The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20090401.tiff632 • v 0 U er Oep U Y =d C v 0 o o E N v o CD 5 d N r r N • o r C 0 o® 0 0)o o C▪ C C) 1- 0 Cr RESOLUTION RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD CONCERNING APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1 REGARDING THE GRANTING OF A PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY 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, on November 24, 2008, pursuant to Section 32-1-501(5)(b)(I), C.R.S., an Appeal of Decision of the Board of Directors of the Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1 Regarding the Granting of a Petition for Exclusion of Certain Property was marked as received and filed with the Weld County Board of Commissioners by Appellants Michael Welch, Rod Gantenbien, Angie Powell and Jeff Hare, by and through their attorneys, Bernard Lyons Gaddis and Kahn, P.C., and WHEREAS, said appeal was of a resolution adopted the Board of Directors of Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1, on November 3, 2008, ordering the exclusion of 2,266.118 acres of land from said District as petitioned by REI Limited Liability Company, and WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the Appeal of Decision, the Record of Proceedings filed with the Board by the District, including transcripts of the October 20, and November 3, 2008, meetings of the District's Board of Directors ("District Board"), the District's Consolidated Service Plan of 1999 ("Service Plan"), and all briefs and pleadings submitted by the Appellants and by Appellees Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1 and REI Limited Liability Company, and WHEREAS, the matter came before the Board on February 18, 2009, for oral arguments by Appellants, represented by Richard N. Lyons, Esq.; Appellee Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1, represented by Paul Cockrel, Esq.; Appellee REI Limited Liability Company, represented by MaryAnn McGeady, Esq., and Kristin Bowers, Esq., and the Board considered such arguments with respect to the issues. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that, pursuant to Section 32-1-501(5)(b)(I), C.R.S., the relief set forth in the Appeal of Decision of the Board of Directors of the Beebe Draw Metropolitan District No.1 Regarding the Granting of a Petition for Exclusion of Certain Property, be, and hereby is, granted, and the exclusion is denied, as more fully set forth below, for the following reasons, and applying the criteria and factors set forth in Section 32-1-501(3),C.R.S., as follows: 1. There is insufficient evidence in the record to show that the exclusion is in the best interests of the property. Upon initial review it appears that exclusion of the property would be in the best interests of the property, because the owners would then have complete control over decision making in District No. 2. However, further review of the record reveals the opposite. The districts were originally set to overlap. All the property, consisting of approximately 4,120 acres, was to be taxed. District No. 2 was to perform the administration of services and operations, but was not to tax. 2009-0401 i : Cccleral, /170. G , Irmo, //art , PG 0 A- SD0001 APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1 REGARDING THE GRANTING OF A PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY PAGE 2 The exclusion of the property from District No. 1 would eliminate the overlap, and thereby make two separate districts with two separate assessed valuations. It is unclear in the record where in the districts the oil and gas interests are located, and the record does not say that the assessed valuations in the two districts would be the same. Because the assessed valuation in the two districts would not be the same after the exclusion, and bonded indebtedness is based upon the total assessed valuation in a district, there necessarily would not be a uniform tax across all of the areas of District No. 1 and District No. 2, as was presented at the District Board hearing. The lack of matching area and assessed value constitutes a change in the financing plan that was approved in 1999 by the Board of County Commissioners as part of the Service Plan. Such a change in the financing plan constitutes a material modification of the Service Plan and is not in the best interests of the property. 2. There is insufficient evidence in the record to show that the exclusion is in the best interests of the excluding district. Although the Appellees say that exclusion is in the best interests of District No. 1 and its property owners, there is little evidence in the record to justify that statement. Pages 56 and 65 of the record transcript of the District Board hearing say that after the exclusion, tax money would flow through District No. 2 where the developer would have control on how the money would be spent on amenities. Control would thereby be centralized in District No. 2, which would weaken accountability to the taxpayers of District No. 1, and not be in the best interests of District No. 1, even though the District Board voted in favor of the exclusion. There is nothing in the record indicating that an analysis was done to show what the tax base would be after exclusion, or how exclusion would be in the best interests of either district. The record does not say that the two districts and property owners are not getting along without the exclusion, or that there is current litigation. There is nothing in the record to indicate that without the exclusion, the districts are not able to carry out or bring forward the facilities and improvements that are set forth in the Service Plan. The Appellees say that they think problems will arise if the exclusion is not approved, but there is no evidence in the record showing that such problems will indeed occur. 