Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.0 BOCC Staff Report 08.23.2000BOCC 8/23/00 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PROJECT: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District Service Plan LOCATION: The proposed district boundaries are the same as the RE -1 School District in Garfield County and Eagle County, which includes the City of Glenwood Springs, Town of Carbondale, Town of Basalt and all of the drainages in the Roaring Fork River Valley and portions of the Flattops area north of Glenwood Springs. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The organizers of the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District are proposing to set up a special district to fmance, purchase and construct open space and recreation facilities in the mid and lower Roaring Fork valley areas of Garfield and Eagle Counties. The District would also include the incorporated areas of Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Basalt. If approved the District will have all of the powers authorized by statute, except the power of condemnation, which the organizers have decided to exclude. The service plan states that the aggregate general obligation bond of the District will not exceed $10 million dollars or have a mill levy that exceeds 2.5 mills, without voter approval. The District anticipates significant non -local funding to support the open space and recreation program. No local jurisdiction will bear any responsibility for the repayment of the District's debt. Projection in the service plan estimate that the 2.5 mills will generate $1 million a year. No less than 70% of all revenues will go to acquisition of fee simple land and conservation easements. At least 15% of the funding to develop recreation opportunities, specifically the development and maintenance of trails and other improvements. No more than 15% will be used for maintenance of acquired properties and administration. The service plan projects a 12% growth in assessed valuation for each of the next three reassessment years and 4% for all of the interim years and 4% growth after that period. Operating expenses for the proposed district are broken down into two categories: (1)Trail Development and Recreational Asset Budget and (2) Administration and Management -1- Budget. The projected budget for the Trail Development and Recreational Asset Budget is $150,000 and the Administration and Maintenance Budget is $130,000 per year. The operating expenses for the Trail Development and Recreational Asset Budget are expected to increase at a rate of growth the same as the assessed valuation growth rate of 12% or 4%. The Administration and Maintenance budget is expected to increase at 5% annual rate. II. ISSUES AND COMMENTS A. Colorado Revised Statutes - C.R.S. 32-1-101, et. seq. Within 10 days of the filing of a service plan with the County Clerk and Recorder, the Clerk and Recorder is required to deliver the service plan to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board may refer it to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, if it is the County's policy. Any service plan referred to Planning Commission, must be reviewed by the Planning Commission within 30 days of filing the plan. The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to take one of the following actions: 1. Approve, without condition or modification, the service plan. 2. Disapprove the service plan. 3. Conditionally approve the service plan subject to additional information being submitted or the modification of the proposed service plan. The Board of County Commissioners "shall disapprove the service plan unless evidence satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented": 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. 3. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. 4. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the plan if evidence satisfactory to the Board of any of the following, at the discretion of the Board, is not presented: 1. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the County or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. -2- 2. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and service standards of each County within which the proposed special district is to be located and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1). 3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-108, C.R.S.. 4. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long-range water quality management plan for the area. 5. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served. The following are responses to the statutory criteria that must be addressed: 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. Residents of the Roaring Fork Valley have been demanding that the local governments protect the open space and agricultural properties from development pressures. Developments in the unincorporated area have replaced the historical agricultural uses with large developments. This is viewed as a threat to the quality of life for many people living in the Roaring Fork Valley. Local governments have developed comprehensive plans and land use regulations to try and protect some of these lands from development. Comprehensive plans and land use regulations have a limited ability to protect agricultural land from development pressure. The only sure way to protect the property from development, is for local governments to purchase it and control the use of it.. 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. There are no existing parks and recreation districts in the area to be within the boundaries of this proposed district. All of the municipalities have active parks and recreation programs that provide recreational programs to residents of the area. Garfield County does not have a parks and recreation program. The principal reason for the formation of the district is to acquire property for open space and recreational improvements such as trails. Presently, there are no dedicated funding source for the acquisition of property for open space or recreational purposes in the unincorporated area of Garfield County available to local governments. Local governments do not have the resources within their existing revenues to purchase property for open space purposes. -3- 3. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. The Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District would be funded by a mill levy of 2.5 mills, which is projected to generate $1.0 million in the first year. It is also proposed to issue bonds in the approximate amount of $10.0 million for "acquisition of fee simple land and conservation easements." The funding would be used to leverage other funding sources, such as the Colorado Lottery funds for the purchase and protection of open space lands. The 2.5 mills would cost a homeowner with an assessed valuation of $300,000, approximately $75 per year. The question of sufficient service is a harder question to deal with, since there is no plan for acquisition of conservation easements or fee title to property included with the plan. At this point, the proponents have suggested the use of a regional open space study performed by Robert Schultz and Otak Rock Creek Studio as possible basis for identifying and prioritizing acquisitions. The study is not included as a part of the proposed service plan, since the proponents are only suggesting that the document could be used by the proposed district board of directors. How far will $10 million go toward the leveraging of other funding sources for the purchase of land or conservation easements? Given the present real estate market, will the proposed funding sources provide the proposed district with the ability to purchase any large pieces of property? The fact that there would be a funding source for the acquisition of conservation easements and fee title to land, is more than there is presently available. 4. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. Included in the service plan is a projection of revenues and expenditures for the first 19 years of the proposed district's existence, for a $10 million bond issue. The projection includes payment of all debt service as the first priority for any revenues received from the mill levy. All administration and operating costs are subordinate to the payment of the debt service. The proposed assessed valuation for the district is based upon the entire area being included in the assessed valuation. As the plan is written, all 40 acre or larger parcels that are "used primarily and zoned for agricultural uses" are included in the proposed district boundaries. C.R.S.§32-1-307 (1) -4- automatically excludes any such parcel, unless written consent from the property owner to be included in the district. Based upon an analysis of the majority of the proposed district area, excluding the Canyon Creek area, the County's GIS Analyst has evaluated a total 189,186 acres of land within the district. Of that total 100,386 acres (53.1%) is Federal Land and 84,383 acres (44.6%) is privately owned land in the unincorporated area of the County and the remaining 4,417 acres (2.3%) is within Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. Of the lands in the unincorporated area of the County, only 17,949 acres are in subdivisions. Of the remaining parcels, 59,298 acres are parcels over 40 acres in size and the majority of them are zoned agricultural. As noted previously, the original application included the over 40 acre parcels in the overall assessed valuation of the district, without eliminating the parcels that are used (classified in the Assessor's records)as agricultural. In a supplement to the application, the applicants provided a new 20 year projection of revenues and projected expenditures that was based on a reduced assessed valuation that eliminated the 40 acre tracts that are zoned agriculture and used agriculturally. (See attached pgs. (4 /,-) The new projections show that the proposed district can still pay the projected debt service on a $10 million bond issue. Based upon the revised projections, it appears that the proponents have demonstrated that the proposed district "has or will have" the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness. The following discussion addresses the reasons the Board of County Commissioners may deny a service plan: 1. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the County or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. There are no other open space, parks and recreation available to the unincorporated area of the County to provide the proposed services. Each of the municipalities has their own parks and recreation programs, but no identified sources of revenue to purchase open space and conservation easements in the unincorporated area of the County. Each municipality has expressed a desire to see the acquisition of additional open space and the protection of agricultural lands in the unincorporated area of the County. 2. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and service standards of each County within which the proposed special district is to be located and each municipality -5- which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1). Garfield County does not have any adopted facility and service standards for open space and conservation easements. 3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-106, C.R.S.. The proposed special district is located in the 1995 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area I. The Comprehensive Plan includes a number of goals, objectives, policies and programs. The most relevant goals and associated objectives, policies and programs are in the Recreation and Open Space and the Agricultural goals. The following sections are the most pertinent to the criteria for approval of a service plan for open space, parks and recreation: 5.0 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ISSUES Primary issues concerning recreation and open space identified during the Comprehensive Plan process included the following: • The rural nature of Garfield County, which has maintained important visual corridors in an undeveloped state, is transitioning to more intensive land uses; • Visual corridors of particular importance need to be identified and policies tailored to each corridor; • County policy regarding trail systems should reflect regional goals and be consistent and complementary with other jurisdictional efforts; GOAL Garfield County should provide adequate recreational opportunities for County residents, ensure access to public lands consistent with BLM/USFS policies and preserve existing recreational opportunities and important visual corridors. OBJECTIVES: -6- 5.1 Encourage the location of active recreational opportunities that are accessible to County residents. 5.2 The County will support and encourage the creation of open space, through the development and implementation of zoning, subdivision and PUD regulations designed to retain and enhance existing open space uses. 5.5 Visual corridors are considered an important physical attribute of the County and policies will reflect the need to carefully plan these areas. POLICIES: 5.2 Important visual corridors will be identified and appropriate policies developed to address the retainment of open space areas that link communities in the County. 5.3 If physically possible, subdivisions and PUDs will be encouraged to design open space areas to become contiguous with existing and proposed open spaces adjacent to the project. PROGRAMS: 5.1 All developers are encouraged to provide recreational amenities within proposed developments. The county should impose its requirement of a dedication of park land or fee in -lieu -of as contained in the Subdivision Regulations in order to reserve sufficient park land to accommodate the recreational needs of the residents which the development will house. 5.3 The Subdivision and PUD regulations will be refined to include policies that encourage contiguous open space uses. These policies will be formulated at the time the Subdivision Regulations are revised. All developers/developments shall analyze existing open spaces adjacent to their proposed developments, both public and private, and shall incorporate contiguity of these spaces with proposed open spaces to be contained in the development. 5.4 Planning staff, in cooperation with the Planning and Zoning Commission, will research options regarding feasible and legal alternatives to acquire open space and recreational easements. Based on the options identified by Staff, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners -7- regarding potential alternatives. 5.0(A) OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS Based on public workshops and the initial work of the Garfield County Open Space and Trails Committee, specific concerns regarding Open Space and Trails planning in the Roaring Fork Valley are as follows: • That the retention of the rural landscape of the Roaring Fork Valley is a critical issue to residents and visitors; The level of development in the Valley from 1991 to 1995 has resulted in the disappearance of historical agricultural land at a rate demanding immediate action on the part of the County; • Wildlife habitat is being negatively impacted due to growth pressure; • GOAL Any policies regarding open space and trails must respect the property rights of land owners in the County and must be based on the concepts of just compensation and mutual benefit for landowners, residents and visitors of the Roaring Fork Valley. Garfield County shall develop, adopt and implement policies that preserve the rural landscape of the Roaring Fork Valley, existing agricultural uses, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities in a mutually beneficial manner that respects the balance between private property rights and the needs of the community. OBJECTIVES: 5.1(A) To ensure that existing agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by development approved by Garfield County; 5.3(A) That the development of passive and active trails in the County should be developed in a comprehensive fashion, consistent with efforts by adjacent jurisdictions; 5.4(A) That all long-range planning for the retention of open space, trails, agricultural lands and wildlife habitat shall respect property rights and -8- the concept of just compensation; 5.5(A) That long-range planning for acquisition or dedication of open space and trails shall run parallel to efforts to develop funding sources for just compensation. POLICIES: 5.2(A) Developers proposing projects located in areas defined as critical habitat by the Colorado Division of Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS) will be required to propose mitigational measures during the submittal of proposed projects. Mitigational measures shall include the following: a) Fencing and dog restrictions consistent with DOW recommendations; b) Avoidance of critical portions of the property, through the use of building envelope restrictions or cluster development concepts; c) conservation easements. The Board of County Commissioners shall have the authority to approve or reject proposed mitigation. 5.3(A) Garfield County, through the use of the Open Space and Trails Committee, shall develop a Comprehensive Trails Plan for adoption by the Garfield County Planning Commission and The Board of County Commissioners. The following specific elements shall be a part of a proposed plan: a) A general policy statement summarizing the overall approach supported by the County; b) A proposed design guideline for trail development to assist the County and the development community in integrating trail development into the long-range growth of the County; c) A methodology for identifying trail corridors in the Roaring Fork Valley; d) A series of funding options to ensure that property owners are -9- adequately compensated for trails developed on private property; e) A Comprehensive Trail Map, consistent with the methodology adopted to guide long-range trail development in the Roaring Fork Valley. 5.4(A) The Open Space and Trails Committee shall present the Garfield County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners a document summarizing options for compensating private property owners for acquiring open space and trails, consistent with long-term planing for acquisition or protection. 5.5(A) Garfield County, through the use of the Open Space and Trails Committee, shall develop a Comprehensive Roaring Fork Valley Open Space Plan for adoption by the Garfield County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. The following specific elements shall be a part of a proposed plan: a) A general policy statement summarizing the overall approach supported by the County; b) A proposed methodology for identifying lands suitable for protection or acquisition for open space protection; c) Identification of the Roaring Fork Valley areas appropriate for acquisition or protection consistent with adopted policies. 6.0 AGRICULTURE ISSUES Issues identified throughout the Comprehensive Plan process related to agricultural uses include the following: • The rollover of agricultural land into more intense uses is accelerating in the County; • Historical agricultural lands are also those lands which present the least development constraints (geology, topography, water availability); -10- • • As the rural areas of the County continue to develop, the need to ensure compatibility between these uses and active agricultural lands will intensify; GOAL A growing number of traditional agricultural lands can be expected to intensify into agricultural businesses, which may affect County land use policies designed for traditional ranching, grazing and crop production. To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review. OBJECTIVES: 6.1 Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches. 6.2 Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher -intensity adjacent uses. 6.3 Developments adjacent to agricultural uses should be reviewed in a manner that allows for flexibility in resolving compatibility conflicts with adjacent uses. POLICIES: 6.1 Agricultural land will be protected from infringement and associated impacts of higher -intensity land uses through the establishment of buffer areas between the agricultural use and the proposed project. PROGRAMS: 6.7 Encourage the developer or development to purchase a conservation easement, at fair value, from the adjacent agricultural interest, who can use this buffer zone for agricultural purposes when infeasible to maintain a 300 foot buffer from agricultural land and uses. In summary, it appears that the Comprehensive Plan supports the creation of the proposed special district, based upon the language that encourages the development of conservation easements and the need to identify lands for open space and trails needs. While the plan calls for the County Open Space and Trails Committee to do -11- a lot of the work, a special district with the funding and ability to actually purchase land would be more effective. Any work done by the proposed special district board will need to coordinated with all jurisdictions and their plans that pertain to open space, agricultural preservation and trails. 4. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long-range water quality management plan for the area. The Water Quality Management Plan for Region 11(208 Plan) does not address the need for the purchase of open space and conservation easements. Arguably, the maintenance of and protection of open space will have a beneficial affect on water quality, by reducing the amount of additional point and non -point sources of water pollution. S. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served. Residents of the Roaring Fork Valley have expressed their frustration about the amount of development occurring and the loss of open space resulting from the development. The one way for the residents of the valley to protect land from development pressure is to purchase it or have the ability to purchase conservation easements. Both of these options are proposed as a par t of the service plan. B. Other Comments: 1. Blake Jordan, Garfield County bond counsel: Mr. Jordan has noted a number of issues that need to be considered in the approval of this proposed district (See attached letter pgs. /c, -Z3 ): A. All special districts have the eminent domain authority, which is granted by statute. He questions the proponents statement that the district will not have the power of eminent domain. Since this does not appear to be something that can be waived by a service plan, Mr. Jordan has some suggested language for inclusion in the service plan that would "clarify and regulate the District's power of eminent domain". B. The proponents have stated that any future recreational district will be allowed to be created without any objection from the district. If this is the intent, Mr. Jordan suggests some additional language. -12- C. The statutes require that a service plan contain "preliminary engineering or architectural survey showing how the proposed services are to be provided." He notes that there is no identification of any lands to be acquired. D. If the proponents want the mill levy to be capped at 2.5 mills, the language will need to modified in the service plan. E. He questions whether the service plan can restrict the use of funds for operations and maintenance by future boards. He has made some suggested changes to the language in the service plan that better address the issue. F. Mr. Jordan notes that the County has no obligation to pay for the expenses of the election and that all parcels over 40 acres in size that are zoned agricultural and used agriculturally are automatically exempted from the district. In response to the above comments and the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the applicants h Pve submitted the attached amendments to the service plan. (See pgs. 2. Other comments: Included in the public notice for the hearing before the Board was a statement that notified all of the property owners in the proposed district boundaries that they could request to be excluded from the district. Of the 54 letters received, 50 of them requested the exclusion of property from the proposed special district. (See letters pgs. — ) C.R.S. 32-1-204 (3.5) allows the Board of County Commissioners to consider requests to exclude properties from a proposed special district, at the public hearing on the service plan. (See statute pg 8 ) The proponents of the special district have the burden of proving that the exclusion is not in the best interest of the best interests of the special district. III. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed service plan, subject to the plan being modified to restrict the purchase of land for the purpose of blocking access to utilities for adjoining properties. -13- a„ 2, }\\j/\\/\\ § ( • 6.25* NIC-WITH "A" RATINC(5-21-00) Y d n c rt 0 j r � �' 2 m EGy 4 V,' "3 d m �o eA z N N N N N10 N N N N gq N N N O W WO CO W �o m a y m W 0 J 0 N W J a N b m 10n W w VI EHEEEEEEEEEE JNNa H0W 0 MtVI 04 g; 171 LI Zg r.) ml-mgmmm W mJJtWmmmmo Wo N N N N N N N N N m N N ;1'3 Y m W N r J J o J m W 0 m N 1011 r m J J W b W. m J J Im a m J Y V J O N N N N N N N N N✓✓ Y w N N J Y m a g o 1Ni1 N J W N m V 07/06/00 14:12 SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC 4 83644001702010:319709 N0.724 5102 -'k 1 Sherman & Howard L.L.c. ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW 633 SEVENTEENTH STRE T, SUITE 3000 DENVER. COLORADO 60202 TELEPHONE: 303 297-2900 fAX 303 29120940 OFFICES IN. COLORADO SPRINGS RENO • LAS VEGAS July 5, 2000 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 109 8th Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Attn: Don K. DeFord, Esq. Re: Proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District Service Plan Ladies and Gentlemen: We are special counsel to the County with respect to the review of the above - referenced Service Plan for the proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District (the "District"). This is in response to a letter from the County Attorney's office dated June 21, 2000, requesting our review and comment on the proposed Service Plan, with an emphasis on the financial provisions therein. In addition, this letter addresses the specific questions asked in the aforementioned letter. I, INTRODUCTION The District is proposed as a new entity to be approved at the upcoming November election. Its purpose is to provide open space and purchase conservation easements, a relatively limited role compared to traditional special districts, and it encompasses all the land in the Roaring Fork School District boundaries except those lands exclusively within Pitkin County . To finance the purchase and acquisition of such open space and conservation easements, the District intends to authorize and issue $10,000,000 of limited tax bonds- Both operations and debt service is projected to be payable from a mill levy of 2.5 mills. Normally, our review of service plans focuses primarily on the financial provisions, and this review will similarly make recommendations in that regard. However, we also note several matters which may be of interest to the County and the proponents which do not fall within the financial sections. II GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SERVICE PLAN A. Power of Eminent Domain The proposed Service Plan provides in the Introduction that "[t]he District shall not have the power of condemnation". There is �et to condemn property.e question whether or not the Service The power ofPeminent completely negate the District's statutory p 07/06/00 14:12 SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC 4 83E413001702010tt19709 N0.724 D03 Sherman & Howard tax. Garfield County, Colorado July 5, 2000 Page 2 domain is granted to the District specifically by the legislature in §32-1-1005 (1) (c), C.R.S.', such power is typically considered as one of the more important powers which can be granted a political subdivision, and it is not at all certain that the Service Plan can remove such power completely. In this regard, we recommend that the County not rely upon this provision as an enforceable one. In other words, we consider it unlikely that the County could enjoin a condemnation by the proposed District otherwise permitted by statute, notwithstanding this statement in the Service Plan. The County may not view this provision as being important because even without such a provision in the Service Plan, the statutory power of eminent domain granted to the proposed District is quite limited. In this case the District is only authorized to condemn within its boundaries for access to park and recreational facilities. It is not permitted to condemn tracts of land for open space, but only for access to such open space. Consequently, there may not be any harm in leaving this provision as is, whether or not it is enforceable. However, if the issue of limiting condemnation is important to the County or the proponents, it may be possible to include other provisions which clarify and regulate the District's power of eminent domain rather than simply removing it as the Service Plan now provides. For example, the provision now contained in the .last sentence of the first paragraph of the introduction could be replaced with the following: "Pursuant to statute, it is hereby provided that the District is empowered to exercise the power of eminent domain (i) only within the boundaries of the District, (ii) only for the purpose of easements and rights-of-way for access to park and recreational facilities operated by the District, and (iii) only where no other access to such facilities exists or can be acquired by other means. The District is not authorized to, and shall not, use the power of eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring conservation easements or land for open space. Because it is the intent of the District and this Service Plan to minimize the use of the power of eminent domain, the District will not acquire or operate any park or recreational facilities which will require the exercise of the foregoing power of eminent domain in order to obtain access to such facilities." This regulates the matter through regulating the facilities acquired, rather than simply providing that the District cannot exercise a basic legislative power. 1The statute provides that park and recreation districts are empowered "[t]o have and exercise the power of eminent domain and, in the manner provided by article 1 of title 38, C.R.S., to take any property necessary to the exercise of the powers granted, both within and without the special district, only for the purposes of television relay and translator facilities, and, within the boundaries of the district, only for the purpose of easements and rights-of-way for access to park and recreational facilities operated by the special district and only where no other access to such facilities exists or can be acquired by other means." 07/06/00 14:12 SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC 4 83644001702010419709 N0.724 D04 Sherman & Howard L.L,c. Garfield County, Colorado July 5, 2000 Page 3 B. Other Districts Exercising Park and Recreation Powers Under §32-1-107 (2) and (3), C.R.S., it is provided that with certain limited exceptions, no special district may be organized wholly or partly within an existing special district providing the same service. Ordinarily, this is not an issue for special districts because they encompass relatively small areas and there are no plans to overlap multiple districts on a single tract. However, the territory of this special district is very broad, and without proper provisions in the Service Plan, it is possible that .it may impair the formation of other districts in this area attempting to exercise the power of park and recreation. The proposed Service Plan deals with this issue with the statement that "f Ole District recognizes the potential validity of future recreation districts and will consent to their creation, if approvedby public vote." This is a start, because the District's consent to the formation of other districts with park and recreation powers is part of one of the exceptions to the general rule that District's exercising overlapping powers are not to be created'. However, that is not the only requirement, and in any event it is not entirely clear that the District can commit the Board of Directors to give such consent in all cases. Thus, 1 recommend removal of that phrase and substitution of the following: "It is hereby acknowledged that the District is intended only for the acquisition of open space and conservation easements, and that such facilities do not by their nature duplicate or interfere with any other park and recreation improvements or facilities which future or existing special districts may acquire or construct, including without 2The text of the relevant statute provides as follows: "An overlapping special district may be authorized to provide the same service as the existing special or metropolitan district that the overlapping special district overlaps or will overlap if: (I) Where the service plan of such overlapping special district is subject to approval by the board of county commissioners, the board of county commissioners of the county or counties in which the overlapping territory is located approves by resolution the inclusion of such service as part of the service plan of said overlapping special district; and (II) Where the service plan of such overlapping special district is subject to the approval of the governing body of a municipality, the governing body of any municipality that has adopted a resolution of approval of the overlapping special district pursuant to section 32-1-204.5 (I) (a) approves by resolution the inclusion of such service as part of the service plan of said overlapping special district; and (III) The improvements or facilities to be financed, established, or operated by the overlapping in special ecial district for the provision of the same service as the existing special or metropolitan district do not duplicate or interfere with any other improvements or facilities already constructed or planned to be constructed within the portion of the existing special or metropolitan district that the overlapping special district overlaps or will overlap; and (IV) The board of directors of any special district or metropolitan district authorized to provide a service within the boundaries of the overlapping area consents to the overlapping special district providing the same service?' /B' 07/06/00 14:12 SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC 4 836414001702010419709 NO.724 D05 Sherman & Howard LLC. Garfield County, Colorado July 5, 2000 Page 4 limitation other open space and conservation easements that may be acquired by such other special districts. Accordingly, it is acknowledged that there is no reason why the District's Board of Directors would not consent to the creation of any such other special districts exercising park and recreation powers, as provided in §32-1-107 (3), C.R.S., and to the extent permitted by law, it is the intent of this Service Plan that the District's Board of Directors shall consent to the creation of such other special districts." While it is unlikely that the discretion of the future Board of Directors can be completely controlled through this provision, it makes the intent of the organizers clear, and would make it at least politically difficult for a future Board to argue to the contrary when and if its consent is requested. It also addresses the other portions of the statute quoted in footnote 2. C. Engineering and Architectural Information The statutes provide in §32-1-201 (2), C.R.S., that all service plans must contain certain required matters. The County is not responsible for determining that a Service Plan contains these matters, but it may wish to do so. In this regard, there is one matter which I call to your and the proponents' attention. The statutes require that a service plan contain "[a] preliminary engineering or architectural survey showing how the proposed services are to be provided". Here, the Service Plan states that such aprovi.sion is not applicable because it will be engaged only in open space acquisition. It seems reasonable to conclude that if the District does not intend to build anything, it cannot be expected to provide engineering or architectural data3. However, it would not be unreasonable for the County to request some information be included in the Service Plan as to the location and extent of the open space to be acquired, which is akin to the type of information the engineering and architectural survey would have revealed. From my review of the proposed Service Plan, it is not clear what properties are to be so acquired. It may be that the location and extent of these properties are similarly unknown, although this seems unlikely since it has been determined that the District will issue $10,000,000 of bonds for such purchases, and presumably the proponents have some such properties in mind at this time. In any event, it may be appropriate to include something further on this point, or at least an estimate of the .number of acres which could potentially be acquired. Note that in Section VI of the Service Plan, the District is proposing the "development and maintenance of mails", which could be the subject of such a report. I am assuming that no specific plans for trails exist at this time, and thus it would probably be impossible to include any engineering information at this time. However, if there are specific plans for trails, it is arguable that the statutes require at least some engineering information on such trails. 07/06/00 14:12 SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC - 8364t2001702010t219709 NO.724 [706 Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Garfield County, Colorado July 5, 2000 Page 5 III, RESTRICTIONS ON DEBT ISSUANCE IN THE SERVICE PLAN A. Limited Mill Levy The District is proposing to limit both its operations and debt service mill levy. Subsection IV (c) provides that "[t]he mill levy to support debt and operating expenses will not exceed 2.5 mills without voter approval." Initially, it should be noted that this does not restrict the District from voting and issuing unlimited mill levy bonds, and thus does not operate as any sort of limit. The District cannot impose any tax without voter approval, so a limit based upon voter approval is no limit at all. Given the high assessed valuation ofthe District, the County may view this as an issue between the District and its voters, in which case this provision may be viewed sufficient as is, or it could even be removed since it has no legal effect. However, if the County and the proponents intend to place a real mill levy Iimit upon the District which cannot be overridden except by an amendment to the Service Plan, I suggest the following phrase should replace the above -quoted provision: "The District's total ad valorem property tax mill levy shall not exceed 2.5 mills for all purposes, including the mill levy imposed for debt purposes. Any bonds or other obligations issued, and operations and maintenance expenses incurred, shall be payable solely from the proceeds of a mill levy not in excess of 2.5 mills. It is acknowledged that the foregoing provi.s.ions are material, and any deviation therefrom is a material departure :from this Service Plan." The above phrase makes it clear that this cannot be overridden by voter approval, and that departure therefrom is a material departure from the Service Plan without an amendment at a later date. I should note that in a limited .mill levy district, it is typical to provide that the limited mill levy will be adjusted to deal with changes in law, such as periodic adjustment in the ratio of assessed to actual value which the constitution currently mandates. The amount produced by 2.5 mills will vary from year to year as the ratio of assessed valuation to actual valuation changes, and such variations may be material. The proponents may have determined that, from a political standpoint, no such adjustment should be made. However, the County may wish to see such a limit in place if the ratio of assessed to actual value for residential property increases. In such event, the monetary effect of 2.5 mills on residential property owners will be increased. This is often dealt with by providing for adjustments in the limited mill levy in order to maintain the same relative tax burden. If the County wishes to address this in the Service Plan, it could request the proponents to include the following phrases after the 2.5 levy mill. limitation: 07/06/00 14:12 SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC 4 8364tt0O1702010419709 N0.724 Dal Sherman & Howard LL.c. Garfield County, Colorado July 5, 2000 Page 6 "For purposes of the 2.5 mill levy limit above, the District may provide that in the event the method of calculating assessed valuation is changed after the date of approval