Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2.0 PC Staff Report 07.12.200014. PC 7/12/00 PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PROJECT: Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District Service Plan LOCATION: The proposed district boundaries are the same as the RE -1 School District, which includes the City of Glenwood Springs, Town of Carbondale, all of the drainages in the Roaring Fork River Valley and portions of the Flattops area north of Glenwood Springs. I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The organizers of the Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District are proposing to set up a special district to finance, purchase and construct open space and recreation facilities in the mid and lower Roaring Fork valley areas of Garfield and Eagle Counties. The District would also include the incorporated areas of Glenwood Springs, Carbondale and Basalt. If approved the District will have all of the powers authorized by statute, except the power of condemnation, which the organizers have decided to exclude. The service plan states that the aggregate general obligation bond of the District will not exceed $10 million dollars or have a mill levy that exceeds 2.5 mills, without voter approval. The District anticipates significant non -local funding to support the open space and recreation program. No local jurisdiction will bear any responsibility for the repayment of the District's debt. It is projected that the 2.5 mills will generate $1 million a year. No less than 70% of all revenues will go to acquisition of fee simple land and conservation easements. At less than 15% of the funding to develop recreation opportunities, specifically the development and maintenance of trails and other improvements. No more than 15% will be used for maintenance of acquired properties and administration. The service plan projects a 12% growth in assessed valuation for each of the next three reassessment years and 4% for all of the interim years. Operating expenses for the proposed district are broken down into two categories: (1)Trail Development and Recreational Asset Budget and (2) Administration and Management Budget. The projected budget for the Trail Development and Recreational Asset Budget is -1- $150,000 and the Administration and Maintenance Budget is $130,000 per year. The operating expenses for the Trail Development and Recreational Asset Budget are expected to increase at a rate of growth the same as the assessed valuation growth rate of 12% or 4%. The Administration and Maintenance budget is expected to increase at 5% annual rate. II. ISSUES AND COMMENTS A. Colorado Revised Statutes - C.R.S. 32-1-101, et. seq. Within 30 days of the filing of a service plan with the County Clerk and Recorder, the Clerk and Recorder is required to deliver the service plan to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board may refer it to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation, if it is the County's policy. Any service plan referred to Planning Commission, must be reviewed by the Planning Commission within 30 days of filing the plan. The Planning Commission is required to make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to take one of the following actions: 1. Approve, without condition or modification, the service plan. 2. Disapprove the service plan. 3. Conditionally approve the service plan subject to additional information being submitted or the modification of the proposed service plan. The Board of County Commissioners "shall disapprove the service plan unless evidence satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented": 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. 3. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. 4. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the plan if evidence satisfactory to the Board of any of the following, at the discretion of the Board, is not presented: 1. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the County or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. 2. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are -2- compatible with the facility and service standards of each County within which the proposed special district is to be located and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1). 3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-108, C.R.S.. 4. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long-range water quality management plan for the area. 5. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served. The following are responses to the statutory criteria: 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. Residents of the Roaring Fork Valley have been demanding that the local governments protect the open space and agricultural properties from development pressures. Developments in the unincorporated area have replaced the historical agricultural uses with large developments. This is viewed as a threat to the quality of life that many people living in the Roaring Fork Valley. Local governments have developed comprehensive plans and land use regulations to try and protect some of these lands from development. Comprehensive plans and land use regulations have a limited ability to protect agricultural land from development pressure. The only sure way to protect the property from development, is for local governments to purchase it. 