Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 BOCC Staff Report 05.14.1984 FIA,EKE/,0iT • 1 BOCC 5/14/84 PROJECT: Storm King Coal Mines Fiscal Impact Analysis OWNER: Storm King Mines LOCATION: SITE DATA: The coal mine development project is located in portions of Townships 5 and 6 South, Range 89 and 90 West. The surface facilities are located approximately 3 miles east of New Castle on the south side of the Colorado River. The property is located on about 3,750 acres of land (both private and Federal government) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is to develop an underground coal mine. The project site is located on both private and Federal (leased) land on and along the Grand Hogback (Coal Ridge) near New Castle. Surface facilities are located primarily on hilly and benched lands above the Colorado River on the north side of the Grand Hogback, yet well above the floodplain of the Colorado River. The City of Glenwood Springs lies six air miles due east. The area is largely rural in character and consists primarily of undeveloped land. The major land use of the site is for agriculture. The character of the neighborhood is agricultural and residential. Access to the project site is primarily via County Road No. 335 east from the New Castle interchange with I-70. Rail access will be from the east via the existing Colorado Midland railroad grade. Secondary access to the project site will be via South Canyon which will be used only to access a ventilation and escape shaft at a remote point on Horse Mountain. Another ventilation shaft may be developed at the very west end of the project site new the New Castle, I-70 interchange. Surface facilities include water handling and clarification equipment, a rail loadout, railroad spur, offices, change house, shops, water and sewage treatment facilities, electrical distribution facilities, refuse disposal and water impoundment. The rail loadout will consist of a gravity loading structure, serviced by a covered conveyor, transporting coal from the clean coal slot storage facility. The slot storage facility is an enclosed building. A dual purpose access -haul road will be used for the transportation of coarse refuse. The road will provide regular access to the impoundment facility for construction and service vehicles. Secondary access roads will be used for access through the periphy of the disturbed area. • • The project workforce is anticipated to stabilize at approximately 258 employees. The workforce is projected to peak at 272 in the year 1989. BACKGROUND Pursuant to Section 5.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution (the Fiscal Impact Mitigation Program) Storm King Mines, on September 22, 1982, submitted a Statement of Intent to apply for land use permits to the Garfield County Board of Commissioners. Three public meetings were held during the Pre -Application process and a summary of comments prepared and presented to the Board of County Commissioners at a public hearing on January 16, 1984. The Board issued a Pre -Application Report on February 6, 1934. The Pre -Application Report identifies the following subjects for inclusion in the Fiscal Impact Analysis: 1. The location and purpose of the Major Project; 2. Estimated construction schedule; 3. Number of employees for construction and operating work force; 4. Direct and indirect tax bases and revenues associated with the project; 5. Demonstration of consistency with local land use plans; 6. Total direct and indirect population associated with the project, including the rate, distribution, and demographic characteristics of the propulation chaaige; 7. The direct and indirect effects of construction and operation of the Major Project within the impact area, including but not limited to the following: a. Economic base; b. County services; c. Housing; d. Transportation; e. Sewer and water facilities; f. Solid waste facilities; g. Public safety and fire protection; h. Educational facilities; i. Health services and hospital facilities; j. Recreation facilities; k. The fiscal impacts of the Major Project on public facilities and services of each government entity in the impact area. 8. Definition of impact areas: a. A list of each government entity in the impact area; and b. The basis for inclusion or exclusion of each government entity in the impact area. • • MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES A. Comments from local govenment entities: 1. The Grand River Hospital District has presented a number of concerns and mitigation strategies. See letter, pages 2. The New Castle Ambulance Service requests that the Fiscal Impact Analysis include emergency medical systems. See letter, page 3. The City of Glenwood Springs notes a deficiency in administrative space. See letter pages B. Staff Comments: 1. The countywide sales tax for the Library is 1/4 percent rather than 1/2. The projections of County revenues should be adjusted accordingly. 2. There is a math error in Table 5.3.1-A - General Government space should be calculated based on 1500 square feet/1000 population rather than 1640 square ft./1000 population. 3. The normal practice in Garfield County is not to project any Federal grant revenues. The inclusion of Forest Service and Mineral Lease revenues will :reed to be monitored if projected. 