of this Service Plan, the 2.5 mill levy limitation provided herein will be increased or decreased to reflect such changes, such increases or decreases to be determined by the Board of Directors of the District in good faith (such determination to be binding and final) so that to the extent possible, the actual tax revenues generated by the mill levy, as adjusted, are neither diminished nor enhanced as a result of such changes. For purposes of the foregoing, a change in the ratio of actual valuation to assessed valuation shall, be deemed to be a change in the method of calculating assessed valuation. For the purposes of this provision, 2000 shall be the base year for the ratio for assessment of valuation." B. Limitations Upon Operations and Maintenance Mill Levy Under Section VI, there is a provision which purports to restrict use of the funds of the District, generally as follows: No less than 70% - acquisition of improvements (and presumably payment of debt); No less than 15% - development and maintenance of trails and "other improvements"; No more than 15% - maintenance of acquired properties and administration. I believe there is a legal question whether such limitations are legally binding on all future boards, especially with respect to operations and maintenance expenses. There is no clear right of a service plan to place perpetual limits upon operations expenses, and in the event of a public necessity, I think it likely that a court would hold that this provision is not enforceable. It could be argued that, so long as the mill levy is limited, the actual use of the District's money should be determined by its Board of Directors, exercising the discretion given it by the legislature. The District will have perpetual existence, and there may come a time when it is prudent to depart from the above formula. Unless the County believes that the expenditure controls are an essential part of the Service Plan, I suggest that it would be better to remove the phrase which precedes this statement (which phrase currently reads "[f]unding will be distributed according to the following formula") and substitute the following instead: "Unless the District Board of Directors determines that the public peace, health, and safety requires otherwise, it is the intent of this Service Plan that the following will control the expenditure of funds by the District:" 07/06/00 14:12 SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC 4 8364110e1702010tt19709 NO.724 DOS Sherman & Howard L.L.c. Garfield County, Colorado July 5, 2000 Page 7 This leaves an exception for matters of public emergency, and makes the provision more likely to be upheld if challenged. IV. SPECIFIC QUESTIONS A. County Funding of Election In the County Attorney's letter dated June 21, 2000, he asks specifically our position on any requirement that the County fund an election for the District. I can find no such requirement in any statute, and while it is impossible to prove a negative, I do not believe there is a statute obligating the County to pay the costs of the election. Additionally, I note that §1-5-506, C.R.S., which is made applicable to the District by several references in Title 32, provides that "Et)he cost of conducting a nonpartisan election, including the cost of printing and supplies, shall be paid by the governing body calling the election." The District's election is a nonpartisan election, and while it has no governing body at this time, it is equally clear that the County is not the governing body calling the election. The County is acting merely as one of the approving bodies for the Service Plan, and is not calling the election itself. Consequently, I do not believe that the County has any obligation to fund the costs of the election. B. Agricultural Exclusions The County Attorney also raises the issue of the exclusion of 40 acre agricultural tracts, and asks the effect of such exclusions. With respectto park and recreation districts, the statutes provide that "no tract of land of forty acres or more used primarily and zoned for agricultural uses shall be included in any park and recreation district organized under this part 3 without the written consent of the owners thereof." §32-1-307, C.R.S. The statute goes on to provide that "[Of the use or zoning of any tract of land of forty acres or more lying within the boundaries of any park and recreation district ... has been or is changed from agricultural use or zoning to any other use or zoning designation, such lands and the personal property thereon shall no longer be excluded from said district and shall be subject to all obligations, liens, or charges of such district on and after January 1 of the year following such change in use or zoning." The District's Service Plan acknowledges this limitation in Section VI but states that "[t]he effect of exclusion is deemed minimal because of the valuation of the property as `agricultural' land and the limited amount of such lands." Essentially, the Service Plan states that the exclusions of these properties will not have a material affect upon the assessed valuation of the District. While this may very well be the case, it is impossible to say without knowing the number of potential 40 acre tracts that could be excluded. It would not be unreasonable to ask the proponents for assessed valuation and expenditure information based upon the assumption that none of the 07/06/00 14:12 SHERMAN & HOWARD LLC 4 8364130017020101319709 N0.724 D09 Sherman & Howard L.L.C. Garfield County, Colorado July 5, 2000 Page 8 aforementioned parcels are included. This is the worst case analysis; thus, if the numbers still work with this assumption, it can be concluded that they will work regardless of how many of such parcels are eventually included. V. CONCLUSION The above suggestions for language changes in the Service Plan are based in part upon certain presumptions about what the County believes necessary, and upon the plans of this District. Upon review and discussion of these matters it may be that other, or different, language would he more appropriate, and the suggested changes to the Service Plan made in this letter should not be viewed as the only altematives or as absolutely necessary. I would be happy to discuss the above recommended changes at your convenience. Sincerely, SHERMAN & HOWARD L.L.C. Blake T. Jordan RECEIVED A(�'; Roaring Fork Open Space Park and Recreation District Amendments to Service Plan 2000 Pursuant to requests from Garfield County's attorneys and the meeting with the Garfield County Planning Commission, the following amendments shall be made to the Service Plan for the Roaring Fork Open Space Park and Recreation District: read: 1. In Part III, Proposed Services of the District, the third paragraph will be amended to The District appreciates the need for diversity of park and recreation experiences and will coordinate planing with local recreation providers. It is hereby acknowledged that the District is intended only for the acquisition of open space and conservation easements and development of passive recreation upon such open space. Such facilities do not by their nature duplicate or interfere with the development of active park and recreation improvements and facilities which future or existing park and recreation districts may acquire or construct. Accordingly, it is acknowledged that there is no reason why the District's Board of Directors would not consent to the creation of a park and recreation district, as defined in section 32-1-103(14) C.R.S.. solely exercising park and recreation powers for the development of active recreation improvements and facilities, including but not limited to the development of such improvements and facilities at the Sopris Tree Farm site in Eagle County, as such consent is required in section 32-1-107(3) C.R.S. and, to the extent permitted by law. it is the intent of this Service Plan that the District's Board of Directors shall consent to the creation of such other park and recreation districts. to read: In Part III. Proposed Services of the District, a new paragraph will be added to read: It is not the intent of this Service Plan to allow the District's Board of Directors to purchase land the sole purpose of which would prevent the natural expansion of any municipal or special district's utilities. Such utilities could be constructed over land owned by the District at suitable locations along the boundaries of any such land or at such other suitable locations as the District's Board of Directors and the owner of such utilities can agree. The construction of any utilities across District owned land shall be accomplished so as to minimize the impact upon the District owned land, and the owner of such utilities shall fully mitigate the construction by re -vegetation and such other reasonable means as agreed between the District's Board of Directors and the owner of such utilities. 3. In Part IV, Financial Information and Financing Plan, paragraph C. will be amended C. Identification of District Revenue: The District's total ad valorem property tax mill levy shall not exceed 2.5 mills for all purposes, including the mill levy imposed for debt purposes. Any bonds or other obligations issued, and operations and maintenance expenses incurred, shall be payable solely from the proceeds of a mill levy not in excess of 2.5 mills. It is acknowledged that the foregoing provisions are material and any deviation from these provisions is a material change from this Service Plan. 4. In Part VI, Boundaries and Valuation, the third paragraph will be amended to read: A 2.5 mill levy rate will generate approximately $1,000,000 in the first year of the District existence. Unless the District's Board of Directors determines that the public peace, health and safety requires otherwise, it is the intent of this Service Plan that the following will control the expenditure of funds by the District: Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners, 0203 Westbank Rd. Glenwood Spgs., CO August 8, 2000 Re: New Tax District I recently received a notice of a hearing to be held at the Commissioners Meeting Room on August 23, 2000 to consider approval of a Service Plan for the proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District. I believe this new tax district is completely unnecessary. I would ask that the Commissioners not approve this new tax district. No new taxes! Your disapproval of this new tax district will be appreciated. Very truly yours, Warren Wright WESTBANK RANCH Homeowners Association P.O. Box 2703 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Commissioners, AUG 64101004-0 August 4,` 2000 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District Proposal Our homeowners recently received notice of a hearing to be held at the Commissioners Meeting Room on August 23, 2000 to consider approval of a Service Plan for the subject proposed tax district. We request that you deny approval of the proposal to form this new tax district. Westbank is a community in the middle of thousands of acres of recreational area and parks. We, as the Directors of the Westbank Homeowner's Association, see absolutely no need to burden the community with additional taxes. By denying this tax district request, the Commissioners can clearly show that they do not support any new taxes, and at the same time save taxpayer money by avoiding costs associated with forming and voting on the tax district. If the Open Space 2000 group believes they need to pursue this initiative, we suggest they proceed with personal donations, grants, lottery funds, or other funds acquired without imposing new taxes. Your denial of this new tax district will be appreciated. '2 Very truly yours, Lamar Podbevsek President Board of Directors Westbank Homeowners Association 7 4011 • • • • • • • 1 • • • k 41- 1 � • 6 •r r '� J 10 10 CD • • • 6 1-D (Z 0 ui 0 r, co •10 0 Lul4 X.., 6— c0 c0 IL N. na300060 ,U1 N- a 0 0 NN Li_ 0- O. 0X 0 < w CI. a II W V) o<oZZ o0 <r,r, 2ao•o- <0 x >_, < 00 LL 20 a ,141. Virginia Branine 396 Meadow Ln. Glenwood Spgs, CO 81601-9516 August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: AUG 10 2000 GertaDOCY rr 1 request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property I own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. * My currer lti -owr leu property ty i - known r by the physical addr essr es' of (,- L LJJ civ _ . ri ac) S Lor7 to 0 �- -r (=iCt,`. C >n i � Li 5 y currently -owned property is a o knrwn by the tax receipt number(s) of:1.11-1 7 ROA)3g SChe.d.cai S(2 c7-- ,TwIJI i2. N&1 I-7-ri D E s c ak: C'1.g5 P6; O Q 1 73% all land _-.-- Federal, state and local governments own more than of land surface in Garfield County. tbelieve it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own proper ty. The 1e proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we wiii no longer be a nation of free peopie. The working people avp1C uf Garfield County labor long and sacrifice acrlfiCe much t0 live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. i request that you not it lvoive yourselves in creating a layer or additional taxation 1 on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? ►1 L� e a /(.) Sincerely, La,-ry.\ Addres - 1. u0i.. /% &1-` Ci/1 r,{ 9- l r j1� C�) w k.0 0) 970 V i 3 7 Tom Crawford P.O. Box 1044 Carbondale, Co. 816 Certified Mail No. 7' t,UG 10 2000 August 9, 2000 Garfield County Board of Commissioners 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Dear Commissioners, As the owner of Lot 11 in Rock Creek Subdivision, Garfield County (also known as 484 Crystal River Road), I hereby request that my property be excluded from the proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District. Rock Creek Subdivision owns a community greenbelt area extending along the entire east side of the sub- division to the middle of the Crystal River. This green- belt is used regularly by the public for fishing and should be considered as a significant contribution on our part to county open space. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Sincerely, Garfield County Commissioners Glenwood Springs, Co Dear Sir: AN 10 2000 August 10, 2000 Weil) cQ'JNTY QMSS This is a letter of request to exclude my property from the proposed tax district to be known as the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District. Legal Discription: SECT, TWN, RNG: 5-6-89 SUB:VISTA HEIGHTS SUB BLK:3 LOT:1 BK: 0403 PG: 0562 BK:0544 PG:0544 BK:0721 PG:0362 BK:0743 PG:0255 Practical Address: 0095 Fairview Dr Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Thank you Sincerely, August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners Drawer 1330 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Denise Henderson 0488 County Road 162 Carbondale, Co 81623 Dear Commissioners, I would like to be excluded from the territory of the proposed recreation district I am against broad-based taxation except when absolutely necessary. 1 have only 10 acres but maintain it for horses and open space. I feel that the recreational opportunities in this area are unsurpassed. I do not need help from government in my recreational pursuits. I own horses, a raft and rafting equipment, golfing equipment, bikes and biking equipment, camping equipment, rollerblades, ice skates, skis and snow boards, and belong to a private tennis club. This not mentioning the unlimited hiking we avail ourselves of. Does it sound like I need help from the government to recreate? In addition, I served on the Park and Recreation Commission of Carbondale for 11 years and am well acquainted with the available facilities and programs in the valley and the funding that is currently in place. Carbondale already has a recreation tax in place and a second recreation tax would amount to double taxation for those residents. What with Glenwood Springs already building an indoor recreation center and Carbondale starting the initial study for there own, it appears that the recreation budgets are very healthy already. Developers should be contributing to open space and recreation because the building boom directly affects the problems you seem to want to address. And lastly nowhere have I heard what your goals and plans are for said funds and how you intend to structure the management for the proposed district and how this would effect the recreation departments in the individual towns and cities in the district and their budgets. 1 respectfully ask to be excluded. NOP 39 - Sincerely, .\\.\1\/\2 ),\..."‘ Denise Henderson August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: AUG 10 2000 GARFIELD COUNTY COMMONERS I request exclusion f r oil r the Roaring Fork ()pert Space, rant, drid Recrediiorl Dish k 1 for all property I own now or -will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the physical address(es) of: /060 Rd /27 c7 '/14.0001-SA_7//L 7 f (1 My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: R0e300 (C 7 Federal, _1 local .. •. 1 73% of _n 1 surface Federal, state and local governments own more than do land surface in Garfield Count. tbelieve it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. Orie of the precepts of American government is the right to owl r property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we wiii no longer be a nation of free peopie. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer or additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, Address: (0/fc (Ti 12C r 3 - r Co August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 AU6102W3 OARFELD COUNTY COM Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property i own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the physical address(es) of: 61,570-2 "s /3/06C U'a,o' C 2 80-.1 d 0.9/ e Co io /6=R 6, 7 /d CDu,,Tj/ My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: ,x'/16:- 30- 7 -47 S a 8: LI o R_i 06c= S7 Ln T = iy R J : Q C / 0 PC—:orasrglztx e'/ f5:6 `/3 .61c- P�04)07 Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. I believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed. Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, / r 6"-2-1.1 Address: 7 s -)7Z77 _ C'� , (2 P&;2-37 C&1 . C, ��? S7/(0-3 August 8, 2000 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs CO 81601 Dear Commissioners: IPS AUG 10 2000 WREID COUNTY CONINSINSIS We received a Notice of Public Hearing regarding the Open Space 2000 issue. Please be advised that our property is located within the RE -1 School District and we respectfully request that it be excluded from the proposed special district boundaries. We are opposed to the formation of this district. As we only received a short post card advising us of our right to request exclusion from the district we are doing so. If there are special guidelines we need to follow to be excluded or special information or explanations you are requiring to exclude our property, please let us know as soon as possible. Your consideration of our request is appreciated. Surely, Thomas S. and Mary Beth Joiner 12907 Highway 82 Carbondale CO 81623 zec.4. 1147 I 3 �.� RUG -11-2000 FRI 12:12 PPI 1,1% Date: August 11, 2000 FAX NO. To: Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 109 - 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 From: Michael and Cindy Horst' 17335 Highway 82 Carbondale, CO 81623 FAX: 945-7785 P. 01 Re: Proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District Service Plan As homeowners in a unique RESIDENTIAL/AGRICULTURAL neighborhood in Garfield County, situate on a 1/3 -acre lot, including a 1400 square foot residential dwelling with one -car garage and a garden out back, we hereby respectfully request exclusion from no above - referenced proposed special district. Sincerely, __rgrd L Michael Vv. Horst Aliffy Cindy /JJ orst August 10, 2000 TO: Board of County Commissioners Garfield County akifittil COUNTYCOMWSNEW RE: Formation of a Special District to be known as "Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District" We are vehemently opposed to the formation of this special district and ask to be excluded from the proposed district as presented on the "Notice of Public Hearing" card, announcing a public hearing to be held on Aug.23, 2000. This is an open ended tax with no relief, no controls, no need. An unnecessary tax burden on senior property owners, with relatively fixed incomes, who were fortunate enough to have purchased their home before this rash of expansion, but would still like to stay in the valley. There has to be a better answer than this. Re pectfully, .'