The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCorrespondenceP.O. Box 640 February 15, 1983 Roy Fronczyk 1621 Blake Street Denver, CO 80202 GARFIELD COUNTY COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 -0640 Phone 945 -9158 RE: Parachute/Battlement Mesa Park and Recreation District Dear Mr. Fronczyk: This letter is a follow -up to my telephone call with you of February 15, 1983. Enclosed please find for your review, a cow of the Service Plan for the Organization of the Parachute/Battlement Mesa Park and Recreation District. My purpose in sending this to you is to avail the County of a professional review of this matter. It is my desire that your analysis of this matter be from two points of view. One, what is the professional standard as to how a Service Plan is put together for a Park and Recreation District? And, how does the Service Plan for the Parachute/Battlement Mesa Park and Recreation District compare to that standard? Secondly, enclosed please find a cow of the Statutes at 32-1-203, which is the criteria upon which the Board of County commissioners reviews the Service Plan for approval /denial or approval with conditions. I would appreciate your comments as to how the information in the Service Plan comports with the statutory criteria for approval. It is my understanding that your hourly rate is $25.00 per hour, and that the County agrees to compensate you for your efforts in its behalf at this rate. Your initial authority is to expend up to ten hours of work. Beyond that point, please contact me for additional authority. As I told you, I need to have your telephone comments as to this matter not later than February 22, 1983. If possible, I would like to have them on February 18, 1983. There will be a Planning Commission Meeting on February 23, 1983 before which I need your telephone comments. Also, on March 2, 1983, there is a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County. I am not, at this time, asking you to come to Glenwood Springs for that hearing, but I would ask that you clear your calendar to make yourself available for that meeeting. That meeting would begin at 1 :00 p.m., and it would be held in the County Commissioners' Annex, 201 Eighth Street, Glenwood Springs, Colorado. Roy Fronczyk February 15, 1983 PAGE TWO I thank you for your interest in this matter, and await your comments. Very truly yours, /it Earl G. Rhodes Garfield County Attorney EGR /s Enclosures cc: Dennis Stranger, Director N( Department of Development ; -77,77-7,7747;17iFrArM;74 ;re, . 1 t . t •i• , 7 :4- ,imnussio ' ! 2 • t I I &0 Tare At ailnkvyA,_il-oV_u4li*nco! v nnits'sio uchlteWublhCaiin epnvf.the 1 1 opoS • tijaah isardiot;ouii - 411' igk.oxerft 4.rer 4;SF LAW* hi rniflen 4 rklIal - financial q ey ,an re ::. . t.• ring„. .:i .. 7rt'4aialiiiiiii"- ' "iifice74ilaitifilf '..fineltideaNnii0eig- V('-.1 4 Ilk .1 I iiraiii:PtI. eilitfte4Aeidiiireiii. .:1 6100.1)6. ' .30....A.....iai,:;:t1gt,,,_t !,%,Adg:. .taCI :.-: - i....libtruAtOt49..4,..... A.:.--. +It& ticqUirin 4 . ,.. , .,-. ,..., :r 60.Wg'te451 'clUdingl C.d,q'z't•-:' -V- iedlliPitcluRd: m • -.J.Li . T., 1 •'' d )i.4-11n,..,...94 .. A •.... ... ,. t.,,-.7117 t :lace .d ,..5 o ":r_ i_r.,:ylet.,s,.,1,"propOi4i ti:tekteaness,o.,PTCT9, ,i,-44. • ''- "dn' itig.,.: 4,t' • t es • -, - ;Ca......,.A.L-4,1770,uii-:,-, ,4on1::Ozithsetiir mcia.jsoruicehx_pe, nseilelated tointf.Pr.g . tiik'all I wGiiiii:0A!:,...PPencji,i,lir,ipased.ngreetherti!.:w.:,, .._ '‘...hryoalip:seds(L,os:ootitiniale iiie.:aito-s,ioz-,,,t .10-4.4c,,:c i'tif,,:iy2s tw form between any N liiia sub- 1. 81`.6466:1131914M1971ttidiii4ithdivisiOn;--'andth,. e..to ,,, cOnt.i.a:I.1,:,e,,.....s.:77, .,...7;4;d14 47.1:_libils:(1,„AervF:d;ce,gp..,,$!..i7)Vea:t.".:.t1;isgie:os..:b,!isa.cn9c91),:itima, ntpoi;n7Icd:-i;Yr,ta:vv. PoroiliriessincVdeoeliarsest if foCiid113M,.0, pt.yF,9:TPLu ::county.,geperal'.7;7:i:j•;u5k:P!Peiriliteit,beey MeV i . ' ' ' ' 1:4,4At Sit4 C 1,:s t# IV* i s' i e i de i t :: to-the : ''..- hearing , . 1 , . ,„ _- 6, r 0 t . 0 f ..I 0 I . • i. :•..: : cigq.,E-;: ., o'Ai."4-• It'' 0 .j19...- • . ; :.,.:::.4., 4 :1, -;, ' i,"4:4,,m1m1,7 ., .. 1 1 • , ■ t'ttire.(ive 4. S'F9-, '" iie-e0i3ubliqatio4W,..,"Id....,7- ..-. .4i4.-. ,0,.;.n.:4,...,1%,- v ni.44.::: I / . • :", I 4,, :"k:044Z'Otikti***Cr.' •' ''' ' t" ' 'k I k 144#1S1 --- - ■ , .K 1 11 , s. '` -5 74. 4f , -.1', 91 V lork. . ' • f.Q. 2.3,:„. ./ _,:::z1,,k,;. T ,:i..., k , .-:.. ,,-;,f,..,-,-. 