4. The basis for severance tax projection should be noted. 1984 legislation should be taken into account. 5. It is not exactly clear what is projected under the revenue categories of Other Governmental Units, Charges of Service, and Other Taxes. This may be difficult to justify in the revenue projection. Tule Comity has not recognized those type revenue sources as predictable in evaluating other fiscal assessments. 6. Revenue sharing is also a revenue source that is difficult to forecast. 7. Transportation elements are given a very cursory review in the FIA. The project sponsors will be responsible for reconstruction and maintenance of any County roads affected by the development. Note: The County prefers to utilize a more conservative revenue forecasting approach for fiscal planning purposes rather than the method incorporated in the FIA. For impact analysis, however, the method of projecting impacts is acceptable. Factoring out revenues, as rioted above, will still probably result in a positive fiscal balance for the County. • • FINDINGS A. Proper publication was provided as required. B. The meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted and that all interested parties, including the Storm King Mines Fiscal Impact Analysis Committee were heard at the meeting. C. The Storm Kiny Mines Fiscal Impact Analysis conforms to Section 5.08 of the Garfield County Zoning Resolution and addresses the directive found in the Pre -Application Report Storm Kiny Mines dated February 6, 1984. PLANNING COMMISSION AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Fiscal Impact Analysis is generally adequate and a mitigation program may be prepared based on the Fiscal Impact Analysis. There are however a few deficiences as noted in Major Concerns and Issues. The following items should be addressed in the mitigation program. A. Housing for the employees of the Major Project; B. Public services and facilities including operating costs necessary to mitigate impacts of the Major Project; C. Capital costs of construction of new or expanded public facilities necessary for each government entity to provide service required by the Project or by the employees of the Project and their households. D. Delay or abandonment of the project. E. An emergency service plan addressing fire protection, ambulance service, hospital and emergency medical services shall be prepared and approved by the various entities providing services. The plan shall be reviewed by the Garfield County Public Health Officer. F. Public safety service including space requirements shall be addressed. G. Mitigation plans for school facility impacts shall be prepared. H. The project sponsor, in conjunction with the County, shall be required to develop and implement a monitoring program to gauge the effectiveness of the mitigation plan. The mitigation plan will take into account input from local government entities. I. The Fiscal Impact Analysis shall be considered adequate for purposes of preparing a mitigation plan, for a period of one year from the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. G , Li..,,a,„ EE 4\ 1- R • • Clagett Memorial Hospital E Dene Moore Memorial Home Grand River Home Health Grand River Flospital District April 24, 1984 Mr. Dennis Stranger Director, Department of Development Garfield County 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Storm King Mine Project Dear Dennis: P.O. Box 912. 701 East 5th • Rifle, Colorado 81650 • 303-625-1510 j tii: qd CD3 011 ). tf 17861 ci F'J Clue :crR As we discussed at the Advisory Committee Meeting on the Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Storm King Mine Project, the Grand River Hospital District considers one of the primary impacts of this type of development to be the risk of significant bad -debt expenses as a result of non-payment for services provided to the project's tempor- ary work forces. If provision is not made for payment in full for healthcare ser- vices provided to such workers and their families, we can only expect that the past experience with other projects will be repeated with the hospitals and, ultimately the taxpayers of Garfield County, having to cover a significant dollar amount in uncollectible accounts. In order to avoid such a situation in the future, we propose that the following be required of all contractors and subcontractors on the project: 1. That comprehensive health and accident insurance be carried for all employees and their families; 2. That all group insurance carriers be required to accept assignment of benefits or make benefit checks payable to both the employee and the healthcare pro- vider; 3. That employees and their spouses be provided identification cards with proof of insurance; 4. That the healthcare provider follow a reasonable collection protocol, in con- sultation and co-operation with the project manager or the individual subcon- tractors, including provision by the employer of the anticipated termination date of the construction employees when requested by the healthc-are provider; • • Mr. Dennis Stranger April 24, 1984 Page Two 5. That each contractor/employer be required to work with Grand River Hospital District in obtaining the employees consent for a payroll withholding program for those hospital bills not covered by insurance. 