Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report BOCC 09.04.12I Cattle Creek Metropolitan District Service Plans Board of County Commissioners September 4, 2012 r.-~-r ---·..-:::-,--.." --.~. ~-~-~-·-·=-w,.,..~,'-"S~~-·'""""·~ ---=-·-----,.., ... =··] • :·-•· • ....,.;.. lot-.. ~_.,_ ... ~.,-~'#/ . ..:.-~·-.:_.~ ... :ij. -.;y~~--~"" ..... !I'.-'-~ 1! --::,~ ~ ~··u~:~ ··· .. -il.~~·:i¥. .. ~~· .-,~ci.· •' ;,...-,;:--~~· •,,,r._r.:i.i.·~ ~"f..:-.......;:..-... -,~' ~:, .. ·.-':J=-f!/f~,.-:=1G ...,,t..rl'-~ ~1 ".ff":·:""i=., ..;..:., ·/~"'t-'.-~ ,,,., ~ .. :..;,.·r.!';, ~-'"·-.~::.~-':'cl~=:-;;;;::.:.q:~_.;.Jr~"!:····~~s.-~:..·~~r~,,.'.Ll-=-~.,,-fi~,~.;~'""~-•~~ .. ~.t"<!·~"~ :;:,;,,::N;:::tr··~~r~.~o:;·:.:~~;;.~~--<-J f.;}:.i -:_·.~_; ,..i~~t~~,:;;;~1~·~t<~'f.'%·!~~··-;,.:;_--:~~1;$':;~.::?f:i'~~-:~~:~~~-:~··~i~~~~!:,:}:~-·.,;;,,_}::}j-~t? ~~!S~ -·:1.. ..... --=-":"~·:--;........ ~-... ,:>, ~ ...... ; ...... :-;, ... ·~-f'f:i~· ... ,.,~1: ·:Ir~~·~~ ... :<·.?-.~·;c~l~~ .. ;r.~· .. ~t~/.:..c.,.-:,.:S-J-~~"'t~' ... ~:.:-fk~~l.::~ ... ~~t.'?·" ~~"':, •.,. -' ·t·-~t1• ~} ~..,.,., .. ..,.. .. ,-... ;..."'~·;>,... .. -... .... ~ ~ ~~ ,•t:. •• 7"'"~ ..... !->_,,_;...i.,.':-Y ... !;.• ... ,.~·~r '":-~··,~ "<{*....:•~,,,...~.,, ... "T:?JJ."l;.-"I"~·.-\,...,:~ i:....:..~~.'-~=..~-~J"~:.:!.:.-2°.:.~::--f;:. :; · .._:i~ .. --~~.:,:'=.,S~~:....:-~~-. ·~,1'~~--. ~~-~~ A Garfield Countv Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended B Staff R.eoort c Letter dated July 24, 2012 from Balcomb & Green (without attachment) D Staff Presentation E Proiected River EdJ?e Property Owner Association Bud2et F Plannina. Commission Resolution PC 2012-04 G Letter dated Aumsst 1. 2012 from Ford Frick, BBC Research & Consulting u Clerk acceotance of Planning Commission Resolution, dated July 27, 2012 I J K L M ' ~ REQUEST PROPERTY OWNER REPRESENTATIVE LOCATION EXISTING ZONING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN h BACKGROUND Service Plan Review -Cattle Creek Metropolitan District Board of County Commissioners September 4, 2012 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Service Plan Review Carbondale Investments, LLC and Garfield County Commercial 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. Jh 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 Planning Commission held a public meeting on Wednesday, July 25, 2012 to consider the service plan and make recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. A resolution was completed to 1 Service Plan Review -Cattle Creek Metropolitan District Board of County Commissioners September 4, 2012 memorialize the Planning Commission recommendation of approval and forwarded to the Clerk on July 27, 2012 in compliance with statutory requirements. The Board of County Commissioners held a public meeting on August 6, 2012 to schedule the public hearing for September 4, 2012. Proper notice as required by Title 32 has been completed for this hearing. Ill. PLAN DESCRIPTION The service plan is initially proposed to serve the River Edge PUD, a 366-unlt development approved on 159.15-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 Investments, 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 Application Exhibit 0 (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 collectlon 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 2 Service Plan Review-cattle Creek Metropolitan District Board of County Commissioners September 4, 2012 $4,000,900; and Debt Authorization is $5,590,000. The Service Plan proposes an Anticipated Mill Levy at 40 Mills for debt and 10 Mills for operations, for a total levy of 50 Mills. 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 (S.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. The Applicant has stated that SO mills is the average for Metropolitan Districts around the state. By way of comparison, Aspen Glen PUD and lronbridge PUD, both located within the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District but not within a metropolitan district, have mill levies at 74.275. River Park Condominiums, located within the Rive r Park Metro District in the Town of New Castle 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 within the River Edge PUD may negatively Impact the affordable housing units proposed o.n 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, tronbridge 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 3 Service Plan Review-Cattle Creek Metropolitan District Board of County Commissioners September 4, 2012 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 