HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report BOCC 07.25.12Cattle Creek Metropolitan District Service Plans
Carbondale Investments, LLC
July 25, 2012
Exhibit . Exhibit
Letter
(A to Z)
A Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended
B Staff Report
c Letter dated July 24, 2012 from Balcomb & Green (without attachment)
D Staff Presentation
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
I
I
I
Service Plan Review-Cattle Creek Metropolitan District
Planning Commission July 25, 2012
PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS
REQUEST
PROPERTY OWNER
REPRESENTATIVE
LOCATION
EXISTING ZONING
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
1 BACKGROUND
Service Plan Review and Recommendation
Carbondale Investments LLC
Dianne Miller-Miller & Associates law Offices, LLC
South of the City of Glenwood Springs on the west side of
Highway 82 at Cattle Creek
PUD and Suburban
Residential High Density
Special districts are quasi-municipal corporations and political subdivisions that are organized to act for
a particular purpose. A metropolitan district is a special district that provides any two or more services
which may include fire protection, parks & recreation, safety protection, sanitation, solid waste, street
improvements or water, to name a few. A district has the ability to acquire bonds for the construction
of the improvements and to levy taxes to the area within their boundaries to repay those bonds. This is
a familiar concept within Garfield County, particularly related to fire protection districts and water
and/or sanitation districts. Several metropolitan districts currently exist in the County.
The formation of a special district entails a three-part process that requires obtaining review and
approval from the local governmental jurisdiction, review by district court, and a special election. The
Garfield County Land Use Resolution of 2008, as amended does not contain specific provisions related to
the review of service plans therefore the process of submittal and review of the plans must be in
compliance with statutory requirements contained in Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes. Those
statutory requirements include submittal of the service plans to the clerk for the board of county
commissioners, referral of the plans to the planning commission for review and recommendation to the
board within thirty (30) days of plan submittal, and a public hearing with the board not more than thirty
(30) days after setting the public hearing date.
1L. GENERAL INFORMATION
The Clerk and Recorder (Jean Alberico) received petition for review of a service plan for the Cattle Creek
Metropolitan District on June 29, 2012 and a public meeting was set with the Board of County
Commissioners (the Board) on July 9, 2012. At that meeting the Board discussed the review process for
the plan and joined in the referral to the Commission for review and recommendation. The public
hearing required for Board review is to be scheduled at a public meeting to be held at least ten (10) days
after receipt of the Planning Commission recommendation. The public hearing must then occur within
thirty (30) days of that meeting. Should a recommendation be issued by the Planning Commission on
1
Service Plan Review -Cattle Creek Metropolitan District
Planning Commission July 25, 2012
July 25, 2012, and a resolution to memorialize that recommendation completed, a public meeting will
scheduled on August 6, 2012 with an anticipated Board of County Commissioners public hearing date on
September 10, 2012.
!!!.:. PLAN DESCRIPTION
The service plan is initially proposed to serve the River Edge PUD, a 366-unit development approved on
158.927-acres, which has received Preliminary Plan approval and PUD zoning. This area is deemed the
"Initial Boundary" of the District. Additional properties, owned by Garfield County Commercial, LLC, are
described as the 'Inclusion Property", to be included in the district upon approval of entitlements. This
latter property is zoned Suburban and has no entitlements for development except for the ability to
construct one single family home on each of the parcels.
Specifically, the service plan states that the proposed district consists of approximately 159.15-acres and
that the District may include all or any part of the property described in Exhibit D (the "Inclusion
Property"), at such time as the County has approved a development permit for those sites. Upon
approval that property shall be incorporated into the district with no further review by the County.
The function of the district will be to construct and maintain the transportation and road infrastructure
necessary to provide service to the REC development. Statutory requirements in 32-1-103 (10) C.R.S
state that a Metropolitan District may include any of the following, but is required to provide at least
two of the following services:
a) Fire Protection;
b) Mosquito Control;
c) Parks and recreation;
d) Safety protection;
e) Sanitation;
f) Solid Waste disposal facilities or collection and transportation of solid waste;
g) Street improvement;
h) Television relay and translation;
i) Transportation;
j) Water.