6. That each contractor/employer on the project be required to obtain forwarding addresses for each employee at the time of termination of employment and make that address available to the District. The District is willing to consider effective variations or alternatives to the foregoing, but cannot be expected to provide services to employees of the project and their families without payment. The likely consequence of a failure to address this impact is the financial failure of our hospital. Our community cannot afford such a result. We would be happy to entertain further discussion of these matters at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Edwin A. Gast Administrator EAG/lsh I t ft APR 2 5 1984 j ! 7'`,f F{ELD CO. PLANNER April 27, 1984 New Castle Ambulance Service Box 224 New Castle, CO 81647 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission Attn: Dennis Stranger 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Storm King Fiscal Impact Analysis Dear Commissioners, r. Ij NPR 3 0 1884 ` 1 � 11 Jl fAkFIELD CO. PLANNER The Storm King Mine's proposed fiscal impact analysis does not take into full consideration the impacts associated with the development of the mining operation as it effects the area's emergency medical systems, generally, and the ambulance services of New Castle, Silt and Glenwood Springs, specifically. We would respectfully request that the applicant expand the scope of the study to include an evaluation of the fiscal consequences associated with the construction, primary, and secondary work forces under the local and non -local hire assumptions, as it relates to the impact area's emergency medical systems. Respectfully, 0 Aleta Newman, President New Castle Ambulance Service,Inc. cc: Garfield County Commissioners April 25, 1984 Mr. Dennis A. Stranger Garfield County Development Director 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Dennis: I regret that I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting of the Storm King Mines Fiscal Impact Analysis Advisory Committee. Please accept the following comments on SKM's fiscal assessment of the proposed coal mine: 1. The Fiscal Impact Assessment (FIA) is comprehensive in scope and adequate in terms of detailed analysis. SKM's proposal to hire as much as 76 percent of their workforce is to be encouraged. This policy plus the comparatively slow build-up in mine employment enhances the positive impacts of this project. Coal mining is an historic activity in this valley and from a county -wide perspective it is my judgement that this project will be easily accommodated. For Glenwood Springs specifically, the mere existence of a 1978 lease of City coal reserves to SKM indicates our support of the project. The project will undeniably be a financial benefit to the City of Glenwood Springs. 2. The inventoried standards and capacities are accurate with one exception - existing capacity for police administration (see Table 5.2.2-A page 5-4). Column four shows a zero surplus for general government administrative space. This masks a severe deficiency for the police function. Currently, 17 certified officers and three clerks share 1484 square feet of office space. It is the police chief's opinion that this is half the minimum space require- ment to carry the department through the 1980's. Thus, the column should indicate a deficiency of 1500 square feet for police admin- istration. 3. Regarding geographic allocation of population growth, it is recog- nized that this is a sensitive issue. I concur in the consultant's conclusion that it was reasonable to allocate growth based on existing patterns. Particularly supporting this view are the small scale of the project and the slow build-up in employment. :1t'ENUE GLL\',,O9i) Si'1:'\GS, COLOR. -11)0 81601 303'9'5-2575 Nevertheless, the location of the mine creates the potential for nega- tive impacts on the smaller communities such as New Castle. This is true because relative changes in actual population distribution affect them more and because of their "cross-roads" location vis-a-vis the mine. On the subject of crime, for instance, I am reminded that in the period 1980-81, fully 19 per cent of all contacts by City of Glenwood Springs police were with individuals directly associated with energy development. New Castle has all the potential for becoming the miners' "watering hole". Thus, monitoring of crime statistics and place of employee residence must be included in the county -required mitigation program. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FIA. I look forward to meeting with the Advisory Committee and the County P&Z on May 2nd. Sincerely yours, John M. Fernandez Planning Director JMF/gp enc. • 7: gar ad JcJoo/ I. [I?e2 %Qv.. Aral ClarA - C-lulrerinleaen/ riiNERS /lennarr�. kiarrC/ - !Pa.ravlanl Jifcri/en%nl .Liirenre�../(araJa-Cjaperinlendeni May 3, 1984 Larry Velasquez, Chairman Garfield County Board of Commissioners Commissioners Annex, 201 8th Street P.O. Box 640 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 4'1.4'1141%44 Dear Mr. Velasquez: I was formally appointed by the board to serve with the committee formed to advise the commissioners on the fiscal impact of the Storm King Coal Mine Project. It doesn't appear to me that the SKM project will cause serious problems for the district. I think the projections indicating