Log in Subscribe

Gross Reservoir Mitigation Fund advisory meeting

Wes Isenhart
Posted 6/11/23

The Gross Reservoir Advisory Working Group held their last meeting virtually on June 1 at 6 p.m. to discuss and finalize their recommendations to the Boulder County commissioners for the Phase 1

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Gross Reservoir Mitigation Fund advisory meeting

Posted

The Gross Reservoir Advisory Working Group held their last meeting virtually on June 1 at 6 p.m. to discuss and finalize their recommendations to the Boulder County commissioners for the Phase 1 payout to homeowners from the Gross Reservoir Community Impact Mitigation Fund.

The meeting was moderated by Samuel Wallace from Peak Facilitation Group ,with full attendance by the working group members. Boulder County government was represented by Special Projects & Community Engagement Coordinator Barbara Halpin.

Pinyon Environmental Inc. is the environmental engineering company that did the impact tests at homesites and developed the algorithms and model to rank households based on their impact results. They produced the report that the advisory working group used for their discussions.

At the May 16 meeting, the advisory working group discussed the distribution methodology, anomalies in the Pinyon rankings, creating micro areas, and weighting the results for the different impact types. At the June 1 meeting, the advisory working group concluded their discussion of the distribution methodology, anomalies in the Pinyon rankings, an anomaly from unanticipated road construction, and survey results regarding an appeal process, landowner eligibility, and the Phase 1 distribution amount. The advisory working group also elected the two representatives from the group who will present their recommendations to the Boulder County commissioners at the commissioners’ June 29 meeting.

Prior to the June 1 meeting, the members were surveyed about the remaining recommendations and the results were tabulated by Peak Facilitation.

The first question addressed at the June 1 meeting was whether to stay with the Pinyon rankings, using their rounded numbers, or base the rankings on the actual calculated ranking to one decimal place. The Pinyon model is based on translating scientific measurements into a number representing the severity of impact at a particular location. The higher the number the more severe the impact. The rankings are from 1 to 5. The group voted by consensus to use actual calculations rather than rounded rankings.

The three rankings will be averages, resulting in a net ranking per household. The sum of the net rankings will be divided by the Phase 1 distribution amount to get the payout per ranking point. The payout per ranking point will be multiplied by the household net ranking points to get the payout per household.

The second question was the recommendation to alter rankings for some households that certain members thought were wrong. Their position was that houses in certain areas should have the same ranking for the different impacts because they are so close together. Halpin told the group that when she reported these discrepancies to Pinyon, they looked up the data and reported back that the rankings were consistent with the scientific measurements. The differences were attributed to topography or wind direction. The advisory group agreed to note the differences to the commissioners but to keep the Pinyon measurements as the basis for the household rankings.

There was one anomaly that the group considered that wasn’t part of the Pinyon measurements, dealing with the new intersection at State Highway 72 and Gross Dam Road. The new intersection created permanent impacts of noise, sight, and air quality to the adjacent homeowner. The advisory group voted to give the homeowner maximum ranking points for this unusual and permanent condition.

The third question on the survey was the recommendation to create an appeals process for home owners who wanted to contest their impact ranking scores. The group discussed what the process would look like, including reviews by an impartial third party. The advisory group voted not to recommend an appeals process.

Survey questions four through six dealt with homeowner eligibility. The advisory group voted unanimously against distributing funds to lots that were zoned agriculturally with no residential homes. The group also considered homes that were being built but aren’t currently occupied. Halpin noted that homeowners who get a certificate of occupancy from the County will still be eligible for a payout. The conditions are that they need a Pinyon assessment to determine their average impact ranking points, and that this be done before the Phase 1 distribution.

The question of distributions to renters was the final homeowner eligibility question. The advisory group discussed the impacts on renters but concluded that they had no authority to direct landlords to share the household payout with their renters.

The final question of the survey was the amount to distribute in Phase 1. The responses ran from $3 million to $4 million, keeping a smaller amount for Phase 2, which will be the removal of the trees prior to filling. The consensus was to distribute $4 million because Phase 1 was a longer period (3-5 years) and had bigger impacts. It was brought out during the discussion that Phase 2 would involve logging trucks on State Highway 119 which would have impacts outside of Boulder County.

The advisory group finished their work by electing Anna McDermott and Chris Passarelli to present the group recommendations to the commissioners at their June 29 meeting. The meeting will be held in the commissioners’ hearing room at the Boulder County Courthouse, third floor, 1325 Pearl Street in Boulder at 3 p.m. The meeting will be in a hybrid format with a virtual option.