1110 14i:',01.6UliCOlintYHYvbign.na;,,, eFki, u.4, .ii - `., thitco., '0 - bunty, cpm- ithuUh ,...1 4 SAV:A ' 49t414P1:40.4S,g11;7:12": 4' ; 6 . —cluck% idar'' AO, 4' ' l''tifigt ".$0,9g,,.Itt, ,... . - - . ' qpaged i , ...ili.:4itt, iViah'Iftick4:!*. k. p,ont .,q-4°;:64'.?1-2.144Viri- . htY 06 14.400 ttitit-16116in.g-AP stioner ,1 . db.. - - , LA— anstitu e.,,,. ., loicotitv,,,,, .... -sl'pecldl -, .e '•(E)'-4:i d'aPiSiiVglVfiliiiiit C'iiiidiii6ii.biiri,31ficittion, theSeiyi64'Plimi:submit- ted by- OetitioileisiOta,000P'ed,`Oecialidiatrici.-4.1.;etiv:004. . i. :1 ei341.,...,,,saPp.r...0YA ,. cAgYI.Cq'13 ..nr. sl?1334! y. „ Qi,P0 ?4PF::,gt ''' pro" P9se4'OPPct40i§triq;:-:'A f'*.t.,=!Pjt ,..:.dig. '..F',..;.-.=.,'--..-:,-e,i'=-:.:f.,, t:,:(ifi34;74Kro, ..;::.() .i,.79,000itionallYgpprove..tbe service plarirsubinitted -13Y,thedpetitioners ,ofi*praposed ;Special ,disfrict s.tibjeCt. to ;the submission 01 additional ...,,tion relating to or the modification pf te.linivo'sed.serYi0‘014l1i.. ilf orma- i-- (2)••hetboard of county conunissioners, shall disappray&theiservice plan submitiedi: by, the petitionersJ4 a proposed special: district Alton •:evidence . ' tistactOugKthcboard of .any of the Wowing:, .....4.6..= ' (a) There is, insufficient ,exisiingyancl projected need-for,iorianized district is adequate for present and projected needs; service in the area to:lie serviced by the proposed sPecial;districtp i.,...:.;..ii,:,7,14,-.,i,,, .: (b). The existing service in the area to be -seived by the proposed special 1. I fr .1 �1y• following' the filing i0 'the }board of countyc a ; ch7inieetinglor a'.publl�. 1. district The board, of C. :of:•.the date ;': time;::and;' of .financial serve r.. y If rill slowing how the propels rvice ' plan shall . includ andi'an estimate'oftlie ..11 proposed special : distric' �;� 4iancIr ther '1 ludllig t staa costMof acq 1J sed indebtedness sa��i 'j<ri; , pro • ., na or'epenserelate t 3 4 ,Z eemen wi 1 1 1 ttgl0. sl'bet ifee�tbe '1°� 1 '�d`fNen�OrIIi�cpiitta xce plan . l040*.kit accompaaied?by'a; proses not_.tovexceed twojiui ry4general fund Such pr , elate jto the =: heannig<prei� . ao ubl[cation r. Special District .Pr �is 32 -1 -204 -. equate service,is,w,or ;wi � be ;;;avajlab + ojthe ,at a 1pugh,other municipal or quasi-municipal corporatior{�S witlun� a re sonab]e dime ;.^. 0� a comparable basis „•' ' �, 4 _ }Iry�Y .r 6; r; = . ,r�, n- 1 1 . The proposed special: district is, incapable.of providing economical and „ens a to the area�withtn rts proposed boundaries �a The financ�tai • 1 }bllity `disco e�the pro sed debtednes e area to be incliuded��n the piopvec�sp�clal distrct c[oes.not Dave, will not have,. R f ,C ' rM 1'ri°, ,trr r sip / 1:-.'`.`,r11-',:53 YI S reasonable basis,; •t,s li? iviti ' Ix r , 3; , The facility papbie with special y and se ifirre�,skiaa>vds of theip� °po eel spec af,d strict=ake tefacili,' d servid'staii sal lts.� o •' 1 bs all 1 • q �4 + The- prop° pursuant to $ee` The .propos. r onal, or state Io The boards Brice plan of a r. does not comply yi r j of this section :`a the service plank;t be specifically •sta (4) The finditipte, ih su 1 • 1 o ad a en a uni Pies: i / • 1 1 _t 11 • .. 'tom ,�, ' % i 1.; 1 • 1 • 41x'11 a1 Fs 1'�Ir sva l Q 1 11 , .- a i 4t a l r;L `` a ,� �(1 Ck., .11 s Tay : ten 1 sue.. x� .. a- ..sing 1 11a1 yn•a Q1> Q o. 1'p Q 1 x;.411 11 • 1' 1 a' • • ¢ 1 �r 41 1 1 WO 4 11 u n tile.” s solely p0 F sr� petitioners, plinth Y s. �l`tamended ' ° (1) The board 'of c un1 itory included tYt r..1 alit�ortty under' ths petttione ;s off` .1 Ai: 1 11) 11 • Source R & ye� , Ptopgsa,F IIa#i lebl -•.kW4 t10 , c n• t1i . w : • ti'atr �: • stet • s'` sap 1.. • 114- nom' t a 1564 c i•X �1� Law review. For article : ` X97 -�4 {/'Laced Use �; FDricf .Dart teulyt�of snitsB• tnte its jadgment Legislation in Colorado' , see 51 D n' L,7°467 k . for that of thetloa d: Tullius v ▪ Board of Couufy (1974). , dA, !4:461:•4 32- 1- 2U4ubllloheari board of Dun ` and locatiollZf' existingT:jni ni l within the -",e,14.00 of threeilese sal unith' of couutycusto ''�" . `Commis �•? Colo .R 626'I' 2d #-652. r 9P01(198I)(d ded underformer3sect�o 32 -1205) r €a {mil, procednresi l,LtecLsIon1 {rl�i& ()tiee • aV-•,, and purps 4f.4 . t all 1 . s-,61 s :4.4c16..• .:., n= 1 i}A'.3.0f• 1 44 4- cY.. • a e ✓ ., 'eat': stwentda'y prior to #e ieanng05 in such?Aotek a geneni[ ries ofthf�,p>•upos wedspirc proceduresrpursuant;;t°isectid for ,sexcIUsion of territ at notice t .h.e, 'esidents ' tnctoishal.Jalso�l g` fa. 611y�.' ti {�1 1 L: 4 . F+'1 w t. i7111 14 >lo>�e`shal�n�Iude thiirtheib''oulyda' tlinzep `'d r 111 rpe ftion4 eif$tru tive r ;{ 1 1 ▪ 4.4 .ti i .O I 1 ▪ 1 :1 1 rt ,� 1 :9,4•• • i� • I Its ! � 7{•6 �r • Q .6.t 1 6] • aF!71�._I?rM} Y e Q I . 