� /1/44.1 - -7;e, del/ Fred and Velma Rowland 0150 Oak Lane (Lot 19, Westbank Filing 1) Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: AUG 10 211N Aftwomnowtssiotten I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property i own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the physical address(es) of: / /y (-7 )- ac, /r, / , ri : . My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. 1 beiieve it is uniust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of Pdditional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, 7-2 Address: /V/ Ce ?'/ 7.4 C // /i August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: AUG 10 2000 OARitill COUNTY COMMISSIONCAS I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property I own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the physical address(es) of: Mv currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: /% (10 c) ci Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. I believe it is uniust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of tree people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working peopie of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, Address'5��x r�5' August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: AUG 10 2000 GABEDUNTY cosy I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property I own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the ph sinal address(es) of: 5" e n Dr. C. -147e, c1 •=1 1 My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: sche��Le �'o //�7 Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. I believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County, endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, zB Yet ZQ cqn f( „ail _, ..35 �i.z �4 .23 c��Le r.✓�iv/ / /�a �� y pr'®verZLy �d�c.Xe3 rei../La.,.,.e J �SS`�es :✓/i�c`j d'_3ise iy preJ erZ� Ld�cq.s` ? August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: AUG 3 0 2000 GARNEIDCOUNIYMINOVINI I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property I own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My Icur r ently-owned'roper ty is know) 1 by the physical address(es) of: LRRRY Z-• Ice I l e/Z 36q vA11eq Ure-to A Glen�wobd Sion% S CP 1316.0% My currently -owned grope y is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: 5?a3 Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% or ail land sur lace in Garfield County. Tbelieve it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. Orie of the precepts of American government is the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, mien we will rio longer be a nation of free people. The kin-. .---p1- of 1 1 1 The �c wOrrcir.y people Garfield County labor gong and sacrifice much to give here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? IQ P Sincerely Address: 3 Coq 1 Ul9IIv/0 !/'1 00 6, I etv w cs.o b 3 D7S CO August 2, 2000 D Board of County Commissioners AUG 10 2000 of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 GARBED COUNTY C�� Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: d F-3ecr-eation District I request exclusion f r ur n the Rowing Fur" Space, I request thisrexemption for myself, for all property I own now or will own in the future my heirs, and assigns. My cur r ei ]iy-uwrleu property s known r by the physical address(es) of: My currently -owned property is alsoknown by the tax receipt number(s) of: Federal, state A Nlocal governments own more than 73 io of ail land surface acre i n Garfield County. 1 believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. The One of the precepts of American government rent is the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Paifourns , and Recreation District r►ghts are lnfringe upon infringed upon, our Constitutional right to own property. then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The workiny people of Garfield rfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. that i request a rdr. yuu not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, Address: 2 7� 3 August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners ui cacti i i�6u Cuw iiy 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District ILA r ail oupuiiy i °Wu now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned prop is wn by the physical address(es) of: L / 4,7 W,., )c 77 /n `fir My currently awned pro er is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: fi /L3 i Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. I believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property' The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities Sincerely, L Adress:2 L� �1L+fT'� � ei/ August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners F AUS 1 commissi2000 of toc!1!i kJ Cuu!1!y was 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District fu, ail i own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known the// -- physical address(es) of: My current -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: /1,63/.737 Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. I believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property' The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The AIorking people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, e. .' v August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Gd1Cow ►:y 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District ll _. ._ in the ail ufvuci%y i uwi►► now or will uw� � �� �suture. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the, physical4ddrpss(es) of: 4-W4 f-tiftL, AUG 10 2000 GARFIELD COUNTY My currently -owned) property isalso known by the tax receipt number(s) of: A /13 Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. I believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more govemment land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property' The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The :working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, Add ssac? RAF /�r 1,-6 (:6 : Jif, / ( / .e / L.(,/L1ll s>jJJ ifaz 46e/ August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners ui Gat i t kJ Cuut by 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District ;u, ail prupe ty i own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known bythe physical address(es) of: My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: Ai ait-/-67--.8 0 2119 Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of ail land surface in Garfield County. I believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property? The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, dress:i3C j �� f� A } a • Board of County Commissioners ui Gd! i lCPU CUL!! ii.y 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 I$1 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District io, ail piupelty i own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself. my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned propeq is known by a phy icat address(es) of: V?/447-i-t?i� ffd'E August 2, 2000 My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: -3j;L3'j 7 O3/ //e- 3 C3 Federal, state and local govemments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. I believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more govemment land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners ui Get(! ei i `✓•Uu( liy 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District AUG 10 zouo Dear Commissioners: I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will own tL future. ail ul vuciV i own i i uw or iiviu in the � uture. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the physical address(es) of: My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. f believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more govemment land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property' The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. if our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, ddress: /JO -4-1m? / P t d -5? rt 4 7 F/6 0/ August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners vi lad!CULII liy AUG 10 2000 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District ;n, ail plopcity i own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the physical address(es) of: My currently_rned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: i r7. Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of ail land surface in Garfield County. I believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smailer base of taxpayers to create more govemment land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property ° The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, Address:%. a C .i3/4' i✓ BWM TO: Board of County Commissioners, Garfield County 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 AUG 10 2000 LINTY CQMMISS Q 1ERb FROM: Brian W. Mandeville RE: Proposed New Special District, "Roaring Fork Open Solace, Park, and Recreation District" Greetings; We are property owners in Aspen Glen. We are building a house there which will be completed by about January 1, 2001. The address will be 396 Brookie. We received a card from Open Space 2000 about this proposed district. Please exclude our property from this district, if it becomes a taxable district. Thank you. Signed, c? alWa4/4 nan W. Mandeville Notice of Public Hearing 4, i cL Jean E. Mandeville A public hearing will be held before the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County beginning at 10:30 a.m. on August 23, 2000 in the Commissioners' Meeting Room at 109 8th Glenwood Springs, to consider the approval of a Service Plan calling for the formation of a new special district to be known as the RoaringFork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District. It is proposed that the boundaries of te District will be identical to the boundaries of RE -1 School District, excluding all properties in Pitkin County. The proposed District is being organized as a Park and Recreation District, subject to and except for statutory and constitutional limitations on the ability of a special district to impose new taxes and increase spending, as well as the requirements for voter approval thereof, there will be a maximum limit of 2.5 mills on the District. A 2.5 mill levy would cost the owner of a home with an assessed value of $300,000 less than $75 per year in property tax based on current information. The Board of County Commissioners may exclude territory from the proposed District prior to approval of the Service Plan Any person owning property in the proposed Special District who desires to request exclusion must submit such a request, in writing, to the Board of County Commissioners at the above address not later than ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, but the Board of County Commissioners shall not be limited in its action with respect to exclusion of territory based upon such request. The Petitioners for the formation of the District shall have the burden of proving that exclusion of such property is not in the best interest of the District. There shall be automaticallyexcluded from the District, without need for request, tracts of 40 acres or more usedprimarilyand zoned for agricultural use, in accordance with 32-1-307, C.R.S. Open Space 2000: Pat Fitzgerald, Charles Willman, Robert Schultz Brian W. Mandeville 1479 Kinross Lane - Glenmore Keswick, Virginia 22947-9110 USA 804 984 4194 phone 804 984 1 191 fax jembwm@aol.com Richard & Bonnie Bradley P O Box 1060 Carbondale, Co 81623 Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 August 10, 2000 AUG 1,MO C) ONTY N OVER$ Dear Commissioners: We are the owners of Lot 7, Rock Creek Subdivision, istrictOo be known River273 Crystal ashe Roaring Fork Road. We hereby request exclusion from the new special Open Space, Park and Recreation District, the formation of which you are considering later this month. ve Covenants We have owned and resided on this property for 17, 1972 as Rrs. In the eceptioln No 256066 in Of Rock Creek Subdivision recorded on Book 438 at page 26 thereof, Rock Creek acyl to all the lots and extending oision has a community butelt the t area extending along the entire subdivision, add centerline of the Crystal River. This Green Belt area extends the entire length of our property. This Green Belt Area has provided many opportunities for all sorts of recreational enthusiasts, and has been very well used as a form owiflsh them to'cont nuenbutt aeeri lthatf way over the decade. We encourage these uses and and recreation. butoe. Thank we have already done our part in contributing to open space, parks you for considering our request. Truly Yours, Richard and Bonnie Bradley AUG 10 2000 GARFIELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS GARFIELD COUNTY SUBJECT: NEW TAX AND DISTRICT HELLO: WE WISH TO REQUEST EXCLUSION FROM THE NEW SPECIAL DISTRICT. WE BELIEVE THIS WILL CONTR[BUTE TO OUR PROPERTY BEING "OVER TAXED". We would be put Onto a more stressful situation when your on a Fixed income, with high medical bills. WE DO NOT WISH TO BE PART OF THE NEW PARK DISTRICT AT THIS TIME. TONY AND DARLENE BARAN 746 COUNTY RD. 170 CARBONDALE CO .81623 963 2903 August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: AUG 10 2000 ciARFIL1D c UNTY COMMt550400 I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property t own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the physical address(es) of: 63S- C/a.ssi r ,701-)ve_ My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: 71.61t4 )35_ L Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. 1 believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield Countv. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, Plc ri 0 / ,9 �F -� -,-et bS SU��\� S0 \,c�\rs( 0 S� Se S -\A_ w 0 c-6 (Cao AUG 10 265) /V\i\nj &name/ wawa 4-0 \) l LL S G\( cS-1 �t rrc9Fe `1 \:\ 66' cam_ (`a �' � Co �j August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: AUG i Q 2000 40tAD TY COMM S I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property i own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned prorRerty is known by the physical address(es) of: 5S C d L ebt Ur Ia (g C -d L e 8)/ >3 My gently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: oL1-- So/eAulc 4# 'i/// • g ?` /3/B3 Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. I believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space. Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, Address: 5> �Jc•�.E;�.,.ck.•;,-4 ce) ?/ 6 a3 August 11, 2000 Garfield County Commissioners 109 8`s St. Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 RE: Donald T. & Priscilla J. Click 511 W. Princeton Circle Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 Gentlemen, Please accept this letter as a request to exclude our property from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District. i Priscilla J. Click August 11, 2000 Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th St. Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 RE: ODP Properties, LLC Lots 31 & 32, Block 17, Original townsite, Glenwood Springs Glenwood Springs, CO. 81601 Gentlemen, Please accept this letter as a request to exclude our property from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District. I affirm that I am authorized to act on behalf of ODP Properties as the managing partner. Donald T. ck General Partner August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property I own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the physical address(es) of: 6,R .1A LLD LA) t -rJ& GSR6ot•04LC- ► co1-o My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: _ R --o I l 386 5u -1E DULL rVUm6SZ TAX Naricc l-D(z I°I99 -- I29I-1- Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. 1 believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities'? Sincerely, Address: ��a ...... ..... August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners Of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property I own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the physical address(es) of: i� A c.A-,4T LA ND N I LLD j N E (r213oxiDA L i OiN;N 6- 362- - LLQ LA- E M currentl -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: DI I I TA -x N v i ict -* I-2-995 F -o. 1 9' 5 9 SCEPLLEE NOmesL Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. I believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for ali property I own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the physical address(es) of: iii. 2iaaL •� �,.�,-t ��' ia✓�C. -/`°-- My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. 1 believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield Country. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, Address: / 7i/6' %;,4-Gw;,�2;: , 7:1,64 . SEL -A• T, LTD. 4812 154 Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-9257 AUG -3 2000 GABF QCOUNIYCO SW • August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen: ROUTE 0 John p Larry 0 Walt We wish to have our property located at 3024 Glen Avenue, Glenwood Springs, excluded from the new special district to be known as the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District. You are taxing us out of existence. Put a stop to it now. Regards, SEL -A -PART, LTD Lynda White Managing Partner from, ow 4e5k,Q LXI\VA , August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen: AUG 201113 cuutroomotrottiot ROUTE �l John D Larry D Wolf We wish to have our property located at 4812 154 Road, Glenwood Springs, excluded from the new special district to be known as the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District. Another and another and another property tax mill is getting way out of control. Regards, S3-2-04-ce George and Lynda White 4812 154 Road Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Board of County Commissioners John Martin Larry McCown Walter Stowe Commissioners Meeting Room 109 Eighth Street Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 Gentlemen: August 2, 2000 Gktiftw COUNTY COMM15510165 of Garfield County AUG -7 2000 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space Park and Recreation District We, the undersigned, request the exclusion of the following property from the proposed Park and Recreation District: Section 22, Township 7, Range 89: Sec. 22, Lots 1 (net 25.46), 6 (net 6.22), 7 (net 5.68) 11 (net 5.78), 12 (net 6.25), all lying East of Co. Rd. 117. Sec: 23, Lots 2 and 3. Section 23, Township 7, Range 89: Sec. 23, Lots 6 (16.37 Ac.), 7 14 (6.18 Ac.) The land is currently used, and. has been used in the past as agricultural and is approximately 85± acres. (3.33 Ac.), 11 (3.33 Ac.), Very truly yours, F & W Jackson FamilyLLLP William B. J ckson 7434 County Road 117 Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: AO=720ffl COMMISAttles I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property I own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned - - _. _.._ . s1. _ .. J � 1 1 .y _ i of: cur r eimy-owneu roper t, is known by the physical address(es)of : 00 CD -74(_\N GER I Q S P2ccS, (0 31C0( My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. I believe.it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the fight to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation -on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? 66- August 4, 2000 John Martin, Chairman Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 RE: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District Dear John and fellow Commissioners, U6 - 8 2800 Mail) COUNTY C K) p We are petitioning to be excluded from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District. The proposed District area is primarily Glenwood Springs to Pitkin County. The area west of Glenwood has been included as it is in the Glenwood Springs School District. This area, west of Glenwood, is primarily BLM land or Forest Service land or is land that is already developed. We do not believe that it would be equitable for us to pay property taxes for open space land along the Roaring Fork Valley, an area miles from where we live. It is important to note two factors. First, the Petitioners have excluded areas of the School District that would be directly impacted, but are in Pitkin County. Secondly, the petitioners have named the District the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District. The name, Roaring Fork, obviously indicates the intent of the area to be included. I am also concerned by the additional parts of the name of the District. It is also called a "Park and Recreation District." While the post cards we received, and the newspaper articles we have read, have not addressed the Park and Recreation component, any activities under as a Park and Recreation District would also be miles from where we live. We would like to propose the boundaries of the district stop at a line drawn north and south from the We Marker 112 of Interstate 70. This would include Glenwood Springs and the area immediately weft of Glenwood, and yet exclude those areas that are not practically, contiguous, to the rest of the district. We thank -you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Carl L. Smith Q732 Canyon Creek Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 928-9770 Vickie A. Smith G7' August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners Ati6 244. of Garfield County 109 8th erekt.4001COMISMINS Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: 1 request exclusion from the Roaring norOpen Space,and District for all property I own now or will Nhuest this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the physical address(es) of: 907 Vito's Way, Carbondale, CO My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: Schedule Number R580432 Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. 