PROJ01952 ‎(2)‎

• Contract/PO #: C150131
• Contractor Name: Paonia, Town of
• Contract Type: Loan
• Water District: 0
• Loan Projects - Doc Type: Feasibility Study

Previous Paonia Studies

During the 1990's, the Town commissioned several studies to address the
pressures of growth and the resulting impacts on the Town's water supply system. A
summary of some of the key studies completed in the last decade is provided below.

In 1996, the consulting team of Leland Consulting Group, PBS&J, and Gorsuch
Kirgis teamed to update the Town of Paonia's 1985 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Regulations. The Paonia Comprehensive Plan was developed for Town officials and
staff to use in making recommendations and decisions on specific land use and
development proposals. The purpose of the plan is to set a course of action for
addressing the pressures of future growth and development in the area, while
maintaining the existing "rural agricultural setting."

The 1996 comprehensive plan recommended limitations on residential densities
for future development within the Town's incorporated limits and within Paonia's water
service area outside of the Town's boundaries, The 1996 comprehensive plan identified
build out at 3,400 residents within the Town and additional 3,000 residents outside of
the Town, but within the Town's water service area.

In November of 1994, the CWCB approved a Construction Fund loan to the
Town of Paonia to improve its water supply storage. The loan was authorized as part
of HB95-1155 for $600,000 at 4.0 percent interest over 30 years. One of the
conditions of the loan approval was that the Town completes a feasibility study for the
project.

In 1995, Consolidated Consulting Services performed a reconnaissance
assessment report to identify and evaluate alternatives to increase the Town's raw
water supply [CCS, 1995]. The CCS report evaluated several options, but did not result
in a definitive conclusion or preferred alternative to meet the Town's future water
supply challenge. Although several promising ideas were developed through the study
and the draft report was reviewed by the CWCB staff, it did not meet the requirements
of the CWCB Construction Fund Guidelines.

5