|
Friends of the Animas Valley objects to proposed
intergovernmental agreement
Sidebar: Local ballot
may include Smart Growth Initiative
by Amy Maestas
 |
A backhoe clears a path for
a waterline going to a new home along County Road 203 recently.
A new intergovernmental agreement between the city and
county would ensure that the two entities work in tandem when
planning for areas bordering city limits which someday could
be annexed. However, responsible- growth advocates say the
agreement will open the door for a tripling in the area’s
population. /Photo by Todd Newcomer. |
A draft version of a newly updated intergovernmental agreement
between the City of Durango and La Plata County has some responsible-growth
proponents anxious about sprawl beyond city limits and a potential
three-fold surge in the city’s population. But city and
county officials say the agreement is only a guiding document
designed to ensure that the two governments will plan future development
together, and the proponents don’t need to worry that it’s
a map of absolutes.
Currently, the city and county are reviewing a new version of
the agreement that involves areas bordering city limits. While
the agreement identifies land that the city may want to annex
in the future, officials say it doesn’t guarantee they will
definitely make the property part of the city.
“The purpose of this agreement is to clarify and improve
upon areas that relate to joint planning review of projects,”
says City Planner Greg Hoch.
The IGA replaces previous versions of agreements between the
city and county. As growth progresses on both city and county
land, Hoch says the agreement was due for updating so that the
two entities can ensure any development is jointly reviewed by
the Joint Planning Commission, which consists of members of both
governments’ separate boards. The city, he says, wants to
make sure growth in the county is consistent with the city’s
comprehensive plan. Likewise, the county wants to ensure that
the city’s land use plans don’t encroach on areas
it deems as rural.
The agreement puts various sections of land near the city limits
into three tiers. According to the document, each tier is subject
to various terms. Using a map to illustrate the tier areas has
caused some responsible-growth proponents to wonder how dedicated
the city is to controlling growth.
Renee Parsons, president of the Friends of Animas Valley, says
she’s concerned that the city is setting up to annex hundreds
of acres of land that will eventually degrade Durango’s
quality.
“Our concern is that this (agreement) is a vehicle by which
the city plans to expand to a population of 40,000 residents,”
Parsons says.
Although intergovernmental agreements are a common occurrence
among Colorado jurisdictions, FOAV sees the current city and county
document as potentially enabling unrestricted growth. FOAV formed
last year in the wake of the proposed – and now defunct
– River Trails Ranch development in the Animas Valley, hoping
to stop the project from gaining city approval. Upon River Trails’
defeat, Parsons said the group realized that it needed to do more
work on garnering public demands on the city to pursue responsible
growth. The group bandied about a ballot initiative, which would
require voter approval of city annexations.
“We realized our work wasn’t going to be over,”
Parsons says. “We wanted to do more. This IGA didn’t
spawn this initiative, but when it surfaced, it solidified it.”
Parsons says she was surprised to see the tiered map because
she understood that the city didn’t intend to annex land
as far north and east as indicated. Hoch says the city never made
any promises about where it would and would not annex land, especially
given the long-standing notion that the city inevitably will grow
to accommodate population bursts. Yet Parsons and members of FOAV
aren’t willing to accept that this intergovernmental agreement
is just a means to guarantee joint planning.
“When the agreement says the intent of the parties is to
‘assist and encourage the city’s annexation of all
properties that are identified’ on the map, the language
says it all. It’s very clear what the city’s intent
is,” says Parsons.
Hoch says that land next to the city may still be developed regardless
of annexation; it just depends on who develops it.
“If the city doesn’t, the county will,” he
explains. “For people to think that there won’t be
development if the city doesn’t annex, they are fooling
themselves.” 4
Parsons doesn’t believe anyone is a fool. Instead, she and
other FOAV members fear the agreement is writing on the wall because
the city “hasn’t controlled growth.”
“If the city wants to extend water and sewer service to
places that don’t border the city limits, it seems once
they do that it will be irresistible for them to annex,”
she says.
Parsons also adds that FOAV sees this as a way for the city to
expand without resistance from the county, because, according
to state law, the county cannot prevent the city from annexing
land.
But County Commissioner Josh Joswick says that while this is
true, the agreement benefits the city and county; it isn’t
there just so the city can find avenues to grow unfettered.
“It’s as much a document for how land outside the
city would develop as it is a means for allowing annexation,”
he says. “The city’s development standards can be
applied to those areas, and the county benefits because those
properties would be built to a city standard.”
Hoch says that the city has extended water and sewer service
to areas outside the city limits, but it’s because the city
was either asked to provide it or the city wants to have consistent
public utility standards for the future.
When it comes to these types of agreements, Joswick says the
caveat for the city is that it can’t require the county
to adhere to the city’s development standards without some
indication of annexation. Essentially, the city can only work
with the county government with some sort of annexation preparation
– whether it happens or not.
Consequently, Joswick says it’s important for the city
and county to consent to everything in the IGA. He expects more
discussions between the governments before the agreement is finalized.
In the process, City Council and the County Board of Commissioners
will accept public comment on it.
“In theory, this is a great ‘I do,’”
says Joswick. “It’s an attempt to make some sense
of what’s happening in terms of development. The devil is
in the details, of course.”
|
