren.Ir. Swirly /A i• Proposed Lease Area Glenwood' Sprin4s I Lr>nII,X I i r1 f. SOUTH CANYON MINE ti • It enter ountain \ . aide Crown • Spring \\�\ \ IIS e))Uncl • t Bob \\ 11 )l Horse Pe • 36 m • Trail N 6 1q Y 31 Little Bt Mtn„. .J Storm King Mines Proposed Land Lease Coal Refuse Disposal T. 5 S., R. 90 W., 6th P.M. Sec. 35: S Z- SE4, E ZSE4SW4 T. 6 S., R. 90 W., 6th P.M. Sec. 4: Lots 2, 3, 4, S1/2NW4, SW4NE4 Sec. 5: Lot 1, SE4NE4 p �2 _�—p si i— — _2 'ip LI .F INF .• Storm King Mines September 22, 1983 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado Commissioners Annex 201 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Statement. of Intent to Apply (Fiscal Impact Mitigation Program) Dear Commissioners: This letter is to inform you that Storm King Mines, Inc. intends to apply for a Special Use Permit under Garfield County Land Use Regulations. This Permit will be for the extraction and pro- cessing of natural resources along with associated industrial support facilities, water impoundments, sewage treatment facili- ties, refuse disposal, loadout, access roads, pipelines, utility lines, railroad and customary accessory uses. The proposed project in its entirety is designated the Coal Ridge #1 Mine. (the project) and will be located entirely within Garfield County, Colorado. The project, when implemented, will develop and bring to market undeveloped coal resources which will provide new economic opportunity as described in the Statement of Purpose and Authority of Garfield County Resolution 82-318. Storm King can achieve the objectives of this resolution. These being: diversification of the economic base for Garfield County, an increase of the local tax base, and provide increased employment opportunities. The following is a brief description of key project elements, and how they relate to the project review process and application for Garfield County Permits. Storm King Mines intends to develop coal resources under rural lands owned by the company and additional rural lands for which sub -surface coal rights have been obtained (see Figure 1, attached). In order to comply with existing Land Use Regulations in Garfield County, Storm King Mines intends to participate in the Garfield. County Zoning Compliance Application and Review Procedure to show compliance with County Storm King Mines, Inc., • 5335 West 48th Avenue • Denver, Colorado 80212 • (303) 433-7471 Board of County Commissioners -2- •ternber 22,,,1983 standards, requirements, and criteria. This -compliance review will demonstrate compatibility with surrounding land use, appropriateness with the physiographic and general environmental character of the surroundings and maintenance of both on-site and off-site environmental conditions in a condition satisfactory to comply with Garfield County Regulations and State and Federal law. All specified Industrial Performance Standards will be met. The proposed land use associated with the project is classified by Garfield County Regulations under the categories of Extraction, Processing, Storage and Material Handling. Directly associated land uses will include the construction of buildings (conventional and prefabricated), accessory buildings, storage yards; the construction of water impoundments and refuse disposal areas, the construction of a private sewage treatment system, the construction of a rail siding, loadout and coal storage facility, and the construction of roadways, pipelines, conveying and utility lines, and parking areas to service project needs. The majority of these facilities will occur in an existing P/U/D zoning district with associated development on O/S and A/R/RD lands. Surrounding agricultural lands under Storm King Mines' control are anticipated. to remain in agricultural use and can provide a large buffer zone of open space around the project. The substance of requested Permits would thus include the approval of a Special Use Permit for industrial development along with associated construction and building permits if not inclusive. The project is projected, at full operational development, to employ a total work force of over 200 employees in Garfield County, and will thus be considered a Major Project under Garfield County Regulations. Major Project status requires that the project. participate in the Fiscal Impact Monitoring Program, and this Statement of Intent initiates Storm King Mines' participation in that Program. Preliminary meetings with representatives of the Garfield County Department of Development are underway and the precise scope of the Fiscal Impact Mitigation Study is being determined. The proposed Scope of S�' dy will include those areas specified in Resolution 82-318 and �1"1 include the participation of local jurisdictions and other paries who may wish to participate at'their own request. Mitigating factors which will reduce project impacts will be a phased start-up; ,noneed for a large construction phase workforce and a strong emphasis'on local hiring. Large amounts of non -county imported labor will not be required.. The scope of the proposed Fiscal Impact Study will be determined in the ongoing planning meetings and will bk-listed,in detail in the Pre - Application Notice which will followfthis Statement of Intent. 411 Board of County -3- Sember 22, 1983 Commissioners The timetable fox the Fiscal Impact Study will also be determined by the schedule of public informational and community meetings to be developed with Garfield County staff, but it is currently anticipated that preparation of the required materials will not exceed 90 days from this notice. The Pre -Application Notice will be filed during this periodand will initiate the timetable of procedures specified in Resolution 82-318. No exemption from Pre -Application Procedures, asspecified, in Resolution 82-318 is anticipated at this time. Storm King'Mines has explored the Colorado Joint Review Process and has deter*{iined that the scope of the project is small enough and the other permits necessary are sufficiently limited, that participation in the Colorado Joint Review Process will not be desirable at this .me. Public Hearings stipulated in Garfield County Regulations wi.1 provide the primary forum for public involvement and project, review. A Permit to Mine is being requested from the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, concurrent with County reliew. The only Federal involvement evident at this time is with regard to one of the alternative disposal sites for processing waste which is on Federal land. This site is undergoing environmental analysis concurrent with the Garfield County Application and any hearings associated with analysis and review will be scheduled at the descretion of the Bureau of Land Management. These hearings could be combined with Garfield County hearings. upon Bureau of Land Management request and Commissioners approval. Storm King Mines looks forward to successful development of the project and the economic opportunities which it will provide. Storm King Mines personnel will be available to answer any questions that you might have. Please feel free to contact us for any clarification of this Statement of Intent. Respectfully submitted, Allen . 4D. Gray President cc: Dennis Stranger `L4' GAP r Sam S. Arentz, II.I Vice-President/Operations • 1.0 EXISTING CONDItIONS 1.1 SETTING/STUDY TAt.EA Storm King Mines is located in Garfield County on the 1-70 corridor between the City of Glenwood Springs and the Town of New Castle. The location of the mine in relation to the pattern of connecting transportation routes and urban development has led to a study area for potential impact that includes the portion of Garfield County containing Glenwood Springs, New Castle, Silt, and associated special districts and school districts. This section describes the existing population, employment and housing in the study area, the condition and capacity of public services and facilities, the financial position of affected public agencies, and their ability to assimilate growth resulting from Storm King Mines' activity. The section covers Garfield County first, followed by a description of jurisdictions in two sub -areas, the Glenwood Springs vicinity and the New Castle -Silt vicinity. 1.2 GARFIELD COUNTY 1.2.1 Population and Employment While still essentially rural, the population in Garfield County grew by more than 50 percent between 1970 and 1980,1 caused primarily by expansion of tourism, and resource development in the region including oil shale development. By 1980, the population in the 2,952 square mile county was 22,514, with an estimated population of 27,846 in 1983.2 Population levels have stabilized since the postponement of large oil shale projects in late 1982. The growth in population over the last five years has brought demographic indicators such as median age and household composition close to statewide and urban patterns. The Garfield County workforce has been expanding rapidly over the last decade. The total county workforce in 1973 of 4,106 had grown to 13,744 by the second quarter of 1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Colorado Population Reports" and "Special Census for Western Colorado". 