HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL - SITE PLAN ADVISORY REVIEW - 20-87A - CORRESPONDENCE - TRANSPORTATION ISSUEDeved .nent • ervices
Planning Department
n
City of Fort Collins
June 7, 1988
Lee Hansen
Superintendent of Schools
Poudre School District k-1
2407 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
Dear Mr. Hanson,
On Monday, June 27, 1988, the Planning and Zoning Board of the City of Fort
Collins, conducted a hearing on the site development plan of the proposed 1990
Junior High School. This review was conducted under the provisions of C.R.S.
31-23-209 and C.R.S. 22-32-124. These Statutes extend to the City the right of
review, comment and to make findings of fact as to the location, character and
extent of the proposed junior high school relative to the adopted Master Plan
of the City.
After considering the facts and testimony, the Planning and Zoning Board
stated that the location of the school was appropriate. However, the Board
expressed grave concern that the impacts of the school at this location had not
been satisfactorily addressed in the site development plan. The Board's
findings were that there would not be adequate access, off -site street improve-
ments or sidewalks to accomodate the proposed level of pedestrian and vehicu-
lar activity generated by a junior high school. In accordance with State
Statutes, the Planning and Zoning Board requests that a public hearing on the
matter be held by the Board of Education.
Copies of the minutes of the June meeting and Staff Report are attached
which elucidate the comments and concerns of the Planning and Zoning Board.
The Planning and Zoning Board would like to meet with the Board of Educa-
tion to discuss and resolve these important issues. Please let me know when this
hearing may be scheduled. Thank you for your prompt attention to this
matter.
Sincerely,
Tom Peterson
Planning Director
cc. Members of the Planning and Zoning Board
Steven C. Burkette, City Manager
Mike Davis, Director of Development Services
Joe Frank, Assistant Planning Director
300 LaPorte Avenue - P.O. Box 380 - Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 - (303) 221-6730
ITEM NO. 14
PLANNING AN-D ZONING BOARD MEETING OF June 27,19M
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT: Junior High School 1990 - Site Development Plan - Special Review
#20-87A
APPLICANT: Poudre School District OWNER: Same
2407 LaPorte Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80521
PROJECT PLANNER: Joe Frank
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a proposal for a junior high school on
approximately 20 acres, located on the west side of Seneca Street, north of
Regency Drive, and zoned rip, low density planned residential.
RECOMMENDATION: That the
Planning and Zoning Board review the
pro-
posal and convey
to the School
District that serious concerns exist about
the
adequacy of the
transportation
system to service the proposed junior
high
school. And urge
the School District
to join with the City to develop a
long
lasting agreement
which offers
solutions to problems such as these and others
that arise during
the planning
and development of school sites within
the
community.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Planning and Zoning Board is providing com-
ments to the School District in regard to the site location and site development
plan for a new junior high school. The project is required to follow the City's
formal review processes in accordance with C.R.S. 31-23-209 and C.R.S.
22-32-124. These Statutes extend to the City the right of review, comment, and
to make findings of fact as to the location, character and extent of the
proposed junior high school relative to the adopted Master Plan of the City.
The Staff believes that the impacts of the school site at this location have not
been adequately addressed. The subject site does not have adequate access,
off -streets or sidewalks to accommodate the proposed level of student and
vehicular activity that would be generated by a junior high school at the
proposed location. A lasting, mutually satisfying agreement needs to be
developed between the School District and the City which anticipates these.... ,
issues and offers efficient and economic solutions.
OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT 300 LaPorte Ave. • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, Colorado 80522 • (303) 221.6750
SERVICES, PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Junior High SchS 1990 - 'Ipecial Review #20-87A
P & Z Meeting - May 23, 1988
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background:
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RLP; elementary school under construction (Johnson Elementary School)
S: RLP; vacant (proposed single family residences in the Regency PUD)
E: RLP; farmland (proposed residential uses in the Villages at Harmony
West)
W: RLP; vacant
The subject property was part of a larger development known as the Villages
at Harmony West PUD. The site was originally planned for patio homes and
multiple family units, but that phase of the overall preliminary plan expired a
few years ago. The property is zoned RLP, low density planned residential
with the condition that any development occur only as a PUD.
