The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20091028RESOLUTION RE: REQUIREMENT FOR SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR QUINQUENNIAL FINDINGS OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE FOR BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS NOS. 1 AND 2 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, Section 32-1-1101.5(1.5), C.R.S., states that a "board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality that has adopted a resolution of approval of [a] special district pursuant to Section 32-1-204.5 or Section 32-1-204.7, C.R.S., may require the board of such special district to file an application for a quinquennial finding of 'reasonable diligence'," and WHEREAS, upon hearing the matter, the Board approved the Consolidated Service Plan for Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2, by Resolution dated July 21, 1999, and WHEREAS, the Board has received a letter dated February 1, 2009, from Jeffrey T. Hare, requesting quinquennial findings of reasonable diligence for Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2; a copy of said letter being attached hereto as Exhibit "A," and WHEREAS, the Board deems it advisable to require that the Boards of Directors of Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2 submit to the Board of County Commissioners, within sixty (60) days of receiving a copy of this Resolution, applications for quinquennial findings of reasonable diligence for Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2, which shall include the information listed below, using the forms attached hereto as Exhibits "B" and "C." NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Board hereby requires that the Boards of Directors of Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2 submit to the Board of County Commissioners, within sixty (60) days of receiving a copy of this Resolution, applications for quinquennial findings of reasonable diligence for Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2, which shall include the following information: 1. A listing of the amount of the each District's authorized and unissued general obligation debt, any current or anticipated plan to issue such debt, and a copy of the District's last audit or application for exemption from audit. 2. Details regarding the ownership status and level of completion of each platted lot located within the Districts, using the form attached hereto as Exhibit "B." ea : dm) asiot, //a 2009-1028 SD0001 REQUIREMENT FOR SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS FOR QUINQUENNIAL FINDINGS OF REASONABLE DILIGENCE FOR BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS NOS. 1 AND 2 PAGE 2 3. Details and all significant assumptions regarding each District's projected revenues and expenses for the years 2009 through 2012, for those items listed on and using the form attached hereto as Exhibit "C." 4. The Districts' position as to whether or not authorized, but not yet issued, bonds should remain authorized. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 29th day of April, A.D., 2009. ATTEST: ateuf i Weld County Clerk to the BY. Deputy Clerk to the Boa APPR VEli A ounty Attorney Date of signature. 5-1-09 ..BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS -WE`LD,` UNT OLORADO Wi am F. Garcia, Chair ouglas ' ademach: r, Pro-Tem ceel E. Long ara Kirkmeyer elhair 2009-1028 SD0001 Jeffrey T. Hare, CPA CISA CIA 16504 Badminton Rd N Platteville, CO 80651 February 11, 2009 Ms. Barbara Kirkmeyer Mr. Sean Conway Mr. Bill Garcia Mr. David Long Mr. Douglas Rademacher Weld County Board of County Commissioners 915 Tenth Street P. O. Box 758 Greeley CO 80632 Re: Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District Dear Esteemed Commissioners, I am a resident of Pelican Lake Ranch outside of Platteville and as such am a member of the Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District (the "District"). The District filed a service plan in 1999 under which it currently operates. On behalf of many residents of our community, I respectfully request that the BOCC request a quinquennial review of the financing plan of the Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District. As of December 31, 2007, according to the audited financial statements, the authorized by unissued debt for our District is $29 million (see excerpt from 2007 audited financial statements). C.R.S. Section 32-1-1101.5(1.5) states "the board of county commissioners ...that has adopted a resolution of approval of the special district pursuant to section 32-1-204.5 or 32-1-204.7 may require the board of such special district to file an application for a quinquennial finding of reasonable diligence." The service plan on file last approved by the BOCC was