2. Denver Research Institute, "Socioeconomic Analysis of Phase II of Union Oil Company's Parachute Creek Shale Oil Program", Draft, no date. BMML 1-1 ( 1 1 / 1 5/83) • 1982.1 This represents a tripling of the workforce over the same period, and a labor force participation increase from less than 30 percent to more than 50 percent by 1982. The higher labor participation rate is more typical of other communities nationwide in the 1980's. Up until 1982, Garfield County's economy depended primarily on tourism and retail trade. This is reflected in steady growth since 1973 in the retail trade and service sectors. In 1981, these two sectors had the greatest employment of all non- governmental sectors. However, construction of the oil shale projects led to a dramatic increase between 1981 and 1982 in the workforce in the construction sector so that in the second quarter of 1982 the construction sector employed 3,698 people, the largest employment sector. Information is not yet available as to how the composition of the workforce has changed since the postponment of the oil shale projects, but it is likely that the construction sector has declined significantly. Mining has not been a dominant source of employment in the county; since 1973, employment levels have not exceeded 500 workers.2 Since 1981, unemployment rates in Garfield County have been higher than the state average. In August, 1983, the county unemployment rate was 9.4 percent or 1,858 workers compared with a statewide rate of 6.5 percent.3 In 1982,4 the average monthly wage of the Garfield County workforce was $1,508 compared with a state average of $1,424. For the construction sector, the Garfield County average wage was $2,327 (state, $1,738), and for mining, $2,371 (state, $2,662).5 1. Colorado Division of Employment and Training, "Colorado Employment & Wages Covered by Unemployment Insurance", ES -202, Labor Market Information, various issues. 2. Workers involved in oil shale projects were typically in the construction sector, not mining. 3. Colorado Division of Employment and Training, Labor Market Information Branch, October, 1983. 4. Second quarter statistics. 5. Colorado Division of Employment and Training, Labor Market Information Branch. BM ML 1-2 (1 1/15/83) • • 1.2.2 Land Use Planning and Housing The growth in recent years has put pressure on public facilities and services, causing the county and jurisdictions within it to expand, replace or upgrade facilities. It also drew the county's attention to growth management issues. The Garfield County Land Use Plan encourages growth to locate in or around existing urban centers, and thus it promotes the use and expansion of existing capacities before entirely new public systems are built. Between 1970 and 1980, the total number of housing units in Garfield County increased almost 69 percent, from 5,537 to 9,345. Almost half of this growth occurred in unincorporated areas of the county. Growth was not evenly distributed through the municipalities. For example, Parachute and New Castle grew at the relatively low rates of 20 percent and 24 percent, respectively, between the two census periods, whereas Silt and Rifle grew at 129 percent and 69 percent, and the unincorporated areas at 77 percent. Of the total count in 1980, 45 percent or 4,229 were in unincorporated areas of the county, 2,160 in Glenwood Springs, 255 in New Castle, and 357 in Silt.1 In 1980, 119 single family permits were issued by the County; an additional 187 single family permits were issued in 1981, with 138 in 1982, and 57 (including permits for uninspected multi -family units) issued as of the end of September, 1983. Building permits for multi -family units do not specify the number of units. However, during 1980 and 1982, 139 such permits were issued.2 Thus, by late 1983 there were approximately 9,985 units in the county.3 Data on the total number of approved lots is not yet available, but of the 1,310 i approved as of the beginning of 1980, 41 percent had yet to be built upon.4 1. BMML, "Chevron Shale Oil Company Clear Creek Project Socioeconomic Assessment"; Existing Conditions, Volume 1, p. 1-104, 1982. 2. Garfield County Planning Office, November, 1983. 3. It is not possible to estimate the number of these units that were built at Battlement Mesa, but during 1982, 29 single family permits and 40 multi -family permits were for the Battlement Mesa area. 4. Garfield County Planning Office. BMML 1-3 (1 1 / 15/83) • • Subdivisions in the unincorporated area around New Castle contain approximately 71 single family and 514 mobile home lots. It is estimated that while the mobile home subdivisions and parks are fully built out, there are some unoccupied pads; the single family developments are approximately 75 percent developed.' In the unincorporated West Glenwood area, there are a large number of developments, with approximately 455 single family and 19 multi -family lots. Some of these subdivisions are undeveloped at present. 1.2.3 Garfield County Government Garfield County government provides a variety of services to its residents. The principal ones are addressed in this study: general administration, public safety, roads and bridges, solid waste disposal, and libraries. Among recent capital expansion projects completed by the County is an addition to the County Courthouse in 1983, financed by the Oil Shale Trust Fund. This space is designed to serve a population of 47,000,2 or another 20 years under county projections of future growth.3 In 1983, 116 full-time employees (excluding public safety and public works) provided administrative services.4 The County Sheriff's Department has three stations to provide the unincorporated areas with police protection; the main facility and jail in Glenwood Springs, a sub- station facility in Battlement Mesa added in 1982, and a patrol division in Rifle. The 2,000 square feet of office space in Glenwood Springs is considered inadequate, but the jail facility with 45 bunks was expanded in 1982 and is sufficient for near terra demands. The department maintains a higher than average ratio of officers to population because of the large area and rough terrain it serves. Staff and vehicle levels are nevertheless still considered to be less than adequate.5 In 1983, staff comprised 35 sworn officers, 10 jail staff members and 5 administrative personnel.6 I. Garfield County Planning Office. 2. Union. 3. Chevron. 4. Union. 5. Chevron. 6. Union. BMML 1-4 (I 1/15/83) • • Offense and incident reports declined from 2,926 in 1980 to 1,821 in 1981 and 1,928 in 1982. The department, however, considers that further growth would require additional and more specialized staff, and an expansion of facilities.) The County Road and Bridge Department, with a staff of 33, is responsible for more than 900 miles of county roads and 70 bridges.2 Approximately 350 miles of the road network and 50 percent of the bridges are in need of some form of repair. The County is attempting to make these improvements, particularly those near development, as funding becomes available. No additional staff or vehicle addition or replacement has been identified as a current need. However, construction of a new shop at Rifle is being considered to add to the existing three (located at Glenwood Springs, Silt and Rifle); funding for this has not been obtained. A new 160 acre landfill west of Rifle is operated by the County and used by private contractors, municipalities and individual residents. The County does not provide individual residential collection. Opened in 1982, it is anticipated the landfill will be adequate for at least another 20 years.3 New equipment has been purchased recently so that current equipment and staff levels are considered adequate.4 The County is attempting to get the operation on a financially self-supporting basis.5 The main library facility for Garfield County is located in New Castle, with branches in Silt, Glenwood Springs, Rifle and Carbondale. The total system has approximately 70,800 volumes and a paid staff of 14 FTE.6 The County uses sales tax revenue primarily to finance the library system. An addition of 2,000 square feet to the Silt facility is planned for completion in 1983; improvements or new facilities outside the study area are also planned.7 1. Union. 2. Ibid. 3. Leonard Bowlby, Novernber, 1983. 4. Union. 