most employees will be local hires are likely to be accurate. I am pleased to serve on the advisory committee and will assist in any way that I can. DC: jp Sincerely, 12� Dariel Clark Superintendent 839 a Y/i/erirer 17eenur. �Aa//. (aifrarlo 51650 (W}3,1 625-1595 Clagett Memorial Hospital E. Dene Moore Memorial Home Grand River Home Health Grand River Hospital District April 24, 1984 Mr. Dennis Stranger Director, Department of Development Garfield County 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Re: Storm King Mine Project Dear Dennis: P.O. Box 912 • 701 East 5th • Rifle, Colorado 81650 • 303-625-1510 1-.79r7.7s. y VINN Td To 013 _ ��D 1 j [III0861 g g Vv(� tics �, i � ommir As we discussed at the Advisory Committee Meeting on the Fiscal Impact Analysis for the Storm King Mine Project, the Grand River Hospital District considers one of the primary impacts of this type of development to be the risk of significant bad -debt expenses as a result of non-payment for services provided to the project's tempor- ary work forces. If provision is not made for payment in full for healthcare ser- vices provided to such workers and their families, we can only expect that the past experience with other projects will be repeated with the hospitals and, ultimately the taxpayers of Garfield County, having to cover a significant dollar amount in uncollectible accounts. In order to avoid such a situation in the future, we propose that the following be required of all contractors and subcontractors on the project: 1. That comprehensive health and accident insurance be carried for all employees and their families; 2. That all group insurance carriers be required to accept assignment of benefits or make benefit checks payable to both the employee and the healthcare pro- vider; 3. That employees and their spouses be provided identification cards with proof of insurance; 4. That the healthcare provider follow a reasonable collection protocol, in con- sultation and co-operation with the project manager or the individual subcon- tractors, including provision by the employer of the anticipated termination date of the construction employees when requested by the healthcare provider; • Mr. Dennis Stranger April 24, 1984 Page Two 5. That each contractor/employer be required to work with Grand River Hospital District in obtaining the employees consent for a payroll withholding program for those hospital bills not covered by insurance. 6. That each contractor/employer on the project be required to obtain forwarding addresses for each employee at the time of termination of employment and make that address available to the District. The District is willing to consider effective variations or alternatives to the foregoing, but cannot be expected to provide services to employees of the project and their families without payment. The likely consequence of a failure to address this impact is the financial failure of our hospital. Our community cannot afford such a result. We would be happy to entertain further discussion of these matters at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Edwin A. Gast Administrator EAG/lsh RPR 2 ti 1984 i--fEtD CO. PLANNER k'� • • April 27, 1984 New Castle Ambulance Service Box 224 New Castle, CO 81647 Garfield County Planning and Zoning Commission Attn: Dennis Stranger 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 RE: Storm King Fiscal Impact Analysis Dear Commissioners, c I, APR 3 0 1984 GAkFIELD CO. PLANNER The Storm King Mine's proposed fiscal impact analysis does not take into full consideration the impacts associated with the development of the mining operation as it effects the area's emergency medical systems, generally, and the ambulance services of New Castle, Silt and Glenwood Springs, specifically. We would respectfully request that the applicant expand the scope of the study to include an evaluation of the fiscal consequences associated with the construction, primary, and secondary work forces under the local and non -local hire assumptions, as it relates to the impact area's emergency medical systems. Respectfully, Aleta Newman, President New Castle Ambulance Service,Inc. cc: Garfield County Commissioners • April 25, 1984 Mr. Dennis A. Stranger Garfield County Development Director 2014 Blake Avenue Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Dear Dennis: I regret that I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting of the Storm King Mines Fiscal Impact Analysis Advisory Committee. Please accept the following comments on SKM's fiscal assessment of the proposed coal mine: 1. The Fiscal Impact Assessment (FIA) is comprehensive in scope and adequate in terms of detailed analysis. SKM's proposal to hire as much as 76 percent of their workforce is to be encouraged. This policy plus the comparatively slow build-up in mine employment enhances the positive impacts of this project. Coal mining is an historic activity in this valley and from a county -wide perspective it is my judgement that this project will be easily accommodated. For Glenwood Springs specifically, the mere existence of a 1978 lease of City coal reserves to SKM indicates our support of the project. The project will undeniably be a financial benefit to the City of Glenwood Springs. 