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. ~ REVIEW CRITERIA 1. REQUIRED SUBMITTAL CRITERIA §32-1-202 (2), C.R.S. The service plan shall contain the following: 4 Service Plan Review -cattle Creek Metropolitan District Board of County Commissioners September 4, 2012 {a) A description of the proposed services; Staff Comment: The plan provides a 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 park and recreation powers." (b) A financial plan showing how the proposed services 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 plan was submitted and reviewed by BBC Research and Consulting, EXHIBIT G. The economic review states that "the requested bonding authority {$5.59 million) is in keeping with the anticipated Assessed Value and the associated mill levy (40 mills, plus 20 mills for operations} is consistent with similar district levies across the state." (c) A preliminary engineering or architectural survey showing how the proposed services are to be provided; Staff Comment: The proposed plan does contain preliminary mops showing the location of roads and trails. (d) A map of the proposed special dlstrict boundaries and an estimate of the population and valuation for assessment of the proposed special district; Staff Comment: Mops 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+204(1) Staff Comment: Standards for the proposed facility were discussed and a statement was included In the plan "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 Plan, the federal government, or other governmental entities having proper jurisdiction.'' s Service Plan Review-Cattle Creek Metropolitan District Board of County Commissioners September 4, 2012 (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. Staff Comment: The plan provided estimated costs for the construction of improvements as shown below. C~t1f11 Creek M otropoflt1n Dhlflct h dfhy C01t (tdmlte1~L• -u .. ~, _q;, ___ · __ .,..cc.-' ..... -..!!!:!!r-~...!!~~~J••Pw.IJ !] r~~~, \'H u .. n:-,.rn Er.....-..!6 -, ___ l ---i!.~~(f-.1 _, ___ ._ '~ .. -··--·--·--,, ' > i'fr.!!-'~l·~l l ----· :.. :•rr..-~·~~u..,_~ ~an.:. 'T,, J :r1:• }fr:t.1~:,.• r: •• I~-.. - ( \Val\ ~a:. --·-, ------;;;;!>-,-.. ..,,-.-, -----:-·-~ - I 1r~>i t~) t: ~ :'-'~rfr.'~!r!ffJ;~.~f =~.r.ofVC!1 C, t~ J1!~~~.~n l.!. l _ JI ~!'~'.!~---- U l.(otr.M";"".st&r~:"l'\. J..l!J;: ~ ~ I..~ I S "°'. =i :'.!! ! _J :s=-1... ____ ~£-" .:«.ta: . s IU!- •. s ...!!~ ~;; ~~ ..:i. s ~~en ,.,_, r!.I«' :Jl s ..:0-xi ~ , ~·!' _!~J-~! ---~;~1._ ...... ' 7.llot Cl'"·' '•n 1111-1~.-.u: ... s..a1 .... •t :..• . .:.-•.;Af1:'T='"''if"' )ll'-4t-...J. ... ,,..~=-': a&.~...,,,~,~•l':-t t::r"!C-:.1'.t~ ~..: 1 ~:::.t'J..;1:'$'T: 't:: :~ -:.-:-r :--.. -.. '':-r :a-:""C. ,.,.: ·~·,-, 1•U••• ., l tt .... 1~·) f'C -"'A .. l ll'!tt,1 1 Jl)lt t · l .. f'f1 •f'9".-""lt'(f1 \• -•tU'" "C AOt ,.,...., "'" ..,.,V2sf 1' !..: --r"t • 'q~:f"\";'"ll t ... r::u i 79~,, ..... -ct• .. • -l..,t .. r•••'" .. ~l'T•~t ,.•• ,.,.~ ........... _ tt .....,,,.,.,,.r*.,,.,,..",...,,,..,. c .. 0r Cmt~ Ut"'.,..:,..,. n i,uin & ... 1 --·------ :1--· --. • -t uir.z~" -~lf.L .. :zl'li~'li fV-ltft'tt (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 for water and sanitation however the pre-inlcusion agreement with the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District precludes the proposed District from providing this service. The infrastructure Improvements necessary for providing water and sanitation service may be district responsibility, particularly as that infrastructure crosses the RFTA corridor. (h) Information, along with other evidence presented at the heari ng, satisfactory to establish that each of the criteria set forth in section 32-1-203, if applicable, is met; 6 Service Plan Review -Cattle Creek Metropolitan District Board of County Commissioners September 4, 2012 Staff Comment: Section 32-1-203 contains the criteria for action on the plans. See below. (I) Such additional information as the hoard of county commissioners may require by resolution on which to base its findings pursuant to section 32-1-203; Staff Comment: Section 32· l-203 contains the criteria for action on the plans. 