WSP10698

• File Number: 8443
• Description: Narrows Unit
• State: CO
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 3/1/1976
• Author: US DoI BoR
• Title: Comments and reviews received and circulated by the Colorado State Clearinghouse regarding the Final Environmental Impact Statement
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: EIS

~ I
!

.'

-2-

"

. .
,I . ~

p

0287

(3) Consolidation, like reorganizatio~ Is fairly ,complex and
.tends to place considerable responsibility on one school district
"hieh assumes the responsibilities of a county school planning
committee if none exists in the county, as is the case in
Morgan County.

.(There is a fourth process, Dissolutiom and annexation of districts,
C.R.S. 1973, 22-30-135, which does not Avpear to be a feasible
solution to the problem at h~nd.)

2. "Will the students of the school district not affected by the project be able
to attend a school of their choice?"

This question assumes the Weldon Valley School District continues to exist.
However, even if the district disappears as a corfOrate body, by whatever
process, the question must be answered in the negative. Colorado statutes
are quite clear that a local district must provide educational opportunities
for all students who reside within its boundaries, and that the local
board determines places of attendance for pupils. For students who reside
elsewhere, the local board may, at its own discretion, grant permission
for such attendance.

Should the district grant such permission to attenn, it also has discretionary
powers to set a tuition charge, the amount of whic~ is not limited by
statute. If the district of residence of the student agrees to pay
tuition to the district of attendance, the distric~ of residence is limited
in its tuition payment to 1207. of the receiving di;trict's'operating costs
for the previous year. If the district of residen,c refuses to pay tuiti~n
or tuition charges exceed the 1207. limitirtion, the total or excess tuition
is the responsibility of the student's parent/guar.ian.

3. "Who will pick up the bond indebtedness of $286,000?"

Any bonded indebtedness includes both principal ant the interest thereon.
For example, as of January 1, 1976 the h'eldon Vall,,' School District's
bonded indebtedness included $273,000 in principal and $162,187 in interest
for a total of $435,187, a far cry from $286,000 (tlle principal indebtedness
on January 1, 1975.) As long as any bonded indebt~ness remains, the
yearly obligation remains the responsibility of th~ property owners of the
taxable property within the district. Should propEny be annexed' from one
district to another, the proportionate obligation ~t the time of annexation
shall continue to be collected until the obligatio" has been satisfied. This
means that the' property owner of any annexed territary not only retains
his obligation in the old district hut also imruedio[ely assumes his share
1n th~ annexing district. ;he total mill levy which may be set annually
to meet outstanding bonded indebtedness is not limited by statute and shall
be set by the county commissioners if the local booed of education fails to
do so.

4. "Will the land owners not affected by the project hav, their part of the
indebtedness removed from their land when the school is hundated?"

While lIny bonded indebtedness remains, they will'net be relieved; in

.