1 believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor brig and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, Address: 907 Vito's Way Carbondale, CO 81623 August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re:. Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: AUG - 8 2000 GARPIttb RS I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property I own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently- wned property is know by the physical ddress(es) of: G-✓. (X -e e k D N. w oy +n Sg g' / % 6 trig. C,,'e e k (fs fps 54> d, v, illycurrently-owned property is als9,knpwn by the tax receipt number(s) of: T X: 1c -&-0F Seke.A../e 4 1Q 080706 Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. I believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property.. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, Address: 4/ewe* 641- August 2, MO Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: Park, and Recreation req uest exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, request this exemption for District f, for all property I own now or will own in the future. my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known by the physical address(es) of: 2230 Hi 12 133 , Carbond e, AUG 8 z000 iFtw MOM cow/awes My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: Schedul Number R090204 • Federal, state and focal governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. l believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government lard. One of the precepts of American government !s the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, anti Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County 'abor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, anc' Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people became serfs of the taxing authorities? Carbondale, CO 81623 P. 0_ Box 463 Carbondale, CO 81623 Nanna B. Schov & David Mork P.O. Box 21 Carbondale, Colorado 81623 Garfield County Board of Commissioners 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Commissioners, AUG -82 GAMVXVIZAW1005 August 10, 2000 Being the owners of Lot 9, Rock Creek Subdivision (also known as 0361 Crystal River Road), the plat of which was filed for record in the office of the Clerk and Recorder of Garfield County, Colorado on June 21, 1972 as Document No. 254211, we hereby request exclusion from the new special district to be known as the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District, the formation of which you are considering for approval later this month. We have owned, resided at and raised our family on this 7.9 acre property adjacent to the Crystal River for over 20 years. As noted in the above mentioned Plat, and by reference found in the Second Amendment to Protective Covenants of Rock Creek Subdivision recorded on November 17, 1972 as Reception No. 256066 in Book 438 at Page 26 thereof, Rock Creek Subdivision has a community greenbelt area extending along the entire subdivision, adjacent to all the lots and extending out to the centerline of the Crystal River. The Green Belt Area, as platted, extends from approximately 7.5 to 27.5 feet from our yard to the high water mark and from approximately 20 to 45 feet from our yard to the edge of the water. This equals approximately 1/5 of an acre to the high water mark and approximately 2/5 of an acre to the edge of the water. It is not necessary to calculate to the centerline of the Crystal River. These distances have been corroborated by a survey done in September, 1994. This Green Belt Area has provided many opportunities for all sorts of recreational enthusiasts, and has been very well used as a form of fishermans' easement and right- of-way over the decades. We encourage these uses and wish them to continue, but feel that we have already done our part in contributing to open space, parks and recreation. Thank you for considering our request. Very Truly Yours, f tom` August 2, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: AUG ' 9 2000 tar/ COMMODES I request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property I own now or will own in the future. I request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -owned property is known b the physical addre 2 15 /1. /� .. L&1 "-, dci1e 074 E• i/i5fct ���-. ,� es) of: 51/6 3 My curr ntl -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: 3q q5 ' c t, -7C Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County. I believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own property. The proposed Roaring Pork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we will no longer be a nation of free people_ The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Rdaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people become serfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, L2 7,P D Address:��-.�__'._. ADO 8 2@00 - 7- c d' e. t,4 so ) e 4-4 x 393-a 8'71- 00 - va / rx.a/ eo 8/6 a 3 9493-a/9z AUG 10 20.00 Codd J°/%y2� 7-4 ZO%li 0/`,1-0 -4/6z-/vy Open Space 2000 Drawer 1330 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 *(*i4.w*AUTO**5-DIGIT 81602 KETTER, STEPHEN J. 12 PO BOX 146 GLENWOOD SPRINGS CO 81.602-01.4 II..I1mII1II,,II HH II.IuI,II,11h1I.II.I,II !Mice of Public Hearing A public hearing will be held before the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County beginning at 10:30 a.m. on August 23, 2000 in the Commissioners' Meeting Room at 109 8th Glenwood Springs, to consider the approval of a Service Plan calling for the formation of a new special district to be known as the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District. It is proposed that the boundaries of the District will be identical to the boundaries of RE -1 School District, excluding all properties in Pitkin County. The proposed District is being organized as a Park and Recreation District, subject to and except for statutory and constitutional limitations on the ability of a special district to impose new taxes and increase spending, as well as the requirements for voter approval thereof, there will be a maximum limit of 2.5 mills on the District. A 2.5 mill levy would cost the owner of a home with an assessed value of $300,000 less than $75 per year in property tax based on current information. The Board of County Commissioners may exclude territory from the proposed District prior to approval of the Service Plan Any person owning property in the proposed Special Distract who desires to request exclusion must submit such a request, in writing, to the Board of County Commissioners at the above address not later than ten (10) days prior to the public hearing, but the Board of County Commissioners shall not be limited in its action with respect to exclusion of territory based upon such request. The Petitioners for the formation of the District shall have the burden of proving that exclusion of such property is not in the best interest of the District. There shall be automaticallyexcluded from the District, without need for request, tracts of 40 acres or more usedprimarilyand zoned for agricultural use, in accordance with 32-1-307, C.R.S. Open Space 2000: Pat Fitzgerald, Charles Willman, Robert Schultz I desire to be excluded from the special district. Do you have any idea how much $75.00 per year is? I can not afford such a tax increase! My street is a mess! My water lines are a mess! My schools are a mess! Help!!! People can not afford houses! I can not afford a special district!!! Sincerely, 2 3f- X090 Stepp J. Ketter 329 Park Drive Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Lot 12, Block 4 South Park Subdivision 945-0408 Jerry C. Law, 335 Donegan Road, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-2769 August 09, 2000 Garfield County Commissioners Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Reference: Open Space District ---Exclusion Dear Commissioners: AUG 10 2000 TY CON116 I am requesting that my property be excluded out of the "Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District". This new district is an obvious scam to get all taxpayers to pay for the open space and parks caused by new growth. The measure will drive up the cost of land even higher as the new-found tax dollars will be used in competition with the need for the working class to buy housing. Better solution: Let new growth provide their own open space !! Several towns in the area require new developments to set aside, or dedicate to the city, at least 5% of the developed land or even develop their own parks. It is time to stop bleeding the taxpayer with a mil here and a mil there then asking why we don't have affordable housing or wondering why parents have disfunctional homes while they share the equivalent of three jobs to survive in this valley. Please do not allow this District to be formed. Make the Real Estate agents earn their money the old fashioned way with hard work! Sincerely, pA/vt, Jerry C. Law Encl.: Property description and Tax Notice Notice of Public Hearing ,Garfield County GEORGIA CHAMBERLAIN, TREASURER P.O. BOX 1069 • 109 8TH ST., SUITE 204 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602-1069 970-945-6382 020011 2119 343 02 011 AUTOCR**C-001 1 LAW, JEROME C. 335 COUNTY ROAD 130 GLENWOOD SPGS,CO 81601-2768 TAX NOTICE LEGAL DESCRIPTION (MAY BE INCOMPLETE) WESTERN HILLS SUB. 000335 130 ROAD 34-5-89 BLK 2 LOT 12 BK 0356 PG 0077 BK 0657 PG 0073 BK 0757 PG 0963 ** REFLECTS A TEMPORARY PROPERTY TAX CREDIT OR TEMPORAr MILL LEVY RATE REDUCTION PURSUANT TO C.R.S. 39-1-111.5 FOF THE PURPOSE OF EFFECTING A REFUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 20 OF ARTICLE X OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION. SCH 020011 001 TAXES PAYABLE IN 1997 1998 TAXING AUTHORITY NAME TAX LEVY CREDIT ** NET LEVY TAX DOLLAR GARFIELD COUNTY - GENERAL FUND GARFIELD COUNTY - AIRPORT GARFIELD COUNTY - ROAD & BRIDGE FUND GARFIELD COUNTY - SOCIAL SERVICES FUND GARFIELD COUNTY - CAPITAL EXPENDITURES WEST GLENWOOD SANITATION GLENWOOD RURAL FIRE - GENERAL FUND COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVANCY RE -1 GENERAL RE -1 BOND COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE GLENWOOD RURAL FIRE - BOND 8.985 .000 8.985 149.78 .133 .000 .133 2.22 1.724 .000 1.724 28.74 1.234 .000 1.234 20.57 1.579 .000 1.579 26.32 10.388 .000 10.388 173.17 6.341 .806 5.535 92.27 .307 .000 .307 5.12 33.578 .000 33.578 559.75 9.846 .000 9.846 164.13 3.997 .053 3.944 65.75 1.568 .000 1.568 26.14 A mill is .001 of one dollar. TOTAL TAX LEVY x total valuations / 1000 = TAX DUE 44 8 246 IN THE ABSENCE OF STATE LEGISLATIVE FUNDING. YOUR SCHOOL GENERAL FUND LEVY WOULD HAVE BEEN TTL LEVY: 78.821 DESCRIPTION ACTUAL VALUATION ASSESSED VALUATION 1ST HALF DUE BY FEB. 28TH 2ND HALF DUE BY JUNE 15THOR FULL TAX DUE BY APRIL 36 PROPERTY VALUE PROPERTY TAX 171170 16670 656.98 656.97 1313.95 Notice of Publicy,:aring C— A public hearing will be held before the Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County beginning at 10:30 a.m. on August 23, 2000 in the Comrnussioners' Meeting Room at 109 8th Glenwood Springs, to consider the approval of a Service Plan calling for the formation of a new special district to be known as the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District. It is proposed that the boundaries of the District will be identical to the boundaries of RE -1 School District, excluding all properties in Pitkin County. The proposed District is being organized as a Park and Recreation District, subject to and except for statutory and constitutional limitations on the ability of a spectral district to impose new taxes and increase spending, as well as the requirements for voter approval thereof, there will be a maximum would cost the owner o a home with an assessl ed value f$300t of 2.5 mills on t000 leshe sthanDistrict. 75 per year in property tax based onf fcurrent information. The Board of County Commissioners may exclude territory from the proposed District prior to approval of the Service Plan Any person owning property in the proposed Special Distnct who desires to request exclusion must submit such a request, in writing, to the Board of County Commissioners at the above address not later than ten (10) daays prior to with public hearing,toelusion of Board rritory based upon such request. The Petitissioners shall not be oners for the in its on frrespecttionto formation of the District shall have the burden of proving that exclusion of such property is not in the best interest of the District. There shall be automaticallyexcluded from the District, without out need for o request,ance tractsh 3of 40 307, acresC.R.Sor more used nmarily and zoned for agricultural Open Space 2000: Pat Fitzgerald, Charles Willman, Robert Schultz AUGivEv - s z000 GARRELD COUNTY CO August 6, 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 RE: Exlusion of Land Parcel from Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Chairman: May this letter serve to request exclusion of the attached parcel from the above proposed taxing district. This forty acre parcel has no utilities, no roads, and no potable water source. It is accessible only by four wheel drive to its south perimeter edge. It is used for camping and hiking only. Our intent is to keep these acres as open space and in its natural state permanently. It is home to a variety of wildlife including deer, elk, and bear. This parcel is not posted or fenced. It is accessible to anyone wishing to hike it. Inclusion of this parcel into an open space and recreational taxing district would seem to defeat the districts very purpose. Increasing taxes on this wild parcel significantly adds to the taxing burden we have undertaken for maintaining this natural parcel in Garfield County. We believe in the importance of open space for wildlife and for human recreation. It is this belief that has lead to conserving this parcel in its natural state. Exclusion from this taxing district will help to keep this parcel undeveloped, natural, and available to both humans and wildlife. Sincer ly, hn and Lisa Huffman .0. Box 116 Gypsum, Colorado 81637 970-524-7359 79- 2000 REAL PROPERTY NOTICE OF VALUATION DATE: May 1, 2000 SCHEDULE NUMBER TAX YEAR TAX AREA CODE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY (MAY BE INCOMPLETE) R081036 2000 008 SECT,TWN,RNG:11-6-90 DESC: S2W2NE. BK:0 349 PG:0156 BK:0524 PG:0857 BK:0910 PG: 0026 BK:1084 PG:0326 PRE:R080285 °w N E R HUFFMAN, JOHN F. & LISA (IT.) TYPE OF PROPERTY PRIOR YEAR ACTUAL VALUE + OR - CHANGE CURRENT YEAR ACTUAL VALUE VACANT LAND 60000 0 60000 TOTALS 60000 0 60000 AXPAYER COPY MIA s 1332 Gran Glenwood August 9, Board of County Commissioners 109 8th Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Board of Commissioners: AUG 10 2000 CABFEDCOUNTY COMMISSIOliffe This is a formal request for exclusion from the proposed Special District to be known as the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District. Since both of the properties for which the legal descriptions are listed below have donated land, for widening of Grand Avenue, with no reimbursement for the first donation and minimal amount for the second donation, and the property which is owned by my brother and myself has also had a second street placed on it, and the family donated land for the Linnwood Cemetery and the access to it, I feel we have done our share or more for land donation without being included in a district that imposes more taxes on property. I question whether proper notification has even been given to the property owners since we did not receive any notification for our property at 1332 Grand Avenue, only for the property inherited from my parents, James and Nellie Duffy. Thank you for consideration of this request for exclusion from the proposed district. Sincerely, Marian and R W Smith, Gordon Duffy At:e Exhibit, Legal descriptions of properties R W and Marian Smith The North one half of that tract of land described as: The west 300 feet measured from the center of Highway 82 of the South 99 feet of the North 469 feet of all that portion of the NE 1/4 of Section 16, Township 6 S, Range 89 W 6th P.M. situate laying and being on the East side of Highway 82, being Grand Avenue in the city of Glenwood Springs, except 247.4 SQ. FT. for State Highway ROW. BK0271 Pg 0171 BK0627 Pg 0413 Marian I. Smith and Gordon E. Duffy T. 6 S., R. 89W, 6th PM Section 16: The east 1020 feet, of the South 187 feet of the North 469 feet of the NE1/aNE1/a and the South 18 feet of the West 300 feet of the South 33 feet of the North 370 feet of the NE1/4NEI/a situate Easterly of the centerline of Highway 82 and the South 60 feet of the North 282 feet of the NE1/4NE1/a, except the West 430 feet of said South 60 feet, except for a strip of land 70 feetin width as more particularly described in a deed recorded in said office as Rec. No. 260645 in Book 451 at Page 510 and a tract of land containing .238 acres as more particularly described in a deed recorded in said office as Rec. No. 303552 in Book 547 at Page 933 thereof. QuarlesfBnz yLLC r August 9, 2000 Board of County Commissioners Garfield County Open Space 2000 Drawer 1330 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Gentlemen: Citicorp Center 312/715-5000 Suite 3700 FAX 312/715-5155 500 West Madison Street Chicago, Illinois 60661-2511 THOMAS A. POLACHEK 312/715-5031 tp2@quarles.com Please be advised that I am the Manager of the 100 Road Cattle Company LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company, and as such, have received notice of a public hearing scheduled for August 23, 2000. The purpose of the meeting is to consider a new special district to be known as "The Roaring Fork Open Space Park and Recreation District". 