approved in 1999, so I believe the statutes would allow you to request that a quinquennial review of the financing and service plan of the District be performed. In this letter I will lay out evidence why I believe that the authorized unissued general obligation debt should be revoked per paragraph 2(a)(II) of 32-1-1101.5(1.5). This paragraph states that that the BOCC may "Determine that the implementation of the service plan or financial plan will not result in the timely and reasonable discharge of the special district's general obligation debt and that such implementation will place property owners at risk for excessive tax burdens to support the servicing of such debt. If the board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality makes such a finding, it shall deny a continuation of the authority of the board of the special district to issue any remaining authorized general obligation debt." The unissued, but authorized bonds should be revoked based on the following: • Insufficient tax base to support an additional $29 million in bonds • Based on sales pace of the past 5.5 years, there are 20-40 years of developed lots in inventory • Current income is sufficient to support the replacement of lots, if necessary EXHIBIT "A" Acz)9 -/ca2 Insufficient tax base to support an additional $29 million in bonds The service plan filed in 1999 Exhibit C called for 724 homes to be built in our community by the end of 2007. To date, only 66 lots have been sold to the public with approximately 55 homes built and 11 vacant lots in our community. The 1999 financing plan called for a tax base based on 724 homes which hasn't materialized. The failure of the developer to meet sales projections put forth in the financing plan accompanying the1999 service plan has left our community with a fraction of the assessed valuation and tax base project by the District in the financing plan. Many of these years (99 —05) were phenomenal growth years for Weld County. Instead of having 724 homes as projected, we have approximately 55 lots with homes on them. Based on sales pace of the past 5.5 years, there are 20-40 years of developed lots in inventory When the developer requested that Filing II be approved by the BOCC in August 2003, there were 57 lots sold to the public. Since August 2003 (5.5 years) approximately 10 lots have been sold, at least 4 of these lots have been sold to existing homeowners who have no intention of building on these lots. This means that only 6 lots have been sold to the public outside our community since August 2003, a pace just over 1 lot per year. Currently there are 40 lots that are developed yet unsold and still owned by the developer. This represents approximately 40 years of inventory based on the sales pace of the recent 5.5 years. Further, projected economic conditions over the next few years with the US economy in a deep recession leave little hope that the sales pace will pick up. Current income is sufficient to support the replacement of lots, if necessary Fortunately for our community, there are many gas wells that have produced a decent amount of income to offset the much slower than expected sales pace and much than projected lower tax base. If you summarize the projected costs for Filing No 1 (see enclosed summary), the costs per lot is estimated to be approximately $19,746. Capital expenditures over the past three years have been at a rate of $448,747/year. Thus, the current income should prove to be more than adequate to replace lots sold from inventory should the pace of sales justify it. Conclusion Apart from our community living with the burden of $1.4 million in outstanding bonds, we live with the burden of an additional $29 million in authorized unissued bonds. We believe it is time to revoke these bonds. When the economy turns around, the District should resubmit a financing plan supported by the economic conditions at that time. We respectfully request that you ask the District to justify the 1999 financing plan in a quinquennial review. We believe you will likely come to the same conclusions as we have. Additional Note I have enclosed an excerpt from a newsletter issued by the Metro District in June 2008. I copied page 4 and highlighted a paragraph. "This structure has two of give Board seats in District One held by community residents. This homeowner/resident participation in district governance has been so successful that the Board is considering increasing the number of the seats on the Board." I thought you might find this comment interesting given the fact that all Metro District seats are subject to public elections via Title 1 and Title 32 C.R.S. Respectfully Submitted, 94, Jeffrey T. Hare, CPA CIA CISA CC: Dick Lyons - Bernard, Lyons, Gaddis, and Kahn PLR Recall Committee: Michael