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 been provided that a quasi-governmental entity Is required to obtain the PUC licensing required to construct, operate and maintain the sole access into the site. (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 existing service is inadequate for projected needs. (c) The proposed special district is capable for providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its boundaries. Staff Comment: The service plan hos demonstrated that they ore capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the development located within the district boundaries. (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. Staff Comment: Based upon on economic analysis performed by BBC, EXHIBIT G, it appears that the district may have the ability to discharge the proposed debt. VII. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION 1. MILLLEVV The Planning Commission discussed the requested SO mills and the potential impact that this would have on future owners within the district boundaries. The Applicant described the potential impact by reviewing the projected River Edge Property Association Budget which 7 Service Plan Review -cattle Creek Metropolitan District Board of County Commissioners, September 4, 2012 indicated that the combined burden of taxes and HOA dues would be similar to that of other projects within Garfield County. VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission unanimously (8-0) recommends approval of the service plan, and Resolution Number PC 2012-04 was executed to forward to the Board for consideration in the decision on the request. IX. BOARD CONSIDERATION AND DECISION 8 EDWARD l>l•JLW-t.I.. . ..SA SCOTT B;.L.Cooae t.A'1AblC£ R ClllaN T11~0THV A. ihvL.Sor1 0;.1110 C , H~~o C""'5TOf"l'IER !.. Covt.t: t T"Ol'l.l!I J. Ht.;l~r. Cto1t•!IT.:ll"MeA !... G~o!:11 SA"" M, 0Q111ll' 5C0'71" OAOSSC~I" Clue~ c.u:· Le.~ F. V~t< loiP.so..u; BALCOMB & GREEN, P.C. ATTORNEYS il LA.W P. 0. ORAWSR 700 818 COLORADOAV~NU£ GLENWOOD S.t>JUN081 COLORADO 8.1602 TELEPHONE: 970.945.61>46 f~CSli'1lLf;: 970.9<fS,l\lf)02 www.balcontbgn.~n.com July 24, 2012 V~ INTERNET .4.NDHri'\JD DELIVERY: keastley@gadield-county.com Kathy Easttey, AICP Senior Planner Garfiel& County Building&:. Planning 108 8th Stl'eet, #4'01 Glenwood'Splings, CO 81601 .AE: Cattle Creek Metropolitan District -Service Plan Dear Kath}'• EXHfBIT I (, KDlllETI-< E!Al.cON!I (I Iii 20-200=.. OP' COUtl5£L. JOl"ll A , TH~L.90'1 t11so licensed in Okl.;homa *i1lso llcensed hi Wvomlna ~~tached' is the Pre Inclusion Agreement between the Roaring Fork Water & Sanitatii:n DI.stitict f'Re:WSD"), Carbondale Investments LLC ("0''), and Garfield County Commercial lrrvestlments; U .. C (."GCO"). Under the terms of this agreement, the RFWSD will provid~ \.Vat"!r and wao;rewaW' service to property owned by 0 and GCO upon the construction of the facilities d'eStribed in that agreement and inclusion of the Cf and/or GCO properties within the RFWSD's boundaries. These propel'ties are also proposed to be included within the requestc:ct CaU!t? Creek Metropolitan District ("CCMD"). We understand that the proposed CCMD wiJJ be the mechanism to allow CI to 5e.:l' approval from the Public Utilities Commission to cross the RFTA hial corridor and (o fund construction of the infrastructure necessary to provide: water and wastewater service to property owned by CI and GCO, initially that being the proposed Rivel'S EclgE:! PUD. To the extent the ccrvro 5ei'Vlcc plan crcate.s an ambiguity with respect to which e::11lity will provide water and sewer service to the Rivel's Edge FUD, the attached Pre Inclusion Agreement controls and the RFWSD will be the sole water and wastewater provider to tho:.e properties that may be included in the CCMD service area. B .4LCO'.\!B de GREEN, P .C. ATTOR."lo"'ETS AT L.-.\:W July 24, 2012 Page 2 Therefore, regardless of who constructs the water and wastewater facilities within the proposed CCMD service area, a special disbict or the deveJopeI, th-e RFvtlSD·will be tl~e Frovicler of water and wastewater service to the CCMD service area. Thus, there is no 11.:dur.td1ancy or service. The RFWSD has not taken a position on the proposed CCMO service plarr recognizing that the RFWSD will provide water and wastewater service to the prop>erties located within the CCMD service area pursuant'terms of the Pre Inclusion agreement. Attachment cc: Dianne Miller, Esq. Rocky Sheppard Very truly yours, B . .\LCOMII&GREEN, P.C By g-;~7'-·7 Lawrence Green / SE:o!~ Grosscup c (I) Ji... < O> c: ·--0 c: :::> 0 Ji... Ji... :::> V) -0 c: c >-.-+-·-c: ·-u ·-> o ~ 0 -""O 0 c: ·.;::: :::> ·-0 ..5 co D c: )-.. 0 t ·-Cl> ~ a. u e ..5 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 ! rzr-:zs=:: a Proiect Information -----------------------------------------------~-·--·--~-----------~ ~-- River Edge Colorado PUD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in December 2011 for 366 residential dwelling units on +160-acres. Access to the site is proposed to occur from Colorado State Highway 82 directly across from Cattle Creek Road (CR 11 3). 