On May 18, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the Master Plan for
the entire 30 acre site which also consisted of a site development plan for the
elementary school (Johnson). The Planning and Zoning Board indicated to the
School Board that the locations of the two schools were appropriate. However,
at that time the Planning and Zoning Board and Staff expressed considerable
concern regarding the need for the School District to more fully consider
additional access and future street improvements which would be necessary to
accommodate the expected traffic generated by the proposed junior high school.
Furthermore, these issues were to be resolved during the detailed planning
phase (site development plan) of the junior high school. These concerns are
more fully addressed in the "traffic" section of this report.
2. City's Ripht of Review
State Statutes provide two specific references to the City's right of review in
the planning and location of school sites, as follows:
i. Section 22-32-124, C.R.S. as amended, addresses the right of the school
district to construct schools within a municipality and speaks to the extent
to which the municipality may control the location or manner of
construction of such schools. The statute (see attached) specifically limits
the municipalities' participation in the process to a limited right of review
and appeal to the Board of Education.
ii. Section 31-23-209, C.R.S. (attached) provides that no public building shall lse-
constructed or authorized in a city until the location, character and extent
thereof has been submitted for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board.
Junior High School 1990 - S ecial Review #20-87A
P & Z Meeting - May 23, 1988
Page 3
Under Section 31-23-209 C.R.S. the Planning and Zoning Board is obligated to
make finding as to the location, character and extent of the public building
and structure relative to the adopted Master Plan of the City. Such findings
are made in order that- the proposed site and structures shall conform to the
adopted plan of the community.
In addition, Section 22-32-124 C.R.S. calls for the Planning and Zoning Board
to review and comment upon the site development plan for the proposed school
site and, if it desires, "request a public hearing before the board of education
relating to the proposed site location or site development plan" prior to any
construction of structures or buildings. In addition, the Board may review the
details of the site development plan itself. Lastly, staff believes that the School
District is responsible for any impact fees or public improvements to the extent
reasonably necessary to offset the impact of the new school, including, but not
limited to, development fees, street and utility requirements, and off -site
improvements.
We view these laws as both compatible and complimentary. Both statutes
clearly extend to the City the opportunity to review, comment and making
finding upon the site development plan prior to construction of any structure
thereon.
Consequently, the City cannot apply the requirements and criteria of the Land
Development Guidance System in their review of the proposed junior high
school. Furthermore, the City's Division of Building Inspection will not be
issuing permits for construction but will be available for inspection at the
request of the Division of Labor and will apply the standards of the Industrial
Commission of Colorado in its inspection of the school. Some additional items
which the School District is considered not responsible for include plan
processing fees, building permit fees, zoning requirements, subdivision, storm
drainage requirements, building codes and submittal of a Development Agree-
ment.
As mentioned above, the Planning and Zoning Board has approved the location
of the junior high school. However, the Board may still review the details of
the site development plan as to its character and extent of impact on surround-
ing properties and public services and facilities.
3. Land Use
Public schools are considered to be, an appropriate use in the RLP, low density
planned residential district. The proposed junior high school is compatible...
with existing and future residential land uses in the area.
9
a f
Junior High School 1990 - S�ccial Review #20-87A
P & Z Meeting - May 23, 1988
Page 4
4. Design
The school will be approximately 111,000 square feet in floor area and will
accommodate approximately 750 students. Approximately 100 parking spaces
have been provided for employee and visitor usage. Separate auto and bus
drop-off lanes have been provided. Public sidewalks have been installed along
Seneca Street. In addition, sidewalks are being provided between the street and
building at various locations throughout the site.
The junior high school will be one-story, or approximately 15 feet in height,
with the exception of the gymnasium, which will be approximately 30 feet in
height. The exterior materials of the structure will be brick and block
masonry in two -tones. The masonry will be predominantly red and buff col-
ored.
Between the elementary and junior high schools, are planned open areas to be
used for soccer, football and baseball fields. Landscaping is being provided
along Seneca Street and interior to the site. A six foot high security fence
will be provided along the west property line.
The staff believes that the design as proposed is of high quality, is compatible
with the new elementary school, and will set a good example for future devel-
opment in the area.