Welch, Angie Powell, Rod Gantenbein State Senator Morgan Carroll Bruce Barker Enclosures: Excerpts from 2005, 2006, and 2007 audited financial statements 1999 Service Plan Exhibit C: Build Out Schedule, Assessed Valuation projections Excerpt from Michie law library re: section 32-1-11101.5 Exhibit B Filing No 1 Cost Recap Capital Improvements Recap Excerpt from Metro District Newletter—June 2008 Michie's Legal Resources hup://www.michie.com/colorado_print/IpEndll/cocode/53a84/53aa1/5.. For the constitutionality of former § 32-4-124 under § 25 of art. II, Cob. Const., see Perl-Mack Civic Ass'n v. Bd. of Dirs. of Baker Metropolitan Dist., 140 Cob. 371, 344 P.2d 685 (1959). Test as to whether delay in issuance of bonds is fatal is reasonableness, prudence, or necessity. Where bonds are authorized by an election several years prior to their issuance, delay in their issuance is not fatal, the applicable test being whether the delay is reasonable, prudent, or necessary. Perl-Mack Civic Ass'n v. Bd. of Dirs. of Baker Metropolitan & San. Dist., 140 Cob. 371, 344 P.2d 685 (1959). Debt service decrease not to prevent special election on tax levy. Any decrease in a district's debt service is a separate matter and cannot be offset against the increase in general revenue so as to reduce the percentage increase for purposes of determining whether a special election is required for a proposed tax levy. Stegon v. Pueblo W. Metropolitan Dist., 198 Cob. 128, 596 P.2d 1206 (1979). Applied in Lujan v. Cob. State Bd. of Educ., 649 P.2d 1005 (Cob. 1982). 32-1-1101.5. Special district debt - quinquennial findings of reasonable diligence. (1) The results of special district ballot issue elections to incur general obligation indebtedness shall be certified by the special district by certified mail to the board of county commissioners of each county in which the special district is located or to the governing body of a municipality that has adopted a resolution of approval of the special district pursuant to section 32-1-204.5 or 32-1-204.7 within forty-five days after the election. For all special districts with authorized but unissued general obligation debt approved before July 1, 1995, the results of the election at which such approval was given and a statement of the principal amount of any general obligation debt that has been issued pursuant to such authorization shall be so certified by the special district on or before January 1, 1996. If for any reason certification required by this subsection (1) is not made, the special district shall certify such election results by certified mail no later than thirty days before issuing any general obligation debt to the board of county commissioners or the governing body of such municipality. The special district shall file a copy of any certification made under this subsection (1) with the division of securities created by section 11-51-701, C.R.S., within the applicable time period prescribed in this subsection (1). Whenever a special district incurs general obligation debt, the special district shall submit a copy of the notice required by section 32-1-1604 to the board of county commissioners of each county in which the district is located or the governing body of such municipality within thirty days after incurring the debt. (1.5) In every fifth calendar year after the calendar year in which a special district's ballot issue to incur general obligation indebtedness was approved by its electors, the board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality that has adopted a resolution of approval of the special district pursuant to section 32-1-204.5 or 32-1-204.7 may require the board of such special district to file an application for a quinquennial finding of reasonable diligence. If the board of county commissioners or the governing body of such municipality requires such filing, it shall notify the special district in writing to file an application within sixty days after receipt of the notice. The application shall set forth the amount of the special district's authorized and unissued general obligation debt, any current or anticipated plan to issue such debt, a copy of the district's last audit or application for exemption from audit, and any other information required by the board of county commissioners or the governing body of such municipality relevant to making the determinations under subsection (2) of this section. If required by the board of county commissioners or the governing body of such municipality, subsequent applications shall be filed within sixty days after receipt of such notice but no more frequently than every five years after the prior notice until all of the general obligation debt that was authorized by the election has been issued or abandoned. If a special district is wholly or partially located in a municipality that has not adopted a resolution of approval of such special district pursuant to section 32-1-204.5 or 32-1-204.7, the board of the special district shall file a copy of any such application with the governing body of such municipality, and such municipality may submit comments thereon prior to the determination made under subsection (2) of this section. 