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 by 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. Proiect Information Proposed Improvements to be funded by the District: Roods 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 Estimated Infrastructure Capital Cost: $4,000, 900 Debt Authorization: $5,590,000 Anticipated Mill Levies: Debt: 40 Mills Operation: l 0 Mills Current Assessed Valuation: $718,980 Anticipated Future Population: 840 Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning commission held a public meeting on July 25, 2012 at which time they considered the service plan request. Questions arose regarding affordability related to the mill levy and specific services to be provided by the Metropolitan District. All issues were discussed and considered to be adequately addressed by the Applicant. The Commission unanimously recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approval of the service plan. tn c: 0 ·-+-tn (I) :::> c " c: 0 ·-+-c ~ (I) -0 ·-tn c: 0 u -0 ~ 0 0 ca STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss County of Garfield ) At a regular meeting of the Planning Commission for Garfield County, Colorado, held in the Commissioners' Meeting Room, Garfield County Administration Building, in Glenwood Springs on Wednesday the 2511t day of July A.D. 2012, there were present: =Bo...,,b ..... Pull......,...,ertu:o .... n.__ ___________ _.. Commission Chairman ..... Jo .... hn~K=uerst==cn~----------~· Commissioner ~Ch~e~l)'.~l~Qi~an~~~e~r~fab~sen~t~) ________ __,.Commissioncr .... sean=..::M=artin=· .... (,,..ab .... sen=t)~---'---------..J' Commissioner =Greg=o;;1~M=c=K=e=on=U--__________ ___..Commissioner ""'Ado.....,.l=fo'-"G=om=------------· Commissioner -.Mi-.·c .... be ... U __ e .... F ..... oster=--=,___-----------· Com.missioner .... M._ic...,ba=e=l-=Sulli=·--van...._ __________ _,. Associate Commissioner ~Gre:u:eg~S~hamnei:crL---------------'' Associate Commissioner __ st ..... eo"'"'h=e=n=D=amm,___....._ __________ _.. Associate Commissioner =Carev= ... G=a ... gn=on,__ ___________ _.. Acting County Attorney =B=ec....,ky~Wh'-=ee=Je=rs=b=ur=.11:.._ _________ _,. Clerk to the Commission when the following proceedings. among others were bad and done, to--wit RESOLUTION NO. PC 2012-04 A RESOLUTION TO MEMORIALIZE THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE SERVICE PLAN FOR THE CATILE CREEK METROPOLITAN DISTRICT GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO PARCEL NO# 2393-073-00-032 AND 2393-073-00-033 Recitals A. Garfield County is a legal and political subdivision of the State of Colorado, for which the Board of County Commissioners is authorized to act B. Pursuant to law, the Board of County · Commissioners of Garfield County (the .. Board") bas appointed the Garfield County Planning Commission (the "Commission"). C. On Jtme 29, 2012 a service plan for the Cattle Creek Metropolitan District was submitted in 1 Garfield County, Colorado to the CJcrk andRccordcrfGarfield County, Colorado, ex-officio Clerk to the Garfield Board of County Commissioners, for the Board's consideration in accordance with the Colorado Revised Statutes, §32-1-201 et. seq., the Colorado Special District Act, and the required processing fccS were paid at that time; D. The Board discussed the review schedule for the service plans at a public meeting held on July 9, 2012, at which time it joined in ·the Clerk's required referral to the Commission and imposed additional fees that have been paid by the petitioner. · E. Pursuant to C.RS. §32 -1-204 (2)(a) the coWJty planning commission shall study such seTVice plan and present its recommendations consistent with this part 2 to the boatd of county commissioners within thirty days following the filing of the service plan with the county clerk and recorder. F. In accordance with state law, the Planning Commission has adopted a comprehensive plan, currently the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan 2030, as amended. · G. The Commission conducted a public meeting on July 25, 2012 upon the question of whether the service plan m~ the required and discretionary criteria contained in C.R.S. §32-1-203 and to make a recommendation of approval without condition, disapproval, or conditions] approval subject to the submission of additional information relating lo or the modification of the proposed