2. The inventoried standards and capacities are accurate with one exception - existing capacity for police administration (see Table 5.2.2-A page 5-4). Column four shows a zero surplus for general government administrative space. This masks a severe deficiency for the police function. Currently, 17 certified officers and three clerks share 1484 square feet of office space. It is the police chief's opinion that this is half the minimum space require- ment to carry the department through the 1980's. Thus, the column. should indicate a deficiency of 1500 square feet for police admin- istration. 3. Regarding geographic allocation of population growth, it is recog- nized that this is a sensitive issue. I concur in the consultant's conclusion that it was reasonable to allocate growth based on existing patterns. Particularly supporting this view are the small scale of the project and the slow build-up in employment. 806 COOPER AVENUE GLENWOOD SPRINGS, COLORADO 81601 303/945-2575 • • Nevertheless, the location of the mine creates the potential for nega- tive impacts on the smaller communities such as New Castle. This is true because relative changes in actual population distribution affect them more and because of their "cross-roads" location vis-a-vis the mine. On the subject of crime, for instance, I am reminded that in the period 1980-81, fully 19 per cent of all contacts by City of Glenwood Springs police were with individuals directly associated with energy development. New Castle has all the potential for becoming the miners' "watering hole". Thus, monitoring of crime statistics and place of employee residence must be included in the county -required mitigation program. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the FIA. I look forward to meeting with the Advisory Committee and the County P&Z on May 2nd. Sincerely yours, 7 John M. Fernandez Planning Director JMF/gp enc. • May 14, 1984 TOWN OF NEW CASTLE BOX 166 NEW CASTLE, COLORADO TELEPHONE: 984-2311 Board of County Commissioners County Court House Annex Glenwood Springs, Co. 81601 81647 • Xsii,BiT RE: Storm King Mine Fiscal Impact Analysis (hereinafter SKM FIA) Dear Couuuissioners: Our relationship remains sound because of your continuing interest in listening to our concerns and because we have never requested any unreasonable consideration. Therefore we are confident that you will understand our concerns with the SKM FIA. The SKM FIA as presented contains population growth projections which we can not accept. Population growth projections are based on the current distribution of population within the impacted area. And the current distribution of population is not expected to change with SKM development. In other words, the location of the mine is not significant in the analysis. According to the projections, it would not matter whether the proposed mine was located south of Glenwood Springs or west of Silt. This is not realistic for many reasons, some of which are listed on attached Exhibit "A". Continuing to discuss our points of contention with the FIA at this time would not benefit anyone. Our concerns can best be addressed by requesting that the final mitigation plan be: 1) flexible in application and expedient in implementation to accommodate actual rather than projected impacts 2) reviewed on a quarterly basis 3) open to continuing input from impacted entities 4) binding with respect to after -the -fact mitigation in case of operation cut-backs, shut downs, or walkouts 5) required to meet obvious impacts to already strained maintenance and operation budgets 6) required to address capital needs on an individual entity basis, if and when needed We continue to support growth and welcome industry such as SKM. However we cannot coexist without mutual respect for self interests. Therefore we have to request that ongoing consideration be given to New Castle because of our location and Storm King Mine's expected impacts. In the study, it indicates that if there is a significant population increase in New Castle there will be a budget deficit. Because of this fact, we feel that New Castle must have the option of being treated separately from the rest of the impacted areas. We continue to appreciate your consideration of our interests and remain Respectfully ' 'ce"'. Don Fogale, Mayor Pro Tem Fiscal Impact Team member Del Dawson, Mayor • . Exhibit "A" 1) There is now a subdivision ready to go that will provide reasonably priced housing 2) The mine will be located closer to New Castle than any other Town 3) Water and Sewer facilities will be sufficient to handle growth 4) The attitude and direction of the Town government now supports controlled growth 5) There has been no recent activity which would create jobs in the New Castle area, therefore the ability to grow is not obvious 6) Consider what has happened in Carbondale in the last fifteen (15) years 7) Riverbend has not grown much because it is too far from Glenwood Springs and work, so why wouldn't the reverse be true • Planning Commission Meeting MEMBERS PRESENT Arnold Mackley, Chairman Barbara Lorah LaVerne Starbuck Allen Bowles May 2, 1984 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT Dennis Stranger, Director of the Department of Development Mark Bean, Senior Planner The meeting was called to order at 7:25 P.M. Roll call was taken and Dale Albertson, Dale McPherson, Evelyn McKay, John