97 of 116 10/12/2008 5:23 AM Michie's Legal Resources http://www.michie.corn/coloradoj,rint/IpExtdll/cocode/53a84/53aa1/5... (2) (a) Within thirty days after submittal of any application required under subsection (1.5) of this section, the board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality that has adopted a resolution of approval of the special district pursuant to section 32-1-204.5 or 32-1-204.7 shall accept such application without further action or shall conduct a public hearing within the next thirty days, with no less than ten days prior notice to the district, to consider whether the service plan and financial plan of the district are adequate to meet the debt financing requirements of the authorized and unissued general obligation debt based upon present conditions within the district. Within thirty days after such hearing, the board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality shall: (I) Determine that the implementation of the service plan or financial plan will result in the timely and reasonable discharge of the special district's general obligation debt. If the board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality makes such a fording, it shall grant a continuation of the authority for the board of the special district to issue any remaining authorized general obligation debt. (II) Determine that the implementation of the service plan or financial plan will not result in the timely and reasonable discharge of the special district's general obligation debt and that such implementation will place property owners at risk for excessive tax burdens to support the servicing of such debt. If the board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality makes such a finding, it shall deny a continuation of the authority of the board of the special district to issue any remaining authorized general obligation debt. (III) Determine that the implementation of the service plan or financial plan will not result in the timely and reasonable discharge of general obligation debt and require the board of the special district to submit amendments or modifications to such plans as a precondition to a finding of reasonable diligence; except that nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the board's power to issue refunding bonds in accordance with statutory requirements. (b) The board of county commissioners or the governing body of such municipality shall have all available legal remedies to enforce its determination under paragraph (a) of this subsection (2). (3) The provisions of this section shall apply to all authorized but unissued general obligation debt for each special district organized under this title. All such authorized but unissued debt shall be valid until the board of county commissioners or the governing body of the municipality has made the determination to deny the continuation of such authority pursuant to subsection (2) of this section. (4) Any determination made pursuant to this section is subject to judicial review by a district court. If the court finds the determination is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, the court shall remand the matter to the board of county commissioners or to the governing body of the municipality to hold another hearing with no less than ten days prior notice to the district and for any other further action consistent with the court's direction to avoid the arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable determination. (5) My action to enforce this section except an action brought under subsection (4) of this section shall be initiated only by the board of county commissioners or the governing body of a municipality that has adopted a resolution of approval of the special district pursuant to section 32-1-204.5 or 32-1-204.7 and before any bonds are issued as authorized by law. (6) Any determination made under this section before July 1, 1995, is hereby validated, unless decided otherwise in a legal proceeding instituted to challenge the determination. Any application for a quinquennial finding of reasonable diligence filed by a special district that is pending on July 1, 1995, and any subsequent application filed by a special district on or after July 1, 1995, is subject to this section. Source: L. 91: Entire section added, p. 792, § 20, effective June 4. L. 92: (3) amended, p. 970, § 13, effective June 1. L. 95: Entire section amended, p. 124, § 1, effective July 1. L. 96: (1) amended, p. 1772, § 75, effective July 1. L. 2003: (1), (1.5), IP(2)(a), and (5) amended, p. 1317, § 5, effective August 6. 