service plans. H. Based upon evidence presented at the public meeting by SULtt: the applicant, and other interested parties, including Exhibit B, Staff R£port, attached 2Wd incorporated herein by this reference, the service plan submitted for the proposed Cattle Creek Metropolitan District bas adequately demonstrated the following: §32-1-203(2): (a) That there is sufficient existing and projected need for organiZed service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special districts; (b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is adequate for present and projected needs; (c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its boundaries; (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. 2 RESOLUTION NdW T8ERl.!FORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of Oatfield Connfy,_ Colorado, that: · A. T.he forgoing R.e9itals are incorpot1tted by this rcf.crence as part of the resolution. B. Th! Pl~Commis!ion recomm~ds that the BQa.rd of County <;ommissioners approve the semce plan. C, The .PUl'pOSe of this Resolution is tO mea,orialize the action taken on Joly · 25, 2012. Dated thiS. 2s"" <Jay of July, A.D. 2012. GAm'.ELD cotmrY PLANNING COMM;ISSION, GARFIELD COUNTY, co£Zn CJ~Y~rz Bob'Fullerton, Cbainoan Secretary, t>to-"11!11. Garfield County Pl~ Commissian Upon motion duly made and seconded the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the following vote: ~eo~m~· ~m~is~"~on~Gb~·~a~ipp._,Hn~B~·~ob~F~W=l~ert~·o~n~-----~------------''Aye ~eo~mW!!:!m~m~si~on~~~Ji~o~&n~k~ueme~~n11-__________ ~--------------'''Aye ~eo~m~m~iw~si~on~~~Gr:~ez~MC==·Kc=:aom.·~s ________________________ __.,Aye ~C~ommllo!6!!;1~·ss~w~ner~Ad~o=Hi~o~G~o~rra.:--------------------------·Aye ~~~mnus~~· Siil!. .. o~n~e:!:....r ~Mi~·c~he=l:J::.:e1:.11·Fuo~st=erL..------------------------· Aye aAs.eoSOD!Cl!(!·are~· ~C~o·~H~Oj~ja!2!siolt.!n~er~Greg~~s:!!!han=cr~-----------------~· Aye ..... Assu~-~cia~-te=C~omm=·· =' .... ·w..,,·on=er;:..· S=te£!=.ibtm=-·D=am==m-------------------• Aye- 3 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 BACKGROUND Service Plan Review and Recommendation Carbondale Investments LLC Dianne Miller-Miller & Assocl~tes 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 1wr.,1V11.IHrl MMI M Mtw.M 1"1111 Rec.Uantt: 822731 88/14/2912 11 138190 P" Jean Alberioo 4 af 12 Rea Foe :SGl .H Doo Fee :0 .M GARFIELD COUNTY CO Special districts are quasi-municipal corporations and political subdivisions that are organized to act for a particular purpose. A metropolitan district is a special dfstrl~ that provides any two or more services which may include fire protection, parks & recreation, safety protection, sanitation, solid V'itSte, 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 famlliar concept within Garfield County, particularly related to fire protection districts and water and/or sanitation districts. Several metropolitan districts currentlv 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 submlttal 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 publlc hearing with the board not more than thirty (30) days after setti ng the public hearing date . !b GENERAL INF~MADQN The Clerk and Recorder (Jean Alberico) received petition for review of a service plan for the Cattle Creek Metropolitan District on June 29, 20U 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 bv 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 publrc hearing date on September 10, 2012 . .llh PLAN DESCRIPTION The service plan is initially proposed to serve the River Edge PUO, 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 abllity to construct one single family home on each of the parcels. SpecificaUy, 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 shan 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 pro\fide service to the REC development. Statutory requirements in 32-1-103 (10) C.R.S state that a Metropolitan District mav 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 sol Id 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 relnstallation 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 Authoriz~tion is $5,590,000. The Service Plan proposes an Anticipated Miil Levy at 40 Mill for debt and 10 Mills for operations, for a total levy of so Mills. 