5. In 1981, expenditures for the landfill were $109,958 with revenues from fees of $46,758; the 1983 budget anticipates revenues from fees of $65,000 and appropriated $59,025 for expenditures (Garfield County 1982 Audit and 1983 Budget). 6. Union. 7. BMML, "Pacific Socioeconomic Report", 1982. BMML 1-5 (1 1 / 15/83) • • 1.2.4 Garfield County Financial Profile Garfield County's population has grown from 22,514 in 1980 to an estimated 27,846 in 1983. During this time, the assessed valuation has risen from $87,478,290,1 or $3,886 per capita, to $150,650,180,2 or $5,410 per capita, payable in 19833. For comparison, this is about 50 percent higher than the per capita valuation available in Mesa County. During this time, the mill levies have not decreased significantly even though the revenue raised from one mill has increased 72 percent from $87,478 to $150,650. These increases indicate an expansion of financial resources available to the County. Future increases are expected with the continued expansion of the Union Oil Shale Project. A countywide one-half cent sales tax was instituted in 1981. Food, residential fuel and machinery are exempt from the sales tax, decreasing the revenue potential. In 1982, the tax realized $21,042 in revenues for the county,4 which are being used for the Library Fund. With Glenwood Springs' sales tax rate, now at 24, the County could levy another II/4 percent (with voter approval); it could also impose a use tax to complement sales tax, but so far has elected not to. General Fund revenues and expenditures have exhibited considerable growth on a per capita basis; from $ I 1 1.77 in 1980 to $187.38 in 1983, indicating that the County is not only keeping up with inflation, but also increasing its level of service5. Forty-two percent (42%) of these revenues represent property tax income, the county revenue source expected to continue growing strongly as the Union Project continues coming on line. The only transfers out of the General Fund have been to the Airport Fund which does not generate sufficient revenues to support its operations. Garfield County has no existing bonded debt. Its current general obligation debt capacity is $2,259,753 (11/2 percent of assessed valuation). 1. BMML, Chevron Existing Conditions Report, Volume II, 1982, p. 1-474. 2. Garfield County Assessor's Office, October, 1983. 3. The mill levy in 1980 was 20.95 and in 1983, 20.442. 4. Garfield County Audit, 1982. 5. General Fund expenditures totaled $5.2m. BMML 1-6 (1 1 / 15/83) • • 1.2.5 Human Services in Garfield County A variety of public and private agencies provide for human services needs in Garfield County. Two lead agencies coordinate these activities: the Human Services Council of Garfield County and the Garfield County Human Services Commission, both of which were formed in 1980, primarily as a response to energy development in the area. The purpose of the Human Services Council is to provide an informational and coordinating role. It also runs educational programs and promotes the interests of human service agencies in the county. The Human Service Commission is an agency within County Government. Its purpose is to coordinate a human service provision that is cost effective and minimizes duplication. A human services planner is the full- time staff support for the Commission. Each year a needs assessment with intervention goals is prepared. Applications from agencies to fill the needs identified in the assessment are then evaluated. The progress of agencies providing the services in meeting their objectives is then monitored and evaluated. Significant issues that were addressed in the 1982 Human Services Plan included: o Increases in incidences and severity of child abuse. The incidence of child abuse has risen to 7.7 per 1,000 population compared with a state average of 2.6 per 1,000.1 Social services staff have indicated that insufficient staff support means that prevention services cannot be provided adequately. o Insufficient capacity in day care facilities. o A lack of activities for teenagers; juvenile delinquency itself has not been a major problem. o Increased demands on mental health agencies, possibly reflecting either growth related issues or layoffs and insufficient staff and facilities to respond to these demands. I. Garfield County 1983 Human Service Plan. BMML 1-7 (1 1 / 15/83) • • o A perception of a serious problem with substance abuse, particularly alcohol. This is substantiated by the rate of use of the detoxification center. In conclusion, Garfield County shares human service problems similar to other rural areas, such as a large area to cover, which makes transportation a major factor in the cost and effectiveness of human service programs. However, recent growth has focused the County's attention on improving human service provision and coordination, and it is one area in which County spending is expanding. Oil shale companies have helped finance some of these improvements, although uncertainty in the industry makes continuation of this source of support doubtful. Despite this, the Council and Commission are ensuring that such needs as identified above are being addressed, and in as an efficient and coordinated manner as possible. Having an organized, coordinated program which has developed a process for identifying and dealing with issues puts Garfield County clearly ahead of other counties in being capable of avoiding some and coping with the rest of the human service issues in a positive manner. 1.3 GLENWOOD SPRINGS VICINITY 1.3.1 Population Population growth in Glenwood Springs between 1977 and 1980 occurred at an annual rate of 4.4 percent, slower than the county growth rate of 6.6 percent over the same period. The 1980 city population was estimated to be 4,637,1 with 6,585 in the planning area.2 In September, 1981, the city population was estimated to be 4,848, and 7,246 in the planning area. Little change in the population has occurred since that time.3 Thus, approximately 26 percent of county population lives in the Glenwood Springs vicinity. While Glenwood Springs is the county seat and a major tourist center, its location considerably east of the oil shale development projects has limited the affect of these I . 1980 Census. 2. Includes Glenwood Springs City west to West Glenwood, south to Buffalo Valley, and northeast to No Name. (Population Projections, City of Glenwood Springs, City Planning Office, Spring, 1981.) 3. City Planning Office, October, 1983. BMML 1-8 (1 1115/83) s • activities on Glenwood Springs' population. The City also receives pressures from the resort/recreation development growth in Pitkin County. 1.3.2 Land Use Planning & Housing The number of housing units increased 37 percent in the City of Glenwood Springs between 1970 and 1980, a rate three times as high as population growth. By the time of the census in 1980, there were 2,160 units in the city,' with a further 159 units added since that time.2 These new units are predominantly single family. There are approximately 660 approved but unbuilt units in the city at present.3 Approvals in 1982 were all for condominiums or townhouses. The City adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1981 which anticipated that future growth would be equally divided between infill within the existing city limits, and areas to the south and in West Glenwood which are currently outside the city boundaries. As West Glenwood is served by both an independent water and sanitation district, the City may have less control over the timing and amount of development in this area. 1.3.3 City of Glenwood Springs Facilities & Services 1.3.3.1 Facilities & Services The City of Glenwood Springs provides a variety of services to its residents of which administration, public safety, parks and recreation, streets and the landfill will be discussed in this section. The City Hall houses administration, police and fire district equipment. The 4,100 square feet of office space for administration is considered inadequate; the library has vacated 1,100 square feet of space which is meant to be used by the administration, but no funding has been secured to remodel the facilities. The 1984 budget anticipates a reduction in one administrative position in the 1984 fiscal year. I. Chevron. 2. John Fernandez, City Planner, Glenwood Springs, October, 1983; City of Glenwood Springs building permit data, 1981 - September, 1983. 