HomeMy WebLinkAbout970600.tifft4a
Wi�Yc
COLORADO
February 24, 1997
Glen M. Hanson, Superintendent
Weld County School District RE -7
P.O. Box 485
Kersey, Colorado 80644
Dear Mr. Hanson:
OFFICE OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PHONE: 970-356-4000, Ext. 4200
Fax: 970-352-0242
P.O. Box 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
RE: Land Dedications or Cash -in -Lieu
Contributions
This letter is in response to the resolution of Weld county School District RE -7, dated September
20, 1996, entitled "RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF DISCUSSIONS REGARDING FAIR
CONTRIBUTIONS FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL SITES BETWEEN WELD COUNTY AND
WELD COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICTS," and to your letters of December 11, 1996, and
January 28, 1997, regarding the same subject.
Your resolution and letters support the creation of intergovernmental agreements between school
districts located within Weld County and the County of Weld. Such agreements would be
designed to satisfy each district's need to acquire additional public school sites to accommodate
corresponding increases in student populations resulting from the construction of new residential
dwellings within the County.
The County of Weld addresses the impact of residential growth upon school districts through its
subdivision regulations. Specifically, Section 10.19 of Weld County's Subdivision Ordinance
(Ordinance 173, as amended) states: "School District Requirements -- A residential subdivision
application shall be referred to the applicable school district for review and recommendation
regarding school district requirements. The Department of Planning Services, Planning
Commission, and Board of County Commissioners shall consider the recommendation of the
school district."
The Board of County Commissioners believes that Section 10.19 provides adequate protection
for school districts in their quest to obtain assistance from developers for the impacts of
residential growth. Three recently approved subdivisions provide examples of the success
derived from this regulation. The first example is the Meadow Vale Subdivision, located in the
970600
Letter, Hanson
February 24, 1997
Page 2
St. Vain School District (RE -1J), where the developer dedicated 10.3 acres of land within the
subdivision to the District for an elementary school. The dedication occurred prior to approval of
the subdivision by the Board of County Commissioners. It was based upon discussions between
RE -1J and the developer which were prompted by the requirements of Section 10.19.
The second example is the Longview Subdivision, again located within the RE -1J District.
There, the Board included the following condition in its approving resolution: "Prior to recording
the P.U.D. Final Plan plat: An agreement with the St.Vrain School District RE -1J shall be
completed concerning the land dedication or cash -in -lieu to mitigate the student impacts that
would be created by this proposed development." The developer and RE -1J have reached an
agreement where the developer has agreed to either dedicate land within the subdivision to the
District or contribute an in -lieu fee, with the minimum fee of $600 for the project.. The Board's
condition of approval and the consequent agreement between the developer and RE -1J in the
Longview Subdivision case were prompted by the requirements of Section 10.19.
The final example is the Buffalo Ridge Subdivision in the Weld RE -8 School District. There, the
Board of County Commissioners required the developer to come to an agreement with RE -8
prior to the submittal of the Major Subdivision Final Plat application. The developer has agreed
to pay the District $500 for each lot it sells in the Subdivision. The District has conveyed this
information to Weld County and now the Board's condition of approval for the Final Plat states
as follows: "Prior to the issuance of a residential building permit on each lot of the Major
Subdivision, the property owner shall supply the Department of Planning Services with written
confirmation from the RE -8 School District that a $500 per lot cash -in-lieu of land payment has
been paid."
The Board of County Commissioners does not believe it is necessary at the present time to begin
discussions with school districts in Weld County for the purpose of creating intergovernmental
agreements to require what is already being accomplished by Section 10.19. Rather, it is
incumbent upon each school district to respond to Weld County Planning Department referrals
regarding proposed residential subdivisions located within the district. Such responses must be
specific as to what land dedications and cash -in -lieu requirements are necessary to adequately
address the needs of the district created by each proposed subdivision.
If you should have any questions about the requirements of Section 10.19, please feel free to call
Monica Mika, Director, Weld County Department of Planning Services, at (970) 353-6100, Ext.
3520.
Letter, Hanson
February 24, 1997
Page 3
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF WELD
George E. Baxter, Chairman
L��.C.tct1J
Constance L. Harbert, Pro Te
Dale K. Hall
M:\ WPFILES\LET\SDIS.BTB
pc: Monica Mika
Don Warden
Bruce Barker
Scott Tillion, Planning Specialist
School District RE -1J
David R. Sauter, Board President
School District RE -2
Janet E. Carlson, Board President
School District RE -3J
Gail Hankins, Board President
School District RE -5J
Roy Fox, Board President
School District RE -7
W. H. Webster
Terry E. Stencel, Board President
School District RE -1
Jerry Westbrook, Board President
School District RE -2J
Donald H. Scott, Board President
School District RE -4
Peggy J. Babbitt, Board President
School District 6
Janice Brown, Board President
School District RE -9
Hello