2 Service Plan R~vlew-cattle Creek Metropolitan District Planning Commission July 25, 2012 A review of the additional taxes that will impact thls 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 124.2n mills on the site. By way of comparison, Aspen Glen PUD and lronbrldge 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 within 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 wlll 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 fur the property -these sites will also be subject to HOA dues and user fees. ll£i 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 / 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 loca~ed north of the service area boundary. V. COMPREHENSIVE PlAN lhe 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 anti 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, refiable 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. lntemal roads to be maintained by a special district or HOA v. Central water and sewer is provided through a special district (quasi-pubic, not private) vi. Public amenitie~. such as trails, open areas, parks.etc., that meet the needs of residents are included. VI. REVIEW CRITERIA 1. REQUIRED SUBMIITAL CRITERIA §32-1-202 (2), C.R.S. The service plan shall contain the followlng: (a) A description of the proposed services; Staff Comment: The plan provides a list of potential services which may or may not be services that the district provides. The plan states that "The District shall specifically have street improvement, transportation, water, sanitation and park and recreation powers. H 4 1111 l'r.a.Pi,,M.~tw+UJIPJilLN~rM~hrlfil.*t 1111 Re~tlon#: 1122731 "8114/2012 91 :38 :H Pl'I Jean Alber loo B of 12 ho Fn :se.ee Doc FH:9.H GARFIELD COUNTY co 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, lndudfng 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 plan was submitted however review of this Information has 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 "lnitlaf' and "lnduded" 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 ~o be located, and of municipalities and special districts which are Interested parties pursuantto section 32-1-204(1) Staff Comment: Standards for the proposed facility were discussed and a statement wos included in the plan "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 Of/1clal Development Plan, the federal government or other governmental entitles 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 ~~~!'tf!l~~~r~c'*A rw Mr ~•Mi• 11111 88/1:i:2112 81 :38 :10 Pl'I Jean Alberico 9 Of 12 R.o Fee:se .ee Doo Fa:a.ee GARFIELD COUNTY co Service Plan Review -Cattle Creek Metropolitan District Planning Commission July 25, 2012 Staff Comment: The pion provide<! estimated costs for the construction of Improvements as shown below. ~ne=. ite-----·------·----·---'----· .. --... -...... . . _,, , ._. • ...,., ,.., t•f ttAtf tJ ••""'""" 1\1.'""StU&J•lln' ••J91U'.lftC:::;itC..lt1.fWIW"9·• cte&••ara IWlll~ Ul:llNl'W:~ Gllat•iG, r.n'.1_.,., "C"f' ...... ,~£Dtt ... •N ....nectta..,...w.&.tiV.taricam•..,..••tt ... ~f'Ott,.,~.nr 1~NIL~•'W'\tC.IRfl'1.,i-iin.lln1..~.aeM:t1::~~ •CiAr.tl::t~:.Z_.,a,.. •• ._~ ... tdr.1i1twltt.,,.. ..... .....,...,._.-,~..,....,..Nnauacti~1111et~·a:\.Dl:mi& 'IAdwJt\¥1ft,.or.ur.r..wer. ltiLD'ditfl.r4•c.as&lftiJ, .,,. l'T& ,..,......* •blftMtcpt.HtU9f'llfO~~.~ (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 servk:e 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 $et 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 Board. See below. s (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 •11F.1ifW'/41~~fl'Mil!MHf.'Nf~~1111 f.~?!lJ:Tii ,:~a=. .i .. n Alberico Service Plan Review-Cattle Creek Metropolitan District 1e or 12 Rei: F ... u .ea Doo Fee:a.n GARFIELD COUNTY co Planning Commission July 25, 2012 Staff Comment: Section 32-1-203 contains the criteria for action on the plans. This sect/on will be used to determine the findings and recommendation to the Boord. See below. 2. REQUIRED REVIEW CRJTERIA 32-1-203 C.R.5. (2) The board of county commissioners shall disapprove the service plan unless evidence satisfactory to the board of each of the following fs presented: (a) There fs 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 entlrlements 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 spec/of 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 co 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 ls unnecessary as Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation Is to provide this service to the development in the area. (c) The propo'sed spec°ial 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 con provide economical and sufficient service, particularly given the requested 40 Mills for Debt and 10 Miiis for Operation . Potential future ~sldents 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 basts. 