3. There is insufficient evidence in the record to show that the exclusion is in the best interests of Weld County. The area of each district corresponds with areas in different filings. Pages 60 and 61 of the record transcript of the District Board hearing say that after the exclusion, there would be a filing for inclusion in District No. 1 when a lot is built upon or when a resident moves in. This results in piecemeal development and non -uniform assessed valuations and taxation. There was no cost -benefit information about exclusion (regarding assessed valuation and taxation) in the record. This type of piecemeal development costs the County Assessor in terms of human capital and other resources to administer. Only the Board of County Commissioners may make the determination as to whether or not the exclusion is in the best interests of the County. There is nothing in the record to prove it to the Board's satisfaction. fill 11111111111111111111111111111111Ill 11111lit III! 3611632 03/19/2009 11:17A Weld County, CO 2 of 11 R 0.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder 2009-0401 SD0001 APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1 REGARDING THE GRANTING OF A PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY PAGE 3 4. There is little in the record to show the relative cost and benefit to the property to be excluded from the provision of the special district's services. Page 60 of the record transcript of the District Board hearing says that exclusion would "reduce friction and potential for litigation." Page 45 says the districts will be less efficient if the exclusion does not happen. Again, the record does not say there is friction and/or litigation now. The record is also silent as to how the current setup, without the exclusion, is inefficient. 5. The record does not address the ability of the excluding district to provide economical and sufficient service to both the excluded property and all of the properties within the district's boundaries. There is nothing in the record to show that the exclusion would make it more economical to provide services to either District No. 1, or District No. 2, or both. District No. 1 would be required to transfer ownership of several amenities to District No. 2, including the boat dock and other parcels of land. It appears that this arrangement would result in the loss of assessed value and control, which would be of no benefit to District No. 1 and could result in higher costs to both districts. 6. Whether the district is able to provide services at a reasonable cost compare with the cost that would be imposed by other entities to provide similar services. District No. 1 does not provide services and, therefore, this factor is inapplicable. There is no evidence in the record saying that either district is taking over the duty of providing the services of another district, such as a fire district or library district. 7. There is little evidence in the record regarding the effect of denying the petition on employment and other economic conditions in the special district and surrounding area. The record lacks sufficient evidence to show that the exclusion or lack thereof would have any effect on employment and other economic conditions in the special district and surrounding area. If the exclusion were to be denied, then the developer would be allowed to develop in the manner approved in the Service Plan. There would be no loss of jobs. Conversely, if the exclusion does occur, and there are two separate districts instead of overlapping, development would continue, as is. There is nothing in the record to show that without the exclusion there is inefficiency. 8. There is no evidence in the record showing that denying the petition would have an adverse economic impact on the region and on the special district, surrounding area, and state as a whole. There would be no real economic impacts on the region and on the special district, surrounding area, and state as a whole if the petition is denied. There may be an economic impact resulting from the exclusion, because the reduced assessed valuation and taxing potential of the two districts may affect their ability to bond for the construction of infrastructure in the districts. I 111111 1111 1 111111 1111 1111 1111111 111111 III 1 1111 1111 11 11 3611632 03/19/2009 11:17A Weld County, CO 2009-0401 3 of 11 R 0.00 0 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder SD0001 • • APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1 REGARDING THE GRANTING OF A PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY PAGE 4 9. The record does not show that splitting the districts through exclusion creates an economically feasible service alternative. It is economically feasible for the property to remain in District No. 1 and for the property to receive services from District No. 2 while remaining in District No. 1. There is no evidence in the record showing that splitting the districts through exclusion creates an economically feasible service alternative. 