The Ridge at Fox Run

Tri-Lakes Recreation District

Reasons to support

February 12, 2000

This article is from the January, 2000 issue of The Eagle's View

An Idea Whose Time Has Come

by Russ Broshous

The Tri-Lakes Parks and Recreation District proposal -- Tri-Rec for short, is as the name implies an effort on the part of concerned area residents to form a 'special district' which can:
* safeguard the area's natural heritage,
* retain a measure of its rural character in the face of extraordinary growth, and
* 'build-in' quality of life for the future.

It proposes the creation of a district that can accomplish certain specified tasks according to a well-thought-out plan to benefit residents in the entire area.

Less than a year ago, the Donala Water and Sanitation District sponsored a somewhat similar proposal: specifically, to transform itself into a Metro District -- a governmental form which would empower it to address, among other things, parks and recreational needs. That proposal lost out Where the polls... So, is the current effort a case, in the words of the immortal Yogi, of "Deja vu all over again"? For the reasons outlined below, we think not... and we hope you will agree.

First, the program addresses a clear and immediate need. Growth in the Tri-Lakes area has averaged and eye-popping 8.8% per year (compounded annually) over the past 25 years, while the County has averaged only 2.8%. This means that, while the County has doubled in population over the past 25 years, the Tri-Lakes area has experienced a nine-fold expansion.

Put another way, sense that County's resource base is constrained in a Tabor environment to its lower growth rate, our needs have grown over three times faster than that County's ability to address them. And, frankly, all of us everywhere in the Tri-Lakes area feel its impact... in increased traffic, in the obvious sprawling development of subdivisions and commercial establishments sprouting up side-by-side, up and down the I-25 corridor, and in the feeling of a diminished quality of life.

Where in this dynamic is the open space we need to retain a feel for the rural character of the area? Where are the trails that allow us to enjoy the natural beauty which abounds here? Where are the recreational facilities that will allow us to maintain the unmatched quality of life for which we moved here in the first place?

The plan we propose is obviously our answer. If we do nothing, on the other hand, then Pogo will have been right when he said, "We have met the enemy, ... and it's us."

Second, we have put together a detailed plan to follow which has been thoroughly costed. It involves acquiring substantial acreage as open space to preserve view corridors to the mountains to our west and to diminish the claustrophobic feeling one gets in the midst of unbridled development. Struthers Ranch east of Gleneagle and Ben Lomond Mountain adjacent to Palmer Lake are just two of a number of significant targets we have identified and discussed with the Trust for Public Lands. The plan also involves a significant expansion (really, the creation) of a Tri-Lakes trail network to connect Fox Run Park and the five major lakes in the area -- Palmer Lake, Monument Lake, Lake Woodmoor, and the two Forest Lakes -- to the Santa Fe Trail, and the trail network itself to the Pike National Forest in the Black Forest network to the east. And the lakes, themselves, will be addressed with construction of unobtrusive pavilions/picnic areas so that residents can enjoy the lakefronts without damaging the environment in the process.

Importantly, we have struck an alliance with the Pike's Peak YMCA that will pay big dividends. We have to work out the details, but the relationship should result -- with some District capital funding -- in a full-service, Tri-Lakes Rec Center and ice rink, both located on donated land adjacent to the Lewis-Palmer High School. The facilities would be operated with user fees and, therefore, entail no further cost to the taxpayer. The facilities will serve the entire community, but it will also be a big benefit to the school districts serving the area -- Lewis-Palmer as well as those District 20 schools serving students who live in the Tri-Rec District in Gleneagle.

Finally, we believe our program is truly affordable. That is, the District we are recommending is much larger than that entailed in the earlier Donala proposal, with a much larger tax base. The total area we suggest encompasses all of District 38 Schools with the exception of the westernmost part of the District, which is inaccessible to our area. It also includes that portion of the Tri-Lakes Planning Area below Baptist Road, west of State Route 83, north of Northgate Road, and east of the Air Force Academy -- i.e. Gleneagle and environs. With a tax base of this magnitude, we can and have devised a program with an average tax impact over the life of the bonds we propose to issue -- a max of $17 million -- of less than 3 mills, or less than $57 per year for a $200,000 house. [The maximum impact of 3.8 mills -- or $74 -- would occur according to the financing plan in the year 2007, and decline abruptly thereafter to an operating level of 1.1 mills.]

