1621 Blake Street Denver, Colorado 80202 303-893-8588
Mr. Earl Rhodes
Garfield County Attorney P.O. Box 640
Glenwood Springs, co. 81602 Dear Earl:
Roy Fronczyk/Planning Consultant
;., .
, .,
Land Use Planning Impact Assessment Regulatory Support
.! / i .
The following is a summary of my comments on the technical evaluation of the Service Plan for the Organization of the Parachute/Battlement Mesa Park and Recreation District,
January, 1983. The comments are organized along the lines of the questions you requested that I address in your letter of February 15th and include comments from our phone conversation of February 21st.
1. The term "service plan" is unique to the statutory require-ments for the formulation of a special improvement district in the State of Colorado. The study which provides much of the technical background and justification for the service plan is typically refered to as a master plan. In this discussion the two terms are used interchangably.
2. This section will discuss the elements or components typically found in a master plan, how the applicant's sub-mittal adresses these items, and comments on the adequacy of the applicant's response.
A. Goals and Objectives. Goals and objectives are statements describing the purpose and reason for undertaking a course of action. For example, one the very broad goals of a park plan would be to improve the quality of life and environment in
the community.
The applicant, in the Introduction to the submittal, and again on pages 9 and 10, discusses the overall benefits to be
gained by the formulation of a district.
Goals and objectives are most difficult to evaluate from .. a technical standpoint because they represent subjective state-ments on the part of the community. However, they often 'are used as a means to measure the success of a program by ptovid-ing a guidepost or milestone to judge the value or progress of a service.
B. Inventory of Existing Facilities and Programs. This
component itemizes and quantity and type of land and facilities currently in place within the delineated study area. A com-plete inventory should be described, regardless as to whether the provider is public, quasi-public or private.
Section III of the applicant's submittal (p. 12, 13 and 14) itemize the facilities currently within the proposed distri-ct boundary.
This inventroy appears to be incomplete. Not included are the recreation facilities associated with the Grand Valley
School District #16, the role and facilities of the Grand Valley Park Association, and a complete description of the facilities on Battlement Mesa (two softball fields are mentioned - size and location?, the Recreation Center plan shows a large parcel of land size?, parking number of spaces?, tennis courts -number and lighted?).
C. Standards. Standards are the relative requirements that serve as guidelines or criteria upon which park and recrea-tion facilities should be developed. Three methods of describ-ing standards are most often used: (1) the population ratio method - a certain type of facility is justified for every increment of population; (2) the area percentage method
-what percentage of the total (gross) area of a community should be devoted to public recreation and open space; and (3) the demand projection method - the participation rates of user groups are translated into space needs and facilities.
The applicant's submission cites National Park and Recreation population ratio standards (Table 5); potential recreation days for selected activities in a demand projection method
(Table 6) and definitions and standards on parkland types (Table 7).
No two communities need to have the same standard. These planning requirement that mandates similiarstandardsfor diverse conditions, population and values in communities. effective standards should be feasible and practical and be relevant to the life sty;!:es.·' and times they serve. There is no apparent effort on the part of the applicant to modify natio-nal or other area's standards to reflect conditions in western Colorado. Table 5 refers to the modification of national stan-dards based on Colorado practice. I was unable to confirm the source of this modification with the Colorado State Park and Outdoor Recreation Division. This section is one where the preference of residents of the area should be reflected.
is no the
-3-D. Needs Assessment. "Recreation need is the difference between current recreation demand and the existing supply of opportunities expressed in terms of land, facilities or
programs"*. This section describes the current status :of recreation services in the community - are there surpluses of certain types of facilities and deficits of other types. The applicant's Service Plan does
gg~~~t~tements
or assess-ments of the current status of recreation service in the affected area.E. Projections. This section of the study would typically contain the estimated future demand for recreation services in the delineated area. Standars are typically applied to future populations for the area which would then provide an item-ized list of facilities required. '
Annual population projections are noted in Table 2 of the application and the basis for future requirements are tied to three phases of development: the current level at 3,500 people, Phase II at 10,000 people and Phase III at 20,000 population. The application does not provide a detailed list of future recreation requirements - it cites the construction of a swimming pool in Phase II and completion of the golf
course and neighborhood parks in Phases II and III.
The future need for recreation service is directly related to the level and composition of the populations expected to
reside in a service area. It is important to document the methodology and assumptions used in the projection process. The Oil Shale Region'of western Colorado has been the focus of an ··.intense amount of study related to socio-economic
impact. State and federal governmental agencies, local gover-nment and industry has devoted an enormous amount of time and effort on sophisticated projection models. It would seem appropriate that the application incorporate some of these efforts into the process or cite the source and methodology used in the projections in the application. Also a detailed list of projected facilities will provide a basis for estima-ting the financial and program requirements of the district. F. Master Plan. The master plan for a park and recreation district should contain a description of the activities to be undertaken (land acquisition, facilities to be provided, pro-grams to be offered), the method or means of providing these services (organization and administrative structure) and the financial aspects (budget, funding sources, etc.).
*Gold, Seymour. Recreation Planning and Design, McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, 1980, p. 193.
The applicant's future plans for the provision of services are discussed in the section on District Programs and Fac-ilities. An organization for provision of these services is provided and means of financing the proposed district is discussed.
