Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 1983-90STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for Garfield County, Colorado, held at the Commissioners` Annex in Glenwood Springs, Colorado, on Monday , the 28th day of March , A.D. 1983, there were present: Eugene "Jim" Drinkhouse Larry Velasouez (absent) Flaven J. Cerise Earl Rhodes Stan Broome Mildred Alsdorf , Commissioner Chairman , Commissioner , Commissioner , County Attorney , County Manager , County Clerk 'when the following proceedings, among others were had and done, to wit: RESOLUTION NO. 83 -g0 RESOLUTION CONCERNED WITH THE DISAPPROVAL OF THE SERVICE PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED PARACHUTE/BATTLEM T MESA PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT WHEREAS, Garfield County is a legal and political subdivision of the State of Colorado, for which the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County is authorized to act; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 30 -28 -103, C.R.S. '73, as amended, the Board of County Commissioners has appointed the Garfie.d •County Planning Commission to exercise all powers and duties conferred upon it by the Colorado Statutes; yHERFA.q - ,,uant-to- Section 30- 28.771OE,-- -: °-_'?.S. - '73., as amended -, the- - _Gas.f-ie1d-- C:.iuiiLy— Planning Commission adopts a Garfield County Comprehensive • Plan, by Resolution of May 11, 1981, which Comprehensive Plan is presently in• full force and effect; WHEREAS, a proposed service plan for a Parachute/Battlement Mesa Park and Recreation District was filed with the Garfield County Clerk and Recorder on January 20, 1983; WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 32- 1- 204(2), C.R.S.'73, as amended, the Garfield County- Planning Commission held a public- meeting on February 23, 1983, in regards to its study and recommendation for the proposed service plan for the Parachute/Battlement Mesa Park and Recreation District, which meeting was extensive and complete, and all persons were given an opportunity to be heard;and, thereafter, the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the proposed Service Plan; - - - --- WHEREAS, pursuant to- section 32 -1 -204, C.R.S., I73i as amended, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on March 2, 1983, and on March 14, 1983, as to which proper publication and public notice was provided as required by law; and said hearing was extensive and complete, all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted, and_all interested parties were heard at the hearing; and WHEREAS, this Board has examined the proposed service plan, and has heard the comments and testimony at the public hearing in regards to the service plan, and the evidence submitted by the Petitioners as rebuttal_ NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, -- larado,- makes- the-following .findings: 1. That Section 32- 1- 202(2) requires that the service plan shall contain certain information, and in the following respects, among others, the proposed- - service plan is deficient: a) A complete preliminary engineering or architectural survey showing how the proposed services are to be provided and financed; . b) Standards of construction; c) Estimates of costs, including the cost of acquiring - land, engineering services and legal services; d) Proposed indebtedness; e) Proposed maximum interest rates and discounts; and f) Other major expenses related to the organization and operation of a special district. 2. That the proposed service plan does not contain adequate information in order for the Board of County Commissioners to approve said service plan, which deficiencies, among others, are the following: a) The proposed service plan does not contain an inventory of existing facilities and programs, which are presently or soon will be available, within ..... the boundaries of the proposed special district. Such inventory should have included those facilities and programs available from School District 16, Grand Valley Park Association, the single workers construction camp for Union Oil Company of California, Inc., the Town of Parachute., and the Battlement Mesa Planned Unit Development; b) The proposed service plan does not contain sufficient information as to the needs or community demand for recreational services within the boundaries of the proposed district; c) The proposed service plan does not contain an assessment of recreation needs in the proposed district, i.e., the difference between current recreation demand and the existing supply of opportunities for recreation in terms of land, facilities, or programs; d) The proposed service plan does not contain sufficient information as to the estimated future demand for recreation services in the proposed service area e) The proposed service plan does not provide adequate information on the - cost of operation and maintenance-of existing _and . proposed rar:iji Lies, so that this Board can evaluate whether the proposed district will be able to provide service on an economical and timely basis; f) The proposed service plan does not contain sufficient information as to the projected population of the area, and the assumptions upon which those projections are made; and g) The proposed service plan does not supply adequate information as to the terms upon which the recreational facilities and programs of the proposed district will be available to persons from outside the district. 3. The proposed service plan does not set forth an adequate description of proposed facilities or programs so as to constitute a "service plan ", either for the purpose of review for approval, or for reference to, in the future; and in this regard, the following statements are relevant: a) The proposed service plan does not contain any information on the program offerings of the existing recreation service providers or the programs which would be offered by the proposed recreation district. Therefore, there. is no objective measure by which this Board or future residents in the area can determine whether the proposed special district has achieved, or not achieved, its stated goals; b) The proposed service plan does not propose to provide any service, which is not presently available or available in the near future, except for . facilities whose construction depends upon assumptions of growth which are not sufficiently probable to be a basis for a service plan; c) The proposed service plan is based on absorbing the existing or planned facilities which are being constructed by others in the proposed