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. There is no existing parks and recreation districts in the area proposed to be within the boundaries of this district. All of the municipalities have active parks and recreation programs that provide recreational programs to residents of the area. Garfield County does not have a parks and recreation program. The principal reason for the formation of the district is to acquire property for open space and recreational improvements such as trails. Presently, there is no dedicated funding source for the acquisition of property for open space or recreational purposes in the unincorporated area of Garfield County available to local governments. Local governments do not have the resources within their existing revenues to purchase property for open space purposes. -3- 3. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. The Roaring Fork Open Space, Park and Recreation District would be funded by a mill levy of 2.5 mills, which is projected to generate $1.0 million in the first year. It is also proposed to issue bonds in the approximate amount of $10.0 million for "acquisition of fee simple land and conservation easements." The funding would be used to leverage other funding sources, such as the Colorado Lottery funds for the purchase and protection of open space lands. The question of sufficient service is a harder question to deal with, since there is no plan for acquisition of conservation easements or fee title to property included with the plan. At this point, the proponents have suggested the use of a regional open space study performed by Robert Schultz and Otak Rock Creek Studio as possible basis for identifying and prioritizing acquisitions. The study is not included as a part of the proposed service plan, since the proponents are only suggesting that the document could be used by the proposed district board of directors. How far will $10 million go toward the leveraging of other funding sources for the purchase of land or conservation easements? Given the present real estate market, will the proposed funding sources provide the proposed district with the ability to purchase any large pieces of property? The fact that there would be a funding source for the acquisition of conservation easements and fee title to land, is more than there is presently available. 4. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. Included in the service plan is a projection of revenues and expenditures for the first 19 years of the proposed district's existence, for a $10 million bond issue. The projection includes payment of all debt service as the first priority for any revenues received from the mill levy. All administration and operating costs are subordinate to the payment of the debt service. The proposed assessed valuation for the district is based upon the entire area being included in the assessed valuation. As the plan is written, all 40 acre or larger parcels that are "used primarily and zoned for agricultural uses" are included in the proposed district boundaries. CRS §32-1-307 (1) automatically excludes any such parcel, unless written consent from the property owner to be included in the district. Based upon an analysis of the majority of the proposed district area, the County's GIS Analyst has -4- identified a total 189,186 acres of land within the district. Of that total 100,386 acres (53.1%) is Federal Land and 84,383 acres (44.6%) is privately owned land in the unincorporated area of the County and the remaining 4,417 acres (2.3%) is within Carbondale and Glenwood Springs. Of the lands in the unincorporated area of the County, only 17,949 acres are in parcels less than 40 acres in size. Of the remaining parcels, staff cannot identify the acreage of "agricultural use" property. Virtually, all of the tracts over 40 acres in size are "zoned agriculture", so it is not possible with the information available to determine how much land and associated assessed valuation will have to be taken out of the projected numbers. It appears that their could be a significant reduction in the assessed valuation of the proposed district, which would in turn affect the revenue projections. Based upon the above uncertainty, it does not appear that the proponents have demonstrated that the proposed district "has or will have" the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness. As it is presently written, it is staff's opinion that the application does not meet this criteria. The following discussion addresses the reasons the Board of County Commissioners may deny a service plan: 1. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through the County or other existing municipal or quasi -municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis. There is no other open space, parks and recreation available to the unincorporated area of the County to provide the proposed services. Each of the municipalities has their own parks and recreation programs, but no identified sources of revenue to purchase open space and conservation easements in the unincorporated area of the County. Each municipality has expressed a desire to see the acquisition of additional open space and the protection of agricultural lands in the unincorporated area of the County. 2. The facility and service standards of the proposed special district are compatible with the facility and service standards of each County within which the proposed special district is to be located and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1). Garfield County does not have any adopted facility and service standards for open space and conservation easements. -5- 3. The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-106, C.R.S.. The proposed special district is located in the 1995 Garfield County Comprehensive Plan, Study Area I. The Comprehensive Plan includes a number of goals, objectives, policies and programs. The most relevant goals and associated objectives, policies and programs are in the Recreation and Open Space and the Agricultural goals. The following sections are the most pertinent to the criteria for approval of a service plan for open space, parks and recreation: 5.0 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ISSUES Primary issues concerning recreation and open space identified during the Comprehensive Plan process included the following: The rural nature of Garfield County, which has maintained important visual corridors in an undeveloped state, is transitioning to more intensive land uses; • Visual corridors of particular importance need to be identified and policies tailored to each corridor; • County policy regarding trail systems should reflect regional goals and be consistent and complementary with other jurisdictional efforts; GOAL Garfield County should provide adequate recreational opportunities for County residents, ensure access to public lands consistent with BLM/USFS policies and preserve existing recreational opportunities and important visual corridors. OBJECTIVES: 5.1 Encourage the location of active recreational opportunities that are accessible to County residents. 5.2 The County will support and encourage the creation of open space, through the development and implementation of zoning, subdivision -6- and PUD regulations designed to retain and enhance existing open space uses. 5.5 Visual corridors are considered an important physical attribute of the County and policies will reflect the need to carefully plan these areas. POLICIES: 5.2 Important visual corridors will be identified and appropriate policies developed to address the retainment of open space areas that link communities in the County. 5.3 If physically possible, subdivisions and PUDs will be encouraged to design open space areas to become contiguous with existing and proposed open spaces adjacent to the project. PROGRAMS: 5.1 All developers are encouraged to provide recreational amenities within proposed developments. The county should impose its requirement of a dedication of park land or fee in -lieu -of as contained in the Subdivision Regulations in order to reserve sufficient park land to accommodate the recreational needs of the residents which the development will house. 5.3 The Subdivision and PUD regulations will be refined to include policies that encourage contiguous open space uses. These policies will be formulated at the time the Subdivision Regulations are revised. All developers/developments shall analyze existing open spaces adjacent to their proposed developments, both public and private, and shall incorporate contiguity of these spaces with proposed open spaces to be contained in the development. 5.4 Planning staff, in cooperation with the Planning and Zoning Commission, will research options regarding feasible and legal alternatives to acquire open space and recreational easements. Based on the options identified by Staff, the Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners regarding potential alternatives. 5.0(A) OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS Based on public workshops and the initial work of the Garfield County Open Space and Trails Committee, specific concerns regarding Open Space and Trails planning in the Roaring Fork Valley are as follows: • That the retention of the rural landscape of the Roaring Fork Valley is a critical issue to residents and visitors; • The level of development in the Valley from 1991 to 1995 has resulted in the disappearance of historical agricultural land at a rate demanding immediate action on the part of the County; • Wildlife habitat is being negatively impacted due to growth pressure; • GOAL Any policies regarding open space and trails must respect the property rights of land owners in the County and must be based on the concepts of just compensation and mutual benefit for landowners, residents and visitors of the Roaring Fork Valley. Garfield County shall develop, adopt and implement policies that preserve the rural landscape of the Roaring Fork Valley, existing agricultural uses, wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities in a mutually beneficial manner that respects the balance between private property rights and the needs of the community. OBJECTIVES: 5.1(A) To ensure that existing agricultural uses are not adversely impacted by development approved by Garfield County; 5.3(A) That the development of passive and active trails in the County should be developed in a comprehensive fashion, consistent with efforts by adjacent jurisdictions; 5.4(A) That all long-range planning for the retention of open space, trails, agricultural lands and wildlife habitat shall respect property rights and the concept of just compensation; 5.5(A) That long-range planning for acquisition or dedication of open space and trails shall run parallel to efforts to develop funding sources for just compensation. -8- POLICIES: 5.2(A) Developers proposing projects located in areas defined as critical habitat by the Colorado Division of Wildlife Resource Information System (WRIS) will be required to propose mitigational measures during the submittal of proposed projects. Mitigational measures shall include the following: a) Fencing and dog restrictions consistent with DOW recommendations; b) Avoidance of critical portions of the property, through the use of building envelope restrictions or cluster development concepts; c) conservation easements. The Board of County Commissioners shall have the authority to approve or reject proposed mitigation. 