The plan, as proposed by the applicant, is based on absorbing the existing or planned facilites which are being constructed by others in the district. The plan focuses almost exclusively on the planned recreational facilities for the Battlement Mesa development and acquisition of property of the Grand Valley Park Association. The plan gives no indication of how the specific recreation demands of future populations will be met. The proposed district organization chart identifies the per-sonnel needed for administration and operation. It is diff-icult to evaluate the size of the organization proposed because it is not related to a specific plan or program.
The financing of the district is dependent on a mill levy, user fees and soliciting grants and gifts. Mill levy estimates
are based on projected assessed values within the district and appear to anticipate development of long standing oil shale projects. The dependence on these projects has always been subject to caution on the part of any jurisdiction in the area because of their speculative nature.
The applicant anticipates use of the full 4 mill levy maximum rate allow for any special district. It is my understanding that the mill levy w~hich can be applied by any district, in anyone year has to be justified by the actual expenses of the entity. The operating expenses and indebtness of a district form the annual expenditures budget which is then funded in part through the mill levy. If the operating budget results
in a 3.2 mill levy, then that is the legal limit which a district can assess property. The district cannot "bank" any excess
funds - it has to be applied to the subsequent years reduction in mill levy rates. The applicant utilizes the maximum
4 mill rate allowed without any justification as to whether it is adequate to finance the district. .
User's fees typically make up a small portion of the revenues of a park and recreation district. The facilities which generate significant fees are not proposed for development until later in the planning period (swimming pool and golf course) •
-5-Other sources of funding are typically itemized in such
stud-ies. For example, the Oil Shale Trust Fund, Bureau of
Out-door Recreation loans and grants, and monies which may be available through the Colorado State Lottery.
SUMMARY
The previous comments have attempted to compare the applicants submission to typical information and data found in park and
recreation master plans. The applicant has addressed most of
the items in such plans, however, the quality and depth of data presented is somewhat less than what would normally be found in such studies. The plan does not offer enough information on a number of issues which are important to evaluating the need for a park and recreation district in
the proposed area. Specifically the plan falls short of
providing answers to some of the .criteria for forming such districts in Section 32-1-203 of the Colorado Revised Statues.
The plan does not discuss the sufficiency of existing park and recreation services as required in part (2) (a) of the
Section. This is no mention of the surplus or deficiency
of recreation service to the current population of 3,500
in the area. (Applying the standards proposed in the
submiss-ion to the current populatsubmiss-ion level suggests that there are
more than enough recreation facilities to serve todays pop~
ulation. Additionally the population level is expected to decline over the next few years which would further reduce
recreational requirements in the area.) Future or projected
needs are subject to the validity and relaibility of population projections for the area, and the application of standards
to those projections.
The submission does not describe the extent or means by which existing service is provided to residents of the area
as required in part (2) (b). There is therefore no means by
which an evaluation can be made as to the adequacy of present service. Additionaly the idea of service has two aspects
-facilities and programs. The application does not contain
any information on the program offerings of the existing or proposed recreation district.
The ability of the proposed district to provide service on an economical and timely basis is difficult to evaluate
be-cause of the lack of information on rpojected budgets, fac-ilities and programs to be offered.
The financial capability of the proposed district relies to a large extent on the anticipated increase in value from energy development. Previous sections in this report have commented on the problem with reliance on this source. This assessment has attempted to evaluate the applicant's plan to form a park and recreation district in the Parachute/ Battlement Mesa area. It is my opinion that there are a number of questions left unanswered by the applicant's submission. While some the questions are technical in nature, they all
focus about the issues of the level and quality of service being proposed for the district. There is not enough infor-mation presented by the applicant to adequately evaluate the full impact and benefits to be gained by residents of the district.
Attached to this summary is a brief statement of my background and qualifications and I thank you for the opportunity to
provide you this service.
February 23, Attachment
·
...
)
Roy Fronczyk/Planning Consultant
1621 Blake Street Denver, Colorado 80202 303-893-8588
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS Experience
Land Use Planning Impact Assessment Regulatory Support
Roy Fronczyk has over 14 years pf diversified professional experience. He has
served in various capacities as a project manager and principal planner for numerous community ond regional planning projects. He has prepared regional plans for the four counties which comprise northwestern Colorado and for Sweetwater County,
Wyoming. Both of these areas are subject to the growth impacts of energy·
development. In this field Mr. Fronczyk has had experience in preparing impact assessments for coal development projects in Colorado, Wyoming and North Dakota.
His previous experience also includes being on the staff of one of the country's major energy companies ond participation in the companies efforts. towards mitigating socio-economic impacts. Two of the comp'any's more noteworthy efforts include the planning and development of the new towns of Battlement Mesa, Colorado
and Wright, Wyoming. .
Mr. Fronczyk has olso participated in numerous studies and projects which have exomined the components which make up a community. He has completed housing analyses for privote developers and governmental agencies in Colorado and Wyoming; prepared pork and open space plans in Colorado Springs and Wheat Ridge, Colorado; and, examined the impacts of transportation proposals on neighborhoods in Fargo, North Dakota, Denver and Wheat Ridge, Colorado.
In virtually all of these projects Mr. Fronczyk has represented the clients interest before governmental agencies; community residents and interest groups.
Emp'loyment History
Community Planner, Anacanda Minerals Company, Denver, CO.
Senior Planner, THK Associates, Denver, CO.
Planner, Barton-Aschman Associates, Chicago, IL Affliations
American Institute of Certified Planners Americarl Planning Association
Adjunct Faculty, Graduate Program In Planning and Community Development, University of Colorado at Denver, 1978-Date
EducatiOn
Master of Urban Planning, University of Washington B.A. in Design, Southern Illinois University