3. Approximately 490 at the time of 1980 census, plus 170 additional approved dwelling units in 1981 and 1982; John Fernandez. BMML 1-9 (1 1 / 15/83) • • Space for the Police Department is considered inadequate at 1,800 square feet for 20 full-time staff positions. There are no plans to increase this space. Staffing and vehicles are adequate. The City contracts with the County for use of jail facilities. A new, separate shop facility has been completed recently, but still does not contain sufficient space to store all vehicles under cover. This hampers the City's use of vehicles in winter. Nevertheless, it is estimated that this facility will be adequate to a population of 7,000.1 The city has 14.6 acres of developed park space with another 11 acres to be completed in 1984. In addition, it has another 3,320 acres of greenbelt and open space, parts of which are used for recreation. The Town does not have any recreation staff. The City does not own any indoor sports facilities, and while school district facilities are available to recreation groups, the school districts cost reimbursement policies discourages their use.2 The City recently contracted operation of its landfill and garbage collection with a private operator. The landfill facility has capacity to serve the city beyond the year 2000.3 1.3.3.2 Financial Profile The City's budget finances administration, public safety, planning, water, wastewater and sanitation. The City's assessed valuation increased by 18 percent from 1980 to 1983.4 This represents a per capita increase of 12 percent from $4,651 to $5,250,5 a rate of increase slower than the rate of inflation. While the City has raised its mill levy in the last three years, property tax revenues account for only about 8 percent of the City's General Fund. The most important source of revenue to the City is the 24 cent sales tax. Together, the sales and use taxes account for approximately a third of the General Fund revenues. Sales tax receipts have increased from $3,430 per capita in 1980 to $4,362 1. John Fernandez. 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. $25,450,590 payable in 1983. 5. Using estimated population of 4,848 and assessed valuation of $25,450,590. BM ML 1-10 (1 1 / 15/83) in 1982.1 As the County has only a /2 cent sales tax, the City has the ability to raise its sales tax rate to 31/2 cents. This is an option the City may wish to pursue given the current position whereby the City's General Fund balance is being depleted and expenditures are increasing slightly faster than revenues. The additional 4 cent sales tax approved during 1982 is being used to finance a package of amenity improvements including retiring debt, purchasing new equipment, sidewalk, bridge and park improvements. The City also has an equipment replacement fund financed by revenue sharing proceeds. A Fire Department pumper and two police vehicles are to be purchased from this fund during 1984. Operating and maintenance expenses of the utilities are financed from the Water, Wastewater and Sanitation Fund. At the end of 1982, this fund had a negative retained earnings position of over $1 million.2 While user fees are just covering operating and maintenance expenses, revenues are not sufficient to cover interest and depreciation expenses. In 1982, tap fees and transfers from the Improvement Fund were used to cover 0 & M costs. The 1984 budget shows expenditures for water and sewer system maintenance will continue to exceed user fee revenues. The City charges tap fees for new connections at the rate of $1,400 per water EQR, and $1,150 per sewer EQR. Monthly rates vary according to usage, whether the tap is metered or unmetered, and the location of the tap either within the city or outside its boundaries. The City also sells electrical service to its residents. At the end of 1982, the Electric System Fund showed $2.5 million (approximately) in retained earnings. It is estimated that revenues in 1983 and 1984 will continue to exceed expenses. 1. Based on total sales tax receipts which are then split between the General Fund and Capital Projects Fund. 2. 1982 Audit. BMML 1- 1 1 (1 1 / 15/83) • 1.3.4 Water Supply Two entities supply water to the Glenwood Springs vicinity - the City of Glenwood Springs and the West Glenwood Water District. One is a full operator, while the other relies on the first for its supply. The City's water system serves city residents, supplies bulk treated water to the West Glenwood District and serves the Sunny Acres development outside the city boundaries. Its service area population was estimated to be approximately 7400 in 1981, a figure which has not changed significantly since that time. The treatment plant has a design capacity of 13.5 mgd, but structural problems have reduced this to 10 mgd actual peak capacity which is reduced further to 7 or 81 mgd during times of high spring runoff and high turbidity. The City issued bonds to finance removal of these problems and increase capacity back to the originally anticipated 13.5 mgd. Litigation over the plant's original design and construction failures has prevented the new work from taking place. The City has water rights to the amount of 13 mgd. It is estimated that leaks in the distribution system have also resulted in water losses of up to 1 mgd; the City has been upgrading lines in an effort to rectify this situation. This program will continue in the near future. The City has 5 mg of treated water storage, and is planning to add another tank (either 1 or 2 mg) to the south end of the system to overcome pressure problems at that end of the City. This will not occur for at least another five years. The West Glenwood Water District serves approximately 300 residences and businesses in the West Glenwood subdivision.2 The District purchases treated water in bulk from the City at an average rate of 410,000 gallons per day which it stores in its 1 m gallon storage tank.3 In the past, the City has handled billing and maintenance of the system, with the District responsible for capital projects. The District has now 2 1. Buddy Burns, Water and Wastewater Superintendent, City of Glenwood Springs, November I, 1983. 2. Ron Johnson, West Glenwood Water District Attorney, November 1, 1983. 3. Meredith Flynn, City Manager, City of Glenwood Springs, November 2, 1983. Bfv1ML 1-12 (I 1/15/83) • . assumed billing and maintenance functions and is evaluating construction of its own treatment facilities in the anticipation of becoming independent from the city sys The District has no final capital improvement plans. Improvements are financed by three sources of income - bonding, water tap fees, and the mill levy. The 1984 budget of the district reflects the change in administration, whereby the district will assume responsibility for billing and operation and maintenance of the system. In the past three years, operating revenues have exceeded operating expenditures (including debt service) and a substantial fund balance has been accrued. The district's assessed valuation has grown from $3,911,450 in 1981 to $7,637,370 payable in 1984. In 1984, the district expects to realize $18,115 from 2.550 mills. The district has both outstanding revenue and GO bonds, with payments in 1984 totalling $61,500. No expenditures for capital improvements have been appropriated for 1984. 1.3.5 Wastewater Treatment As with water, two entities provide wastewater treatment service in the Glenwood Springs vicinity: the West Glenwood Sanitation District and the City of Glenwood Springs. The City's treatment plant has a design capacity of 2.2 mad capable of serving a population of 18,000.1 It is serving approximately 5,000 people in 1983. No major deficiencies in the system appear to exist, nor are there plans for improvement or expansion. 2 The District serves the area known as West Glenwood Springs. The treatment plant has a design capacity of 4,500 people, and is currently serving approximately 2,800 people.3 Improvements to the plant were carried out in 1982 and 1983, but did not expand its capacity. No further improvements or expansion are planned. The district has a limited area into which the collection system can expand. Developers are required to install the on-site collection system with the district financing capital improvements. I. Buddy Burns, November 1, 1983. 2. For discussion of the financial position of this sytem, please see Section 1.3.3.2. 3. Rob Gotshall, West Glenwood Sanitation District, November, 1983. BMML 1-13 (1 1 / 15/83) • • Despite growth in the district's assessed valuation, the mill levy will be reduced to 4.462 in 1984 to keep property tax revenues within the 7% state limitation. The district depleted its reserves to complete the recent improvements and now faces a zero fund balance at the end of 1984. Revenue from the monthly fees ($22.50 per single family unit per quarter) covers operating expenses. New connections are charged tap fees on the basis of $1,000 per SFE. The outstanding debt will be retired as of 1985. Combining the two systems, it would appear there is wastewater treatment capacity in the Glenwood Springs vicinity available for approximately 14,500 additional people. 