5. Traffic Concerns
Traffic Study
As part of the "master plan" that was reviewed in 1987, the School District
prepared a Traffic Study (see attached), that analyzed the impact of the
combined elementary/junior high school site. Some general conclusions of the
study are as follows:
i. Approximately 1600 trips per day will be generated for the 180 day school
year (September - May).
ii. Some improvements at the Shields/Harmony intersection are warranted to
improve the flow of traffic.
iii. In the short term, access to the school sites from Seneca Street via;.,
Regency Drive and Wakerobin Lane will be adequate. In the long term,
the connection of Seneca to Horsetooth Road and the construction of
Troutman Parkway between Seneca and Shields will provide "excellent"
access to the site.
I
P & Z Meeting - May 23, 1988
Page 5
iv. In the long term, signals will be required at the intersections of
Horsetooth/Seneca and Troutman/Shields.
The School District has constructed Seneca Street to collector standards as it
abuts the school sites; Regency Drive to collector standards between Seneca
Street and Wakerobin Lane, and; Wakerobin Lane to local street standards
between Regency and the existing portions of Wakerobin Lane. In addition,
the property owners south of the school site have constructed Regency Drive
between Wakerobin Lane and Harmony Road to collector street standards.
Analysis
During the consideration of the Master Plan and site development plan for the
elementary school site, the staff and Board expressed concern regarding
vehicular and pedestrian access to the future junior high school. While the
improvements to Seneca St., Wakerobin Lane, and Regency Drive were adequate
to handle the short term requirements of the elementary school, the Board and
staff recognized that additional study was needed to determine the traffic
impacts of the future junior high school. The demands of a junior high school
are much different and much more intensive than those of an elementary
school.
Subsequently, the Staff's of both the City and School District met on several
occasions to discuss these issues. However, no satisfactory agreement has been
arrived at. Rather, the following concerns remain unresolved:
a. Access. The staff does not agree with the findings of the Traffic Study
that adequate access to the junior high school can be provided from Shields
Street via only Wakerobin Lane and Regency Drive. Furthermore, the staff
does not agree with the study when it indicates that access from Horsetooth
Road via Seneca Street "is least acceptable considering street construction,
anticipated school service area and ease of access".
In our evaluation of the operation of the proposed junior high school, Wakero-
bin Lane and Regency Drive alone will not provide efficient nor safe access -
way to the school site. In reviewing the 1990 service areas for the junior high
school, approximately 70 - 75% of the driving, walking and bicycling traffic
will be generated from destinations north, northeast and northwest of the
school site. Students living within 1.5 miles of the school will be required to
walk, bicycle or be transported to school by private automobiles. Students living
outside of this area will be bused. This traffic will use Shields Street as the
major route to the junior high school.
Wakerobin Lane is located approximately 4000 feet south of the Horsetooth
Road and is an inconvenient and protracted route to the school site. Wakerobin
Lane was planned and designed as a local residential street providing driveway
entrances to abutting homes and residences. Wakerobin Lane was never
intended to serve the more intensive traffic carrying and
� I
Junior High School 1990 - Special Review #20-87A
P & Z Meeting - May 23, 1988
Page 6
bicycle/walking function that the School District is now proposing.
In addition, extensive portions of Shields Street between Wakerobin Lane and
Horsetooth Road are not fully improved to arterial standards and do not have
adequate bicycle or pedestrian facilities to reasonably and safely accommodate
the traffic generated by the junior high school.
Therefore, the impacts of allowing the junior high school to be completed
without adequate access are:
A large portion of the student and bicycling population will have no other
alternative than to travel to and from school on unimproved routes.
ii. As a result, a larger number of students will be transported to school in
private automobiles beyond that normally expected of junior high schools;
iii. And, as past experience has shown, parents will be very concerned about
who is responsible for providing a safe route to school and the City and
the School District will end up in the center of the controversy.
The staff realizes that the properties surrounding the proposed school sites will
eventually develop and that the School District should not be burdened with
constructing the entire neighborhood street system. However, the School
District has responsibility for assuring that students, faculty and parents have a
safe way to school. Likewise, the City recognizes its responsibility to assure
that its public facilities are adequate and safe to sustain the new schools
within fiscal, planning and time constraints.
Other alternative accessways have been identified which could provide relief,
for instance, the City's Master Street Plan indicates the future extension of
Seneca Street to Horsetooth Road, and; the extension of Troutman Parkway
between Shields Street and Seneca Street. These streets have been planned and
designed as collector streets and are intended to filter traffic and pedestrians
from abutting local residential streets and conduct this traffic to arterials or to
local generators such as schools and parks. The installation of either of these
road improvements needs to be given further consideration by both the City
and the School District as part of the development of the junior high school.