district. The proposed service plan focuses on the recreational facilities for the Battlement Mesa development, acquisition of property of the Grand Valley Park Association, and property of the Town of Parachute. The proposed service plan gives no indication of how the specific recreation needs of future populations will be met; d) Other than identifying completion of the golf course, swimming pool and neighborhood parks, the proposed service plan does not provide a detailed list of future recreational requirements, and the facilities and programs intended to meet that demand; e) The proposed service plan does not contain standards for recreational needs which are feasible and practical, and which are relevant to_ the __. ___ lifestyles of the present future residents in the proposed service area; and f) The proposed service plan is a facilities plan, which simply incorporates the present or soon to be constructed fansl;4-4os in the proposed district, and -- excluding- those - -owned or soon, to- be- -owned by School District 16 4. The proposed service plan does not discuss the sufficiency of existing park and recreation services for the present or projected - population. If the standards proposed in the proposed service plan are applied to the current population level, there are more than enough recreational facilities to serve today's population. Additionally, the population level is expected to decline over the next few years, which would further reduce recreational requirements in the area. 5. The proposed service plan is based upon assumptions which are unreasonable, among which, among others, are the following: a) the proposed service plan contains population projections which are uncertain, since the present population in the proposed service area will decline with the completion of Phase One of the Union Project, and- no-_other company has committed itself to either expand its facilites or begin construction for new facilities; b) the proposed service plan indicates-that -the special district would rely, to a large extent, on the anticipated increase in value from energy development. The present and past history of oil shale indicates that future development is neither probable nor certain. The failure of energy development to materialize will result in an additional tax burden on non - corporate tax -- payers, which burden may be unnecessary; and c) the proposed service plan's goals of developing a swimming pool in Phase 'o- and- completion of- golf-course— n'-P ses two and-Three, is unreasonable, since the plan does not provide for the capitalization costs of these facilities, and na representation has been- made -that these facilities will be donated to the proposed district. No tax exempt bonds can be issued for the construction of these-facilities, unless -the -- property is owned by the - proposed district or unless the private owners have entered into a tax exempt. lease. 6. Pursuant to Section 5.08.01 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution of 1978, as amended, which was adopted pursuant to Section 30 -28 -111, C.R.S.. '73, as amended, it is the stated policy of Garfield County that traditional sources of revenue must support the expenditure of funds by local government entities to deal with the impacts of oil shale development. For purposes of long -range planning, it is most appropriate that the boundaries of a recreation special district, which taxes the present and future oil shale industry, should be coterminus with the impact area of that industry, and at least include the Rifle, Silt and New Castle impact area. 7. That the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, in Part I: Concerns and Policies, at Pages 14 -16, states in regards to Recreation /Open Space that the stated goal is "to insure adequate park /recreation facilities and paths of open space are provided throughout the County, so that the County residents and visitors have ample recreation opportunities and to maintain the rural character of the County," as to which the following statements are applicable: a) There is a need for recreation due to the impact of the oil shale industry beyond the boundaries of School District 16. The formation of this district will result in a basic unfairness, since persons connected with the oil shale industry and who will live outside of the district, will not have the equal access to facilities and programs which are paid for from tax dollars assessed against the oil shale facility; and b) That an imbalance in the impact area of the oil shale industry, between the need for recreational opportunities and a tax base to support those opportunities, is contrary to the stated goal of the County master plan. BASED UPON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, the Board further finds and concludes that the information contained in the proposed service plan, and introduced at the . public hearing thereon, has established that: a) There is insufficient existing and projected need for organized . service in the area to be served by the proposed special district; b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is adequate for present and projected needs; . c) The proposed special district is incapable of providing economical and sufficient service --to' -the area within its proposed boundary;- d) The area to be included in the proposed special district does not have, or will not have, the financial abilility to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis; and e) The proposal is not in substantial compliance with the Garfield County master plan. NOW, TUEREMOBE; BE-IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County, Colorado, that the proposed service plan for the Parachute /Battlement Mesa Park and Recreation. District be and hereby is disapproved. Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the - following -- voter -- Eugene "Jim" Drinkhouse , Aye- Larry Velasauez (absent) Flaven J. Cerise Aye Commissioners BOARD OF COUNTY CLi�1MIS,I ATTEST: OF GARFTFJfl • Clerk of the Board STATE OF COLORADO ) County of Garfield ) ss. I, , County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County and State aforesaid do hereby certify that the annexed and foregoing order is truly copied from the Records of the Proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners for said Garfield County, now in my office. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County, at Glenwood Springs, this day of , A.D. 1983. County Clerk and ex- officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners.