Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.206.1996 I _.. ��1?:. ,�J��. , ' ' w� � • • . �! � � .....;r ' :�, ,,:.:. ,.•. �•�.,.�-� .. .. .. . ::�. . �. . :,,'....... .. , _� ._-. ... . ,.. . .. - ���t.;. `.?�c*: � F'i.;c":•. �..;C: - A RESOLUT[ON OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF PITKIN COUNTY,COLORAD�REFUSING TO PERMIT THE IIVCOKPORATION ; �;� ELEC'i'ION FOR TEI£PROPOSED TOWIV OF BRUSH CREEK • RESOLUTtON#96-�. � , .�'. RECITAIS 1. A Petition for Incorporation of Town of Brush Cl�eek kas l�een fileci with the `;r�' District Court of Pitkin Couclty,Coloi�ado aiui docketed as Case No.96 CV 84-2. The petition seeks to incorporate tlie area known as the Brush Creek Subdivision and consists of an ai�ea which is slightly larger than Ehe existiitg platted sulxiivision of Brush Creek Village, 1'tie petition has been�Ied pursuant to C.R.S.§31-2-101,et.se . Due to the fact that the ptroposed area of incoiporation has fewer than five hundred registered electors��esiding therein,a public ! hearing must be held before the Pitkin County Soard of County Cotttarissioners to consider � whether the petitioners may hold an incorpocation election. 2. Notice of the puGlic tiearing Uefore the Board of County Conunissionecs was published in the Aspen Times Weekly Eclition on May i l, I996 and a public lieari�ig on this matter was conuuenced June 12,1996. This public hearing was continued to the date of June _ 26, 199fi,uid continued to July 16, 1996 and continued to July 31, 1996 and continued to August 6,1996,aud concludec�on August 14,I996. 3. Pursuant to C.R.S.§31-2-101(3)(b)([I),the Board of Counry Coutn�issionecs niay z�efuse to permit the incorporAtion etection to be held upon a finding UaSed upon satisfactoiy evidence, that the proposed iucorporation is inconsistent with any applicable county or regional comprehensive plan, thah annexation to a nearby municipality would avoid � _ unnecessaty du�licarion oP the seivices refert�ed Eo in sub-paragraph(a)of tliis suU-paragraph ' (II),and that any of the criteria set forth for special districts in section 32-1-203 (2),C.B.S., exists with respect to the area proposed for incorporatian. The criteria set fortlt for special districYs states that the Board of County Comniissioners shal]disapprove a service plan unless evidence satisfactoiy to ttie Board of each of the following is presented: A. Thec�e is sufficient existing and �rojected need for oLganized seivice in Ehe area to be serviceci by the piroposed s�ecial disri•ict. B. TUe existing seivice in the area to be seived Uy the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected � needs. C. The proposed special dishict is capable of providing economical a2id su�cient seivice to the acea within its proposed bowtdaries. ' D. The area ko Ue included in the pibposed speciai district " has,or wilt have,the financial aUility to discharge the piroposed indeUteduess on a reasonable basis. 4. The Pitkin Cow�ty Board of County Coentnissioners has reviewed the petition for incorporatioz7 of the proposed Town of Biush Creek in conformance with the standards containeci ii�C.fi.S.§31-2-101,aiid by referettce,C.F.S.§32-1-203. `-_ (� - � . � I ti � �- ' t 0 „�' . .#�s , . • <,� �:.�.: ,, " . . _.. ;;;::.,•.. �;.x q.`� Resolution#96- �"�`` Page 2 � �'�"'�-r. `4. i% 5. Tl�e Board of Couiity Commissioners finds that the proposed incorporation is .�. inconsistent with the Pitkin County Down Valley Plan of 1987. 7'he Dow:i Valley Plan of ;� 2987 has lxen i�eviewed by the Board of County Commissioners in connection with this petition for incoi�oration. 1'!ie Pitkin County Down Valley Plan of 1987 is tlie only app]icaUle ',.