Cattle Creek Metropolitan District functions are stated as " ... maintenance of the Access Improvements
or funding and maintenance of the Access Improvements." Those improvements are listed as
"Construction of roads and a railroad crossing, including trails, sidewalks, bridges, walls and storm
drainage along with required reinstallation or relocation of trails, water and sewer lines and other
facilities in order to provide public access across the RFTA Railroad ROW." The estimated costs are
included in provided cost estimates which total $7,154,000; the Estimated Infrastructure Capital Cost is
$4,000,900; and Debt Authorization is $5,590,000. The Service Plan proposes an Anticipated Mill Levy at
40 Mill for debt and 10 Mills for operations, for a total levy of 50 Mills.
2
Service Plan Review -Cattle Creek Metropolitan District
Planning Commission July 25, 2012
A review of the additional taxes that will impact this development include the metropolitan district at 50
mills -as well as taxes associated with inclusion into the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District
(5 .723 Mills), for a requested total of 55.723 mills. This is all in addition to the current rate of 68.554
mills -resulting in a total levy of 124 .277 mills on the site.
By way of comparison, Aspen Glen PUD and lronbridge PUD mill levies are 74 .275, River Park
Condominiums (in the River Park Metro District) has a mill levy of 93.217, Spring Ridge Reserve is subject
to a mill levy of 67 .169 and Battlement Mesa has a tax rate of 35.327 Mills (this subdivision is included in
the Parachute/Battlement Mesa Park and Recreation District with .93 mills).
The 124.277 Mill Levy for the properties with in the River Edge PUD may negatively impact the
affordable housing units proposed on this site, as well as the other homes proposed within this
development. The additional taxes that will be applied to this development, due to inclusion in this
proposed District, appear to be burdensome. In fact the additional tax is only to construct and maintain
the entry and roads for the property -these sites will also be subject to HOA dues and user fees .
IV . ZONING AND ADJACENT USES
The Highway 82 corridor between
Glenwood Springs and Carbondale
contains several residential PUD's,
lronbridge to the west and Aspen Glen to
the south, as well as other residential
subdivisions as shown on the adjacent
map. The CR 114 I CR 154 area to the
north of the site contains commercial
zoning with retail uses such as the
Thunder River Market area and semi -
industrial commercial uses such as
Gallegos stone yard, warehouses and
fabrication activities and a mini storage
facility . The high density H Lazy F Mobile
Home Park is also located north of the
service area boundary.
V. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is located within an area designated as Residential High Density on the Future Land Use
Map. Other components of the Comprehensive Plan applicable to this review include:
Growth in Unincorporated Communities
The comprehensive plan acknowledges the existence of several unincorporated communities
that have a dense level of development. mix of uses and urban services provided by special
3
Service Plan Review -Cattle Creek Metropolitan District
Planning Commission July 25, 2012
districts. New unincorporated communities are discouraged. However, new (or expanded
existing) unincorporated communities should meet the following guidelines:
i. The development is not located within the Urban Growth Area of existing municipalities
ii. The development is served with urban services by a special district
iii. A contract for police from county sheriff is established
iv. Connecting county roads are upgraded at developer's expense (or the county is
compensated through an impact fee or fee-in-lieu)
v. Fiscal costs to the public will be considered in the review of new unincorporated communities
vi. Any internal commercial is primarily for the convenience of area residents (minimize
competition with existing communities)
vii. Transit opportunities are provided
viii. Recreation and other public amenities are provided
ix. School sites may be required (these locations preferred over schools in rural areas)
New Centers
In an effort to make existing subdivisions more self-sufficient, a new center may be added to
existing major residential subdivisions or other urban areas. Additionally, the center should be
located at intersections and interchanges, has access to central water and sewer through a
special district, and is compact and designed to fully utilize the land.
Growth of New Major Residential Subdivisions
There are several major subdivisions (15 units or more) in Garfield County that provide their
own internal services (road maintenance, water, sewer) through special districts or HOA.
However, these subdivisions are typically far from commercial centers and require travel for
even convenience needs which increases traffic and requires higher maintenance of county
roads. The Plan recognizes new major subdivisions may occur, but encourages them to be
more self-sufficient (having, or being near, convenience services). In order to be more self-
sufficient, new major subdivisions will require:
i. Safe, reliable access and transit opportunities
ii. Construction or upgrade existing offsite connecting county roads and intersections by the
developer
iii. Review of the fiscal costs vs. fiscal benefits to the public
iv. Internal roads to be maintained by a special district or HOA
v. Central water and sewer is provided through a special district (quasi-public, not private)
vi. Public amenities, such as trails, open areas, parks.etc., that meet the needs of residents are
included.