1 1 ' co]ji o ers� ` e o=af ROBERT J. SLENTZ ATTORNEY AT LAW Suite 2400 Regional Energy Center 400 Sevenlh Street South Rifle, Colorado 81650 March 4, 1983 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED Office of the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado Jim Drinkhouse, Chairman P. O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 RE: PARACHUTE /BATTLEMENT MESA PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT PUBLIC HEARING Dear Mr. Chairman: "s{ Telephone: Area Code (303) 625 -3305 44444 As attorney for the proponents of the Parachute /Battlement Mesa Park and Recreation District, I hereby respectfully request that subpoenas be issued from your office to command the attendance of the following members of the Garfield County Planning Commission at the continued public hearing on March 14, 1983 in the above referenced matter: Arnold Mackley, Chairman Barbara Lorah Dale McPherson Dale Albertson Allan Bowles In addition, I would like a subpoena to issue to Dennis Stranger, the Planning Director of Garfield County. I believe that the County Planning office has the address for these individuals, but if this assumption is incorrect, I will gladly supply that information to your office. Board of County Commissioners Jim Drinkhouse, Chairman March 4, 1983 Page Two Also, I request that a subpoena duces tecum be issued to Stan Broome the County Administrator to appear at the hearing and to bring with him the following documents: All special use permits issued and presently in effect concerning the Colony Shale Oil Project and /or Exxon Corporation and /or Battlement Mesa, Inc. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. In light of the Chair's previous ruling in this matter, I respect- fully request that this letter be made a part of the proceed- ings before the Board of County Commissioners. Very truly yours, Robhr "1\J. Slentz RJS /dig cc: Earl Rhodes, Esq. Garfield County Attorney TOWN of SILt Garfield County Planning Department 2014 Blake Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 The Town of Silt wishes to protest the formation of a Recreation District by Parachute which would exclude the other Municipalities of West Garfield County. This would give them all the tax base of Oil Shale Companies. This would be very inequitable as all the West Garfield communities receive the impact. P.O. Box 174 Silt, Colorado 81652 303 876 -2353 Februlry: 1 -1, .1983 rE 1983 •rlr,':f1 It also is contrary to the intent and purpose of 1981 House Bill No. 1320 "Special District Act" as stated: 32 -1 -102 (2) The general assembly further declares that the procedures contained in part 2 of this article are necessary for the coordinated and orderly creation of special districts and for the logical extension of special district services throughout the state. It is the purpose of part 2 of this article to prevent unnecessary proliferation and fragmentation of local government (4) The general assembly further declares that it is the policy of this state to provide for and encourage the consolidation of special districts and to provide the means therefor by simple procedures in order to prevent or reduce duplication, overlapping, and fragmentation of the functions and facilities of special districts: that such consolidation will better serve the- people of this state: and that consolidated districts will result in reduced costs and increased efficiency of operation. (5) The general assembly further declares that the purpose of part 7 of this article is to facilitate dissolution of special districts in order to reduce the proliferation, fragmentation, and overlapping of local governments It is clear from this that a special district which included all of West Garfield, would better fulfill the intent and purpose of the special district Act. I would also like to remind the Commissioners about the West Garfield Service Plan proposed to them by Rifle, Silt, and New Castle, and the fact that it has never been dealt with. Therefore I believe that gives us the right to be heard at any hearing. It was tabled along with the Parachute plan to give us time to try to work out a compromise as you will recall. But since Exxon pulled out and the compromise fell through, it is our position that we still have a plan before you. We know that it needs updating, but believe we should be allowed to do so. In fact we have that done. Sincerel j 1 Charles A. Rains, Mayor Garfield County Planning and Zoning Committee C/O Planning Department 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Attn: Arnold Mackley Dear Sirs, February 9, 1983 We wish to provide some information concerning the Recreation Plan filed by the Town of Parachute.;: There has been a committee representing New Castle, Silt and Rifle meeting to'draw together .a Recreation service plan for all of Western Garfield County. We met in November and agreed that a single districtshould be considered. 