��; county or regionat coniprehensive plan which wo�ild be affected by t2ie piroposed '. incorporation. T'he Down Valley Plan provides for the wntinued land use in the area of the piroposeci incorporation to be exclusively residential. The Down Valley Plan does not anticipate siry expansiott of tlie existing uses either in a manner allowed Uy an upzoiiing oc rezoning fo allow increased density,or expansion beyond the current type of use,especially of any commercial uses wittiin t(�e proposed incorporation ai�ea. Any expansion of the existing r�' uses or change in the existing land use iu the proposed incorporation area wouid be ' inconsistetit with the Down Valley Plan. The Down Valley Plan does not contempiate the developmettt of a rui�al growth center in the �roposed incorporation area. Aithoug[� incoeporation of new towns is not specifically addressed in the Down Valley Plan, the PJan � � does not anticipate the incorporation of any new nnmicipalities. Fucther, the Down Valley Plan aiiticipates the proposed incorporation area to continue to be parE of the counry coniprehensive ptannie�g effort whereby any development or girowth would be eequired to iuitigate its impacfs on the comnucnity. This tttitigation would inclucie �71'OVISIOIlS for the ' creation of employee housing and imprrovenients to the ti�ansportatio�l infrastructure setvicing the area. These mitigation goals are furthered by tlie incIusion of the proposed incorpocation area within the counry's growth management quota system. _ 6. The Board of County Commissioneis ruust assuiue that the incorporation effoct of the petitioners is not a passing wliini. The 6oaid of County Conunissioners must therefore assume that any proposed Town of Srttsh Creek would want to not only survive,but to thrive into the future. In the near futui�e,the cost of pLroviding municipal se►vices to its residents will escalate for the peroposed Town of Brush Cneek. The effect of the Gallagher Amenduient to the Colorado Constitution requires that the valuation of residential pinperty deci�ease and in the = past yeazs this law has seen the valuation For residential property decreased dcamatically. tez ' , order for the pinposed town to eneet its seivice conuuit►uents to its residents,it wi((be foired to either increase tiie levy against existing e�esidentia!properties or look for alternative sources of income. The Ievy assessed against the residents of the existitig Brusl�Creek Subdivision is among tl�e highest rates in Pitkin Counry. If the votets in the proposed incor�ocated area do not agL�ee to inerease their levy in the future,tkie p�roposed town will need to create other incotue sources. These souires could be in tlie forn�of the creatio►1 of corumercially zoned a►�eas to generate sales tax revenue or in the creation of additional residential lots througll upzoning or aiu�exation of areas which are con4iguous to the pinyosed incocporation area and allow an incc�eased density of development in those arulexed areas. tt catlnot be assumed that the i�esidents of the pro�osed town will agi�ee to continually increase tlieir tax Ievy. Any of the other so(utions witich could Ue executed Uy tlie proposed town to inccease reventte would Ue inconsistent with tFie Down Vapey Plan by allowing either the creation and expansion conunercial developtuent or the increased densiry of residential development ici the piroposecl incorporation area. Tl�e Board of County Conunissioners finds Ehat it is illogicai and not in keeping with the intent of the statutoiy law to esamine the proposed incorporation ' area,as petitioners requesE,only in tecros of its existing developenent and not the foreseeable iinmediate consequence of tlie incorporation. The stahito�y criteria states that the 8oard must find that the proposed incorporation is inconsistent with any applicaUle com�rehensive plai� in order to i�fuse to perettit en incotporation electiozi. If the incorporated area were anatyzecl only as it esists now tltis st�tuto�y criteria would Ue x�e:�dered meaningless. Any area that would be incorporated within Pitkin Coui�ty is necessaeiiy developed or used in a present ( ' ',,. . --, � . 9 .�' . �..r �;'„_ ,� ' _ � :,>.. Resotution#96-� � �� :� Page 3 �!;' �, r�;, fashion which is in conforniance with any comprehensive plan or land use code by virtue of :' �� tlte fact thaf any development or use ltas l�een approvecl by the Cowity. Tlie Board of County ' Conunissioners nutst exainine what wouid be the inunediate and foreseeable cousequences of .`' `' an incorporation in ordec to fulfill its statutoty requirement of review of the pcbposed .�'� incorporation and not roU Yhe statuto►y critecia of any iueaning. '�-�' �.;; � 7. The Board of County Couuttissioners fitids that annexation to a nearUy inunicipality would avoid unnecessary du�tication of seivices teferi�ed to in C.F.S.§3]-2-102 (3)(b?