Developers ask council to approve two new parks districts; council raises equity and maintenance questions

Developers presented service plans for two parks and recreation overlay districts — Freestyle and Meadow Works — that would lie on top of existing metropolitan districts in Banning Lewis Ranch and would add local mill levies to finance park construction and ongoing maintenance.

Why it matters: The requests, allowed under Colorado Revised Statutes for special districts, would let developers build and maintain neighborhood and community parks in perpetuity using local property tax mills. Council members asked whether the approach could deepen funding inequities between new master‑planned communities and older neighborhoods.

Allison Stocker of the Land Use Review Division reviewed the statutory process and said both requests would return to council for final action on March 25. Each proposed parks and recreation district would act as an overlay for multiple existing metro districts and requests the city allow an increase beyond the model service plan’s typical caps: an added 5 mills for debt service and 5 mills for operations and maintenance.

Freestyle Park and Recreation District covers roughly 879 acres between Huber Road and Barnes Road inside Banning Lewis Ranch and seeks a pre‑debt authorization of $32,000,000 and an initial operating budget of about $50,000 for year one. Meadow Works Parks and Recreation District would cover about 117 acres and seeks a pre‑debt authorization of $4,000,000 with a similar first‑year operating budget estimate.

Tim Seibert of Norwood Development Group, representing petitioners, said the districts would finance, build and maintain neighborhood and community parks within the developments: “We would... own and maintain all neighborhood parks and community parks for long as the district exists, which is into perpetuity with the 5 mills for o and m,” he told council. Seibert said the approach is meant to deliver parks earlier in build‑out and to provide stable funding for long‑term maintenance rather than relying on city capital budgets.

Council members questioned the broader equity effects. Council member Hensham asked why developers need additional mills beyond existing parkland‑dedication requirements; Seibert said the overlay provides long‑term maintenance funds and allows community parks to be financed earlier in a development where city funds may not be available. Council members noted the city’s current system relies heavily on sales tax and general funds that are volatile and observed that special‑district funding leaves some neighborhoods less inclined to vote for citywide park taxes in the future.

Parks Director Britt Haley told council the city supports creative solutions for building and maintaining parks and emphasized that special districts are one of several approaches used by municipalities; she also noted some special districts report maintenance revenue shortfalls and that the city has not found a single “perfect” funding solution for all parks citywide.

Ending: The service plans will return for final action at the March 25 meeting. Council members asked petitioners and staff to supply more detail about long‑term maintenance obligations, public access rules, and how the districts’ contributions would interact with city parks planning and funding.