1.3.6 Fire Protection The Glenwood Springs Rural Fire District provides fire protection to 72 square miles in the vicinity of Glenwood Springs. The City owns the fire station and pays for the two full-time staff positions out of its general fund. The District finances capital acquisitions from its mill levy which was 5.57 in 1983 on an assessed valuation of $18,804,990. This distinction between responsibilities is now becoming blurred as the City anticipates purchasing a pumper truck from its capital fund in 1984 while the District is considering hiring another inspector. The fire station is not large enough for all district equipment to be stored in one location; the aerial pumper and ambulance are stored in a separate building. Construction of a new substation at the south end of the City has been discussed, but there are no definite plans or financing for it. 1.3.7 Schools The RE -I Roaring Fork School District serves the Glenwood Springs vicinity including Carbondale and Basalt. An elementary school, junior and senior high schools are located in each town. School district counts show a decline in enrollment throughout the district since 1981. This has been true also in the Glenwood Springs schools, as shown in the following table. BMML 1-14 (11/15/83) • • RE -I ENROLLMENT & CAPACITY, 1981-82 to 1983-84 A i' Opt-imaf Change Facility 1981-821 1982-831 1983-842 1981-83 Capacity Glenwood Springs - K-6 826 773 698 -128 850 7-8 270 260 269 -I 350 9-12 508 490 470 -38 575 Total Glenwood Springs I ,604 I , 523 I , 437 -167 Total District 3,148 3,080 2,947 -201 While schools were close to capacity in 1981, the declining enrollment has relieved the pressure on facilities. Enrollment could be increased to the optimal capacities without necessitating expansion.3 The district is in the process of renovating the facilities, but this will not increase capacity. Staffing levels are considered adequate; the district foresees problems hiring additional staff because of a limited General Fund budget. To overcome this problem, a referendum to increase the General Fund mill levy from 2.7 to 2.9 mills is to be held in November. The district has recently upgraded its bus fleet. While the current fleet could accommodate up to another 500 students in Glenwood Springs, where they live in the city could affect this. For instance, another bus would have to be purchased if growth was located to the south of the city, while more students in the West Glenwood area could be handled by existing buses or by doubling runs.4 The district's assessed valuation increased 52 percent from 1980 to 1983, to an estimated $ 131,218,640.5 This represents a change in assessed valuation from $30,099 per student enrolled in 1981-82 to $44,526 per student enrolled in 1983-84. If the I. First nine weeks of school year; RE -I School District. 2. September 6, 1983; RE -I School District. 3. Bob Laffoon, RE -I School District, October, 1983. 4. Ibid. 5. Assessed valuations have not been finalized for the 1984 budget. BMML 1-15 (1 1 / 15/83) • • referendum is passed, the General Fund mill levy will have increased 18 percent over the same period to an estimated 41.22, payable in 1984. In 1983, 60 percent of the General Fund revenues came from local sources with the remainder from the State and Federal government. This percentage is projected to rise in 1984, even if the referendum fails, partly because of an anticipated decrease in state equalization revenues. In both 1983 and 1984, General Fund appropriations exceed revenues, resulting in a decline in the General Find balance. In 1984, the district's bonded indebtedness was $1.5 million, leaving a bonding capacity of $24.73 million. The Capital Reserve Fund is used to finance bus purchases and facility improvements. A 4 mill levy is the source of these funds. 1.4 NEW CASTLE - SILT VICINITY 1.4.1 Town of New Castle 1.4.1.1 Population & Employment New Castle is a small town of 646 people,) located along 1-70 about eleven miles west of Glenwood Springs. Population growth in the town over the past decade has been slower than that experienced in Garfield County as a whole, a 1.3 percent average annual increase between 1970 and 1980, compared with a 5.2 percent average annual increase in the county.2 Close to 30 percent of the population is aged 60 or over.3 The town's location about 45 minutes drive east of oil shale projects; cities such as Rifle and the unincorporated new town of Battlement Mesa, which have captured population growth associated with the projects; and factors such as a lack of shopping facilities have probably limited the town's growth. The town serves as a bedroom community for Rifle and Glenwood Springs and does not have major employers within it.4 I. 1983 estimate; Union. 2. Chevron, Vol. I. 3. Ken Resor, Town Administrator, October, 1983. 4. Ibid. BMML 1-16 (I I / 15/83) • 1.4.1.2 Land Use & Housing Growth in the housing stock in the town over the last decade was greater than the change in population over the same period. The 1980 census recorded 255 housing units,1 a 27.5 percent increase since 1970. It is estimated that in 1983 the number of housing units is 2 It i•s estimated that approximately 50 percent of the housing stock would not meet 1982 Uniform Building Codes. Very few rental units are available in the town.3 In June, 1983, the Town annexed a 700 acre PUD north of the town, which is planned for 2,500 residential units and some commercial development. This annexation exemplifies the Town's attitude of encouraging development, particularly annexations and infill, as long as the growth "pays its own way". The Town is able to serve adjacent land in all directions except south, due to the Colorado River. 1.4.1.3 Facilities & Services The Town has embarked on a capital improvements program to upgrade its facilities. A new town hall has been completed and will be occupied in November, 1983. This will overcome space problems currently being experienced by the administrative and police functions. The new building will be 3,800 sq. ft.,4 of which half will be leased out until the Town needs additional space. Police staffing and vehicles are sufficient to handle a population of 750, but growth beyond that will require additions, particularly to the staff.5 A three-phase water system expansion program has been initiated by the Town recently. Funded primarily from outside sources (OSTF and Energy Impact Funds), it has included upgrading distribution lines and adding a storage tank. Lateral lines are being replaced at present which should reduce water losses from leaks. Once this is 1. Chevron. 2. 3. Ken Resor. 4. Union. 5. Ken Resor. BMML 1-17 (1 1/15/83) • • complete, the Town will be able to ascertain capacity in the water plant to handle further growth. It is currently operating at capacity. The Town is anticipating expanding the plant to 750,000 gpd which could serve a population of 1,250.1 Other necessary improvements include replacing the transmission line and purchasing equipment. The sewage treatment plant is being expanded in 1983 to a capacity to serve 2,000 people. Collection lines will be replaced in 1984. The Town has applied to the State for funds to design the "Main St. Project", a street improvement project upgrading drainage and installing curbs, gutters and pavements. Only two other streets in town are paved. A new maintenance facility is being built at the sewage treatment plant. A total of $304,000 is being spent on a new community center and development of existing parkland to be complete by the summer of 1984. 1.4.1.4 Financial Profile The Town's assessed valuation has increased from $915,470 in 1981 to $1,722,600 payable in 1984. This represents a per capita increase of approximately 64 percent. As a result of the small tax base and limited commercial activity, the Town's General Fund is small ($69,980 in 1981 and $205,025 in 1983)2 and in the past supplemented heavily by oil shale trust funds. Without these outside sources of revenues, the Town has a very limited ability to raise revenues, and hence finance needed expenditures. The Town has some outstanding GO bonds used for water system improvements and an excess bonding capacity of approximately . The Town has tap fees for new connections to both its water and sewer systems. The fees are $1,300 and $1,200, respectively. User fees are a flat rate of $36.00 for water and $27.00 for sewer. I. Union. 