Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff reportPROJECT: LOCATION: BOCC 11/17/86 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District The proposed district is located in the W 1/2, Section 18, T7S, R95W and the E 1/2, Section 13, T7S, R96W; more practically described as a parcel of land located within the Battlement Mesa P.U.D., south of Parachute. I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Some relevant Garfield County Comprehensive Plan issues are: Ensure the provisions of legal, adequate, dependable and cost effective sewer and water facilities and to encourage new development to locate in proximity to existing sewer and water facilities. The following goal objective and policy are relevant to the issue of special districts: Objective 5. Policy 5. Discourage the unnecessary proliferation of private water and sewer systems and special districts. The County will approve only those private water and sewer systems and /or special districts that meet a specific development need and where the development cannot obtain the same services from an adjacent or nearby system or district in an economically feasible manner. Whether or not a new special district should be formed is still a relevant issue and a finding of substantial compliance with the Comprehensive Plan will have to be made by the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission according to C.R.S. 32 -1 -203. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Battlement Mesa P.U.D. was originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners in August of 1975. Subsequent amendments to the P.U.D. were approved by Resolution No. 80 -82, 5/19/80 and by Resolution No. 82 -121, 5/24/82. The P.U.D. encompasses approximately 3.082 acres of land zoned for residential, commercial and recreation /open space uses. In December of 1981, the Board approved the Battlement Mesa Water and Sanitation District by Resolution No. 81 -379. The original boundaries of the Battlement Mesa Water and Sanitation District were modified earlier this year. Due to the changes in the development of the Battlement Mesa P.U.D., it is proposed to centralize the costs of providing services by the formation of a Metropolitan District surrounding the existing water and sewage treatment facilities. The Metropolitan District will contract with the existing service users for the treatment of water and sewage. These entities are Battlement Mesa Inc., (BMI), Battlement Mesa Water and Sanitation district and the Town of Parachute. It is anticipated that when the Battlement Mesa P.U.D. is built out completely, the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District boundary will encompass the entire area developed. All of the existing water and sewer treatment facilities and service lines have been constructed by BMi. The Battlement Mesa Water and Sanitation District has entered into agreements for water and sewer service and for the acquisition of water and sewer facilities. The Metropolitan district would have these agreements assigned to it, if it is formed. The Metropolitan district would then enter into service agreements with BMI for those areas not within the water and sanitation district. The water supply and treatment facilities were constructed for a cost of $5.3 million, $3.4 million for the sewage treatment facilities, and $0.6 million for the service center. These facilities would be purchased by the Metropolitan District at a fair market value. The development schedule for the area anticipates a moderate annual growth rate. By the year 2010, it is anticipated that there will be a total of 1072 dwelling units, compared to a total of 679 units presently. The existing 6.5 million gallon per day water treatment plant and 2.4 MGD sewage treatment plant have adequate capacity to handle the projected demand. Both plants can be doubled in size should the need arise. As a metropolitan district, the following services can be provided legally: - fire protection - street improvement - safety protection system - television service - public transportation - mosquito control In essence, the metropolitan district has most of the same powers and authorities as a municipality. Financing of the district will be through service fees by contract, ad valorem taxes, tap fees and contracts of purchase of facilities. No general obligation debt is proposed at this time. It is proposed that, eventually, approximately $31 million in limited obligation financing may be needed. Any authorization for a debt of this sort will be obtained pursuant to State statutory requirements. II. ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. The formation of a special district requires the filing of a service plan with the County Clerk and Recorder and then action by the County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners must take action within thirty (30) days of the regular meeting at which the service plan is presented to them. Within the thirty day period, the county Planning Commission is required to study the service plan and present it's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board can take any of the following actions: 1. Approve, without condition or modification, the service plan. 2. Disapprove the service plan. 3. Conditionally approve the service plan subject to additional information being submitted or the modification of the proposed service plan. Any action to disapprove the service plan can be based on any of the following: 1. There is insufficient, existing or projected, need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. -2- 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is adequate for present and projected needs. 3. Adequate service is, or will be, available to the area through other existing municipal or quasi- municipal corporations within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. 4. The proposed special district is incapable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. 5. The area to be included in the proposed special district does not have, or will not have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. 6. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are incompatible with the facility and service standards of adjacent municipalities and special districts. 7. The proposal is not in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-108, C.R.S. 8. The proposal is not in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long range water quality management plan for the area. The above noted criteria for denial will be the basis for staff comments in the same sequence. 1. There is an organized service in the area presently. Due to the longer development period than originally proposed, a new service provider is being proposed. This will localize the costs for services in a manner consistent with the property owners ability to pay for the services. If the existing district were to take the responsibility for the service, the present residents would incur excessive financial liabilities due to small tax base and large cost of the facilities. 2. The existing service is adequate to serve the existing and projected needs, but due to the previously noted financial concerns, a new service provider is proposed. 3. There is no other existing municipal or quasi - municipal corporation that can or will be able to provide adequate service in a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. 4. The proposed service district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its service boundary. 5. The area included in the proposed special district does not have any proposed indebtedness, at this time, that cannot be discharged on a reasonable basis. 6. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and service standards of the adjacent municipality. 7. The proposal is in substantial compliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan since it is not a new service as much as a reorganization of service. 