These issues need to be resolved at this stage of the planning process rather
than waiting until problems occur for either the City or the School District.
b. Off -site street improvements. Extensive portions of the surrounding street
system are missing necessary improvements including adequate street width;
pavement thickness; sidewalks, and; bicycle lanes. In order to fully analyze
the needed improvements in the area to accommodate the proposed junior high
school the following additional information is needed:
Junior
P & Z
Page 7
High School 1990 - Special Review #20-87A
Meeting - May 23, 1988
i. Soils test on Shields Street from Wakerobin Lane to Horsetooth Road to
check for material thickness and structural strength.
ii. A recommendation from an engineering consultant on improvements needed
to carry additional traffic loading on Shields Street using 20 year design
life.
iii. Bus operation data i.e., number of buses each day with times and bus
routes anticipated.
This information has not been forthcoming. The staff believes that the full
impact of constructing the junior high without the provision of necessary
facilities is not fully understood. Without adequate and safe facilities, serious
safety problems will occur. Complete and adequate documentation has not been
provided to determine the extent of needed improvements, if any, to safely and
conveniently handle bus and vehicle traffic. And again, these issues need to be
resolved through a cooperative effort between the City and the School District
before construction of the junior high commences.
RECOMMENDATION
The construction of safe, economic, efficient and appropriately located public
schools are desires of both the School District and the City. Likewise, the City
and the School District share mutual goals of assuring that its public services
and facilities are adequate to serve the needs of its users.
The demand for more educational services and facilities is likely to increase as
our urban area expands, population increases, old facilities become outmoded
and public expectations rise. With the increasing demands placed upon public
budgets, intelligent planning of schools is essential. The partnership between the
District and the City grows more critical with each new student and each new
school.
These desires and goals have not been realized in the proposed junior high
school. Rather, serious access problems and street improvement issues remain
unresolved: A satisfactory agreement has not been achieved.
Clearly, the problems encountered with this school are not new but rather had
been identified during the planning process for other schools in the community.
And if these issues remain unsolved, same or similar problems are likely to
occur in the future. The staff believes that a lasting, mutually satisfying
agreement which anticipates and offers solutions to these issues needs to be
developed between the District and the City.
The Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Board convey to the
School District the access, off -site improvements and sidewalks concerns
described herein. And, urge the School Board to join with the City to develop
1/
Junior High School 1990 - Special Review #20-87A
P & Z Meeting - May 23, 1988
Page 8
a lasting agreement which offers solutions to problems such as these and others
that arise during the planning and development of school sites within the
community. Lastly, the Planning and Zoning Board should express their
encouragement, and full support for the successful and timely completion of
the negotiations that are currently underway between the School Board and the
City on these issues.
ITEM POUDRE R-1 JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL
1990
NUMBER 20-87a
31-23-209 Government - Municipal 268 269 Planning and Zoning
the territory affected and, after the approval by each body, shall be filed
with the county clerk and recorder of each county wherein the territory is
located.
Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1148, § 1.
31-23-209. Legal status of official plan. When the commission has
adopted the master plan of the municipality or of one or more major sections
or districts thereof, no street, square, park or other public way, ground or
open space, public building or structure, or publicly or privately owned
public utility shall be constructed or authorized in the municipality or in
such planned section and district until the location, character, and extent
thereof has been submitted for approval by the commission. In case of disap-
proval, the commission shall communicate its reasons to the municipality's
governing body, which has the power to overrule such disapproval by a
recorded vote of not less than two-thirds of its entire membership. If the
public way, ground space, building, structure, or utility is one the authoriza-
tion or financing of which does not, under the law or charter provisions
governing the same, fall within the province of the municipal governing body,
the submission to the commission shall be by the governmental body having
jurisdiction, and the planning commission's disapproval may be overruled
by said governmental body by a vote of not less than two-thirds of its
membership. The failure of the commission to act within sixty days from
and after the date of official submission to it shall be deemed approval.
Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1148, § 1.
City in advisory role. There is nothing in
§ 31-23-206 and this section which indicates a
legislative intent to broaden a city's authority.