2. Ibid., excludes capital expenditures. B1v1ML 1-18 (1 1 / 15/83) • • 1.4.2 Town of Silt 1.4.2.1 Population & Employment The Town of Silt is also located on the 1-70 corridor, seven miles west of New Castle and seven miles east of Rifle. Unlike New Castle, Silt received significant population growth during the 1970's, experiencing an average annual growth rate of 11.3 percent, a rate double that experienced in the county.I By 1980, the population was 923, increasing to 1,250 in 1983.2 Silt is similar to New Castle in that it acts as a bedroom community for Rifle and Glenwood Springs. Employment is also available in nearby mining and oil shale projects. Small businesses and the school in town also provide some work opportunities. 1.4.2.2 Land Use & Housing The number of housing units in Silt between 1970 and 1980 grew at a rate similar to population growth. By the 1980 census, there were 357 units in the town. It is estimated that an additional 60 houses have been built since then.3 Of the total, less than 30 are rental units. Prior to the oil shale slowdown, there was considerable demand for these units; however, vacancies now exist.4 The slowdown has also led to a stabilization in house prices, which in the decade up until 1980 had been increasing at an average annual rate greater than 50%.5 The Town's comprehensive plan, adopted in 1982, includes policies to encourage growth, particularly to the north. The Town requires annexation or a pre -annexation agreement before it will extend municipal services. The Town is able to extend services in all directions except south. The last annexation, of approximately 50 residential lots, occurred in January, 1982. It is estimated that there are between 50 and 100 approved, but as yet not built upon, lots in town.° I. Chevron. 2. Elsa Pyles, Town Clerk, October, 1983. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Chevron. 6. Ibid. BM ML I - 19 (1 1 / 15/83) • • 1.4.2.3 Facilities & Services A new 8,200 sq.ft. Town Hall has been completed in 1983 and houses administrative offices, the police department, and vehicle storage including fire district apparatus. This overcomes space inadequacies experienced by these departments in the past, and should be adequate for future growth to approximately 2,500 people.' Police staff and equipment is considered adequate for the present population and could serve another 500 people.2 The Town has recently completed paving all its streets, with funding from the Oil Shale Trust Fund. No further improvements are planned. Maintenance will be financed through a one -cent sales tax.3 Parks and recreation facilities in the town do not meet the needs of its present population. To rectify this, the Town is upgrading its tennis courts and purchasing equipment. These improvements should be in place by the summer of 1984.4 Recent improvements made to the water system have expanded its capacity to serve 2,500 people. Another one million gallon storage tank is planned, but no funding has been secured. Replacement of lines and other improvements recently have brought the system to an adequate condition.5 The sewage plant has treatment capacity to serve 2,600 due to recent upgrading. No further improvements are planned at present.6 1.4.2.4 Financial Profile The Town's assessed valuation has been growing, increasing from $1,372,810 in 1981 to $3,113,770 payable in 1984. The Town relies heavily on this source of revenue for its General Fund (47 percent of revenue in 1983).7 General Fund expenditures totalled 1. E Isa Pyles. 2. Ibid. 3. Union. 4. Elsa Pyles. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. Garfield County Assessors Office, November, 1983. BMML 1-20 (1 1 / 15/83) • • in 1983, leaving an estimated fund balance of . The Town is repaying a $300,000 loan from the Colorado Water Conservation Board, using a 10.92 mill levy, and has a bonding capacity of approximately The Town uses its $1,500 water tap fee and $1,000 sewer tap fee for capital improvements to these systems. A flat rate of $9.75 per month is charged sewer users. The base rate for water is $11.40 for the first 10,000 gallons, with usage exceeding this charged on a per gallon basis. 1.4.3 Fire Protection The Silt -New Castle Rural Fire District serves a 250 square mile area that includes Silt and New Castle. The population in the district is estimated to be 4,569.1 The large area to be covered not only hampers service, but also makes it more costly. While the new fire stations in Silt and New Castle are more than adequate for the populations in the immediate vicinity, it is felt that the district needs two substations (one in the north and one in the south) in order to provide adequate service.2 The district has ordered a new tanker/pumper, partially funded by grant revenue, but a lack of revenues hinders the district from purchasing other equipment it feels is needed.3 Some difficulties have been experienced in retaining sufficient volunteers. The district also runs an ambulance service; staffing levels and equipment are considered good. However, further growth may necessitate purchasing another vehicle.4 The district's assessed valuation has increased from $9,102,410 in 1981 to $16,730,570 payable in 1984. District revenues come from the property tax mill levy (2.755 in 1983)5 supplemented by grant monies. While growth has increased these tax revenues, total funds available to the district are still small. The district has no bonded indebtedness. I. Union. 2. Elsa Pyles. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Union. BM ML 1-21 (1 1 / 15/83) • • 1.4.4 Schools Silt, New Castle, and the surrounding area are by the RE -2 School District based in Rifle. An elementary school is located in Silt, a combination elementary and junior high school in New Castle, with all senior students attending Rifle High School. After several years of growth, district enrollment has declined as shown in the following table. This is true of the schools in the New Castle -Silt vicinity except for the junior high school. RE -2 ENROLLMENT & CAPACITY, 1981-82 to 1983-84 Silt Elementary New Castle Elementa5y Riverside Junior High Rifle High School Total District 1981-821 252 304 102 602 2,361 IAI A' Change Facility 1982-832 1983-842 1981-83 Capacity 271 235 -17 280 291 289 -15 375 108 135 +33 100 596 548 -54 750 2,333 2,093 -268 2,955 The period of growth prompted the district to embark on a program of upgrading and expanding its facilities. Additional classrooms were added to the elementary schools in Silt and New Castle with some expansion of the Rifle High School. A bond issue and OSTF grants were used to finance these improvements. The district has studied the construction of a junior/senior high school in Silt, but these plans are not final. The district feels that further growth in the Silt -New Castle area could be handled easily by making use of existing mobile units and excess capacity in schools in other areas, such as Rifle.4 Staffing levels and vehicles are considered adequate and could handle additional students with minor additions.5 1. Union. 2. RE -2 District. 3. New Castle Elementary and Riverside Junior High are housed in the same building. 4. Daniel Clark, Superintendent, RE -2 District, November 9, 1983. 5. Ibid. BM ML 1-22 (1 1 / 15/83) • • Since 1981, the district's assessed valuation has grown from $27,268,290 to $61,116,970 payable in 1984, i.e. a 124 percent increase in four years. This is an increase in assessed value per student from $13,167 to $20,683. The district has accrued a $1 million balance in the General Fund which may be substantially depleted in 1984.1 Local sources of revenue are becoming increasingly important to the General Fund, now contributing 45 percent of its revenues. The General Fund mill levy will be 39.59 in 1984, a decrease from 46.11 in the previous year. The district has been holding its capital mill levy at 4 mills. The capital reserve fund has been supplemented with grants of $14.6 million from the OSTF over the past four years. Approximately $4 million of the revenues to be spent have been earmarked for the new high school. In 1984, the district plans approximately $200,000 in expenditures on bus replacement and minor capital projects, leaving an estimated fund balance at the end of 1984 of $150,000. Bonds of $1,485,000 remain to be retired, leaving a bonding capacity of $10,738,394. A mill levy of 3.18 in 1984 is being used to retire this debt. The district does not foresee further bond issues in the near future. BMML 1-23 (1 1 / 15/83) 2.0 PROJECT IfSCRIPTION 2.1 MINE CHARACTERISTICS . -w: yr 2.2 EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS . ..72 Storm King Mines anticipates commencing operations in 1984 with a small staff of skilled operations workers and construction workers, beginning in the 3rd quarter of that year. Table 2.2-A shows the anticipated employment levels with the estimated number of workers who will be hired from the existing local labor force.' As can be seen from the Table, construction is phased between 1984 and 1990 with the most concentrated period between 1986 and the 2nd