VI. REVIEW CRITERIA
1. REQUIRED SUBMITIAL CRITERIA §32-1-202 (2), C.R.S.
The service plan shall contain the following:
{a) A description of the proposed services;
Staff Comment: The plan provides o list of potential services which may or may not be services
that the district provides. The pion states that '7he District shall specifically have street
improvement, transportation, water, sanitation and pork and recreation powers."
4
Service Plan Review -Cattle Creek Metropolitan District
Planning Commission July 25, 2012
(b) A financial plan showing how the proposed service are to be financed, including the
proposed operating revenue derived from property taxes for the first budget year of the district,
which shall not be materially exceeded except as authorized pursuant to section 32-1-207 or 29-
1-302, C.R.S. All proposed indebtedness for the district shall be displayed together with a
schedule indicating the year or years in which the debt is scheduled to be issued. The board of
directors of the district shall notify the board of county commissioners or the governing body of
the municipality of any alteration or revision of the proposed schedule of debt issuance set forth
in the financial plan;
Staff Comment: A financial pion was submitted however review of this information hos not yet
been completed.
(c) A preliminary engineering or architectural survey showing how the proposed services are to
be provided;
Staff Comment: The proposed pion does contain preliminary maps showing the location of roads
and trails.
(d) A map of the proposed special district boundaries and an estimate of the population
and valuation for assessment of the proposed special district;
Staff Comment: Maps of the proposed district boundaries (both "Initial" and "Included"
boundaries) were provided, as well as the valuation for assessment of the 366 residential lots.
No future population estimate was provided but the current population was stated as 0.
(e) A general description of the facilities to be constructed and the standards of such
construction, including a statement of how the facility and service standards of the proposed
special district are compatible with facility and service standards of any county within which all
or any portion of the proposed special district is to be located, and of municipalities and special
districts which are interested parties pursuant to section 32-1-204(1)
Staff Comment: Standards for the proposed facility were discussed and a statement was
included in the pion "The District will ensure that the Access Improvements are designed and
constructed in accordance with the standards and specification of the PUC, RFTA, and the
County, the Official Development Pion, the federal government, or other governmental entities
having proper jurisdiction."
(f) A general description of the estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal
services, administrative service , initial proposed indebtedness and estimated proposed
maximum interest rates and discounts, and other major expenses related to the organization
and initial operation of the district.
s
Service Plan Review-Cattle Creek Metropolitan District
Planning Commission July 25, 2012
Staff Comment: The plan provided estimated costs for the construction of improvements as
shown below.
Cattle Creek Metropolitan District Facility Cost EJtlmate5u•
.._. . •·-••· .. \!.__ _ fo!!!!f!J.!!~!1~_!,tfj ln<l~~'-C!°?IJP!}~!.r
~ .. lWll•,...,.u; • ...,.~. n
'ntrnl1td Eslimal~
Qty • lobl
lot•IComtnKTlonCMh S 7.J)l.o:o
•AH 1.•H ros.u ''' o ... i~to• .. •• r...r"'l ""1•.=.tri.c·,,_..,,"'° 74tl1ir.1f':.1r-.1,,u111 so1~1r1"\lf..' .coiu rt:tnrt 1 • .a:ua1>m:.:J r:e-~:::rre a.tGtn• .a ~.l':.-. r1:r~. •Nil t l"dJ;.u :J I ~ tr4
•JiJllll"C'IOQ~t •·tn•·,~• l.1~1 ·t t1 "'" 1mq, '""' .l'J• t •l f~ll-<"i&1 . ft:tt ll':J ';"l:t~r 1rou11t~·H !>~ .. •:•r f'K"'i.ICl(t 1 rt~n. •••ts. wf'llt aria r.t t · t.e:: .. ..,""1'\;:f":i
'ca~.:IRllttD"'!'• ..;I! St!HS O""•..n .... J;IW 'Wr~,.11 •i-f:.o;..•t N .. ,,.. , .... llft"~l::P""'1"!\ 'llf .. ~ ... ,,.,, ... hCJ1'l-f ll•tl .,,. ... l .~nt ·ud "41h 11'\t M •:Oljllgaj ••"'-DJ'1J'l(I
C11dr C,.,.,~
ll~nopnlic 11.n Di1u;cc
t ' =l 1
J ,,,l -.... -:---~;.;----
C.t.fTl.CCllllU;"'
tllf1IJIOllG.ITAtfM"'1CT
r•t1unn
(g) A description of any arrangement or proposed agreement with any political subdivision for
the performance of any services between the proposed special district and such other political
subdivision, and, if the form contract to be used is available, it shall be attached to the service
plan;
Staff Comment: The plan includes provision of water and sanitation services however none of
the estimated costs are associated with this service nor was any discussion included regarding
arrangement or proposed agreements with the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitation District ..