(il)(a). There are two nearby municipalities to the pcoposed incorporation area,the �-% City of Aspeii and the Town of Snowmass Village. Neither nuuticipality is adjacent witli Ehe �``�' proposed incorporation area but both coulci annex tke area by tise of public rights of way. C=';.�' The City of Aspen could arulex the area occupieci Uy State Highway 82 which is owned by the j .;` State of Colorado and annes other properry in its soie ownersltip known as the Cozy Point , . Panch. This would bring the boundaries of the Ciry of Aspen adjacent with tlie proposed incorporation acea. The State of Colorado freely gives its consent ta the annexation of its ' higliways and right of ways. The Town of Brush Creek Village could annex the riglit of way , known as Brush Creek Road. This right of way is a counry road whiclt is owned by Pitkin County. Annexation of this rigl�t of way would bring the Uoundaty of tlie Town of Snowmass Vi[[age ad,{acent with the pro�osed incorporation area. Pitl:in Counry has never been requested by the petitioners nor tiie Town of Snowmass Village to consent to a�u�exation of its county road. Due to the limitations contaiited in C.R.S. §3i-12-I05 (1?(e), the coenplete k;. annexation of the proposed incocporation area could not Ue accomplished by the City of Aspen within oue yeac but woiald necessarily take in excess of one year. However,the Town �� of Snowntass Village would have tite�resent ability to annex tlte individual propecties witl�in � � the piroposed incorporation ai�ea at the px�esent tin�e. The petitioneis for incorpoe�ation have � expressed a desire not to be annexed,into either nearby municipality but to cceate tl�eir own � incorporated town, The petitioners'desires for incorporation versus aunexaEion are not a criterion to be conside��ed by the Boaed of County Conm�issioners piu•suant to C.F.S.�31-2- E I01. Tlie Board of County Contmissioneis mast find that annexation to a nearby municipality ;:;� would avoid unnecessary duplication of se�vices in order to refuse to pertttit a p�bposed incor�oration. The Boai�d of County Coinmissionecs finds that if the proposed incorporation '� area were to i�e annexed by either nearby municipality, the residents of the.proposed incorporation would noE neec!to t�ecreate mairy essential seiv�ces which could be provided by either nearUy municipaliry. The residents of the pcoposed incorporated area would be t�elieved of the obligation of providing for themseives such municipal seivices as a court, � administration,legal services,planning and a building department setvices,law enforcement, , financial aud accounting services, park and recreatiotial seivices,road construction seLVices, traffic and public safety setvices,satiitafion seevices and the seevices�rovided by the existing , city clerks. Currently,the Brush Creek Metiropolitan Dish•ict is piroviding water ancl eoad iitaintenance services for the residents of the proposed incorpocated area. The incorpocation, would not affect the existence or viabiliry of the existing metropolitan dish•ict and would seive oi11y to duplicate those setvices pibvided by tlie metropolitan distriet. S. The Board of County Commissioners finds that criteria set focth for special disEricts in Section 32-1-203(2), C.B.S., exists with respect to the area proposed for ' incorpot�ation. There is ittsufficient need existing or p�rojected for organized seivice in the acea pro}�osed for incorporation. 11ie petitioners have i�epresented that tlteir only real seivice f needs are being fulfilled Uy tlte existing met►ropolitan distcict. The petitiotiers have t�ept�eseiited that upon incorporation the municipal government wil[be mittinuzed in order to , reduce the cost of such municipal government, The existing seivice i��the area proposed for incocporation is curcently adequate. 7'hose setvices which are most important to tl�e �� -. � � � ` � . le.� � � � . .�� •:. �.�' . ':!: .,.. . . � . ,... ' .. '. . +i . . . +i :,�� . '.;::.� . ,. . . �a,°: ���:. , . »;,�� i.4 Kesolution#96-� ! , , Page 4 �`; .t., petitioners have been identified as road mainteuance and supply of doniestic water. 