quarter of 1987. The peak number of construction workers at any one time is 83, occurring in the 3rd quarter of 1986. Construction is complete by the 3rd quarter of 1989, after which time the mine will be in an operations phase only. The number of operations workers builds up gradually over five years so that the operations employment in 1989 reflects the characteristics of the permanent operations workforce, i.e. 258 permanent workers of which 96 are skilled workers (including 42 miners) and 162 are unskilled, entry-level workers. Thus, the peak level of employment is 272 workers in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of 1989. It is a policy of Storm King Mines to fill a high percentage of newly created positions with workers from the local labor force. Table 2.2-A shows that the percentage of local hire anticipated by Storm King Mines increases to 76 percent as the mine moves into the operations phase. All construction activity will be carried out by contractors during day shifts. Permanent Storm King Mines staff operate the mine on three shifts as shown in Table 2.2-B. Approximately 46 percent will be day shift workers, with 28 percent operating the swing shift and 26 percent the night shift. Table 2.2-C shows the anticipated average annual income (excluding benefits) of the operations (Storm King Mines) and construction (contractors) workers. I. Please see Section 2.3.3 for a comparison with the characteristics of the local labor force. BMML 2-1 (1 1 / 15/83) • O U M—N 2^OM— O N = �n = 2.E Y N V" CV - N O- O 1— O -M-N COO M - Cg O'~I N J 2 3 Lel CV d—N O--7 ONCg ONN O } O O ,_ `I M-M—N CO OM— U N N O = O J N — N un N Y—N OON `\ , N F. O o NI o— — w— ' `=' ry 0 J = N A 1.. .... ',.1_,J - N M M— M N CO — O N w O C ~3 U `I O - __ O O -'* - T - N `0 - 01 O C N — M . N n N CO - N NO ON N O O J N N N O - ,z2 M --'0 N N N 7 n N c o N W C i O ` O Eo'O N a y .U'C ,-. y 5 C O C y '`C L 4J 5 n U 'oYC 5� �v`C -8 a o O O O U — t!1 N — N Combined Totals Percent Local Hire Source: Storm King Mi • CO T STORM KING MINES: EMPLOYMENT CHARACTERISTICS, OPERATIONS & CONSTRUCTION WORKERS un M 07 M00 OO— - N '0 41' `J ,0 r` -'O- -- Out —M M N M — (" Ul N N 0009 ON un N \OM N 00 M 7,797 M'0 'O 0'—t N u1 d Le) O N'O CV u1 M M u1 +7 N O T -7O CI ,J0 fV ("1— N M O 0 N - N co un • — _ '0 00 On — 0009 SON ul MM u1 Y 0O--- u1 01 N '0 M 41- N O — _ r, T 91. ON NO 09.0'01O — N u1 M N—N u1—MO CO u1 r- —CO — d 00 O—'00909 -7 r- O O - —u1 N — .. T r` CC N N - L O ulN-- u1 N N d' N u1 M N N-'0 -- S T — 15 N --I-, --N —'0 s r3 1:i—u1—N �T — ,O S O -0.."N N —O T M r\ r` M = I — M N — u1 co v0 i N iD 1 H M— Y L co N NO — M IS N N. O — NO -7 CO CO '0 — T COOl ON N— — OV ~ 3 O 0 --0 -N —C r- co — r- N N —OO — O u1 — N — — NO NO J1 C N - L Yr -N vn-M nn -- u1 Mu1 co mo --(0r--. O __ M — — —'0 O }- 0 — O 01 7 -M -N 00 O MN OON 09-7 \O CO U O ." N N ,0 - V1 N -- L 0 S 0 09,7—N C--70 --,r N CO (0 O M 0 3 7 0 y Q5 0 L i - N Ql r N -J QC C y I- _ N 0) CL O C OG C y W � U C vi O i C 7JC H 0 N O ve E i ° 077 E 2s �.-0 :7; H �1 a 1 c y JO p•_pO0N0C.8^0 A'tLii ,a N v> iCSiJU=O i apmNyC75 U 15 cn ,r,S ,L JUT ` C y OU o O C C C J '' CL N O 0 - U 7:E° u0 n • • CO COON o. � M��0 ^ �� -.J _ 4 C ^�— .O ON un ni 0 u1 OCO .O II:: en — 0. to N r. O 3 ` I M 0 = OMS C. n JO. O — 7 J cn L C —.O N u1 NCO— 0\ 0\ CO O L M d' O. u'1 Ln N 1— O a C Co', a' 0, v, a .O u1 U L N M -0-0'. O .Q N N N -- L 5 W — .ON un CV CO u1 C. OO M O. u1 N O 2 I OMS -O. r J — O 11.4-1 N CO oN co `- O. u1 O 3 C N — .O N I!'1 — CO u1 Q\ CO C. u1� j M U `I O M M �' O. h V S Cr, O = — J 0 O ) O. M -4'C. N -0 c'..1 u'1 UO ,� M r` 1OO __I = ‘• E) O. . CO u1 Nff 7 -0ut l O L O N M Cr, u1 N 1— O 3 4 �I co M COSI a,dC^ O = — s Tj t` O -0 . vi — 0WI—O. L N M O. u1 N 2Oo 3 o-- rq �cQ O= J — N L C Y. u1 W 9u1 — Nu1—O. O N M CO u9 N •L- O O O N C --0 O C N C v N a C L'9 -O N N . 0 u1 0. x u1 .O O d LO 'D I- 1'1 N >L } yJ 0. .0 Oy4 c > L y - 0 _ 0 C C p O ` C L oC U O Y • C cE C C LEL o, iiU.lc nL r.u, OyCGLYO2C 0'r- NJ C L OY N ,O L '�iN7 N u`V y UC O� C; .91 T �WlE.0�JUT0 n ,l,s5'��J0_ �:v ' Ly C E L C. 0 0 O y 0 N o U- N '. U d N N J CD LLI STORM KING MINES: SHIFT OPERATIONS • • CO CO ON c C O — I 7 C N c c Storin Kin N CO L./1 0 C CO Nso CO N CO -N- NO jiI CO CV CO ^so O I N CO d Ct.. h _ �VD -1 CO C) ON v1 0 M �IN N— n � 1 V1 0 t -- O M Jf a0 0 0 U M Source: Storm King M • • TABLE 2.2-C GENERALIZED ANNUAL INCOME (1983 Dollars) 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 Storm King Mines Avg. Annual Income $38,000 28,500 28,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 Avg. Number of Employees 3 23 46 163 238 258 Contractors Avg. Annual income $28,000 26,000 26,500 25,000 NA 24,000 Avg. Number of Employees 20 5 57 8 0 7 * Does not include fringe benefits of approximately 45 percent above salaries. Source: Storm King Mines BMML 2-6 (1 1 / 15/33) • • 2.3 PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT AND POPULATION 2.3.1 Methodology & Assumptions The method used to project total employment and population levels is an updated version of the method outlined in Table 2.2 of the Action Handbook, Part 1. Three basic steps are used in developing these projections: 1. Estimation of incremental total employment associated with the increase in basic employment (operations and construction) caused by the addition of the SKM Project. This requires the use of multipliers that estimate the ratio of jobs in basic industries such as mining (basic employment) to the jobs in service industries (such as retail clerks, insurance agents, school teachers and others). These service industry jobs are created in response to the growth in basic employment. The key multipliers in the Action Handbook -- ratio of total employment to basic employment (TE/BE) were reviewed to reflect the multipliers implicit in the Planning Assessment System (PAS) model developed by the States' Cumulative Impacts Task Force (CITE) for western Colorado. The multipliers used in the PAS model have the same limitations as do estimates that are based on export base theory. BMML believes, however, that the PAS multipliers are appropriate because (I) they are based on a comprehensive analysis of more than 900 counties, and (2) they were recently adjusted to reflect the economic structure of western Colorado. To estimate the relationship between basic employment (SKM operations and construction workforce) and total employment generated by the basic employment, the following ratios (or multipliers) were used in the Action Handbook: Ratio: Total Employment to Basic=mployment Construction 1 .6/ 1 .0 Operations 2.5/1.0 BMML 2-7 (11/15/83) • • To estimate the multipliers embedded in PAS, a series of simultaneous equations must be solved: QC1 (x) + L1Oi (y) =Q TEi Cj (x) + Q Oj (y) = Q TEj where, TE = total employment C = basic construction workforce 0 = basic operations workforce x = construction workers' multiplier y = operations workers' multiplier i, j = year for which estimate is being made Equations can be solved for the years 1985-2000. This step in the process reveals that the TE/BE multipliers average about 1.6 for construction and 2.5 for operations, so no changes were made in the Action Handbook multipliers. 2. Projection of incremental total population growth that results from changes in incremental total employment. The fundamental relationship that must be estimated is the average household size for various classes of workers, specifically project -related operations and construction workers and service workers. BMML concluded that the TP/TE multipliers in the Action Handbook were too high for the following reasons: Twenty-five percent of the construction workforce was assumed to be made up of single persons, but recent estimates by researchers expect this proportion to be about 50 percent when married workers with families absent are included. This obviously reduces single worker = 1.0) and, therefore, the TP/TE multiplier. BMML 2-8 (11/15/83) • 1 - Recent evidence suggests that a substantial portion of the service workforce will come from households headed by a basic project worker. This is not included in the Action Handbook, and using the Action Handbook TP/TE multiplier would result in double -counting these service workers. The Action Handbook TP/TE multiplier was therefore lowered to reflect the historical increase in labor force participation by married females and the broader employment opportunities offered by western Colorado as opposed to more isolated and rural areas. To estimate the TP/TE multipliers in the PAS model, it is again necessary to solve a series of simultaneous equations. These equations are in the following form: TECi (x) + A TEO (y) = A TPi A TEC1 (x) + A TEOj (y) = A TPi where, TEC = total employment due to construction TEO = total employment due to operations TP = total population x = TP/TE for construction workers y = TP/TE for operations workers i, j = year for which estimate is being made From this analysis, the TP/TE for construction is 1.7 and the TP/TE for operations is 2.1. These multipliers compare with multipliers in the Action Handbook of 2.6 and 2.7, respectively. The multipliers obtained from PAS (CITF) are used to project total employment and population for the SKM Project. Total employment/Basic employment Total population/Total employment Operations Construction 2.5/1.0 1.6/1.0 2.1/1.0 1.7/1.0 BMML 2-9 (1 1 / 15/83) • • 2.3.2 Projections The multipliers outlined in Section 2.3.1 were used to project the number of secondary workers and hence total population resulting from Storm King Mines' activities. Two alternative sets of projections have been prepared. Alternative "A" uses Storm King Mines' estimates of filling up to 76 percent of its positions with local workers. Table 2.3-A shows that with this assumption, 1989 will be the peak year with a cumulative incremental new employment average of 164 and new population of 342. The largest annual increment in population will occur between 1986 and 1987 when 98 additional people will come into the area. By 1990, 158 total new jobs will have been created and total population will have increased by approximately 332. The second alternative using a lower level of local hiring is shown in Table 2.3-B. Employment and population increases are larger in this case. Again, 1989 is the peak year with cumulative new average employment of 494 and cumulative new population of 1,035. The greatest annual increase in employment occurs between 1986 and 1987 with an addition of 172 jobs and 380 population. By 1990, a total additional 488 have been created and the total population will have increased by approximately 1,025. In both alternatives, a Targe proportion of the new employment is created in the secondary sector. For instance, in Alternative A, by 1989, 99 new jobs may be created in the secondary sector with up to 297 secondary jobs in the same year in Alternative B. 2.3.3 Comparison with Local Labor Supply Table 2.2-A showed the number of workers Storm King Mines anticipates hiring from the local labor force, by type of worker. For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that skilled operations and skilled construction workers will be drawn from the mining and construction sectors of the local labor supply, while all other workers (unskilled operations, unskilled construction, and secondary workers) could be drawn from any other sector. The greatest amount of local hiring occurs in 1989. In that year, 72 workers will be hired from the mining and construction sectors. This represents five percent of the total employment in these sectors in 1981 in Garfield BMML 2-10 (11/15/83) O 0 L. 0 0 3rd Quarter 2nd Quarter O 0 E w `I 0 E 0I 0 O 0. E w 0 0. E w • • CO L t, n - 11) CO M O O - N CO ON CO M ... + + + + + 1 O ON LO O O 'O + .0 M nl + Cs on on 41- oq oq N N O -7 M N M M M 0 • , _ U O O O T Q...... No Ln C .L. O '7 O L U J c 0. - r` r� r`OtoN .'r -.0\O O\ O. .i NOON NCON O OL -M - N�7 dMC01� co No r- M OM M OM [v - - - N - N M - N M Oc ..... .0 C D O j N O ON - CO O N O - N u1 CO N O OD O M O CO M O u1 CO c Cl. N —N NN�CO .I) n M 'O 0\ v') 1.0 TV) 0 0 7 o. O i C 0 >. [ �' ^ as O r-. O Le-) N (VI ir) N O ' d O rr - N N n- L 0 N N u1 ‘O CO N O N N- M -O 11'1 N C 0 - N - - M - N M C O 11 V) n II - Ndtn- CO ONO NO�CO O�CO O�Oa\O Mt`Q\O� -- X N -M M r` M v1 T v) O� '0 0' - N I X .70- N i U C � O L - O trtCV N --I' tT 3 OJ Cl O— O �' O N N f� — vi C N N -I' Lc/ N - N O f ON M - O ,41 — N -- -- N— N (") 0 CO c. 0 0 C - c o H U 0.: -O NM CO OHO -r• r` Nn �O O M CO Mr -.0'.0' C 0 �v N - N M NO M u'1 O, V) OJ M vO O\ v3 O L 0 U qa 0 E �O .0 cflr- r - r - CON so O Cncr) —000m NOON NCON [ O O O. --N - Nl.n n --O — �D M OM ,_M OM 0 .- aE -1,1 - -(., - NM 1) -NM `.... PW — O 'O '-O O - r) CO C >. OyL.-O "•CvW 1 - CD O N M N\Or�u� CO.1 . '-o L O c 0 O N M to C L!) co M VO ON LI Q'0 a\ to ? ^ C 0 - - - U O d U to QCI= 11 to 11 '' 11r-; 11 v — 1" C C1 N O -7'O 0 O 0. E W }�01 N O Y �O 00 0 `u) 0 — a E w of o 6. 6 Inv Ha) Hv vi 43 Y +c..5 10' O -V 0 Y O 33 L o3" 03 N 03 3 c L 3 c L 3 c L°' S Y Q_y .-u) N . N . Y[ t L [ t o}U0 0 O OUL O U O O23 L 1..7 2 `0 o« 0- 0- L N >.. L N >- L N >.. L to O C L a) C L y C L a) C i 0Q OU0-� OUc O. O. Y O�Y v0 o.Y v0 rnYY �O O.YY m0 a, Y a)0 o. --Yu as NU)I- on (Al- - tntncnI--Htntf)I- (ocnl- N 1 Y 0 L3 3 c `n � C « L 00 0 L C0. 0 0 c) cQ YY v0 V) to to - L. a) N X - X 'n E x X • C C ca) E y E 1)> C > • O O O C Iy ELL pu, [n .5 H .5 o 0 0 E 0 > ~L } 0 O 0 +. 0 y E0. 00 0. 0 w000U II g • ALTERNATIVE 13: MINIMUM LEVEL OF LOCAL HIRING d� 0 O 0. E w 0 > L O 0 t t N 0 O 0 O M O 0 17 N O 0-21 0 a E w i • N T O - ? O ? CO — T — N — — M T CO .... + + + + N + + '.0 r, r, M �O to )n '0 u'f N u ? M N ,O T O — N s O ? no ? — Ul T M ? ? Nn -O ?O -u1 N N U 1 S _ 00• 0 r co O CO .0 co Oa N 00on N N M M u107 ? '0 O 41' N00 '.O N T — O 01 ? U1 M — O N M on O M 00 U1 O M 00 ----CV N un f\ un,i- O O .0 ? O T T 00 T T 00 — N — CV -1' — N CL0 Nr- ?enM T 0 a E w —0 OOT 0 O a E w — 0 N M nO .1 N CD -7 a 0 O a E — 0 N M ?0—u1 ? _ ul —O on N ul r- -.7 CD -- un ?O -u1 ? _ un - O M a N un r, NO '0 CO N — M --CD -- N 00 O N Q T O? M O N N? ^ON --M N 01 NO M u1T ? '00 • M M O CO O r - u1 u1 O COM M ul Co r, - n 0'. CO r. VO N — N ? 0-.0 ON so 00 ON O r- U1 0 CO M u1 n N u1 r, 'O ? - - N N Mut M un ON Ln r— r—. 0, — ON ON — N S O N N ? ? '.0 t`—.0 — MCO ? 0—U1 U1 r` r- T N ?'O M O— VO n n V3 01 T TT —N - N 7 - N? ,.O r -N U1 NOON ON OMN OO u1U1 N CD no', ? r.-- CV — N? n N r— — —N L —N — N M u1 M ul O ? NO 1)? O N0 — O • L — 7 O —N C\ 0.1 0.1 1.11 ? N M T NO O T u1 u') OM 0 —Ul O M co N N M SO O —'O n 'O ?— T T O T T 00 — N — N . -- N ? Q — N ? 6. 6. t- i 6. L N 0 N Q) N Q) N N 0 N 0 co Q) L Y L Y L Y L L S L Y L Y 0 L 0 L 0 0 0 v O L W L Y3 Y 0 Y o Y Y 0 Y 0 s o 3 C` 33 ` 03 N 0 N 0 " 0 N 03 N 00 0a) 3000 3000 300 3000 300 N— Y N ._ Y N .1._ Y N YL N}N .� YA- L C +. L C C .p. N_L Cj 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 0 O L O j 0 0 j L 3 .j3 ...L..j3,3 .3 +3�}` 0 C i O C 1 N C i 0) C i 0 C i O C.. C >... 1- 0. 0 0 0.0 0 00 0 00 0 a0 0 00 0 00 0 OU.°JOU-0J OU -0J OUY0J OU -0J OU�J OU'�J ca cQ CQ ca cQ a a TYY 00 TYY 00 TYY 00 T Y 0 T 0 YY 0 T 0 YY 0 T 0 0 YY 0 --(11 N LO F- -- 4.0 N 01 l-- on V) I-- cn On l— on 01 I— — cn un un I— un N H N N s • • County and two percent of total employment In these sectors in the county in 1982.1 When the figure is compared with the current level of unemployment, it represents 18 percent of unemployed claimants in the mining and construction sectors in Garfield County in 1983.2 Comparing the number with growth in these sectors in the county in previous years, 72 workers is 20 percent of the growth in mining and construction employment between 1975 and 1980, and 2 percent of the growth in these sectors between 1980 and the second quarter of 1982.3 Turning to the number of workers to be drawn from other sectors in the Garfield County labor force, again 1989 is the peak year for local hiring. With 229 workers to be hired locally from sectors other than mining and construction, this represents three percent of employment in these sectors in the county in 1981 and two percent in 1982.4 It is also 69 percent of the unemployed claimants in these sectors in 1983.5 The 229 figure is 10 percent of the growth in sectors other than mining and construction in the county between 1975 and 1980, and seven percent of the growth in these sectors between 1980 and the second quarter of 1982.° 1. Second quarter figures. More recent statistics are not yet available. Source: Colorado Division of Employment and Training, Labor Market Information Branch. 2. Second quarter, 1983. Of 733 reported claimants in the county, 402 were in the mining and construction sectors. Source: "Characteristics of Insured Unemployed", Second Quarter, 1983, Colorado Division of Employment and Training, Labor Market Information Branch. 3. BMML, "Chevron Shale Oil Company Clear Creek Project, Socioeconomic Assessment, Existing Conditions, Volume 1", 1982, p. 1-16; Colorado Division of Employment and Training, Labor Market Information Branch. 4. Second quarter figures. More recent statistics are not yet available. Source: Colorado Division of Employment and Training, Labor Market Information Branch. 5. Second quarter, 1983; of 733 reported claimants in the county, 331 were in sectors other than mining or construction. Source: "Characteristics of the Insured Unemployed", Second Quarter, 1983. Colorado Division of Employment and Training, Labor Market Information Branch. 6. Chevron. ,,'-'c_1 51 - 44Z BMML 2-13 (1 1 / 15/83)