HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff reportOUTLINE OF ANALYSIS
RE: PARACHUTE /BATTLEMENT MESA
PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT
The Board of County Commissioners shall disapprove the
service plan submitted by the Petitioners of a proposed special
district upon evidence satisfactory to the Board of any of the
following (203)2)):
a) There is insufficient existing, and projected need for
organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special
district;
1. No evidence of need other than a Resolution from the Town
of Parachute.
2. No surveys, re: needs of residents in the service area.
3. No representation that any public meetings were held in
regards to the proposal.
4. No indication of Community demand or interest for a rec-
reation district.
5. No plan to allocate services to new growth areas.
6. No inventory of existing facilities and programs.
7. No determination of Community standards of need for
recreational facilities and service.
8. No use of information available as to this question.
9. No needs assessment.
10. What source of information, re: population growth.
b) The existing service in the area to be served by the
proposed special district is adequate for present and projected
needs;
1. No inventory of available services.
2. Existing service more than adequate for present and
projected needs.
3. All services in Phase One will be provided without the
district.
4. No discussion of services in plan, just discussion of
facilities.
5. What source of information, re: population.
6. Proponents Table 6 shows area has more softball fields
than they need, 10% of population necessary for a recreation center,
20% of population necessary for a golf course and swimming pool.
c) Adequate service is, or will be, available to the area
through other existing municipal or quasi - municipal corporations
within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis;
1. No evidence as to what is adequate service.
2. Facilities and services will be provided by Town of
Parachute, BMI, other special district or a new municipality of
Battlement Mesa.
d) The proposed special district is incapable of providing
economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed
boundaries;
1. No description of what services will be provided.
2. No information, re: costs of operation and maintenance.
3. No description how facilities and programs will be allocated
to Parachute if growth occurs there.
4. No statement of how services will be provided in regards
to property owned by other entities, i.e. Battlement Mesa, Inc.,
Town of Parachute.
5. Question, re: land and facilities acquisition /lease.
6. Inability of the recreation district to defer future
indebtedness, i.e. the mill levy must equal costs therefore in
order to bond, the mill levy must be sufficient to defray-bond costs.
7. No standards of construction or estimates of cost.
e) The area to be included in the proposed special district
does not have, or will not have, the financial ability to discharge
the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis;
1. No estimates of costs for operating and maintaining proposed
facilities.
2. Deficit early years.
3. Reliance on user fees and gifts, and unreasonable.
4. Assessment - reasonable (what growth scenario).
5. Potential liability to landowners, if projected assessment
does not materialize.
f) The facility and service standards of the proposed special
district are incompatible with the facility and service standards of
adjacent municipalities and special districts;
g) The proposal is not in substantial compliance with a
master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30 -28 --108, C.R.S. 1973;
1. Master plan states "adequate facilities...throughout the
County... ", the effect of an RE-16 District will be to lock out the
Rifle area from access to the Parachute Creek Industrial Tax Base.
2. "Rural character of the area ". The recreation district
proposal appears to be providing services to an urban standard.
3. Fiscal Impact Mitigation Program - emphasis on efficiency
of Governmental units so that traditional tax measures will be most
efficient.
4. The area of service ought to equal the area of impact
from oil shale development.
h) The proposal is not in compliance with any duly adopted
County- Regional or State long -range water quality management plan
for the area;
1. Intensity of water use for recreational purposes.
2. Source of water.
3. Any problems with water quality.