Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff reportGARFIELD COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 2014 BLAKE AVENUE August 26, 1981 MEMO TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department Staff SUBJECT: Parachute /Battlement Mesa Recreation and Park District Service Plan PHONE 945 -8212 In reviewing a service plan for the formation of a special district, there are eight items which must be satisfied to approve the service plan. Those are the following items: 1. There is insufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special.dis- trict; 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is adequate for present and projected needs; 3. 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; 4. The proposed special district is incapable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries; 5. The area to be included in the proposed special district does not have, or will not have, the financial ability to discharge the pro- posed indebtedness on a reasonable basis; 6. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are incompatible with the facility and service standards of adjacent municipalities and special districts. 7. The proposal is not in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to section 30 -28 -108, C.R.S. 1973; 8. The proposal is not in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long -range water quality management plan for the area. Each of these items must be satisfied to recommend approval. Page 2. Upon analyzing the service plan several items seem to be subject to question. 1. A statement appears that the proposed district will purchase the recreation facility and golf course in Battlement Mesa. No agreement is pre- sented to substantiate the fact that Battlement Mesa is willing to sell those facilities to the district, nor what price the facilities would cost. 2. Population projections are based upon the Colorado West Area Council of Governments Scenario III. It is of common practice to use and the COG has endorsed Scenario II. Therefore, based upon this assumption, the projected users and fees may be significantly lower than anticipated. 3. It is stated that the district may explore the possibility of sharing resources with other units of government in Garfield and Mesa Counties. It further states that by 1990, about one half of the available millage could be shared with other impacted areas. Will taxpayers within this district be willing to have their money distributed to areas beyond the district boundaries. This leads to a belief that there is a recognized need for recreation facilities,be- yond the boundary of the proposed district, and that the boundary should be ad- justed to reflect this need. 4. It seems the main reason to form the district is to float an $8,000,000 bond issue. When looking at the proposed expenditure of these funds, it is questionable if these funds are needed. The proposed use of the funds are to purchase a recreation center and golf course from Battlement Mesa for $7,000,000. These facilities will be constructed and available to the pub- lic without the expenditure of public funds. Further, there is $289,520 avail- able from the Oil Shale Trust Fund. This would take care of the 3.5 acre neigh- borhood Park development. It is stated that the intention of the Town of Parachute to develop an additional 22 acres with monies derived from recreation assessment fees. It seems as though these facilities will be available without the infor- mation of the district. 5. The financial analysis as presented shows an acknowledged deficit for the first two years. This deficit totals $1,713,900 and is to be obtained by "gifts and grants" from companies operating oil shale facilities within the dis- trict boundaries. There is no evidence that these companies will provide such funding. Also, no increase in the wages /salaries nor operating /maintenance has been allowed during the first 7 years of the district. Practical experience would indicate that this is not an accurate representation. 6. A policy in the technical service section of the adopted Garfield County Master Plan states that the County should discourage the proliferation of special service districts. Because of other service plans which have been filed, it seems the best policy to form one district to encompass both plans. 7. The state statute also requires that technical information be supplied with the service plan with regards to facilities to be constructed or acquired by the district. The figures as presented in the application do not have any justifying supporting material. This leads to doubts of the validity of these figures. Page 3. Therefore, based on the above analysis the staff recommendation is for denial based upon the following reasons: 1. Due to the large amount of financial deficit in the initial years of the district and no allowance for inflation in the operation and maintenance cost, the district is not financially capable to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. 2. Because of the Battlement Mesa facilities being constructed and the Town of Parachute's intention to develop additional parks through Oil Shale Trust Fund monies and recreation assessment fees, 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. 3. There is insufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed district.