The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2.0 Staff Report BOCC 9.9.91BOCC 9t9t9l PROJECT INFORMATION AND STAFF COMMENTS PROJFCT:Consolidated Metropolitan District Service Plan The proposed district is located in portions of Section 5,7,8,9,17 and 18; T7S, R95W and Se,otions 19 and24;T7s, R96W;more practically described as parcels of land located within the Battlement mesa PUD, south of Parachute. LOCATION: L RFI ATIONSHIP TO THE COMPREHENSTVE 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. Discourage the unnecessary proliferation of private water and sewer systems and special districts. Policy 5.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 and 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 madeby the Board of County Commissioners and Planning Commission according to C.R.S. 32-t-203. PROJECT DESCRTPTION The Battlement Mesa PUD was,originally approved by the Board of County Commissioners in August of 1975. Subsequent amendments to the PUD were approved by Resolution No. 80-82, 5119180, and by Resolution No. 82-121,5124182. The PUD encompasses approximately 3,082 acres of land zoned lor residential, commercial and recreation/open space uses. In December of 1981, the Board approved the Battlement Mesa Water and Sanitation District which was modified in 1986 to reduce the area included in the district to the developed neighborhoods. - ll- It o m. Due to changes in the development of the Battlement Mesa PUD, it was proposed to centralize the costs of providing services by the formation of a Metropolitan District surrounding the existing water and sewage treatment facilities. The Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District was approved by the Board by Resolution No. 86-129 in Novemberof 1986. SaddlebackMetropolitanDistrictwasapprovedbyResolutionNo. 88-01I inJanuaryof 1988. TheMetropolitan DistricLcontractswiththeexistingservice users for the treatment of water and sewage. These entities are Battlement Mesa Partners (BMP), Battlement Mesa Water and Sanitation District, Saddleback Metropolitan District and the Town of Parachute. It has been anticipated that when the Battlement Mesa PUD is built-out completely, the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District boundary may encompass the entire area developed, and all ol the other districts will dissolve. Portions of the proposed district have existing water and sewer lines in place as a result of the original construction activity of BMI in the early 80's. These facilities were purchased from BMIby the district. Any new water or sewerlines will bebuilt and paid for by the developer of the property. Treatment of the sewer and treated water will be provided for by contract with the Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District. As ametropolitan district, the following services can be provided legally, in addition to water and sewer: -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. MAJOR ISSUES A}IN CONCERNS Statutory Requirements: 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 o[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 its'recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board can take any of the lollowing actions: t.Approve, without condition or modihcation, the service plan; Disapprove the service plan as submitted; or Conditionally approve the service plan subject to additional information being submitted or the modification of the proposed service plan. The Board must disapprove the service plan if evidence of the following is not presented: A. 2. 3. -lI- o 1. 2. There is suflicient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district; The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and suflicient service to the area within its' proposed boundaries. 3. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the hnancial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The Board may disapprove the service plan if evidence satislactory to the Board of any of the following, at the discretion of the Board, is not presented: 1.Adequate service is not, orwill not be, available to the area through the County, other existing municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis; 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-l-20a[); The proposal is in substantial compliance with a master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-106, C.R.S.; The proposal is in compliance with any duly adopted county, regional, or state long-range water quality management plan for the area; The creation of the proposed special district will be in the best interests of the area to be served. Enclosed, for your review, is a complete copy of the proposed service plan. Staff Comments: This same proposal was submitted to the County in September of 1990. At that time the staffhad the following concerns: There were no signed resolutions from the Board's of the districts being consolidated that consented to the consolidation. These resolutions are now contained in the proposed service plan. The original consolidation plan did not address how the new service district residents would be obligated to pay lor the Battlement Mesa Recreation Center facility. The present proposal is for the Battlement Mesa Metro District (BMMD) to own and be responsible for the debt service of this facility. The Consolidated Metro District (CMD) would Ievy an annual perunit/per lot Recreational Assessment for the operation ofthe facility not to exceed $500,000/yr. or $20S/unit or lot (see pages 43- 48 of the Service PIan). There was no clear description of the proposed services to be provided, only the legal authority lor certain services. This document better describes the potential services and the proposed services. 2. 3. 4. 5. : l-'- I B. 1. 2. 3. -13 D ry. 4. There were no copies of proposed agreements with other political subdivisions. Included in this document is the proposed Facility Service Agreement between BMMD and CMD for the recreation center facility. This plan is much more complete in the level and amount of detail provided. The plan has been reviewed by a residents group, who support the proposed consolidation. C. Other Agency Comments: The Battlement Mesa Homeowners' Association recommends acceptance olthe Consolidated Metropolitan District ServicePlan (see letter page I [o ). RECOMMENDATION ThePlanning Comniission recommended that the Board of County Commissioners to approve the proposed Consolidated Metropolitan District Service Plan as submitted. clrt- r--t\. -/lr \. 1l0l'lEouNERS' August 13, l99l Garfield County Planning Commission After many months of negotiation with tlre Advisory Commission of the Battlement Mesa llomeowners' Association, and numerous hours of questions, discussions and cornpromises with Battlernent Mesa Partners, this Board now reconunends acceptance of the new Consolidated Service Plan as presented here this evening. The Consolidated Service Plan, alonq rvith the recent Merged Associat'ion Plan,'is in the best interest of the entire Battlement Mesa Conrnunity. Approved by the Board of D'irectorsof the Battl eruent Mesa llorneowners' Association ffiil",il*-lti, i[$l+iti'ito:i.ii;.,,':t,ii tiil, *$i'' ffi**t'tii*ri," ' ffi$g*-t*t1iri' ffiii ffi}j*i *l*'r i*,.ri ffiii' TLEI'lEN-l Fllai | ',::. ,, l.' '.) i{Iilil]fifr ]fuTlfmimrfi {imnml riI':l Irlt'l.l S i gned ny ,/'),( r (. ,-.t.aftylEffi quez -==:=: Pres i den llomeowners' uE.' - --- =---i---'--- :-'.- Asiociation ----! 'ltn-