They place ultimate governmental authority
in matters pertaining to land use in unincor-
porated areas in the county. In effect, a city is
given only an advisory role. Robinson v. City
of Boulder, 190 Colo. 357, 547 P.2d 228
(1976).
Amendment to plan not subject to refer-
endum powers. Being advisory only, an
amendment to a municipal master plan is not
legislation which is subject to the referendum
powers reserved to the people. Margolis v.
District Court, 638 P.2d 297 (Colo. 1981).
31-23-210. Publicity - travel - information - entry. The commission has
power to promote public interest in and understanding of the plan and to
that end may publish and distribute copies of the plan or any report and
may employ such other means of publicity and education as it may deter-
mine. Members of the commission may attend city planning conferences,
meetings of city planning institutes, or hearings upon pending municipal
planning legislation, and the commission may pay, by resolution, the reason-
able traveling expenses incident to such attendance. The commission shall
recommend, from time to time, to the appropriate public officials programs
for public structures and improvements and for the financing thereof. It shall
be part of its duties to consult and advise with public officials and agencies,
public utility companies, civic, educational, professional, and other organiza-
tions, and with citizens in relation to protecting and carrying out the plan.
The commission has the right to accept and use gifts for the exercise of its
within a reasonable length of time, such available information as
sion may require for its work. The commission and its meml
and employees, in the performance of their functions, may en
land and make examinations and surveys and place and maint:
marks and monuments thereon. In general, the commission has
as are necessary to enable it to fulfill its functions, to promo
planning, or to carry out the purposes of this part 2.
Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1148, § 1.
31-23-211. Zoning. Where a commission is establish act
the provisions of this part 2, it has and shall exercise alMf th,
rights granted to the zoning commission by part 3 of this article
is a zoning commission in existence at the time that a commissi
the zoning commission shall deliver to the commission all of it
shall thereafter cease to exercise the powers and prerogatives pry
cised by it; except that, if the existing zoning commission is ne:
tion of a zoning plan, the governing body of the municipality n
by resolution, the transfer of the zoning commission's powers
tion of the zoning plan; but in no event shall the period of such 1
exceed six months from the date of the creation of the commis
in this section shall invalidate or otherwise affect any zoning I
tion or any action of the zoning commission adopted or taker
creation of a commission.
Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1149, § 1.
C.J.S. See 62 C.J.S., Municipal Corpora-
tions, § 672. 0
31-23-212. Jurisdiction. The territorial jurisdiction of an,
over the subdivision of land includes all land located within the
ries of the municipality and, limited only to control with referet
street plan and not otherwise, also includes all land lying with
of the boundaries of the municipality not located in any other
except that in the case of any such land lying within five t
than one municipality, the jurisdiction of each commission s!
at a boundary line equidistant from the respective municipal
municipalities. The jurisdiction over the subdivision of Ian(
boundary of a municipality shall apply equally to any municipa
Source: R & RE, L. 75, p. 1149, § 1.
31-23-213. Scope of control. When a commission has ad(
street plan for the territory within its subdivision control, or an
as provided in section 31-23-208, and has filed a certified cop
in the office of the county clerk and recorder of the county
)r such part is located, no plat of a subdivision of lat
22-32-124 Education 76 177 School Dictr;rr Rnards -Powers and Duties 22-32-127
or other building beyond the territorial limits of the district except in
ance with the provisions of section 22-32-109 (1) (v).
Source: (2) amended, L. 75, p. 786, § 5; (1) amended, L. 77, p. 1050, §
(2) amended, L. 79, p. 783, § 3.
22-32-124. Building codes - zoning - planning. (1) Prior to t e isi.
tion of land or any contracting for the purchase thereof, the board of educa.
tion shall consult with and advise in writing the planning commission, or
governing body if no planning commission exists, which has jurisdiction over
the territory in which the site is proposed to be located in order that the
proposed site shall conform to the adopted plan of the community insofar
as is feasible. In addition, the board of education shall submit a site develop-
ment plan for review and comment thereon to such planning commission
or governing body prior to construction of .any structure or building. The
planning commission or governing body may request a public hearing before
the board of education relating to the proposed site location or site develop-
ment plan. The board of education shall thereafter promptly schedule the
hearing, publish at least one notice in advance of the hearing, and provide
written notice of the hearing to the requesting planning commission or gov-
erning body. Prior to the acquisition of land for school building sites or con-
struction of any buildings thereon, the board of education also shall consult
with the Colorado geological survey regarding potential swelling soil, mine
subsidence, and other geologic hazards and to determine the geologic suit.
ability of the site for its proposed use. All buildings and structures shall be
erected in conformity with the standards of the division of labor. Nothing
in this subsection (1) shall be construed to limit the authority of a board
of education to finally determine the location of public schools within the
district and erect necessary buildings and structures.