100 Road Cattle Company LLC owns property commonly known as 1265 Co Rd 100, Carbondale, Colorado 81623, and more fully described in Exhibit A hereto, Real Estate Tax Parcel No. 239335400061. This property is used primarily and zoned for agricultural use and is in excess of 40 acres. In addition to the automatic exclusion from the District, the owner is requesting a specific exclusion approved by the Board of Commissioners. TAP/cpm Attachment 11183068-01 ! I l Very truly yours, ( Kau -T-4 A eLA,J2___ Thomas A. Polachek, Manager 100 Road Cattle Company LLC 111113E11 111111 111111 nil 111E111 11111 11111111 552885 09/29/1999 11:28A B1152 P744 M ALSDORF 4 of 4 R 20.00 D 76.70 GARFIELD COUNTY CO EXHIBIT "A" A parcel of land situated in Government Lots 8, 12, and 13 in Section 35, Township 7 South, Range 88 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Garfield, State of Colorado, said parcel lying northerly of the northerly right-of-way of Garfield County Road No. 100, and being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the North right-of-way line of Garfield County Road No. 100, from which the Witness Corner for the South Quarter Corner of Section 35, a No. 6 rebar found in place bears South 81°49'57" West 1416.62 feet (record tie: South 81°55' West 1417.05 feet); thence North 17°22'00" West along the easterly line of those parcels of land described in Book 817 at Page 432, and Book 679 at Page 473, a distance of 538.45 feet; thence North 04°41'00" East along the easterly line of those parcels of land described in Book 679 at Page 743, and in Book 970 at Page 971, and in Book 435 at Page 524, and in Book 960 at Page 809, and in Book 751 at Page 303, a distance of 1685.00 feet; thence North 58°44'00" West along the northeasterly line of that parcel of land described in Book 751 at Page 303, a distance of 280.80 feet; thence North 03°52'00" West along the easterly line of that parcel of land described in Book 751 at Page 303, a distance of 85.69 feet to the North line of said Government Lot 8; thence South 89°04'47" East along said North line, a distance of 278.45 feet to a rebar and cap, PLS #27613 at the West line of the Day Subdivision Exemption; thence South 00°33'26" East along said West line, 5.13 feet to the Southwest Corner of said Day Subdivision Exemption, a rebar and cap, PLS #27613; thence South 88°46'51" East along the South line of Parcel 1 of said Subdivision Exemption, a distance of 154.12 feet to a rebar and cap, PLS #27613 at the Southeast Corner of Parcel 1 of the Day Subdivision Exemption; thence South 88°46'51" East along the South line of Parcel 2 of said Subdivision Exemption, a distance of 262.06 feet to a rebar and cap, PLS #27613 on the southerly line of Parcel 2 of the Day Subdivision Exemption; thence South 39°09'41" East along said southerly line of Parcel 2, a distance of 40.99 feet; thence South 71°05'34" West a distance of 20.19 feet to a point at an existing fenceline; thence along said fenceline South 00°40'07" West a distance of 995.69 feet; thence South 67°39'44" East a distance of 478.58 feet; thence South 01°14'34" East a distance of 1206.34 feet to a point on the northerly right-of-way of Garfield County Road No. 100; thence along said right-of-way South 88°45'26" West a distance of 310.37 feet; thence continuing along said right-of-way North 88°35'41" West a distance of 154.64 feet; thence along said right-of-way North 87°28'17" West a distance of 425.14 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. IREtEIVED JUL ':1 �1 2000 P.O. Box 1001 Carbondale, CO 81623 July 10, 2000 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission Garfield County Courthouse 109 - 8th St Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission: As a resident of Garfield County since 1979, I strongly encourage you to support the service plan to establish an open space program for the lower Roaring Fork Valley. It is a thoughtful, sound and badly needed program that, if implemented, will have highly beneficial repercussions for all of us who live here. Given the pace of population growth, development and the pressures on ranchers to sell their land for development we need to do everything in our power to preserve and enhance the quality of life the Roaring Fork Valley. This is an immediate concern. I urge you to recommend to the County Commissioners that they place the open space district plan on the ballot for voter approval in the November election. Sincerely, /4/ Jim Gaw PS: I would like to request that this letter be read into the minutes of the Planning & Zoning Committee public hearing on July 12. Thank you. 8 0 ,y id re p- er of ie :e. its 14, n - rd to ve tal id- ny rty fa of �c- , p. 98, (b) ive ed, ;of n a ali- ice sof nal LVI 1 to iad- ser. la 11 ante pre - 1039 Special District Provisions 32-1-204 (a) Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the county or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. (b) The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and service standards of each county within which the proposed special dis- trict is to be located and each municipality which is an interested party under section 32-1- 204 (1). (c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to section 30-28-106, C.R.S. (d) The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long- range water quality management plan for the area. (e) The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served. (3) The board of county commissioners may conditionally approve the service plan of a proposed special district upon satisfactory evidence that it does not comply with one or more of the criteria enumerated in subsection (2) of this section. Final approval shall be contingent upon modification of the service plan to include such changes or additional information as shall be specifically stated in the findings of the board of county commis- sioners. (3.5) The board of county commissioners may exclude territory from a proposed spe- cial district prior to approval of the service plan submitted by the petitioners of a proposed special district. The petitioners shall have the burden of proving that the exclusion of such property is not in the best interests of the proposed special district. Any person owning property in the proposed special district who requests that his property be excluded from the special district prior to approval of the service plan shall submit such request to the board of county commissioners no later than ten days prior to the hearing held under sec- tion 32-1-204, but the board of county commissioners shall not be limited in its action with respect to exclusion of territory based upon such request. Any request for exclusion shall be acted upon before final action of the county commissioners under section 32-1-205. (4) The findings of the board of county commissioners shall be based solely upon the service plan and evidence presented at the hearing by the petitioners, planning commission, and any interested party. (5) In the case of a proposed health service district, submission to the board of county commissioners by the petitioners of a license or certificate of compliance or evidence of a pending application for a license or certificate of compliance issued by the department of public health and environment shall constitute compliance with subsections (2) and (2.5) of this section. Source: L. 81: Entire article R&RE, p. 1548, § 1, effective July 1. L. 85: (1) amended, (2) R&RE, and (2.5) and (5) added, pp. 1099, 1100, § § 4, 5, effective May 3; (3.5) added, p. 1104, § 2, effective July 1. L. 94: (5) amended, p. 2802, § 567, effective July 1. L. 96: (5) amended, p. 473, § 9, effective July 1. 32-1-204. Public hearing on service plan - procedures - decision. (1) The board of county commissioners shall provide written notice of the date, time, and location of the hearing to the petitioners and the governing body of any existing municipality or special district which has levied an ad valorem tax within the next preceding tax year and which has boundaries within a radius of three miles of the proposed special district boundaries, which governmental units shall be interested parties for the purposes of this part 2. The board of county commissioners shall make publication of the date, time, location, and purpose of such hearing, the first of which shall be at least twenty days prior to the hearing date. The board of county commissioners shall include in such notice a general description of the land contained within the boundaries of the proposed special district and information outlining methods and procedures pursuant to section 32-1-203 (3.5) concerning the filing of a peti- tion for exclusion of territory. Such publications shall constitute constructive notice to the residents and property owners within the proposed special district who shall also be inter- ested parties at the hearing. (1.5) Not more than thirty days nor less than twenty days prior to the hearing held pur- suant to this section, the petitioners for the org •' atiyn of the special district shall send let- s K= FROM :DIV OF LOCRL GOVERNMENT DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Department of Local Affairs RO f -k i nr 303 066 4819 1900,01-11 10:24 #1BS P.02/02 STATE OF COLORADO NOTICE OF FILING OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN ralOweris Governor Bob Brooks Executive Drrepr Pursuant to CRS 32-1-202 (1), the County Clerk and Recorder shall notify the Division of Local Government within five days after the 'filing of a service plan for the formation of a new special district. Please provide the information indicated and return this form to the Division of Local Government. OP. 6 -is-oo arae of Proposed District`.. {R Re* -Teary Filing Date 1— fl' 12- �G G R.��9 'e /✓ Type of District Proposed —1630 L. Time of Hearing 8cG �vvst 3 D,o0v Date of Hearing � o om 3o I i -0111S...-1- Location gt -j"Location of Hearing G/etheoo d J5 CO Z/6 8 4 I1-2- 34277 1) Contact person Filing Service Plan Phone id. County Receiving Service Plan Clerk and Recorder IS db 1/_a o0 Date FORM DLG - 60 Revised 7/92 1313 Sherman Street, Room 521, Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-2156 FAX (303) 866-4819 TDD (303) 866-5300 STATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Harold A. Knott, Director Department of Local Affairs NOTICE OF FILING OF SPECIAL DISTRICT SERVICE PLAN Roy Romer Governor Larry Kallenberger Executive Director Pursuant to CRS 32-1-202(1), the County Clerk and Recorder, on behalf of the County Board of Commissioners, shall notify the Division of Local Government within five days after the filing of a service plan of a proposed special district. Please provide the following information and return this form to the Division of Local Government. - /s- aoo e PRf�//✓ / /(1� g41, a8 /4�tid.A'n e'e,&11;,N d /3 -dao ame of P pose . District Filing Date Ptk! ecej1/ant Type of District Proposed 1,0:30 firh. Time of Hearing l�o� erz� 5cJl.v%7-'z Contact Person Filing Service Plan &/-P / e f d County Receiving Service Plan e%e k ,V'ed i/ 7- 7fiesegt aodc_. Date of Hearing looPP 3°I /oq-97%-r 4-Iextveoi Slag ,s Location of Hearing 777 -•q(3 - 3L7D Phone lh1/dned A/sdo/e L-(2/-04pa Clerk and Recorder Date Form DLG -60 Rev. 3/91 1313 Sherman Street, Room 521, Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-2156 FAX (303) 866-2251 SENDING REPORT Jun. 22 2000 08:49AM NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 1 303 866 2251 Jun. 22 08:48AM 00'50 SND 01 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS MENU 404 SET. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING JOG -DIAL. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR FAX MACHINE, CALL 1 -8@0 -HELP -FAX (1-800-435-7329). SENDING REPORT Jun. 22 2000 08:50AM NO. OTHER FACSIMILE START TIME USAGE TIME MODE PAGES RESULT 01 1 303 866 2251 Jun. 22 08:50RM 00'50 SND 01 OK TO TURN OFF REPORT, PRESS MENU #04 SET. THEN SELECT OFF BY USING JOG -DIAL. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR FAX MACHINE, CALL 1 -800 -HELP -FAX C1-800-435-7329). • 44 4 C1°Lo� Hi .o .p is a►E a.E o.G10 2 0 0I 10 ipvo. '0.p .2200 11: ID Of e -0 es ;4"N Z O V Ca) CIL COM ittv Q NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING I C 65 C� ( 0(1)04)-O O o O) O O 0) O a a .- ro _->' 0 (0 N ro y 0 0 0 cO M a) -d)* •-• u To 4m E o0� o a) yea O o m c oa °L �E -o E.Ecn E U oa�c�) ° ro-"o 0 m>_ o-o._.oa) c °Em E o°`O' a) ,-°a°02co_co=oo_00'3oa)c L oa >;oMa 6 a> W Nwaw o aro ° ac 3— o Qa' - aU ,oU4* o oma - 0)0 co=m aoc o g— hH! amc-a)E-a a 30-aN c00cao .iCD0a)cC00)L 00 0 E=O U •co c c0, oom c.v. C-°3 CC Y °app ° > o.) 0 712 .77C10'- °°i 'Z ° o E - a"o CD oo rn. ° ° c - c rnm E .c co- Ecn ° m a) ° c ° L0 0 EN • 0 o c 3 0a °-c o aa) >.c eh a-ro-o -Y-N > am o o0 a)- ° E° ro c ro ° a° -Ua ° 0 c 0 c m m E¢ CC') -8 c°0 o tin .2 CT. c'. o 0.` •° a) x c) aro ro >' 3 0n ca aY �o -• c0 a) '-• • 0 a`,0L w �D-..5 a) a) a') N Nca - al c ¢ ° a •a`)co0> 5 cn.. c`°ooa roc 00 3 m E0 -c m -c a.0 o N N -'0 N 0) a) m CO roam 0) cc Eco °2 c ¢ m J 8 0)) co C7 ° N 8 a) o 0)ccs C ▪ o0 00._ opo -J CD "D.., a, .>_ A CD E J L a) Sao a H LL O J a) 0) W > >, ° a 0)a) o <a0 o° = ca) ▪ w 0) c 0 c 14) ° t0 l CO @ - L()2 o co a))0coc a >7 ,m 0 c 0 OD 0 L E N �' m ro O 0 >, c°° O ° > .r • ro x W 0) ° M m ° 3 aw° C)) aa -9-0 _� in c° rot tri LT- -= U) =� c �0a`)ro° cc LUco c) J .` ° ° W ,a .c w O) 0) w c cc U O O c c ai >' G) c05 °-c.c. a o a�c-00-a cm aa)_a)n- cn c� _co o t • To a)0) >' C 0) •'= c c ES -a ca o0 t W, ;O O c W m O N G O (O- U En 2 L O . CL3 o ,c a) a E•ca E =�-m0•_ • • • a o�oyo 0 c' -g Eoa _c •'-oho moo .EOm-aro m° -a)Ua °c0�N0 • x0 U o .-o •.-0 o E` E c O-° c �afm0 a,a�) as > 9 >-, t.-..- 30 _� _a -c-_,_ To c w a N .0 3 U 0 .. O c' 0a) ° -O 3c.E ..-c 030°Y°a�a)E3 O a) ° O a O •-_c ° U c 0 a) a) 0 a) 0 U w 0 O a) ~ 0. j O cc° O • U °XD�a Nx jO°N c°�N• 000"0 "O co ) aa)oa)QO°0U>0P-0•= = �Oc0.- CU co a))U o)�a N co ° roo o)•0•CO � 0 0E_c o>,Ca ° c° ° • �Ea�.�'�QL�a)�.SEE2Loa.)= ) ani 1L- a`) a`o 00 com) °)r0 a_°) ax) a) -.F.. .c ax) • a= • 0 o 0 -D a) j c O 0 a G) C. O (,)L R 2 m U _ as '5 ° O E O 7- o V = 0 N N Eo °Orn ro(S. ° >` 00Dc a- In Drywall Services 0) "5-'< CO • o m m I m 0-D E ° Ts. ° R) 2 a Alan 384-1449. Vy a N ° y • c o y)0 = L O • °� 0-0O CO Q a a°) as 01— .0 0.o W aNN O u) O Uccc) Uro m Z'OU Z c ¢ 3a J O U >, 4) J E c F< W N d • c ti 0 a) .c the Family Visitor rrogia,u PREPARED BY DAIN RAUSCHER PUBL b CO m m A w N r n1 m oz, K z 00z0 r 3 -<H u H N -..yCC rilz 1t r- .S DP N O00WmO L31 'CI CCOy m h1 0 0O 1-0 Ol C( znECH< .. IT, t..H. O UD 0 ' H. 0] OOi 'b0 7 (0 b 11 01 DPv•CPP Wm°c0tty H N 01 0 ® 0. (0 H 'C b 11 d M N m a O 0 M CD 0 Co m N W N 0 'O '1 O CO (0 0 (p/1/1 3• O (q O Of t0 CD N pl o f~-' ci N t• - C o m K W W tid G O1 0 0 M o .1 ® ®W °'aO K K 0 0 01 F' Ia-' N. y o K n •n u0+ W 'y '011 O 11 ( 0 0 01 2 '01 01 K O W N (D POl rt/ I. 0 lilt 1-.., 0/ mxoa0(001 A ; r W (D H K 02 R' 0( b O ' R7 M P1 'O 3 W (Al W W W W W N N N N N N N N • N r r r r M n n fD (D 'O .] 0( VI W N r b m .1 01 0I 0 W N O 10 .1 01 VI r. O G 1..". O (0 'i ^ A b A O .1 A r 10 m .1 01 01 01 .7 .7 W VI A m O (9 '0 W '1 ID O (D 3Y• J 01 b m A A b b A W 01 W N O b VI 01 .1 O O • h7 N (D CO n '1. r N W b O N A A r r 01 b W 01 W r CO N 0 0 Af 0 n 01 b' n rt (� r b N 01 O W N CO r CO N 0( CO W m A 0( 0 0 0 H G (0 0l 0 r• b., • '1 m 0 N '®P W ::0 H (D N -. ryryM K YC 0 a co < • N ? y ID • M 0 0 M 2', G 'y ry 01 Ca VI 0 •• O 0 0' Cyt 11 0 0 0 M. N r r Cil• VI N r r Do O1M 01 m 0 0 N N N N N N N co t0 (/1 N N co E. C O M '[1 O 0, W N Al r 0 b b CO .1 .1 m (11 V1 A A N N N N r rt. O IJ• n O 0 0 m b r W V7 m r A .1 r co b A CO W CO W 10 01 CO ('j G` 0 0 0 n (If r 01 W A CO A W IT b 01 N .1 O 01 A O (T b0 m q (D co 01 A 0 01 m 01 t0 .1 m N m A r N .4 N W CO H N Co l':.:: A 01 N VI r b b r A b .1 b .1 r 01 O m N m .1 w O r 0 3 0 Til ; .r W CO W N CO J W 0, CO Co m N J A 01 A A 0 N 01 LT, Olm '- ? g O 0 0( p O Ii m 0( 7' 01 ~'' n A 1- H. - 0 VI ift O1 0 R •13o .7 1N-' r 0-' N N -03.t0 N N N N N N N 'f D1 O • H O W W N O b CO CA (n A A W N N r r I.,, CW X 0 111 `r m N .1 W O (0 m b O W Ot O 01 r .1 W N N N r F'• O G l v N O N 01 r CO w m W 01 01 01 O r b r CO .1 r (Q N a "a O1 W CO Al b 0 (0 0 01 N r (0 r N CO W 01 CO b O. C▪ O 'A ' a 0 < 01 '1 w IA A) m r o .1 In 01 Al .1 ,o .1 01 O .1 m 01 W Al N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N r r r r r r r r r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O b CO .1 01 U, A W N r 0 b CO .4 01 In A W N r 0 N N N r r r Cala W(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0(0CO b b 0 CO0 0 0 0 .1 .1 .1 01 I VI A A A 0 b 01 r .1 W 0 01 W 0 .1 A r 0 m 0 w 01 W 01 A m N r 0 .] N CO N .4 A N r r W !n b W 01 A In J J r 00(0(001(401(4(4(401 r .1 W b 0 N b N N r 01 A W b 01 01 (T CO 0 A .1 In N VI b 01 b .1 CO r .1 01 0 b (0 0 01 'O CO 0 O1 (0 W A 0 0 W r A W .1 0 H H 112▪ PICC 0 A A A A A A A A A A A A A A N ▪ A N A NA N 70 0 0 0 0 •0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 K K 01 K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K K m 01 h fl • z m o r N W N (00-IZ-S)DNI VW .V. H.IIM-DIN (.Qil'3goal. ) SDI?IISIQ YQ A Q32SYd321d OOOZ/It/L 3QNVNId QI7End $3 (pawarpoun ; 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W W W b b b b CO CO m CO J J .] 01 of 01 01 J 4 0 0 N OD U1 A Y CO N W O J 01 N b J A N b 01 N W A Y Y (/ N (0 41 (0 (0 ill ilk (0 4t 4+ 4+ 41 41 (0 (0 00 (0 (0 ill b b b 10 b b ID tD ID ID b ID ID b b ID b b b 01 Y Y Y A A A YA Y A Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7. Y Y N A A A N • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N (0 00 41 41 i0 4t 41 (0 (0 (0 N (0 41 iO (0 (0 N (0 (0 b b b b b ID b b b b tD YO b ID b b b ID b 01 Y Y H H Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y J A AA AA A A A AA A AA A A A A A W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 ▪ b b b CO O) Q) J .] J Ot O1 CO 01 VI 01 01 01 N A N 0 01 Y J A Y CO N N b 01 A Y ID J A N 0 CO CO CO 0 A CO 01 N Y Y N A .4 N J W 0 CO J J CO N .4 0\ Y b Y 01 W W A 01 b N 01 .4 10 10 CO N O 01 0 CO Y 01 01 A 10 W A 01 W A A 10 0 1D CO J U1 O O O O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N CO ID b 0 0 0 0 Y Y N D W 0 01 0l 0 J b 0 0 Y J A 0 N 01 0 N 1ID D A A 0 D Y 0 01 CO 01 0 01 Y COO) 01 D\ b W b J J b W ID CO 0 CO 0 b 0 Y N r 017 7 ` x.7 5 ~� , 0.3.4 A 7�, n = gy l 7 � C W{^.ZSR �d a o y� g't3 C .'_. �1 m n N c„ 2c2.00 p .,o W N ^�sc7 a y0 't, em ''Xa�s:� ° --ado a.ac q9qq rt zcl 071 L A �_ 0- n H g',..7 N. �i 3 ryry a_ O! 11 a ',� �s]a 4.511 $Ogg.Qc EL' n 1-.T:1< ,0 0 x �v 3,n -, ori �05p g S r N -pr. ] y -1....., .. R T 7 0 QQ9 QCe6l9,�� �3�=rof moo, ;.,t,,,;%-.�n C0x ;A D; 4a0 �3. fu FT C'� rvol 'a -.y d i5031,,,r)^,. n et tlpn� .. a ro '^.-T .. 7 5. K V '-- 7'b m...2 s3 rot1d 3A.,e:, C, 71m ,� oa $ -v O- Soo — 5 z .. A+" G`.Q4,d�•o l g � .tCCaa�VvO. 03 aa� n�m,a�Mao� G 4ASd� w 7a 20=a -q CCCT°:a. T - �� . a ,, n 0 a, 7 5 0` c 1 Y y y �. 1 q 2rrgv iTyTr mX77irnilaN Sent Sy: Direct Data Designs; a 970-963-3670 a 8/21..00 808 87E 1389; Aug -9-00 3:01PM; FAX From: Date: 819/00 7:17 PM D1/1 Direct Data Designs, Inc. P.O. Box 777 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Ph #: (970) 945-0301 Fax #: (970) 945-1026 FAX To: Bob Schultz Fax #; (970) 963-9377 Bob, The purpose of this letter is to explain that or your recent mailing, we worked with Shannon at the Garfield County Assessor Office. Per your request she pulled a list that we were told was all Garfield County property owners in the RE -1 school district. Direct Data Designs puts this list through some sophisticated postal software that is certified with the post office. We compare every address in the database with the post offices data base of what they consider to be deliverable addresses. We delete any that are not certified by the software as being deliverable. This is done to prevent our clients from mailing bad mail and it helps keep the postage cost as low as possible. Let me know 1f you have any other questions. Thunk you for your rodent business and 1 hope we can do a lot of work together in the future. Sincerely yours, Mike Perry Page 1/1 • LOYAL E. LEAVENWORTH CYNTHIA C. TESTER SANDER N. KARP DAVID E. LEAVENWORTH, JR. GREGORY J. HALL DAVID H. McCONAUGHY KELLY D. CAVE SUSAN W. LAATSCH JAMES S. NEU JULIE C. BERQUIST LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1011 GRAND AVENUE P. O. DRAWER 2030 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81602 Telephone: (970) 945-2261 Facsimile: (970) 945-7336 LTLaw@sopris.net Eagle County Board of Commissioners P.O. Box 850 Eagle, CO 81631 August 2, 2000 Garfield County Board of Commissioners 109 Eighth Street, Suite 300 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 E3e DENVER OFFICE:* THE TERRACENTRE BUILDING 1100 STOUT STREET, SUITE 470 DENVER, COLORADO 80204 Telephone: (303) 825-3995 Facsimile: (303) 825-3997 LTLawdenver@aol.com *(Please direct all correspondence to our Glenwood Springs Office) Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District Service Plan Dear Commissioners: I am writing on behalf of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District (the "District") regarding the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District Service Plan. As you know, Eagle County and Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commissions both recommended approval of the service plan for a proposed new open space district which follows the boundaries of the RE -1 school district. The Eagle County Board of County Commissioner's review of the service plan is scheduled for August 14, 2000, and the Garfield County Board of County Commissioner's review is scheduled for August 23, 2000. Part of the proposed open space district overlaps with the District's legal boundary. As you may know, the District is a metropolitan district with recreational powers. At this time, the District does not exercise recreational powers. However, if a recreational service plan was prepared for the District and approved sometime in the future, the District might exercise its recreational powers. The District may do this in the future. The proposed open space district is an "overlapping district" under C.R.S. § 32-1- 107(3)(a) since it is partially within the District's boundary. Therefore, the District's Board of Directors (the "Board") has to consent to the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District's proposed service plan and proposed overlapping recreational powers and services. C.R.S. § 32-1-107(3)(b)(IV). Charles Willman, Esq. came to the District's June and July Board of Directors meetings on behalf of the Roaring Fork Open Space committee to request that the District consent to the overlapping district providing recreational services. Additionally, the Board met on July 27, 2000, with Pat Fitzgerald on behalf of the Open Space District, to discuss the issues detailed below. I:\2000\Letters-Memos\MVMD-EC BOCC-Itr-I.wpd LEAVENWORTH & T`ER, P.C. Eagle County and Garfield County Board of Commissioners Page 2 August 2, 2000 • The Board of Directors of the District conceptually approves of the idea of the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District, but the Board is concerned with a potential overlapping conflict. It is the Board's understanding that the Open Space District would only provide open space acquisition and "passive" recreational services (i.e. trails). In comparison, if and/or when the District decides to exercise its recreational powers, under an approved service plan, the District would probably focus on more "active" recreational services (i.e. soccer and baseball fields) . Thus, the overlapping districts would not necessarily be providing the exact same type of recreational services. However, in order to ensure that the District can easily exercise its right to provide recreational services in the future without a potential conflict with the Roaring Fork Open Space District, the Board requests that the following terms be made conditions of approval of the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District's service plan: 1. The Open Space District shall not purchase property or obtain by condemnation an interest in land, acquire an easement, or construct any capital improvements within MVMD's boundary or within any areas being considered by MVMD for inclusion, which have submitted a Petition for Inclusion pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-401 to, MVMD, without prior written approval and consent by MVMD. 2. The Open Space District shall consult with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District ("MVMD") as a referral agency on any purchase or acquisition by condemnation of property or any interest in land within one (1) mile of MVMD's boundary. The Open Space District shall also consult with MVMD as a referral agency on any capital construction within one (1) mile of MVMD's boundary. 