'Notice was sent to each Town and City including Parachute, to give a response to a single district. Everyone responded except Parachute. The information we wish to :informyou of is that_ there. will possibly be another. service plan filed in the next;30- 60.days for all of Western Garfield County, except Parachute. The problem that` there will be areas of assessed valuation which will overlap and be in conflict: with the Parachute Plan. Prior to June 1, 1982, it was determined if two separate districts were formed that the Oil Shale evaluations would be split between the' two proposed districts. We think. thatthe impacts of Oil Shale are not contained., only in the proposed Parachute area and. that there are more than double the people served in the New Castle, Siltle area than Parachute and a larger future: total` population served than the Parachute plan. The fourth quarter report on the Union Project indicated 702 employees in the Rifle, Silt and New Castle Area. The largest percent of increase (26 %) was in the Rifle area as opposed to an 18 %.increase of Union employees moving into the Parachute area. These employees are the operational.. force and would be permanent. The basic question to be answered which is not covered under the law, is whether it is right to lock -up oil shale assessed valuation to a specific area when the impacts of shale development are dramatically and obviously extended beyond the bounds of the proposed district. Also, that there is some reasonable doubt that the present population of the proposed district shows a need for the facilities and services outlined. Contacting Union Oil officials, it was their official statement that the Recreation District boundaries be expanded to cover the areas their employees resided in based upon the fact that their project would provide a large share of the revenues to run that district. 337 East Avenue P.Q. Box 1908 Phone 625 - 2121 Rifle, Colorado 81650 o-M HOME OF "OIL SHALE" U.S.A.:-S°2._=. Q Page 2 It is the feelings of the Rifle City Council that the Planning and Zoning Committee weigh carefully the effects of this proposed isolated district on all the citizens of Garfield County in providing recreational facilities. Also, that by expanding the borders of the district, a greater need can be fulfilled in providing service to more residents. GEM /tn Sincerely, Geo ge E. Mitchell Ma or of Rifle POSITION PAPER ON THE PROPOSED PARACHUTE RECREATIONAL DISTRICT The Garfield County Comprehensive Plan of 1981 states under the Policy section the following: a. The County shall establish a good working relationship with the schools and any future recreation special district to ensure that the recreation needs throughout the County are adequately and equitably met. The proposed recreation district submitted by the town of Parachute raises a basic question which is not covered by the present Special District Section of the Colorado Revised Statutes, but which question interfaces directly with the County's Comprehensive Plan. If the proposed district is granted and the total assessed valuation of all the oil shale development in Western Garfield County are allowed to be centered only in the proposed district and there are areas outside of the proposed district that houses and services significant worker populations from these oil shale companies, can recreational needs be adequately and equitably met throughout Western Garfield County? It is the responsibility and purpose of the County's Planning and Zoning Committee and the County Commissioners to consider all decisions in the impact and effect on all the Citizens of Garfield County. We don't dispute that there are definite needs for recreation in the proposed district, we do challenge the long-term overall impacts which would result to other areas of the County in the area of recreation if all the oil shale valuation is locked up in the proposed district. The latest figure compiled by Schmueser and Associates for Colony /Battlement Mesa fourth quarter 1982 