The committee putting this together and the vast majority of organizations, entities and individuals we've talked to believe the program is long overdue and will add much to the community. The Towns of Monument and Palmer Lake have both OK-ed our going ahead, and we will soon go before the Board of County Commissioners to seek approval for a vote on May 2nd of this year. Nonetheless, even with this groundswell of approval, there are understandably many questions. A few of the more commonly heard ones are listed below, along with what I feel our honest and reasonable answers:

Q: I'm a senior citizen and won't ever use these facilities. Why should I support the program?

Tri-Rec: Many retirees would use them, and do now in other areas that have them -- Briargate, for example. Nevertheless, even if the amenities are not used by an individual homeowner (to include trails, open space, and lakeside park areas), studies show that the availability of such amenities in in area contributes measurably to the quality of life in the area and, hence, to the value of each individual property within it.

Q: I'm a military retiree and can use the AFA. Why should I support the program?

Tri-Rec: It's true that the AFA does offer to military retiree's some other things were talking about doing in the District. But, not all of us have these privileges. Moreover, the AFA will not ameliorate the impending sprawl outside its borders -- sprawl which has already begun in earnest in the Tri-Lakes area ... nor does it have the capacity to add value to area properties beyond that which has already occurred when the Academy was built. Beyond that, military retirees -- as I am -- owe something to the community, just as the community point large owes them retiree privileges along with a debt of gratitude for their service.

Q: Why must we pay user fees for the Rec Center and Rink when you're asking us to pay taxes to build them?

Tri-Rec: The cost of building and operating facilities such as these have to be borne in some way. They could all be put in the tax base; they could be borne entirely by user fees -- to include debt service; or they could be distributed between these two sources of revenue. Since the facilities will add value to the real estate of all property owners in the area whether or not the owners use them, and since about one-half the cost of the rec center, in particular, will be covered by the YMCA and the land donor, our committee felt the fairest solution would be split the load between the tax base and the users -- i.e. to defray the capital costs to be covered by the District within the tax base, and to assess facility users the costs of operations. Bear in mind that this is the practice today in all YMCA facilities, as well as facilities operated directly by communities themselves, such as those in Castle Rock and Parker, for example.

Q: Why can't the YMCA build the facility itself?

Tri-Rec: As I noted earlier, the Y will be paying a significant share for the Rec Center. But the Y is a non-profit organization, and funds it applies to construction come from the donations it collects. Were we to have to wait for the total sum to be amassed by the Y to completely finance the facility, it would be years before we could consider building one. It might even be akin to 'waiting for Godot'...

Q: I agree with the objectives of this program, but I don't support using tax dollars for the purpose. Why can't we let the private sector do it?

Tri-Rec: Many of us on the committee would love to see the private sector do it... But we know it just won't happen. First, the private sector is unlikely -- left to its own devices -- to allocate land to open space, build linked trails ago from point A to point B when two or more independent sub-divisions are involved, or open up area lakes for the use of all residents. And, even with facilities such as a rec center or an ice rink, there are no guarantees that they will ever be built or, if they are, where and when. By taking the bull by the horns, so to speak, we can control much of our own destiny in these matters, and do it now before development overpowers us with what would be more profitable land uses on the part of the developers.

We on the Tri-Rec committee believe strongly that we have a sound and well-thought-out program that will benefit all residents of the district. Doubtless, there will be many other questions residents will have; and we on the committee would be happy to try to address them all. So, please feel free to address them to me either through your GCA or other homeowners' association, or -- if you prefer -- directly at 488-0074. In the meantime, we ask for your support in making all this a reality for each and every Tri-Lakes resident.