(h) Information, along with other evidence presented at the hearing, satisfactory to establish
that each of the criteria set forth in section 32-1-203, if applicable, is met;
Staff Comment: Section 32-1-203 contains the criteria for action on the plans. This section will
be used to determine the findings and recommendation to the Boord. See below.
(i) Such additional information as the board of county commissioners may require by resolution
on which to base its findings pursuant to section 32-1-203;
6
Service Plan Review-Cattle Creek Metropolitan District
Planning Commission July 25, 2012
Staff Comment: Section 32-1-203 contains the criteria for action on the plans. This section will
be used to determine the findings and recommendation to the Board. See below.
2. REQUIRED REVIEW CRITERIA 32-1-203 C.R.S.
(2) The board of county commissioners shall disapprove the service plan unless evidence
satisfactory to the board of each of the following is presented:
(a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be
serviced by the proposed special district.
Staff Comment: Evidence has not been provided regarding the existing and projected need for
organized service except for the fact that a quasi-governmental entity is 'required' to apply for a
public railroad crossing permit and PUC approval to access the site. Current entitlements only
include a portion of the overall District boundary -the "Inclusion" parcels should not be added
until such time as entitlements and additional service plan review is completed by the County.
Further, the service plan discusses the provision of water and sanitation service however a
special district currently exists to provide this service. 32-1-107 (2) C.R.S. no special district may
be organized wholly or partly within an existing special district providing the same service.
Statute does provide that overlapping districts may be approved by the board of county
commissioners.
(b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is
inadequate for present and projected needs.
Staff Comment: The service to be provided is specific to the acquisition of permits and
construction/maintenance of the access to the site. The request to provide service related to
water and sanitation is unnecessary as Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation is to provide this
service to the development in the area.
(c) The proposed special district is capable for providing economical and sufficient service
to the area within its boundaries.
Staff Comment: The service plans have not demonstrated that they can provide economical and
sufficient service, particularly given the requested 40 Mills for Debt and 10 Mills for Operation.
Potential future residents of the development will pay significant additional property taxes
associated with 124.277 mills, HOA dues, and user fees for services and facilities within the
development. The service plan has not adequately demonstrated that they are capable of
providing economical service to the area.
(d) 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.
7
Service Plan Review-Cattle Creek Metropolitan District
Planning Commission July 25, 2012
Staff Comment: Given the requested 50 Mills to be applied to 366 units within the REC
development and any future uses contained on the "inclusion" property is certainly would appear
that the district will have the ability to discharge the proposed $5,590,000 debt.
(2.5) The board of county commissioners may disapprove the service plan if evidence
satisfactory to the board of any of the following, at the discretion of the board, is not presented;
(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.
Staff Comment: It appears that there is no entity willing or able to acquire necessary permits to
allow for access to the site. The Applicant states that the PUC requires that a public entity be
responsible for access to the site. Adequate service for water and sanitation is already provided
to the area by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District.
(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 district is to
be located and each municipality which is an interested party under 32-1-201 (1).
Staff Comment: The service plan on discusses the fact that they will comply with requirements
of the PUC, state, federal and County requirements.
(c) The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to
section 30-28-106, C.R.S.
Staff Comment: The Comprehensive Plan includes components regarding provision of urban
level services for development outside of the growth boundary. One method of providing these
services is through a special district however redundancy of services is not supported by the
objective, policies and goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Stoff questions whether the formation
of a metropolitan district to provide access to the site is sufficient to provide urban level services
to the development.
(d) The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long-
range water quality management plan for the area.
Staff Comment: This area is not subject to a 208 Plan.
{e) The creation ofthe proposed special district will be in the best interest of the proposed
area to be served.
Staff Comment: The future residents of the area to be served will be subject to additional taxes
associated with the Metropolitan District (SO Mills) which may be burdensome. The proposal to
odd additional properties to the district once entitlements are approved by the County does not
allow the County sufficient review of the changes to the service plan. Inadequate information
has been submitted to demonstrate that the creation of district -to provide access and roads as
8
Service Plan Review-Cattle Creek Metropolitan District
Planning Commission July 25, 2012
well as trails, water and sanitation services, is the best interest of the area proposed to be
served.