98 of 116 10/12/2008 5:23 AM BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 4 — LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS (CONTINUED) The District's long-term obligations will mature as follows: Year 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013-2017 2018 Principal Interest $ 100,000 $ 110,000 115,000 125,000 135,000 800,000 190,000 $ 1 575 000 $ 706,440 104,160 98,160 91,560 84,200 76,200 238,860 13,300 Total $ 204,160 208,160 206,560 209,200 211,200 1,038,860 203,300 $ 2 281,440 At the following elections, the votes of the District passed questions to increase debt: November 2, 1993 • November 5, 1996 November 3, 1998 November 2, 1999 Debt Increase $ 2,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 6,000,000 $ 20,590,000 Maximum Interest Rate Maximum Annual Property Tax Increase $ 280,000 $ 450,000 $ 900,000 $ — / At December 31, 2007, the District had authorized but unissued indebtedness in the following amounts allocated for the following purposes: Parks and recreation facilities Water facilities Street improvements $ 4,239,000 11,454,000 13,547,000 $ 29,240,000 NOTE 5 — RELATED PARTIES The primary developer of real property in the District is R.E.I. Limited Liability Company (Developer), successor in interest to Beebe Draw Farms, Ltd. Certain members of the Board of Directors are associated with the Developer. The District's 2001 Revenue Note (fully paid in 2007 - see Note 4) was held by an owner of the Developer. The District's 1999 Revenue Note (see Note 4) was held by a previous member of the Board of Directors. The Board member resigned from the Board in June 2003. 13 EXHIBIT C [TABLE 2j ASSESSED VALUATION Year Aggregate Units Assessed Valuation Mill Levy Total Taxes 1. 1998 0 6,449,480 40 257,979 1999 0 6,755,200 40 270,208 2000 0 5,294,884 40 211,795 2001 54 6,131,672 40 245,267 2002 99 6,839,643 40 273,586 2003 164 8,056,316 40 322,253 2004 244 9,692,095 40 387,684 2005 344 11,833,796 40 473,352 2006 444 13,976,637 40 559,065 2007 544 16,159,455 40 646,378 2008 644 18,357,450 40 734,298 2009 724 20,044,125 40 801,765 2010 724 19,847,525 40 793,901 2011 724 19,649,425 40 785,977 2012 724 19,478,600 40 779,144 2013 724 19,274,650 40 770,986 2014 724 18,140,900 40 725,636 2015 724 17,629,400 40 705,176 2016 724 17,629,400 40 705,176 2017 724 17,629,400 40 705,176 2018 724 17,629,400 40 705,176 EXHIBIT C [TABLE 1 Build -out Schedule Year 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 200.5 2006 2007 Number of Units 81 28 62 90 100 100 100 100 63 724 Beebe Draw Farms Metro District Exhibit B Filing No 1 Cost Recap Phase Filing 1- Phase I Filing 1 - Phase 2 Filing 1- Phase 3 Filing 1- Phase 4 Filing 1- Phase 5 Total Estimated Costs. Lots including 10% contingency 32 1,449,920 51 734,537 28 486,077 45 561,036 32 480,609 188 3,712,179 Cost/lot 19,746 Beebe Draw Farms Metro District Capital Improvements Recap Audit Year 2005 2006 2007 Recreation Improvements 473,297 309,455 Streets 50,786 51,139 214,872 Water 59,878 8,766 148,740 Irrigation and landscape 29,309 Average Capital improvement 613,270 59,905 673,067 448,747 BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 2 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2005 NOTE 4— PROPERTY The following is an analysis of changes in property for the year ended December 31, 2005: By Classification Land Roads Water distribution facilities Offsite water facilities Water capacity Recreation facilities Irrigation and landscape Less accumulated depreciation Balance at January 1, 2005 $ 1,482,975 2,324,910 1,074,777 300,000 615,260 1,463,275 39,349 7,300,546 (936,376) $ 6,364,170 Additions $ — 50,786 59,878 473,297 29,309 -611,170 (135,081) $ 478,189 $ Retirements Balance at December 31, 2005 $ 1,482,975 2,375,696 1,134,655 300,000 615,260 1,936,572 68,658 7,913,816 (1,071,457) $ 6,842,359 Depreciation expense for the year 2005 :s $135,081. Water system capacity is reduced as tap connections are sold by District No. 1. NOTE 5 — INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1 In order to implement the Service Plan, the District entered into an intergovernmental agreement with District No. 1. The agreement remains in full force and effect until such time as each of the terms and conditions have been performed in their entirety or until the agreement is terminated by mutual written agreement by both districts. The District is to own, maintain and construct the facilities benefiting the two districts and is to manage the administration and operations of both districts. District No. 1 is required to levy property taxes of 40 mills on all property within its service area. All revenue remaining after required debt service payments on the 1998 General Obligation Bonds, on the 1999 and 2001 Subordinate Revenue Notes and payment of operating and administrative costs of District No. 1 are to be remitted to the District annually. The District's primary source of revenue will be intergovernmental revenue received from District No. 1. In 2005, operations were funded by intergovernmental revenue in the amount of $559,287 received from District No. 1. 