8. The proposal is consistent with the 208 water quality management plan for the area. IV. RECOMMENDATION On November 12, 1986, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed service plan and recommended approval of the service plan without condition or modification. PROJECT: LOCATION: PC 11/12/86 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District The proposed district is located in the W 1/2, Section 18, T7S, R95W and the E 1/2, Section 13, T7S, R96W; more practically described as a parcel of land located within the Battlement Mesa P.U.D., south of Parachute. I. RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Some relevant Garfield County Comprehensive Plan issues are: Ensure the provisions of legal, adequate, dependable and cost effective sewer and water facilities and to encourage new development to locate in proximity to existing sewer and water facilities. The following goal objective and policy are relevant to the issue of special districts: Objective 5. Policy 5. Discourage the unnecessary proliferation of private water and sewer systems and special districts. The County will approve only those private water and sewer systems and /or special districts that meet a specific development need and where the development cannot obtain the same services from an adjacent or nearby system or district in an economically feasible manner. Whether or not a new special district should be formed is still a relevant issue and a finding of substantial compliance with the Comprehensive plan will have to be made by the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission according to C.R.S. 32 -1 -203. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Battlement Mesa P.U.D. was originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners in August of 1975. Subsequent amendments to the P.U.D. were approved by Resolution No. 80 -82, 5/19/80 and by Resolution No. 82 -121, 5/24/82. The P.U.D. encompasses approximately 3,082 acres of land zoned for residential, commercial and recreation /open space uses. In December of 1981, the Board approved the Battlement Mesa. Water and Sanitation District by Resolution No. 81 -379. The original boundaries of the Battlement Mesa Water and Sanitation District were modified earlier this year. Due to the changes in the development of the Battlement Mesa P.U.D., it is proposed to centralize the costs of providing services by the formation of a Metropolitan District surrounding the existing water and sewage treatment facilities. The Metropolitan District will contract with the existing service users for the treatment of water and sewage. These entities are Battlement Mesa Inc., (BMI), Battlement Mesa Water and Sanitation district and the Town of Parachute. It is anticipated that when the Battlement Mesa P.U.D. is built out completely, the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District boundary will encompass the entire area developed. —1— All of the existing water and sewer treatment facilities and service lines have been constructed by BMI. The Battlement Mesa Water and Sanitation District has entered into agreements for water and sewer service and for the acquisition of water and sewer facilities. The Metropolitan district would have these agreements assigned to it, if it is formed. The Metropolitan district would then enter into service agreements with BMI for those areas not within the water and sanitation district. The water supply and treatment facilities were constructed for a cost of $5.3 million, $3.4 million for the sewage treatment facilities, and. $0.6 million for the service center. These facilities would be purchased by the Metropolitan District at a fair market value. The development schedule for the area anticipates a moderate annual growth rate. By the year 2010, it is anticipated that there will be a total of 1072 dwelling units, compared to a total of 679 units presently. The existing 6.5 million gallon per day water treatment plant and 2.4 MGD sewage treatment plant have adequate capacity to handle the projected demand. Both plants can be doubled in size should the need arise. As a metropolitan district, the following services can be provided legally: - fire protection - street improvement - safety protection system - television service - public transportation - mosquito control In essence, the metropolitan district has most of the same powers and authorities as a municipality. Financing of the district will be through service fees by contract, ad valorem taxes, tap fees and contracts of purchase of facilities. No general obligation debt is proposed at this time. It is proposed that, eventually, approximately $31 million in limited obligation financing may be needed. Any authorization for a debt of this sort will be obtained pursuant to State statutory requirements. II. ISSUES AND CONCERNS A. The formation of a special district requires the filing of a service plan with the County Clerk and Recorder and then action by the County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners must take action within thirty (30) days of the regular meeting at which the service plan is presented to them. Within the thirty day period, the County Planning Commission is required to study the service plan and present it's recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board can take any of the following actions: 1. Approve, without condition or modification, the service plan. 2. Disapprove the service plan. 3. Conditionally approve the service plan subject to additional information being submitted or the modification of the proposed service plan. Any action to disapprove the service plan can be based on any of the following: 1. There is insufficient, existing or projected, need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. -z- 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is adequate for present and projected needs. 3. Adequate service is, or will be, available to the area through other existing municipal or quasi - municipal corporations within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. 4. The proposed special district is incapable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. 5. The area to be included in the proposed special district does not have, or will not have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. 6. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are incompatible with the facility and service standards of adjacent municipalities and special districts. 7. The proposal is not in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30 -28 -108, C.R.S. 8. The proposal is not in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long range water quality management plan for the area. The above noted criteria for denial will be the basis for staff comments in the same sequence. 1. There is an organized service in the area presently. Due to the longer development period than originally proposed, a new service provider is being proposed. This will localize the costs for services in a manner consistent with the property owners ability to pay for the services. If the existing district were to take the responsibility for the service, the present residents would incur excessive financial liabilities due to small tax base and large cost of the facilities. 2. The existing service is adequate to serve the existing and projected needs, but due to the previously noted financial concerns, a new service provider is proposed. 3. There is no other existing municipal or quasi - municipal corporation that can or will be able to provide adequate service in a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. 4. The proposed service district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its service boundary. 5. The area included in the proposed special district does not have any proposed indebtedness, at this time, that cannot be discharged on a reasonable basis. 6. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and service standards of the adjacent municipality. 7. The proposal is in substantial compliance with the Garfield County Comprehensive Plan since it is not a new service as much as a reorganization of service. 8. The proposal is consistent with the 208 water quality management plan for the area. IV. SUGGESTED FINDINGS 1. The meeting before the Planning Commission was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted, and that the applicant, members of the public, and interested persons were heard at that meeting. 2. The Planning Commission has studied the proposed service plan and has authorized the Chairman of the Planning Commission to present its recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. 3. The Planning Commission has considered the criteria for disapproval contained in Part 2 of the Special District Control Act (32- 1.101, et seq., C.R.S., as amended), and its recommendation is in conformance therewith. _3_