VII. CONCERNS AND ISSUES
1. REDUNDANCY OF SERVICE
The Board and Commission should consider §32-1-107(2) which provides that a district may be
organized wholly or partly within an existing special district, but shall not provide the same services
as an existing district. Overlapping districts may be authorized to provide the same services only if:
a) The Board approves inclusion of service as part of the service plan of an overlapping district;
b) Improvements of facilities to be financed, established, or operated by an overlapping special
district do not duplicate or interfere with existing or planned improvements or facilities to be
constructed within portions of existing districts that new districts will overlap; and
c) The board of directors of the overlapped district must consent.
Clearly the proposed metropolitan district service request to provide water and sanitation service
overlaps the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. The petitioner has not provided consent
from the water and sanitation district. Section 31-l-107(3)(c) provides that nothing in this section
is to be construed to encourage unnecessary proliferation, duplication, overlapping, or
fragmentation of a special or metropolitan districts.
2. MILL LEVY
The requested 50 mill levy to REC and future development on adjacent parcels is burdensome and
will almost double property taxes . When the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District mill levy is
added the burden increases, the addition of HOA dues and user fees will also increase that burden.
)l!J1. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff has concerns with the District as proposed , specifically:
1. The inclusion of additional properties without benefit of further review once entitlements are
approved;
2. The inclusion of services which are not subject to the requested debt and not included in the
cost estimates;
3. The inclusion of services which are already provided by other districts;
4. The request for 50 mills which is burdensome to future property owners , particularly the
affordable housing units required to be provided in the development.
Additional review from a contracted source has not been received and therefore staff is unable to make
a recommendation at this time.
9
0
(I)
1..-
<(
O> c: ·--0 c:
:::>
0
1..-,._
:::>
(./)
-0 c:
0
~ +-·-c: ·-u ·->
I
1 ~
0
-" 0 c ·.;::: :>
·-0 ..E co
\
I
I
\/
D
c >--
0 t ·v; Q)
j a.
-0 u "-..E Q..
-
Proiect Summary
Request:
Regulation:
Applicant:
Location:
Zoning:
Service Plan Approval for
Cattle Creek Metropolitan District
Colorado Revised Statutes
Carbondale Investments LLC
Between the City of Glenwood
Springs and Town of Carbondale
PUD and Suburban
-
Proiect Information
River Edge Colorado PUD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in
December 2011 for 366 residential dwelling units on + 1 60-acres.
Access to the site is proposed to occur from Colorado State Highway 82 directly
across from Cattle Creek Road (CR 113).
The development proposal stated that the Rio Grande Trail would be a separated
grade crossing with the trail under the surface entry road to the site. The Rio
Grande Trail property is owned b y the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority and
subject to the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) permitting due to the
underlying property being a rail corridor.
The PUC prefers or requires that a 'public' entity manage the crossings of these
corridors therefore the developer of the project seeks approval for quasi-
governmental status to apply for, construct and maintain the access to the project.
Project Information
-~.c-~----oM----~~~~~--~~~~~---------~
Proposed Improvements to be funded by the District:
Roads and a railroad crossing including trails, sidewalks, bridges, walls and storm
drainage along with required reinstallation or relocation of trails, water and sewer
lines and other facilities in order to provide public access across the RFT A Railroad
ROW
Estimated Infrastructure Capital Cost: $4,000, 900
Debt Authorization: $5,590,000
Anticipated Mill Levies: Debt: 40 Mills Operation: 1 0 Mills
Current Assessed Valuation: $71 8,980
Anticipated Future Population: 840
Concerns / Questions
------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
,
Mill Levy is high and may impact the affordability of the project. By comparison
other tax rates within the County include:
•Aspen Glen/lronbridge 7 4.27 5 Mills
•Battlement Mesa 35.327 Mills
•Riverpark Condominiums 93.21 7 Mills
•Spring Ridge Reserve 67.1 69 Mills
•River Edge Colorado
current 68.554 Mills
proposed 1 24.277 Mills
c: I
0 ·-+-
0
L.
CJ) ...c ·--CJ)
Cl
c:
0 ·-V)
V) ·-E
E
0 u
O> c: ·-c: c:
0 -0...
I