9 BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 2 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS December 31, 2007 NOTE 4— PROPERTY The following is an analysis of changes in property for the year ended December 31, 2007: `)Balance at ' n 1/1 Balance at January 1, _ December 31, By Classification 2007 Addi t ' ns Retirements 2007 Land $ 1,482,975 $ — $ — $ 1,482,975 Roads 2,426,835 21 ;8 — 2,641,707 Water distribution facilities 1,143,421 148,74 1 ! — 1,292,161 Offsite water facilities 300,000 - 300,000 Water capacity 615,260 - - 615.260 Recreation facilities 1 hrigation and landscape 68,658 7,973,721 Less accumulated depreciation (1,237,001) (186,361) - 1,423,362 $ 6,736 720 $ 486,706 $ Depreciation expense for the year 2007 is $186,361. $ 7,223,426 Water system capacity is provided for 179 lots of which 59 have been connected as of December 31, 2007. NOTE 5 —INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1 In order to implement the Service Plan, the District entered into an intergovernmental agreement with District No. 1. The agreement remains in full force and effect until such time as each of the terms and conditions have been performed in their entirety or until the agreement is terminated by mutual written agreement by both districts. The District is to own, maintain and construct the facilities benefiting the two districts and is to manage the administration and operations of both districts. District No. 1 is required to levy property taxes of 40 mills on all property within its service area. All revenue remaining after required debt service payments on the 1998 General Obligation Bonds, on the 1999 and 2001 Subordinate Revenue Notes and payment of operating and administrative costs of District No. 1 are to be remitted to the District annually. 10 June 2008 REI DEVELOPER OVERVIEW by Christine Hethcock, Development Manager As we move into warm, summer months at Pelican Lake Ranch, let's take a moment to reflect on our community and the unique partnership that exists between it and Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District. I say "unique" because the word "partnership" does not usually come to mind when one talks about a special district and the people it serves. Ordinarily, we are more prone to think that a district provides water and roads to its residents and leave it at that. At Pelican Lake Ranc , o c more. While it's true that the metro district exists to provide customary services such as water, roads and basic infrastructure, here at Pelican Lake Ranch we have much more. And that's what sets us apart from other developments along the Front Range and Colorado. We enjoy a beautiful community center, pool, playground and community barbeque. In addition, we are fortunate to have a fishing lake, equestrian facili- ties, acres of open space, walking and horse trails, a nature center, a boat dock and marina. For a complete list of our amenities, please see "Community Facts" on Page 5 of this newsletter. What makes all of this so unique, however, is that all of our amenities have been planned, developed and provided through the joint efforts of Pelican Lake residents and the metro district. It is this partnership that has been extremely important to the overall development of our community, and is arguably one of the most unique partnerships that exists in Colorado between a metro district and the residents it serves. It is equally important to know that at Pelican Lake Ranch, these amenities —and amenities on the drawing board have been provided by the district Pelicm Like Rime $0314 using existing revenues and without increasing debt. Our district is not only fiscally solid, but fiscally responsible as well. We are aggressive in paying down our debt. In 2007, for instance, we retired $500,000 in revenue notes that originally were used to purchase raw water rights to provide community water service. We paid the notes off ahead of schedule. Our remaining debt, in the form of general obli- gation bonds used to provide for and maintain com- munity infrastructure, will be paid off completely in 2018. We are currently half way through our pay- ments. The revenues that enable us to pay for these existing obligations also enable us to