and Union Oil Company Parachute Creek Shale Oil Program fourth quarter 1982 both clearly show that the Rifle, Silt, New Caslte areas have almost as many workers in their area as Parachute - Battlement Mesa. Also, that in both reports the City of Rifle showed an increase of 3% Colony /Battlement Mesa report and 26% Union Oil report of workforce residing in Rifle compared to the previous quarter. Presently the total number of workers living in the areas should be considered regarding the question of the recreation district are: Colony /Battlement Mesa DeBeque 3 Rifle 20 Parachute 11 Silt 4 Battlement Mesa 44 New Castle 1 TOTAL 58 TOTAL 25 Union Oil Debeque 19 Rifle 610 Parachute 413 Silt 62 Battlement Mesa 345 New Castle 30 TOTAL 777 TOTAL 702 Page 2 Combined Totals Rifle, Silt, New Castle Parachute, Battlement Mesa, DeBeque 727 vs 835 Clearly the figures show that not only is there significant impact outside the proposed district, but that this impact is almost equally balanced. Two other qeustions of comparison should be made and addressed. a. The present existing population to be served; and b. The future potential population to be served. Parachute's plan shows an estimated existing population of 3,500 which we feel is substantially accurate. This figure would compare to 7,067 existing popu- lation to be served based upon the local C.O.G. projections for the Rifle, Silt, New Castle area. (See chart) POPULATION PROJECTION (COG) 1982 1985 1990 2000 Rifle 5,268 15,196 19,131 25,159 Silt 1,129 3,392 3,621 3,934 New Castle 670 1,449 1,800 2,075 TOTALS 7,067 20,037 24,552 31,168 Parachute 1,824 6,142 11,099 16,742 Battlement Mesa 1,126 5,759 7,326 8,951 TOTALS 2,950 11,901 18,425 25,693 Regardless of how population figures are determined, it is our position that the Rifle, Silt, New Castle area will always have a greater total service population than the Parachute recreation district. Presently, the service population of the Rifle area is double the proposed district in Parachute and this area will be at a distinct disadvantage in providing for recreational needs of an area which has been largely impacted by oil shale development outside the Parachute district. Realizing that Parachute's plan is based only on estimates, we feel it is over optimistic in the total population estimated they will serve by the year 2,000. QUESTIONS CONCERNING PARACHUTE'S PROPOSED PLAN: 1. The plan indicates that the capture rates for employees working in the Parachute area should increase over the 1981 -82 period. However, the figures and percent of employees coming to the Rifle area are significantly greater than those coming to the Parachute area, according to the latest socio - economic reports. Page 3 2. The plan also raises the question of whether or not direction concerning the responsibility for recreational needs should be lifted off the companies responsible and placed upon the shoulders of local government. 3. The report states that there will be a critical need for recreational services and facilities for oil shale workers and their families, as well as the service work force and their families. We agree with this statement and again point out that almost 50% of these workers live outside the proposed district and that there is need to address all negative social impacts wherever they exist. Also, that revenue from the activity causing the impact should be fairly and equitably distri- buted to the areas where the impacts are caused. It would be irrespons- ible and illogical to allow oil shale property evaluation to be used where only part of the impacts are located. 4. We agree that the people from the area of the proposed district should be allowed to decide if there is a need for the district. However, we also feel that the plan does not address all of the areas of impact and that the question of the use of oil shale valuation is an issue which directly effects the ability of all areas in Western Garfield County to have adequate and equitable recreational facilities. That this issue should be determined at the County level. 