1liose � seivices aze cucrently�rovided by the existing ntetcropolitan clistrict. There is no other need for expanded service or additional seivices beyond those which the proposed area of . incorporation alt�eady receives either frorn the existing eeietro�litan ciistrict ot�Pitkin Cotu�ry. ,�� The proposed area of incorporation is incapable of piroviding economicai and sufficient � municipal seivice to the area and is unable to discharge any indebtedness associated witii the conduct of a municipal government. The petitioners have proposed a budget and accounring scenario for the pceposed town which ptovides for no savings nor the abiliry to finance aiiy debt. Nor does the proposed accounting scenario evidence an ability to continue to�rovicle - the satne level of services that woulci Ue�►rovided by tEie Town of Brush Creek as tite taxable valuation for residential properties continues to decrease as constihitionally mandated. The petitioners have proposed to contract out for vacious essential mutiicipal seivices,however, they have noE pcovided any indication as to the cost of those seiwices and have not made any ' � provision for paymetit for those seivices.Without a proposed budget for the many essentia! nnmicipal se2�vices to Ue p►rovided to its residents and without the allowance for collection of the revenues currently proposed in light of decreasing residential property valuations as mandated by the consritution, the ptroposed incor�oration area wilt run a ��eal risk of not being aUle to provide seivices to its residents or be forced to greatly inccease the taxation • currently experienced by the residents of the proposed area. 9. The Board of County Comniissioneis e�ecognizes the desii�e of the peHtioners of tUe proposed incor�oeation area to Fiave more direct contirol over tlieir own propecry and destinies,however the�lan for incorpo►�ation does not pirovide foc the creation of a legitimate • tnunicipal goverivnent,but of a glorified suUdivision association which would have no aUility to participate in the inany prograens in which all other governmental entities in the Roaring Fork Valley participate such as the Roaeing Fock Ti�ansit Agency. 10. The Board of County Coiumissioners also recognize that the ptroliferation of inany de minimis municipal governtuents tluoughout the valley would have a result of - insulating those small incorporafed areas and would isolate thetn froiu ntitigating the impacts : of their own growth and developntent. The ci�eation of the proposed town would allow residents of this acea or any other inrorporated area to not provide for tcansportation or housing associated witlt the developntent of the land within its borders. Such problems would thecefore be�assed onto the existing municipa(governments within Pitkin County and to the county itself which would have a clecreased abi[ity to address tFiose problems. : I1. Tlie Board of County Coiumissioners reeognizes that the desire for tlie incorporaEion is not so much to create a viable municipality but to avoid certain t�egulations existing within Pitkin County and within the other nearUy ntunicipalities to the pro�osed incorporation area. NOW THER£FORE,be it resolved by tke Pitkin County Board of County Couunissioners, of Pitkiu Counry Colorado,that based upon satisfactoiy evidence presented at the continued public hearing that it reftises to perntit the incocporation election for the proposed Town of Brush Creek. INTRODUCED,FIRST READ AT A NOTICED PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 6TH DAY OF � AUGUST 1996. � ;' -_ I / �,w ..•.. ^ • . . � . � �� . . ' ;:;�'�> . .�_�. . =...: ..�._.__._._ "`�.:. �-'efi' ... .. ..... • � ^ iF ;.'? Resofufion#96� ;;�' , Paga 5 µ�.i; !c �ONTINU£D OR A SECOND READING AND FURTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ��-' �/r"bAY OF� usT 1996. NOTICE OF THE PU$LIC HEARING IN THE WEEKEND EDITION OF THE ASPEN T[MES �, ON THE 11TH DAY OF MAY,1996. � `� . PUBLISHED AFI'ER ADOPT ON IN TH WE£KEND EDITION OF THE ASPEN T[MES ON THE�DAY OF ,1996. ; AT'I'EST: BOARD OF COUNTP C ISS ONERS - . � OF PITKI OUNTY ORA O '� .. � ' J nette Jones rue � eputy Clerk L��Ct h n �y ��� ���� E Date: x ��y�9-� . ! ! � APPROVED AS T�FORM: � - � k � .� �l�%rvr� mG�-- � John M.Ely Suza n Konchal County Attorney Cou ty anager . � ��res��obc.re: { � � � � .. . . -.i.rcwFra..t�:a:. `-.... ...........'__ _...__._._.—' -._..._ ._ .� ..._.. _ . . . . . ..._..... ._... . _........._._. . .. . _ � ,n . . � _� . ,'ie .� � � � . ` ' . � +;. _. . .i-. � � . � . ' - . . � � } �. .. .���` . .. . _ , . '� - ' . . � � - , � ^�i