(2) (a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 8-1-107 (2) (d), C.R.S.,
upon request of the division of labor after consulting with the affected board
of education, the appropriate building department of a county, town, city,
or city and county wherein a building or structure has been erected pursuant
to subsection (1) of this section may make the necessaryinspections to deter-
mine that such building or structure has been erected. in conformity with
the standards of the division of labor and, if such building or structure p
in conformity; shall issue the necessary certificate of occupancy prior to use
of the building or, structure by the school district. A fee may be charged
for such inspections upon approval of the board of education, if the amount
of the fee is determined on the basis of the direct cost of providing such
service. If the division of labor after consulting with the affected board of
education requests inspections by the building department, such inspections
shall be in lieu of any inspections made by the division of labor; except
that this subsection (2) shall not be construed to relieve the division of labor
of the responsibility to conduct such inspections if the appropriate county,
town, city, or city and county agency does not conduct the inspections. AnY
county, town, city, or city and county conducting such inspections shall also
be authorized to annually reinspect the building or structure to assure that
it is maintained and operated in accordance with the fire code adopted
the director of the division of labor. The inspecting entity shall cooperate
with the affected school district in carrying out the duties of this section.
(b) If the division of labor conducts the necessary inspection to determine
that a building or structure erected pursuant to subsection (1) of this section
has been erected in conformity with the standards of the division of labor,
it shall charge a fee of two hundred dollars for such inspection: Any fees
collected by the division of labor pursuant to this paragraph (b) shall be
transmitted to the state treasurer, who shall credit the same to the public
safety inspection fund created pursuant to section 8-1-151, C.R.S.
(3) The county, town, city, city and county, or fire protection district
providing fire protection service for the buildings and structures of a school
district may annually inspect such buildings and structures to assure than,
they are maintained in accordance with the fire code adopted by the director
of the division of labor unless the board of education of the district has
contracted for such inspections to be conducted by a person qualified to
conduct such inspections by reason of experience, training, or certification.
Source: Amended, L. $1, p. 1064, § 1; (1) R & RE and (2) amended, L.
84, pp. 599, 600, § § 1, 2; (2) amended, L. 85, p. 338, § 6; amended, L.
815, p. 499, § 118.
22-32-125. Applicability of article.
Repealed, L. 75, p. 788, § 13, effective July 1, 1975.
22-32-126. Principals - employment and authority.
Principal has the authority to adopt policies,
les, and regul#tioni to implement school
licy. DeKoevend v. Board of Educ., 653
2d 743 (Colo. App. 1982), rev'd on other
Funds, 688 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1984).
The administrative responsibilities set forth
this section could not be carried out if the
incipal was unable to promulgate rules and
force them. DeKoevend v. Board of Educ.,
653 P.2d 743 (Colo. App. 1982), rev'd on
other grounds, 688 P.2d 219 (Colo. 1984).
Principal has authority to supervise teachers.
Taking the steps necessary to supervise and
insure the effectiveness of teachers is within
the authority delegated to the principal by the
school board and thus constitutes a legitimate
exercise of his power. Thompson v. Board of
Educ., 668 P.2d 954 (Colo. App. 1983).
22-32-127. Leases or installment purchases for periods exceeding one year.
1) (a) Whenever the term of an installment purchase agreement or a lease
greement with an option to purchase under which a school district becomes
ntitled to the use of undeveloped or improved real property or equipment
or a school site, building, or structure is greater than one year, the obligation
to make payments under the agreement shall constitute an indebtedness of
the district.
(b) Under any installment purchase agreement or under any lease or
rental agreement, with or without the option to purchase, or similar agree-
ment pursuant to which the subject real or personal property is used by the
school district for school district purposes, title shall be considered to have
assed to the school district at the time- of execution of the agreement for
urposes of determining liability for or exemption from property taxation.
(2) No board of education shall enter into an installment purchase agree-
Ment of the type which constitutes an indebtedness unless such agreement