look to the future to continue to maintain existing amenities, and to plan for and invest in new community amenities. Most importantly, we are able to do this within our current budget and without increasing debt or raising district taxes to residents. Looking forward, the metro district and the Rec- Continued on Page 4 In this issue Page 2 From the Chairman Pool News Page 3 Amenities Survey Fishing Committee News Page 4 PLR Manager's Report Page 5 Community Facts Page 6 PLR Realtor, Miles Lane New Metro Board Member Page 7 Recreation Committee News Metro Board Members Upcoming Events Page 8 Metro Advisory Committees PLR Manager's Report by DeWayne Colby Since the beginning of 2008, my main project in new amenities for resi- dents has been the rede- fining and vast improve- ments at Lake Christina and the surrounding area. DeWayne Colby, Metro District Property Manager Samson o The dam between the two areas of the lake has been re -enforced with riprap and topped off with black granite to prevent washouts during times of heavy rainfall. The dam level has been raised to accommodate seasonal high waters. o Grading has begun on the new parking lot and area designated for the restroom facilities. ♦ Fishing docks are being installed featuring safety railing and offer enhanced fishing positioning. Our newly completed 18 slot RV Lot is starting t fill up with folks gladly taking advantage of the limited number of first -six -months -free offer. On the west side of Lake Christina, there's still debris left by the ditch riders that will be remove, and cleaned up. MI the equestrian arena gates have new locks, an there's a new water tank at the windmill, which was repaired to provide fresh water for the horse: o Projects I'll be involved with for the rest of the year will include creating the walking trails arounc the lake, a picnic shelter, parking areas, and additional horse trails, to name a few. Enjoy all the diverse amenities already completec and look forward to the new ones on the way! New Fishing Dock Photo courtesy of DeWayne Colby REI Developer Overview, continued from Page 1 reation Advisory Committee are in the design stages of a recreation facility that will provide tennis courts and a multi -purpose sports court (tennis, shuffleboard, basketball, field hockey) and a putting green to be located south of, and adjoining, our pool/playground area. We anticipate this plan to be brought to the District Board for review and approval by mid -summer. It will then go to Weld County for approval of plans and design. We also are in the final design stages for a master -planned equestrian center which will tie into and enhance existing trails and arena facilities. Such a long-term plan would restore a cross-country jumping course adjacent to Lake Christina, as envisioned for Pelican Lake Ranch when it was planned as a major Colorado equestrian center nearly 25 years ago. With these projects on the horizon, it is time again to survey our residents to determine their desires for future amenities and how to prioritize their development. Our last survey, which identified our pool/playground complex as Priority No. 1, was completed in 2003. Finally, we should recognize the current Board structure of our metropolitan district. This structure has two of five Board seats in District One held by community residents, who receive input from the community through a comprehensive series of advisory committees. This homeowner/resident participation in district governance has been so successful that the Board is considering increasing the number of resident seats on the Board. We encour- age residents to become involved and to advise the Board if they are interested in serving. Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District has been, and remains, a leader in Colorado in resident participation in district operations. Beebe era lxrm[ hew lend no development done 1..... fInB 11or Rata T pavingI _ - -- - Seneca no Ag provided " E.yrtae anur4C Pro�rteNB 0ev1b 6ueq Hml EhSk lBiffi BB 4Mu 201 FP1212 1934 1121 1^33 4___ -i39N LILB¢La 154 OwmeA4vi Developer Mall ea e.ne -€!�D+_* _V?1fwFrF I. _ _.. peveloper Rep land, no development t/ I. 3D 4 Ip tl i/ I 1I r b 4 I d did / __ ' -- 1 r r _— aide"'Rowland."" 71-vSa d N/A - Developer Raw land, no development done / I / 1 Rae 4 a aropment done 1/S _101paeloper sp. Raw land, elo N/A _ i N/A 1 _4 __- 1 elo /A l 15 116 loper :Rai Ian er no development a /A IL— "p I 17,Devel, ,Roo, land, no epeeppent a4 "._Raw gadod _ J — _.. 