7 111 r.a.r•r1HJ,,l¥.ri•,1r.wrw.w.r1r1·• 11111 Reception#: 022730 T?1111~~1i 11 :38 :et ""' Jun 1u11 ... Joo Service Pian Review -Cattle Creek Metropolitan District a ec F":SllUl0 Dao F .. :0.19 CAAFIELO COIJ/(fY CO Pl • C · I J ly 25 2012 anmng omm1ss on u , Staff Comment Given the requested SO 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 w/11 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 followfng, 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~munlclpal corporations, Including existing special districts, withfn a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. Staff eomment: 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. Mequate service for water and sanitation Is already provided ro the area by the Roaring Fork Water and Sanitation District. (b) lhe facility and service standards of the proposed speclal 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 servkes 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. Staff questions whether the formation of a metropolitan district to provide access to the site is suffldent 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 of the proposed special district will be in the best interest of the proposed area to be served. Staff Comment: The future residents of the oreo to be served will be subject to additional taxes associated with the Metropolitan District (SO Miiis} which may be burdensome . The proposal to add 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 roods as 8 ~~c!tJ!f~!~~£HJ_..rft'llWHr.Mt If Ill ?~' '1'~1~ e1jaa,111e PrJ Jean Alberico Service Plan Review-cattle Creek Metropolitan District 0 •ri ea:se.ee Dao Fee:iuie CARFia.o COllNTY co Planning Commission July 25, 2012 well as trails, water and sanitation services, is the best Interest of the area proposed to be served. VU. CONC£RNS 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 partfy 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 Boa rd 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 o~ ~i rectors 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 31-1-107(3)(c) provides that nothing In thfs section is to be construed to encourage unnecessary proliferation, duplication, overlapping, or fragmentation of a special or metropolitan ~istricts. 2. MILL LEVY The requested 50 mill le~ 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. m srAfFRECOMMENDATION Staff has mncems with the District as proposed, specifically: 1. The fnclusion 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 ln 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 EXHIBIT BBC RESEARCH ~ CONSULTING August 4, 2012 Ms Kathy Eastley, AICP Senior Planner GarHeJd County Building and Planning Department 108 8th Street. Suite 219 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Cattle Creek Metropolitan District Economic Review Dear Ms. Eastley: This Jetter report is In response to Garfield County's request for BBC's review of the economic, market and financial elements of a the Cattle Creek Metropolitan District Service Plan (Plan), which was recently submitted to Garfield County in association with a residential real estate project near Carbondale, Colorado. The Cattle Creek Metropolitan District The proposed Cattle Creek Metropolitan District (District) will provide funding for construction and maintenance of access Improvements associated with the Rivers Edge subdivision located near the junction of CR 113 and SH 82 In unincorporated Garfield Countyt. The District is seeking the authority to issue of up to SS.59 million in debt to be supported by a maximum property tax levy of 50 mills and certain other fees and charges. The Rivers Edge prof ect anticipates 366 residential dwellings, eventually housing an estimated 840 persons. In addition to development, financing and maintenance of property access roads and related Infrastructure, the proposed District will serve as a governmental entity that can petition the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for pennlsslon to modify a local rail crossing that provides access to the property. The PUC requires a public entity to accept responsibility and ongoing liability for the rail right of way crossing. Market and Financial Assumptions District development taxation and related cash flow projections were prepared by George K. Baum & Company and provided as Appendix G in the Plan documents, dated June 28, 2012. 1 See: Cattle Creek Metropollllln District Service Plan, Section II, Deftnllions and Bxhlblt F. (undated) ~- l"i'11:· "'; ( . , ,,, .. U·.r•·'": •= :> ~j·~{t . ltl )0> J : Ir ; t(• l t-;.