Tripp and Dick Stevenson were absent. STORM KING MINES FISCAL ASSESSMENT Dennis Stranger noted work sessions on the Storm King Fiscal Impact Assessment had been held previously with the Advisory Committee and Planning Commission. He stated that the purpose of the meeting was to determine the adequacy of the Fiscal Impact Assessment and that the issues were not land issues. Mr. Stranger also stated that the analysis did not contain any proposed mitigation measures since those issues would be dealt with at the same time that the land use permits were reviewed. Jim Murray, consultant for Storm King Mines, proceeded to summarize the method of analysis and the final conclusions contained in the assessment. Arnold Mackley expressed a concern about the spatial allocation of the work force. Mr. Murray conceded that the spatial allocation may be incorrect but for the purpose of the study it was appropriate, since it was based on the historical location of people in the County. LaVerne Starbuck felt there were a number of reasons why the spatial allocation was incorrect related to the difference in the cost of living, new development in New Castle and building permit activity. Mr. Stranger stated that ultimately the concerns may be correct but that for the purposes of the analysis the historical allocation would suffice. He continued by noting that the wide variation in the high and low trends would account for almost any variation that might occur and that a monitoring program will determine if there is any drastic changes above the "worst case" scenario. He continued by stating that if there is more than a 10% variation, the analysis would be reopened for further review. Mr. Stranger then reviewed the staff report. He stated that the analysis addressed all of the issues identified in the Board of County Commissioner's Pre -Application report. He noted comments from the Grand River Hospital District, New Castle Ambulance Service and the City of Glenwood Springs. None of these entities felt the assessment was inadequate. He recommended that the Planning Commission find the assessment to be generally adequate and that a mitigation progam may be prepared with certain items to be addressed. Barbara Lorah questioned the comments related to State and Federal grants being included in the project revenues. Jim Murray explained what those grants were. Don Fogale, New Castle representative, stated that while he generally did not agree with the analysis, he felt that the monitoring program would resolve his concerns. It was explained that the difference between the high and low scenarios would account for the "worst case". Mr. Fogale felt that this was incorrect and that the worst case would be at least double the projected "worst case". Jim Murray then went through a quick analysis of Mr. Fogale's "worst case" and noted that the only real impact would be a $70,000 deficit in administration over a six year period and that assumed there would not be any additional grants for the Town administration. There was a question about the school district impacts. Darrell Clark, RE -2 School District Superintendent, stated that the district could handle the projected increase in growth. Dwight Helms, RE -1 School District Superintendent, stated that generally the district could accommodate the new growth, but that any increase of over 100 enrollments could result in the need for a new elementary school in West Glenwood. There was further discussion of the monitoring program in which it was noted that any variation of 10% over the Scenario B projection by location would reopen the analysis. Arnold Mackley then appointed LaVerne Starbuck to vote in the place of Dale Albertson and that Allan Bowles vote for John Tripp. LaVerne Starbuck made a motion to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the anlysis is generally adequate and that a mitigation program may be prepared based on the Fiscal Impact Analysis and that the following items should be addressed in the mitigation program: 1. Housing for the employees of the Major Project; 2. Public services and facilities including operating costs necessary to mitigate impacts of the Major Project; 3. Capital costs of construction of new or expanded public facilities necessary for each government entity to provide service required by the Project or by the employees of the Project and their households; 4. Delay or abandonment of the project; 5. An emergency service plan addressing fire protection, ambulance service, hospital and emergency medical services shall be pre- pared and approved by the various entities providing services. The plan shall be reviewed by the Garfield County Public Health Officer; 6. Public safety service, including space requirements, shall be addressed; 7. The project sponsor, in conjunction with the County, shall be required to develop and implement a monitoring program to gauge the effectiveness of the mitigation plan. The mitigation plan will take into account input from local government entities; 8. The Fiscal Impact Analysis shall be considered adequate for purposes of preparing a mitigation plan, for a period of one year from the hearing before the Board of County Coiiuuissioners. The motion was seconded by Allan Bowles. Motion carried unanimously. Respectfully submitted Barbara Lorah Secretary BL/MB/emh