3. The Open Space District will consent, if such consent is necessary, to the formation of another recreation district whose sole purpose, as set forth in its proposed Service Plan, is the development of active recreation facilities. The Open Space District will consent, if such consent is necessary, to the approval of the service plan for and development by MVMD within its boundaries of active recreation sites and facilities. 4. The Open Space District agrees to provide, without land acquisition costs, easements over any properties owned by the Open Space District within the boundaries of MVMD, or over any properties owned by the Open Space District adjacent to the boundaries of the MVMD, which easements are needed by MVMD for the construction of underground wastewater treatment and distribution facilities to serve the customers of MVMD. MVMD shall use reasonable construction methods to minimize the impact upon the Open Space District properties during construction and shall fully mitigate, by re -vegetation and other reasonably necessary actions approved by the Open Space District, the damage caused by the installation and/or maintenance of MVMD's wastewater treatment and distribution facilities so that the surface of the Open Space District's properties are returned to their natural condition after such I:\2000\Letters-Memos\MVMD-EC BOCC-Itr-l.wpd LEAVENWORTH & TER, P.C. Eagle County and Garfield County Board of Commissioners Page 3 August 2, 2000 construction and re -vegetation and other costs associated with construction of these wastewater treatment and/or distribution facilities. All such easements shall be located, unless the Open Space District agrees otherwise, along rights of way adjacent to the Open Space District's properties. 5. The Open Space District will allow, when such use is not inconsistent with the management plan for a property owned by the Open Space District within or adjacent to the MVMD boundaries, the construction, in reasonable locations (e.g. along the property's boundaries and/or in areas less visible to users of other parts of a property), of above ground facilities to serve the wastewater treatment and distribution needs of MVMD. Such construction shall be subject to the same reasonable construction methods set forth in paragraph four above and shall be screened by natural vegetation or other means approved by the Open Space District. MVMD shall be solely responsible for all construction and screening costs. There shall be no cost to MVMD for use of the land and a reasonable easement shall be granted to MVMD for construction and maintenance of such above -ground wastewater facilities. 6. Any modification of the Open Space District's Service Plan will again require the District's consent pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-107(3)(b)(IV). At the July 27, 2000, special meeting the Board approved of a motion to grant me the authority to consent to the overlapping special district in accordance with C.R.S. § 32-1- 107(3)(b)(IV) if the terms listed above are included as part of the County Commissioners' conditional approval of the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District's service plan. Please call me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, LEAVENWORTH & TESTER, P.C. Loy -, . Leaven LEL:bsl cc: Mid Valley Metropolitan District Louis Meyer, P.E. Jim Fritze, Esq. Don DeFord, Esq. Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District Committee c/o Charlie Willman, Esq. and Pat Fitzgerald I:\2000\Letters-Memos\MVMD-EC BOCC-Itr-I.wpd c<, 4 Davit co 4 .se Wants to c C He has 4 proF any of them ce district and did not receive a notice on flvvci t Old MIL v.avv.aoii waiaivwv wi.vsriv! uuo tle. MEMORANDUM TO: Mark Bean, Garfield County Planning FROM: Bob Schultz, Open Space 2000 DAIL h: September 5, 2000 RE: Response to questions and concerns raised about Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District Service Plan In order to expedite review of the Service Plan at the September 12, 2000 hearing, I am forwarding responses to the questions and concerns raised during the August 23, 2000 hearing. s apologize for not responding to these questions at the hearing. Given the issues regarding notification and the need to extend the hearing, we decided to hold our responses and focus on the critical process questions. We agree with the Garfield County staff, Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission, Eagle County staff, Eagle County Planning Commission, and Eagle County Board of County Conn issioners that the Service Plan meets all of the statutory requirements and look forward to clarifying the outstanding issues with the Garfield County Board of County Commissioners. Concern: The Service Plan is not specific enough. about services and facilities. Response: The Service Plan states: "The District will finance the acquisition of open space, purchase conservation easements, and provide for the maintenance and operations of improvements and land owned by the District..." The state grants this power to Park and Recreation Districts in 32-1-1005. To use the power granted in section 32-1-1001 (1) (f) for the establishment of recreational facilities, including leases, easements, and other interests in land for the preservation or conservation of sites, scenes, open space, and vistas of recreational, scientific, historical, aesthetic, or other public interest. 'Interests in land", as used in this paragraph (b), means any rights and interests in land less than the full fee interest, including but not limited to future interests, easements, covenants, and contractual rights. We believe that the services and authorities of the proposed District are clear. • Hope" Jcnuitz l,onsu!?:ng is /U. C1.3. / lCllyIo/uu 11)1 :*4 vM Lljib A desire was expressed regarding a list of specific properties targeted for acquisition. This approach was considered and determined to be unfeasible for legal, financial, and political reasons. Given that no Board of Directors exists at this time, making contractual obligations with landowners was not possible. Until a Board is elected there is no appropriate party to make such commitments with taxpayer dollars. Contracting for property would also require financial resources which do not exist at this time. Acquiring an option to purchase property typically costs between $20,000 and $50,000. As a grassroots citizen group, those resources are not available and as stated above, we cannot make commitments regarding the resources of the proposed District. Finally, as the issue is placed before voters and discussed by the public additional information about voter priorities will be available. The elected Board will learn more about public priorities through the course of a campaign. The County Commission. is asked to review the Service Plan for compliance with state statutes and approve allowing voters to determine the desirability of the proposal. We are asking the Commission to allow the voters to determine this critical public policy issue. Concern: ine definition of passive recreation is not clear. Response: The District will provide passive recreation facilities and improvements for the benefit of District residents and visitors. Examples of such faculties and improvements include: trails, access to rivers and public lands, picnic facilities, modest parking facilities at trailheads, bicycle racks, and trash cans. Concern: TheService Ser� ric r e Plan cannot waive the right of condemnation, need to adopt Blake Jordan's language. Response: The Service Plan states. "The District shall have all of the powers provided by a dy, except as otherwise provided herein. The District shall not have the power of condemnation." Mr. Jordan asserts that the Service Plan cannot deny this authority but we respectfully disagree. Further, if Mr. Jordan is correct in his assumption that we cannot waive the statutory right to condemnation, his language limiting that authority is also void. That is, if we cannot state that we will not condemn, then =-iis language "clarifying" our intent is equally without force and effect. Hobert Schultz consulting lir /U. 9b:3. I Jy/5/UU <91 :bb h'M L]4/b In order to resolve this issue, we propose to strike the statement above and replace it with the following: The District shall have all of the powers provided by law. As a matter of Service Plan policy, the District shall not exercise the right of condemnation. Gien the intent of the District and this Service Plan to forgoe the statutory power off eminent domain, the District will not acquire or operate any open space, park, or recreation lands or facilities which will require the exercise of the statutory power of eminent domain. Any attempt to empower condemnation by a future board will require a Service Plan amendment and approval by both the Garfield and Eagle County Commissions. We trust that this restates clearly our opposition to condemnation while meeting county approval. Concern: The District does not provide exemption for property owners on fixed or lower incomes, Response: The Service Plan is designed to minimize the property tax rate while optimizing the local tax dollars generated. The owner of a $300,000 home will face a tax bill of less than $75 per year or about $6 per month. Given the level of support among seniors in oiar survey and the active nature of local seniors we are confident that this tax increase will be supported by most seniors living on fixed incomes. Since the benefits of the District will be shared by all residents, the costs are borne by all residents. in addition, the most likely alternative land use for lands acquired by the District is residential development. It is well established that residential land would require rnore expenses for services than the revenue generated by their development. Open space preservation will provide a savings to taxpayers in that regard. Question: How many people were surveyed by Strategies West. Response: In e une of this year, Strategies West, a nationally -recognized public opinion research fiifxt headquartered in Denver, was hired to perform a survey of likely voters regarding the creation of an open space program. A total of 400 telephone interviews were conducted, each lasting approximately 11 minutes. Respondents were randomly selected from a database of active voters. The margin of error for the survey is 4.5% at a 95% confidence level. A summary of the survey is available upon request. Robert Schultz Consulting 161y/V.yb3.y5// 114.11W WOu :5orm vbrb Concern: The Service Plan does not create Director districts which favor unincorporated county residents. Response: The Service Plan and state statutes allow for at -large elections for Director seats. In other words, anyone can run for any seat. While both at -large and district director proposals have advantages and disadvantages, the at -large approach is authorized by the state statutes and we believe that it will best serve the residents of the District. The approach in the Service Plan clearly meets the state requirements for county review. The District hopes to attract candidates with special skills that will minimize administrative and professional expenses. Directors with legal, financial, real estate, appraisal, and planning skills will allow the District to efficiently meet community goals. We believe that an at -large approach maximizes the Districts opportunity to attract such candidates. Ironically, a district approach would run counter to Commissioner Martin's concern about representing the unincorporated county. The United States and Colorado State Constitutions would both require that districts be drawn to reflect "one person/ one vote", thereby insuring more representation in urban areas. Ultimately, we expect that voters will select the best available volunteer directors regardless of their physical address and therefore propose an at -large director approach. Concern: The District does not include all of Garfield County Response: As we discussed in our initial meeting with the Garfield County Commission, the proposed boundary does not include all of Eagle or Garfield County. The reasons are numerous and have been previously explained in detail. In short, we are implementing plementing the Study Area 1 Comprehensive Plan and the Eagle County Midvalley Master Plan. Both plans have numerous goals and objectives supporting the formation of an open space special district. Both planning areas are included in the proposed boundaries. The need has been clearly established within the proposed boundary. RE -1 School District boundaries provide a logical and existing political boundary for the district. Voters understand the boundary and it conforms to existing social, physical, and economic boundaries. Concern: Landowners who live outside of the District will not be able to vote. Response: The voting rights of non-residents has been an issue throughout the history of the United States. Colorado State Statutes govern such rights and currently do not allow voting rights to non-residents in statutory counties. r iooen acnuuz ! .onsuEung INV 7/U.710J.7J// WV7/WUU lY I :5b r'11i1 ub/b Concern: Commercial properties will pay a higher rate of taxes than residential properties. Response: The Gallagher amendment set commercial property tax rates higher than residential property tax rates. A variety of logical arguments have been made in favor of or against the amendment. Since it is state law, it is beyond the control of the applicants or Garfield County. Concern: Creation of the District will harm Garfield County's property tax base. Response: The property tax base in the portion of Garfield County included in the proposed boundaries has been increasing at an average of approximately 7% per year. The removal of selected lands to open space is unlikely to effect that rate of change. First, the lands most likely to be acquired or put under conservation easement are currently taxed at the agricultural rate. These properties pay very low taxes. For instance, the owner of a typical home at Aspen Glen on a lot of less than an acre pays more in property taxes than the owner of the 280 acre Sanders Ranch next door. Lands acquired through fee simple purchase would be removed from tax rolls, however lands with conservation easements continue paying taxes. Second, developed lands adjacent to open space tend to increase in value and lands in the community as a whole tend to hold value better when there is an open space program in place. There is no evidence in the record to support the assertion that Garfield County's tax base would be harmed. Summary Numerous statements of opinion for and against the proposal were made during the previous hearing. While it is important to honor citizen's right to express their opinion about the formation of an open space district, the County's role in the process is to review the Service Plan for sufficiency with regard to controlling statutes and adopted county policies. The record clearly shows that Open Space 2000 has met the requirements for approval. We are asking that the voters of the area, as a whole, be given the opportunity to determine the desirability of forming the District. Therefore we urge your approval of the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District on September 12. .cam a STRATEGIESWEST World Trade Center 1625 Broadway, Ste. 850 Denver, Colorado 80202 Tel 303 592-8905 Fax 303 592-8910 A Survey of Voter Attitudes In The Roaring Fork Valley Re: Open Space Preservation June 27, 2000 REPORT of FINDINGS Methodology & Scope A telephone survey of registered voters in the roaring Fork Valley was conducted by Strategies West, LLC over three nights in June of 2000 to determine voter attitudes regarding the creation of an Open Space program. A total of 400 telephone interviews were conducted each lasting approximately 11 minutes. Respondents were randomly selected from a database of active voters. Margin of Error: The margin of error for this survey is 4.5% at a 95% confidence level. Margin of error, simply put, is the difference between the results obtained from this survey compared against those that would be obtained if the entire population of the area had been questioned. "Confidence Level" indicates the probability at which the value of a response lies within the margin of error. In other words, a 4.5% margin of error at a 95% confidence level means there is a 95% probability that the margin of error is not higher than 4.5% Scope and Purpose While it may seem obvious, it is important to understand the purpose of an opinion survey. A quantitative survey is simply a "snapshot" of public opinion. Too often people try to predict the outcome of an election on the basis of a survey. Often these predictions are wrong however. This is because public opinion... and particularly voter perception of an issue... are dynamic. The "horse race" question ... "if an election were held today ... how would you vote?" is not unimportant because it can provide one with a sense of position. However, considering that voter perceptions of an issue are buffeted by months of debate and media coverage and realizing that "turnout" can greatly impact election results ... it is easy to see why opinion surveys can be poor predictors of election results. Opinion research is more valuable when it explores "why" people make certain decisions, and the context under which those decisions are made. In other words, the value of opinion research is not to predict whether or not the campaign will win.... But rather... to determine how to win the campaign. Accordingly, the scope of this research included: > Perceptions of growth in the Raring Fork Valley > Perceptions of local taxes. > General perceptions of an Open Space program. > Reactions to various arguments both for and against expansion. Strategies West, LLC. Preliminary Report of Findings Page 1 Major Findings Voters in the Roaring Fork Valley are less optimistic about the direction of Colorado. than are survey respondents in other parts of the state. In nearly every survey conducted around the