~, • : t J I ~t .<' Development assumptions, including development timing and anticipated price of the units, were provided by the developer. The development plan, which underUes the District Service Plan, suggests that project infrastructure construction will commence in 2013; residential lots will be prepared and sold in 2014; and residential unitswt11 be completed and sold in 2015. The Financing Plan reflects the appropriate multi-year time lags between property development, unit construction, assessed valuation and tax collection. Residential assessed values are assumed to remain at 7.96 percent of the property's Actual Value, which is the County Assessor's equivalent of market value. The Financing Plan assumes a 40 mill levy dedicated to debt service and a ten mill levy dedicated to District operations. The Developer anticipates completing lot and residential unit sales by 2024, thus an average annual sales pace about 36 units per year. A variety of residential products are anticipated. Most single family dwellings are expected to have sales values between $414,000 and $519,400. In addition, there are nine estate homes averaging about $800,000. A variety of attached units will be sold at prices ranging from $385,000 to $420,000 and the project Includes SS deed restricted units at values between $1751000 and $225,000, The market value of the land and residential units is assumed to grow at 2 percent per year. Conclusions The Developers' assumptions regarding price and pace of development are clearly represented, and the process by which land and residential unit development are translated Into assessed value and District revenue follows standard projection practices and procedures. The District's requested bonding authority ($5.59 million) Is in keeping with the anticipated Assessed Value and the associated mill levy ( 40 mills, plus 10 mills for operations) is consistent with similar disb1ct levies across the state. At this point, the demand for new residential products at this location and within this price range is speculative, but any market risks associated with this development will fall largely upon the property owner and the bond holders. It is quite possible that the Developer will delay site development and bond issuance until market conditions are improved. It Is also possible that home values will be lower than represented here or the pace of sales slower resulting in a lengthier and potentially more costly bond repayment schedule. These are the standard risks of development and of Metropolitan District bond financing practices. We appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on this Service Plan and [ hope this review Is valuable in the County's considerations. Sincerely, Ford C. Frick Managing Director PAGE3 I July 27, 2012 As Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners I, Jean Alberico, did receive five (5) copies of the Planning Commission recommendation regarding the Cattle Creek Metropolitan District Service Plans, compliant with State Statute. Name Date MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Kathy Eastley, Building and Planning DATE: August 6, 2012 I. Background Miller & Associates Law Offices, LLC submitted a service plan to the Garfield County Clerk on Friday June 29, 2012. This service plan is for the proposed Cattle Creek Metropolitan District with the property to be included in the service area boundary owned by Carbondale Investments, LLC. and Garfield County Commercial Investments, LLC. A significant portion of this property was approved for a subdivision preliminary plan and zone change to PUD to allow for the creation of the River Edge Colorado PUD which includes approval for 366 dwelling units . On Wednesday July 25 , 2012 the Planning Commission rev iewed the service plan and forwards a unanimous recommendation (7-0) of approval of the service plan via a resolution which includes the supported criteria and findings of the Commission. The Board of County Commissioners (the Board) is required hold a public meeting at least 10 days after the date of the Planning Commission recommendation to schedule the public hearing. II. Purpose The purpose of this public meeting is to establish the public hearing date for Board consideration of the service plan. Pursuant to statutory requirements the Board must hold the public hearing within 30 days of this meeting, therefore Staff recommends that the Board set the public hearing for Tuesday, September 4, 2012 commencing at 1 :00 p.m .