5.3(A) Garfield County, through the use of the Open Space and Trails Committee, shall develop a Comprehensive Trails Plan for adoption by the Garfield County Planning Commission and The Board of County Commissioners. The following specific elements shall be a part of a proposed plan: a) A general policy statement summarizing the overall approach supported by the County; b) A proposed design guideline for trail development to assist the County and the development community in integrating trail development into the long-range growth of the County; c) A methodology for identifying trail corridors in the Roaring Fork Valley; d) A series of funding options to ensure that property owners are adequately compensated for trails developed on private property; e) A Comprehensive Trail Map, consistent with the methodology adopted to guide long-range trail development in the Roaring Fork Valley. -9- 5.4(A) The Open Space and Trails Committee shall present the Garfield County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners a document summarizing options for compensating private property owners for acquiring open space and trails, consistent with long-term planing for acquisition or protection. 5.5(A) Garfield County, through the use of the Open Space and Trails Committee, shall develop a Comprehensive Roaring Fork Valley Open Space Plan for adoption by the Garfield County Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. The following specific elements shall be a part of a proposed plan: a) A general policy statement summarizing the overall approach supported by the County; b) A proposed methodology for identifying lands suitable for protection or acquisition for open space protection; c) Identification of the Roaring Fork Valley areas appropriate for acquisition or protection consistent with adopted policies. 6.0 AGRICULTURE ISSUES Issues identified throughout the Comprehensive Plan process related to agricultural uses include the following: • The rollover of agricultural land into more intense uses is accelerating in the County; • Historical agricultural lands are also those lands which present the least development constraints (geology, topography, water availability); • • As the rural areas of the County continue to develop, the need to ensure compatibility between these uses and active agricultural lands will intensify; A growing number of traditional agricultural lands can be expected to intensify into agricultural businesses, which may affect County land use policies designed for traditional ranching, grazing and crop -10- production. GOAL To ensure that existing agricultural uses are allowed to continue in operation and compatibility issues are addressed during project review. OBJECTIVES: 6.1 Ensure the compatibility of development proposals with existing farms and ranches. 6.2 Ensure that active agricultural uses are buffered from higher -intensity adjacent uses. 6.3 Developments adjacent to agricultural uses should be reviewed in a manner that allows for flexibility in resolving compatibility conflicts with adjacent uses. POLICIES: 6.1 Agricultural land will be protected from infringement and associated impacts of higher -intensity land uses through the establishment of buffer areas between the agricultural use and the proposed project. PROGRAMS: 6.7 Encourage the developer or development to purchase a conservation easement, at fair value, from the adjacent agricultural interest, who can use this buffer zone for agricultural purposes when infeasible to maintain a 300 foot buffer from agricultural land and uses. In summary, it appears that the Comprehensive Plan supports the creation of the proposed special district, based upon the language that encourages the development of conservation easements and the need to identify lands for open space and trails needs. While the plan calls for the County Open Space and Trails Committee to do a lot of the work, a special district with the funding and ability to actually purchase land would be more effective. Any work done by the proposed special district board will need to coordinated with all jurisdictions and their plans that pertain to open space, agricultural preservation and trails. 4. The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional or state long-range water quality management plan for the area. The Water Quality Management Plan for Region 11(208 Plan) does not address the need for the purchase of open space and conservation easements. Arguably, the maintenance of and protection of open space will have a beneficial affect on water quality, by reducing the amount of additional point and non -point sources of pollution. S. The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area proposed to be served. Residents of the Roaring Fork Valley have expressed their frustration about the amount of development occurring and the loss of open space resulting from the development. The one way for the residents of the valley to protect land from development pressure is to purchase it or have the ability to purchase conservation easements. Both of these options are proposed as a part of the service plan. B. Other Comments: 1. Blake Jordan, Garfield County bond counsel: Mr. Jordan has noted a number of issues that need to be considered in the approval of this proposed district: A. All special districts have the eminent domain authority, which is granted by statute. He questions the proponents statement that the district will not have the power of eminent domain. Since this does not appear to be something that can be waived by a service plan. B. If the proponents want the mill levy to be capped at 2.5 mills, the language will need to modified in the service plan. III. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommend denial of the proposed service plan based upon the lack of proof that the Board of County Commissioners will be able to make the following fmding: 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. -12-