state recently, Coloradoans express great optimism about the direction of the state with 60-65% typically saying the state is headed in the right direction. However, respondents to this survey expressed less optimism with only 44% believing the state was headed in the Right Direction, compared to 40% that felt the state was headed "off on the wrong track". Generally speaking how do you feel things are going in Colorado? Right Direction 44.0% Wrong Track 40.0% DK/NA 16.0 Furthermore, nearly one-half of survey respondents also believe that their local community is headed off on the Wrong Track. Respondents were then asked how they felt things were going in their Local community. Interestingly, 49.2% believed things in their local area were headed off on the wrong track compared to only 44.0% who responded that things were headed in the Right Direction. Women are more pessimistic regarding the direction of their local community than are men, with 52.7% of female respondents saying things in their local community were headed off on the wrong track compared to 44.9% of men. Republican voters were more optimistic than were other voters, with 48.5% of Republicans saying things in their local community were headed in the Right Direction, compared with 44.4% of Democrats and only 37.8% of independent voters. What about in your local community? Right Direction 44.0% Wrong Track 49.2% DK/NA 6.8% Strategies West, LLC. Preliminary Report of Findings Page 2 However, at the same time voters believe their personal quality of life is better than it was five years ago. Despite an undercurrent of pessimism regarding the general direction of the state and their local community, nearly one-half of survey respondents (49.5%) believe that their personal quality of life is better today than it was five years ago. 36.5% of respondents said their quality of life was about the same and 12.8% said their quality of life was worse than five years ago. What about your personal quality of life... better.. same or worse than S years ago? Better About the Same Worse DK/NA 49.5% 36.5% 12.8% 1.2% Not surprisingly, an overwhelming majority of voters are concerned about growth and development in their local area. In fact, a majority (55.8%) say they are Extremely Concerned about growth, while another 37.2% indicate that they are Somewhat Concerned. Female voters are more concerned about growth than are males (62.1% - 47.7%). Eagle County voters are less concerned about growth than are their counterparts in Carbondale and Glenwood Springs with only 39.7% of voters in eagle county saying they are Extremely Concerned, and 7.4% of Eagle county respondents saying they are Not Concerned At All about growth in their local community. Population increase and a loss of open space are most often cited as the main causes of concern regarding growth. Voters were asked an open ended question to determine what impacts of growth caused them the most concern. Population Increase was the most often cited concern (26.0%). Loss of open space was the second most often given response (16.5%). Increased traffic was third with 8.5%. What is it about growth that concerns you the most? Population increase Loss of Open Space Increased Traffic Loss of wildlife Habitat 26.0% 16.5% 8.5% 6.5% * only top answers displayed Strategies West, LLC. Preliminary Report of Findings Page 3 There is clearly no "tax revolt" in the Roaring Fork Valley. At this point in the survey a series of questions were asked to determine voter perceptions of their local taxes. First voters were asked about local taxes generally, Most voters (41.8%) rated their local taxes as Moderate. 11.2% responded that their local taxes were Excessively High and 38.8% said they felt their local taxes were High, 4.8% rated their local taxes as Low. Homeowners were then specifically asked about their property taxes. Most homeowners (48.7%) believe the property taxes they pay are Just About Right. 45.4% rated their property taxes as Too High and 2.4% rated them as Too Low. Clearly if there was a tax revolt brewing among voters in the Roaring fork Valley this numbers would be different. When first posed with the concept of an Open Space Program in the Roaring Fork Valley 80.5% of voters believe the program is a Good Idea. Voters were first presented with the general concept of an open space program, without specifics regarding funding and asked whether or not they thought the program generally sounded like a good idea or a bad idea. 80.5% of survey respondents first rated the concept as a Good Idea compared to 12.5% who thought the program was a Bad Idea. Female voters were more likely to believe the program is a good idea than were male voters (84.8% - 75.0%). Not surprisingly, Democrats were more likely to believe the program is a Good idea than were Republicans. (85.0% - 73.5%) Strategies West, LLC. • One issue being discussed is the creation of an Open Space program generally speaking does this sound like a good idea . or'a°bad idea? Preliminary Report of Findings Page 4 When informed that the program would require an increase in property taxes support remains strong. Those voters who initially responded that the program sounded like a "good idea" were then provided with additional information, specifically regarding the fact that the program would necessitate an increase in property taxes This was to determine —whether the program still sounded like a good idea ... based on its merits... or whether the tax component made them change their opinion. Encouragingly, support remained strong despite the information about the tax increase. Of those who responded to the question, 83.8% said they still considered the program to be a Good Idea compared to 11.8% who "changed over" and believed the program to be a Bad Idea. What if I told you that funding for the program would require a property tax increase of 2.5 mills... Based on this info... does the program still sound like a good idea ... or a bad idea? Still good idea Bad idea DK/NA 83.8% 11.8% 3.5% ** Percentage based on those who had previously rated the program as a good idea. At this point in the survey, respondents were read a series of arguments both For and Against the creation of an Open Space program in the Roaring Fork Valley. Arguments that dealt with limiting growth ... protecting quality of life and preserving the natural beauty of the area were the most effective arguments in favor of the program. The notion that the tourism economy depends on preserving the beauty of the area was also effective. Undecided voters cited "Protecting open space from over development is essential to maintaining our quality of life" as the most effective argument. Strategies West, LLC. Preliminary Report of Findings Page 5 1 Arguments "FOR" Very Some Not very Not At all Effective Effective Effective Effective Protecting Open Space From over development Is essential to 82.6% 15.0% maintaining Our quality of life. 57.8% 24.8% 9.2% 5.8% Our Tourism economy Depends on protecting 80.8% 17.0% the natural beauty of our area. 48.0% 32.8% 10.8% 6.2% This program will protect the natural beauty that makes the Roaring 78.6% 19.0% Fork Valley a special place to live. 47.8% 30.8% 9.8% 9.2% The strongest arguments Against the creation of an Open Space program is the was distrust that a government program would spend the money wisely. Arguments "AGAINST" Very Some Not very Not At all Effective Effective Effective Effective I don't trust government 64.4% 31.0% to spend the money wisely. 35.2% 29.2% 17.5% 13.5% Strategies West, LLC. Preliminary Report of Findings Page 6 If an election were held today... the measure would pass with a slim majority. Finally voters were posed with a hypothetical election and asked, if the election were held today to create an open space program in the Roaring Fork Valley ... how would you vote? Encouragingly the measure passed with 65.8% of voters saying they would vote FOR the measure against 26.8% who indicated they would vote Against. 6.8% of respondents remained undecided. Strategies West, LLC. If an election were held today... For 65.8% Against 26.8% Undecided 6.8% DK/NA 0.8% Preliminary Report of Findings Page 7 I 09/12/2000 09;51 19709471949 THE WRITE IMAGE ! ■ September 12, 2000 Garfield County Commissioners Dear Sirs, PAGE 01 Please give your support today to the proposed open space district that comes before you for consideration. A diverse group of concerned citizens has worked very hard to craft this proposal and county voters deserve a chance to consider it too. As a member of the Glenwood Springs Planning and Zoniing Commission, 1 have long maintained that cities have a responsibilty to accept reasonable, and relatively dense, development within their service areas in order to prevent sprawling, continuous growth throughout the surrounding valleys. The idea, which I hope you share, is to prevent our region from becoming a congested, completely urbanized Aurora in the mountains. Seems to me there is much value in retaining at least some of our beautiful vistas, our agricultural heritage and a bit of breathing space around us. But of course people have rights to develop their properties, within the guidlines of the county and munipal comprehensive plans. In order to meet both their needs, and the needs of the broader community, we desperately need a funding mechanism to begin buying open space and conservation easements. Like other property owners, I'm concerned about rising taxes. But I'm lust as concerned about the steadily declining quality of life here. Icy choice will be to vote for the proposed open space district, even at the cost of paying some additional taxes. I hope, gentlemen, that you will give us all the chance to make that choice on the November election balot. Since / Russ Arensrnan 1019 Riverview Drive, Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 USA Fax: 970-384-0946, Tel: 970-947-1943 arensman@rof.net August 31, 2000 Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th Street Gienwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen: 0 U TE 0 John ❑ Larry CI Walt SEP t 6 2000 MH covet CQMMISSIQ Pease be advised that 1 would like the following properties excluded from your proposed open space special district. 1. A 23 acre parcel located at the end of county road 131 extending to Highlands subdivision on east and Zancanella property on southern end. A legal description can be given on request. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Leonard E. Rippy P. O. Box 427 Glenwood Springs, CO 81647 August 16,2000 Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colo. 81601 RE: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park,and Recreation dist. Dear Commissioners: Enclosed is a petition requesting our exclusion from the above referenced Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for numerous reasons, some of which are: 1. We own four pieces of property within the subject area and have not been notified of the proposed tax. The specific properties are identified on the attached petition. 2. This is taxation without representation. 3. We do not feel it is proper to have private citizens pay taxes on private land for which we will not use. 4. Federal, state and local governments own more than 70% of the surface area of Garfield County. Isn't that enough? 5. There is talk about affordable housing, this tax sure will help that problem. 6 It is time to face reality in this county and make responsible decisions, it may not be popular but it needs to be done. AUG317 28 2004 GA9HFlD COWNJY GSSIDIix cerely, August 2; 2000 Board of County Commissioners ui G i(1 ieiu Cm! iiy 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: request exclusion from the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District for all property I own now or will own in the future. 1 request this exemption for myself, my heirs, and assigns. My currently -own property is known by the physical address(es) of: /6dSfiavy/3 3 J e 3r c,/vy/ 3 ) ,Z37 ,? C-6-4iuv 5/22 -tie My currently -owned property is also known by the tax receipt number(s) of: Rpgoo8a J /C)?A%'02-- fQ47 7 3) ,,8o0// Federal, state and local governments own more than 73% of all land surface in Garfield County..1 believe it is unjust to transfer tax burden to a smaller base of taxpayers to create more government land. One of the precepts of American government is the right to own propertyThe proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will infringe upon our Constitutional right to own property. If our Constitutional rights are infringed upon, then we -will no longer be a nation of free people. The working people of Garfield County labor long and sacrifice much to live here. The proposed Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District will impose new taxes :that will result in a more onerous tax burden to the citizens of Garfield County. I request that you not involve yourselves in creating a layer of additional taxation on the working people of Garfield County. How much taxation can the working people of Garfield County endure before the people becomeserfs of the taxing authorities? Sincerely, Rivendell Sod Farm & Landscape Suppl 3961 114 Rd. Glenwood Springs, Co 81601 970-945-2568 8-21-2000 Dear County Commissioners, AUG 23 2000 COW COONTY c(440,114400 Michael Sullivan sent a letter purporting to have our support for his personal proposals and opinions. He has no such authority. Please do not take anything coming from him as our positions without our signatures. Sincerely, 711u c,1 Miriam ( Maci ) Berkeley Cru �;,IAJal OFFICE — 777 OVERLAND TRAIL — P.O. BOX 613 — CASPER, WY 82602 — (307) 237-9339 — FAX (307) 266-1823 August 13, 2000 Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 Gentlemen: JOHN R. KERN CONSULTING GEOLOGI AUG 23 2000 GO= 3MINSSO Open Space 2000 I am in receipt of a post card from the above group and will not be able to attend the August 23' meeting so, hereby offer my comments: 1. Who is to preside over these funds (which will be substantial) and who decides on what and where these open spaces are to be located? 2. Open space along the borders of the Roaring Fork Valley will be automatic with the near vertical valley walls. The flat terrain of the valley floor will eventually become occupied and agricultures priority diminish. This is a fact of the future and control of such development should be through zoning covenants that keep development orderly, not open space purchases. 3. As a property owner in Glenwood Springs, I resent the apparent assertion that a $75 per year increase in taxes is a mere piteous, something to be shrugged -off. The phrase"based on current information" is to me code for when additional information is available the assessments will increase. J R K/ka Yours truly, \s John R. Kerns 707 Ninth Street Glenwood Springs, CO 8161 August 18, 2000 The Board of Garfield County Commissioners 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Gentlemen: We have a total of eight (8) properties in Garfiels County that would fall within the proposed Onen Space District. We have received no notice by mail directec to us. Since we have not received notices and many others have expressed the same failure to receive proper mailed notice, this measure should not be approved and appear on the November Ballot. Ne ob\ect to the formation of the proposed District. Ver? truly yours , Ernest J Zj and Far j or ie A. Gerbaz eb COU (TYCO 'I to Itie ff M+je d d of --Goll! ommissioners 109--€ h •5 : , Suite 300 • Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 Dear Board of Commissioners: 0046 Meadow Wood Rd. Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 September 8, 2000 This is a formal request for exclusion from the proposed Special District to be known as the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District. In the past, land was donated twice for the widening of Grand Avenue when I iiperated the business of Max's Music at 1526 Grand Avenue, with no reimbursement for the first donated land and a small amount for the second donation of land. My land extended east and when Blake Avenue was extended south, I dedicated land for Blake Avenue through my holdings. If property taxes increase, I would be forced to charge more rent to the present business owner and that could possibly force him out of business. Commercial land owners cannot stand any higher taxes!! A description of my property at 1526 Grand Avenue is included. I feel this tax is not equally distributed among all property owners and therefore request exclusion also for my home at 0046 Meadow Wood Road, a description of which is included. I definitely feel that proper notification was not given as I received no notice on either property through the mails or any other source. I feel that the recreational opportunities in this area are already quite sufficient and do not need any more provided recreation by government. Sincerely, Max tanton Description of property at 1526 Grand Avenue: SECT.TWN.R1G:16_6_89 DESC:NE A SUE:STANTON MINOR SUB—DIV LOT: I BK:0867 PG:0") PRE:R311794 Description of property at 0046 Meadow Vvood Road: SECT,T!'vN,HNG:3-7-89 SUB:SUNLIGHT VIEvu SUB: ELK: 1 LOT:2 BK:0460 PG:0219 BK:0707 PG:0030 BK:0765pG:0612BK:0811 PG:0088 BK:0903 PG:0848 19 August 2000 Board of County Commissioners of Garfield County Garfield County Court House Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 SEP 112040 GARFIELD COLO COMMISSION iA Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park, and Recreation District To Whom It May Concern: Let it be known that my feelings are not against the formation of the referenced district. However, I am EMPHATICALLY OPPOSED to increased spending and the increase of mill levy on real property owners to finance such an endeavor. Real property taxes are already appallingly high. I am also very much opposed to financing such an endeavor through any forms of bond issue or public indebtedness whatsoever. If such Service Plan is to come to fruition, it will be much wiser and financially equitable to spread the cost to all those living and visiting within the bounds of the Re -1 School District. This may well be accomplished by invoking a sales or usage tax. I grew up in Glenwood and surrounding area when it was a nice little agriculture community. I still find myself in town every 4 to 6 weeks. I have witnessed the raping of the land, the effects of poor judgement and planning, the catering to developers and 'big' money interests. I have seen the rippling effect on the down valley residents and the hardships imposed on them. It is time to disregard special interests and political agendas in performing your function. It is time to be more responsive and responsible to the populace who placed you in office. Sincerely, C '8 C.B. Switzer 1696 W. Chapel View Lane St. George, UT 84770 Garfield County Schedule Number: R311408 b.).(L a4R-tL E& &g4._ /G 50.-1-4, Lv444 tizit )77,as 62-121-3j GLEN G23zldt'fiPfarkY Wm. OD SPRINGS, COLD. 1601 *IOD &INflOJ 013H8V9 (1, cP.T. v,(7 -0o1 - rr c.),) • te' oiztv? .8„,) id, 00/ riee id o/, gtoq ab,9- Y o 24,x7*_ ✓mil �G� O�G21 � -J .� c! ? �, ✓✓ -✓ e e/e9 4b1' ,crt pia/ -c2 7td / 8/11/00 Hoard of County Commissioners of Garfield County 109 8th Street Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 Re: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District Dear Commissioners: ROUTE [? John 0 Larry fl Walt GAP=!Ft...: 1 NTV ONrifkAISSK)4.__,: Please exclude my property from the proposed oper space tax. It is lot 6 in Glenwood Highlands Estates. It would be nice if The people that are so determined to have open space would use their own money for their endeavours and leave the rest of ours alone. I can sec that at least one real estate agent is pushing this in hopes of making land values sky -rocket even further, I would suggest that know such district he allowed and that only those who want to can Give their own hard earned money to whichever cause they feel they want to support. migavEn411622Mil Austin L. Heuschkel • 2344 Rupert Drive • San Jose, CA 95124 (408) 559-8052 August 17, 2000 Open Space 2000 Drawer 1330 Glenwood Springs, CO 81602 Reference: Notice of Public Hearing I am requesting an "exclusion" as provided for in the referenced Notice. Please note, I was on vacation and having my mail held at the Post Office when the notice arrived, which did not allow sufficient time for me to respond to the 10 -day requirement in the referenced Notice. Please take this into consideration when processing my request. Thank You Very Much, Austin L. Heuschkel (Day time telephone: {408; 879-2234)