Burland Ranch Sport Stadium update

A friend told me that the Board voted down drilling a well "for now" 4 to 2.

mtntrekker wrote: just opened this thread. sorry i missed the meeting. would be interested in knowing how it went. thank you.

Don't waste your time trying to understand what Tilt writes or asking for a clarification - jibberish / hilly slang is all he/she knows.

Yes, the L&WTFB did vote down the test well, 4-2, for now. They and the BOCC have asked time and time again for a maintenance management plan from PCLL. Thus far, that hasn't happened.

What I hear from a PCLL person is that these grants don't allow for funds for maintenance. I think they want PC to pick it up.

I also heard that cooler heads from PCLL showed up for the meeting.

The homeowners are against the well, but they are not against Little League or safety. The issue with safety is that for two seasons, the homeowners have requested evidence of all the safety issues asserted by PCLL, the infamous "Bailey Bounce," etc., and that hasn't happened. PCLL members did not know of the ASAP safety program LL has, that they don't need to participate in, but has excellent ideas for tracking safety issues.

I have never heard either BOCC or L&WTFB ask for evidence. Our tax dollars are being spent on someone's word and it isn't back up by evidence. Do you want YOUR tax dollars spent on items for which there is no proof the money needs to be spent?

PCLL has had 2 seasons to implement a simple plan, whereby forms are filled out for every injury, by age, position, place on the field, etc. One parent of one of the teams can be in charge of that and turn it over to the coach. Hasn't been done. In fact, one PCLL board member wanted to know how the homeowners would know any of it was true.

Hmmmm, opens up the idea that perhaps there are PCLL people who shouldn't be touting the LL line, if they are thinking about "cooking the books" on safety.

No not against little PCLL. Its a huge(HUGE)stadium they want---NO.
The homeowners do not want a huge stadium. They say current ballfield
noisey enough but OK--knew that when moved in.
So PCLL stays out at CR72 plenty of room.

Third try last 15 years. Keep ears open. Constanly check with
water board to see if any drill permits started. Not over yet.

---

Willy Billy, apparently you as a non resident -no understand.
Requires IQ over 12 billy. Are we lonely billy.

thank you for the updates.

did l&wtfb indicate any further meetings?

I believe their meetings are typically once a month. But, if they don't have anything to discuss, they may skip a month - again, I think.

They also may call meetings as need, meaning more frequently. I wasn't there, just heard about it, but will find out this info.

Now that English is being used instead of gibberish, I do want to bring up an issue about this proposed Ball field expansion. Most of the horse community tried desperately to get involved to stop this whole project a year ago to preserve the integrity and the safety of the arena. Baseball and horses do not mix. Many of us applied to the BOCC to get applications in to join the Arena Board, mine, for one, was NEVER replied to from either John Tighe, Dick Hodges, or Mark Dowaliby and every time I have encountered them I have asked for an explanation. They have always attempted to just avoid the question.

We have never been against improving the ball fields, just against the expansion which would put people in danger due to expanding to the arena side of CR72. Somehow over the years, the equestrian community has been able to use the arenas even during the noise and activity on the Ball Fields, without injuries that I know of.

And let us not forget that the original plan had the horse arena moved into the bog with 4 ball fields in the equestrian area.

I have a feeling that that is still part of the Phase 3 plan, but since I haven't seen these plans, cannot say definitely.

Park County Land and Water Trustbenefits
County sales tax revenues are used exclusively to accomplish projects that are consistent with the program mission. For several years the Trust Fund was dedicated almost entirely to mounting a (legal and scientific) strategy to defeat the proposed South Park Conjunctive Use Project (SPCUP). If the project had gone forward, it would have removed ground water from South Park's aquifers and transported it via the South Platte River to a growing Front Range city. In the process many wells, springs, and wetlands in Park County would almost certainly have dried up on a permanent basis. Following the successful defeat of SPCUP, the Trust Fund is now used primarily to purchase conservation easements on ranches containing priority water rights and resources, restore many miles of degraded stream channel, and acquire public fishing leases on private creeks and rivers. The Trust Fund also serves as a deterrent to future conjunctive use projects that may attempt deplete or otherwise impair Park County's remaining water resources and associated habitat.

Going by what thier benefits page states, seems like they are wielding a two edge sword. They need to follow thier own mission statement

Your argument has been pointed out to them many times but thanks for stating it so clearly.