19 Developer a w /A L. /A " Developere a N/A 21 Developer P Na. doss /A N22 _. _ Developer illtave issd, no derelopr„,s, Raw a a- /A pe 1 /A _—_ 29 as", Rae land no development chme ,c/c 26 D a /A Paw Ian development done N/A - - I - -. } _.34 T 1 27 Developer ne, 28 Developer a el 29 Dal, a el pm a land' deneinisiewit 440 N/A N/A x/12 _ - -t I4 - -- 36 DeveinPer et Developer geisha' no en b /A Developer Raw land so a 33 DeVelOper Ilia* ta ne, no development done / N/A 4 34IDeVel.Per 'Raw land. no development 35,0eveloper Rowland. no dealopment done _ C NM / G'en'e. - - naenr iling em no anew [done N/A N/A BadmIntonneu n eloper _116503 All services provided on Rd 16505 - — eti.Deselen-erAll gendeseprovlaM 104567 gistiminton Rd 41 DeveroPer Ail services provbM 1/ _ _ _ a 16506 Pa 43 N/A dam N/A 43 "fade. x r N/A Il6 eX I BadmintonMN45 _— I — _IF:6502 enr N/A '165W6a on Re i 'Id"' / I 4]lioereocer prwme _ 8 Resrdent N/A eoper I evlrn aided so bent N/A I16519Esv 16531 Esser Rd f____ bent Na16513 042 Esser Pea _ _ I re .s"dent N/A 16513Esser PeH fI _ S den! N/A � '. _ _ _ _-. Inn 50 Mnr 55 dent N/A 5ReSident N/A per paid.] 165 e5 u ID per All area prowled '16517 ERd N 99 Deeeloper All services we d 16516 Essa Rd N � W decAl t I 1651 Fs [l eX /A t /A63 .._� { tlenr" 'N/A 6 4 N/A 65 Resident N/A 666, iii,es.,iiddeLdi , pp Resident N/A ddennsetrinlis newt I I 69 Developer All senores p vNetl 1 70 Developer " provided ieppo eefrree„,N IAAS ees 71 DelelOper All urv[expded rim.,Fairbanks Drives 4 72 b All spaces plaided 16493 f"bati Drives _ _ — _---_ - -. ___. • { I Developer Ida 73 Pappas .163934 bid Mei A— ai n tlenr NN/A -_ --�_ IS Resident 1 I —I N/A 76 dam 1 Resident N/n_.... _ 77 tlenr N/A 21 -... _. —� i____ _ ]9 Raid., N/A ea rocer pg penes papaw 14497 on Pas i i ar Resident ,N/A aThescoper Inc reposes prowled 16493 14/0313132243 84 Developer AI senate provided Ili INM86 Re.dentN/A 3ocoolo66et 1 t I Resident x/. 121308001086 —ST INA /A _91 _ /A _— _ —_._. _. Resident 92 Bent /A N/A N/. Iden[ f I F 949n4ent__ } 1649aeae,e Pa _-gt-- _. _ - t _ _ 9Seesdent / z 306001095 _ _ 1_. � _ I - -- — 96 Resident / __. 97 wee, nn prwltlef 16449 boiblry Coon ! 33&339O i6us Wrvnlry<ow 1113[H01PM _ 1 •- "-_ I ICourt —_... 99 provided 10983 Bola, 31 b9W1093 r—__ r F co scsidect / � "col / 1x1369001101 r 102 pn n pr Idea 16486 121 10 __. N Resident a p 1Peres /A F xenkex ww idea IGD Fr6B�Coud v 1 p0P m - INCA r abcer A/ ry - - Bn _.. _. ".— ~ `___.—. A's erv[n er0V4N I'60] be es el ed O[velo �P B 9Mryt 71°961;) m v idea Il6b a61n[enn ] I 1I 22 p P rvkes ',sassier,',sassier,limes BuryP rycourt 1 2,ardent / 113309 / 114 Resident N/A __. i131308001114 _ _— I 315 ReS"d's, N/A 1 116 Resident 'N/A 30600/156 1 _.... I 1 1 117 Developer provided 1 Braley uR "_" 118 Resident / "-" 1118 be ope.d„r Resident /A _ EXHIBIT ''B" 11, ant N/A 123 nyond All xerv�nprwde 1]3 dam 1_ _. D flrnel lot 5,41 I , no development done All temlres provided Including paving Seprees provided, no paving H I IM em.. L 0.1001 [osvcomminstaa126 Deveroper l9Auu p'.w. 125 Re.dent 11116A a hhh a IR/ I 128D 115 Developer laa. land, no dedelopment dor.e 3d, Deaebpm and noecelopmemeone '1 131 Developer ,fl aw land, no derelopment done 4 1327)eveloper Raw land, no d,ebpment 133 Developer Rowland, no developmentILL134 Developer _ hilae: land, no development done _ d pment d Developer rb d 1 136 Developer ,na soe b eel land no development done 139 Idene Rowland, N/A N/A 141 Respdent /A Nam 1e leNwU1R r tat 1_ um_ F __ I Ill.PabentN/P 1a3 Dreb0M services provided —'176409 bmett Road D 144 South 145 Developer ii 16,6 Lisa 10145e15 146 Resident IN/A T bper ii : 15484 Eaav Road South L 140 Developer 16N3 Esser Road South 149 Developer ti '., 16U14sa Roadieuth I 150 Developer 17? 16163 Esser Read south I 151 Developer 1ii . 152 Develop, bi 153 Developer ',Senores pores provided unpaved 154 -Developer pi 155 Developer » Iw Developer__ _ n 157 eAL?r_____ 158 Developer 159 Developer 160 Develop, di 161 Developer 7, 163 -Developer '7? 64 Developer 16 16 16 16610.,.10 per oempsI ie 111rDrveloper ii li3'1Develeper -- -i3 174100001oper i3 lnioerelnper 1761DevelOper 1791Developer 1, Developer jii 16I iorelepe l 18 r lei 1861)eveloPer 1” 41741 77 1ery 0D9oper Iii I?i107 Developer -I„ r 188 Developer Developer emper 1 lip', Developer IL 1. ____ _ .. 1 _. F- . 1 _ l r Beebe Draw Farms Quinquennial Review - projected revenue and expenses Revenue District 1: Lottery Funds Resevoir Lease Other Property Tax Specific Ownership taxes Investment Income District 2: Tap fees/system development fees Lease revenue User and pool fees Investment income Misc Income Expenditures District 1: Accounting and audit Directors fees Resevoir lease payment Insurance and bonds Legal Misc Treasurer's fees Debt Service: Trustee fee Bond principal Bond interest District 2: Accounting and audit Deprecation Directors fees Maintenance Pulic relations Insurance Association Legal Misc Rent 2009 2010 2010 2011 2012 EXHIBIT "C" Utilities Recreation Improvements Streets Water Assumptions: 2013 2014 Hello