5. Furthermore, in 32 -1 -102 of the Special District Act the exact intent of the legislature is very clear in stating the purpose of the Act. May I direct your attention to #2 and #4 of the legislative declaration: (2) The general assembly further declares that the procedures contained in part 2 of this article are necessary for the coordinated and orderly creation of special districts and for the logical extension of special district services throughout the state. It is the purpose of part 2 of this article to prevent unnecessary proliferation and fragmentation of local government and to avoid excessive diffusion of local tax sources. (4) The general assembly further declares that it is the policy of this State to provide for and encourage the consolidation of special districts and to provide the means therefore, by simple procedures in order to prevent or reduce duplication, overlapping, and fragmentation of the functions and facilities of special districts; that such consolidation will better serve the people of this state; and that consolidated districts will result in reduced costs and increased efficiency of operations. It is our contention that the proposed Parachute recreation district would cause fragmentation between local governments in Western Garfield County and a diffu- sion of local tax sources. Also, that this district goes directly against the stated intent of the act in causing fragmentation instead of consolidation. We feel that consolidation of an area -wide district fulfills the exact intent to better serve people and to reduce costs and increase the efficiency of operations of a district. The representatives of New Castle, Silt and Rifle take the position that a total area -wide plan should be considered first, before any individual area district plan is considered. At one time an area -wide plan had been developed, hut due to the lack of a proper petition was never filed and recorded. It is the feel- ings of the above representatives that this plan be redone and submitted to all Page 4 the voters of Western Garfield County as one overall district before numerous individual plans are allowed to be created. These representatives wish the Planning and Zoning Board and the County Commissioners to know that each entity will file individual service plans if an area -wide district can not be formed. In contacting representatives of Union Oil concerning their position on this matter, their response was that their official position was that property valuation from their project should be used wherever their work force was located in any significant number and that the recreational district should include those areas. This is also the same basic position of Rifle, Silt, and New Castle City Councils. We ask that the County Planning and Zoning Board and the County Commissioners weigh very carefully the overall effect of this proposed district on all the areas of Western Garfield County and consider the points presented in this document. To summarize the points expressed in the above paper: 1. The county through their Master Plan is committed to seeing that recreational needs throughout the County are adequately and equitably met. 2. The latest statistical information on where oil shale workes reside show significant numbers outside the proposed Parachute district. 3. State law clearly indicates that the Special District Act is for the purpose of preventing unnecessary proliferation and fragmentation of local government and to bring about consolidation of districts to reduce duplication and overlapping. 4. A basic question of whether or not an entity has the right to lock -up all property valuations of oil shale development when significant impacts of the development are being shouldered by areas outside the proposed recreation district need to be answered. We believe that the proposed Parachute Recreational District raises significant questions concerning the above four summarized points which should be answered at the County level before this district is allowed to become law. ArT/7 i 6 /5r £ TOWN OF NEW CASTLE 80X 166 NEW CASTLE, COLORADO 81647 TELEPHONE: $84.2311 1. The purpose of the "Special District Control Act" was to , quote, "to prevent unnecessary proliferation and fragmentation of local government and to avoid excessive diffusion of local tax sources." 2. The filing of the service plan has not met all the requirements of the State law (shall),i.e., preliminary engineering or architectural survey showing how the proposed services are to be provided and fin- anced, no map of the proposed district boundaries, no standards of the facilities to be constructed, costs of acquiring lands, need to outline the details of any arrangement or proposed arrangements; the form of contract to be used, if available, etc... 3. The service plan can be denied on the basis of 32-1-205 (e) which states " adequate service is, or will be, available to the area through ... quasi- municipal corporations within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis." 4. The adopted policy of the County is that it "shall establish a good working relationship with...any future recrearion special district to ensure that the recreational needs throughout the County are adequately and equitably met." 5. No matter how the population estimates and projections are manipulated, the Rifle, Silt and New Castle areas of influence will always have a greater total service area population than will the proposed district. 6. Clearly the burden of providing recreational facilities, such as the Community Center being constructed by Battlement Mesa, Inc., is being lifted from the shoulders of private enterprise and placed on the shoulders of the district tax payers. Why ? ?? 7. It is illogical to use all the oil shale assessments only to benefit approximately 50% of the impacts... 8. Though no offical position has been taken, it is the clear consenses of the oil companies contacted that they would perfer that their assess- ments be used to the benefit of those areas inwhich the workers live. 9. There is clearly a need for a lerger recreation district than the one before you tonight, especially since oil shale trust funds are being used to create the need for such special recreation districts... •01- a TF Id //e ate' 9 re t • a c 6L-7-0-g4i • • e) o-d-0 V //lam 11 (_ • al? 7bL- c • n n_ /f, 7. f�fir h`y L.,f4,,1 %mss,' F . • • • . • .• . • - - • • . • • .•• . . • f ALL- 3 74,e. • I 1$1,41;,. l CA e Qr) Jr g f4,%_- A/c, aLe_epc=i/ � a?�y�t�"d.. ay -� gar-- D� a- GEC Y -AT14 ti• 027-e- /y 6?n , --6; '■C-4----;)---1---r...---A---- . I '..--1--t----e--- 1 . I-7:"Tr'77.7.177771..! . . . .. • .• . . . . . . . • ra do-4,2 \_\ GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: 945-8212 / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: 945 -2339 / BUILDING: 945 -8241 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: February 17, 1983 MEMO Stan Broome County Manager Dennis Stranger Director, Department of Development .February 17, 1983 a,J Parachute /Battlement Mesa Park and Recreation District Service Plan Pursuant to your direction, the Department of Development has not undertaken any detailed technical review or policy analysis of the above captioned Service Plan. I have reviewed Title 32 of the State Statutues concerning Special Districts and particularly Section 203 which identifies as a test of the service plan that, "The proposal is not in compliance with a master plan I have copied the pertinent section OFthe County "Comprehensive Plan' and have forwarded this to the Planning Commission. I have notified the Planning Commission that you are coordinating this review. Members of the Planning Commission may be contacting you concerning this matter. As you know, 1 will be in Denver on February 22, 1983 for the Pacific Project Interagency meeting I will be back in the office on the 23rd if you have any questions or require additional information require additional information. 40,01 fiee4 if) A ofil), ;-,4:ief A - lieloj ,4,,„, — /frithomit efyit 470:0221. ( !�`" G!/a�,rf/..✓ � mtN� s��vrir .z� re`s .�:ro,e,d � ti � Ache-w« 1 - �e i. eve 2014 BLAKE AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 GARFIELD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT PLANNING: 945 -8212 / ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: 945 -2339 / BUILDING: 945 -8241 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: February 17, 1983 MEMO Stan Broome County Manager Dennis Stranger Director, Department of Development A)1/43 February 17, 1983 Parachute /Battlement Mesa Park and Recreation District Service Plan Pursuant to your direction, the Department of Development has not undertaken any detailed technical review or policy analysis of the above captioned Service Plan. I have reviewed Title 32 of the State Statutues concerning Special Districts and particularly Section 203 which identifies as a test the service plan that, "The proposal is no in compliance with a master plan I have copied the pertinent section the County "Comprehensive Plan' and have forwarded this to the Planning Commission. I have notified the Planning Commission that you are coordinating this review. Members of the Planning Commission may be contacting you concerning this matter. As you know, I will be in Denver on February 22, 1983 for the Pacific Project Interagency meeting. I will be back in the office on the 23rd if you have any questions or require additional information. 2014 BLAKE AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81 601