10. There is no evidence in the record showing that there would or would not be additional cost to be levied on other property within the special district if the exclusion is granted. If the exclusion is granted, there may be additional costs to the other properties within District No. 1. However, there is no cost analysis in the record to say what tax would result to other properties within District No. 1 after the exclusion. The Financial Plan in the record talks about how many lots will be developed and sold through 2018, and what that means to the financing of improvements. Page 67 of the record transcript of the District Board hearing says that there are no filings for development in District No. 2 currently in process. 11. The exclusion would be a material modification of the Service Plan, and, therefore, must be approved as such by the Board of County Commissioners. The exclusion would not be a boundary adjustment as contemplated by Section 32-1-207(2), C.R.S. Rather, exclusion of 2,226 acres from District No. 1 would constitute a material modification of the Service Plan, because it modifies the financing plan by modifying the taxable properties within the two districts from that which was originally considered. Although the Appellants argue there will be uniform tax resulting from the exclusion, there is no evidence in the record to support the fact that all properties in the two districts will be taxed in the same manner. Exclusion will create uncertainty. For the property to be re -included in District No. 1, a vote would have to take place. A vote would also need to occur for there to be additional debt that may be necessary to complete the amenities that were originally contemplated. Without the exclusion, there would be certainty and accountability to the taxpayers. Accordingly, no exclusion of this property should be granted until Districts Nos. 1 and 2 seek and obtain modification of the Service Plan pursuant to the provisions of Section 32-1-207, C.R.S. 111111111111 13111111 1111 1111111 111111 III 111111111 IIII 3611632 03/19/2009 11:17A Weld County, CO 2009-0401 4 of 11 R 0.00 0 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder SD0001 • • APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1 REGARDING THE GRANTING OF A PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY PAGE 5 The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 23rd day of February, A.D., 2009. ATTEST: Weld County Clerk to th BY: Deputy Cler • the Boar RM: APPROVED S TQ-FO ,ounty Attorney Date of signature: i/IO9 111111111111111111111IIII1111111111111III 11111IIIIIIII 3611632 5 of 11 R 0.00 0 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder BOARD OF TY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, LORADO William F. Garcia, 'Cha e".'j Thy,fr -r'^ Douglas ttademacher, Pro-Tem David E. Long 2009-0401 SD0001 § 32-1-501. Exclusion of property by fee owners or board --procedure (1) The boundaries of a special district, except health service districts, may be altered by the exclusion of real property by the fee owner or owners of one hundred percent of any real property situate in the special district filing with the board a petition requesting that such real property of the fee owner or owners be excluded and taken from the special district. The petition shall set forth a legal description of the property, shall state that assent to the exclusion of the property from the special district is given by the fee owner or owners thereof, and shall be acknowledged by the fee owner or owners in the same manner as required for conveyance of land. The petition shall be accompanied by a deposit of money sufficient to pay all costs of the exclusion proceedings. (1.5)(a) In addition to the procedure specified in subsection (1) of this section, the board, through adoption of a resolution, may alter the boundaries of a fire protection district through the exclusion of real property from the district if the property to be excluded will be provided with the same service by another fire protection district or by a county fire improvement district and the board or governing body of that district has agreed by resolution to include the property into the district immediately after the effective date of the exclusion order. (b)(I) Not more than forty-five days nor less than thirty days prior to a meeting of the board to consider final adoption of a resolution proposing property to be excluded, the secretary of the fire protection district shall send letter notification to the fee owner or owners of one hundred percent of all proposed real property to be excluded from the district as listed on the records of the county assessor on the date requested. (II) The letter notification shall indicate that it is a notice of a meeting required to be held pursuant to subsection (2) of this section concerning the exclusion of the property from the district, shall indicate the date, time, and location of the meeting, and shall contain both a reference to the fire protection district or county fire improvement district proposed for inclusion and the current mill levy of the district, if any. (III) The mailing of the letter notification to all addresses or post office box addresses within the area proposed to be excluded from the district shall constitute a good -faith effort to comply with this section, and failure to so notify all fee owners shall not provide grounds for a challenge to the meeting being held. (2) The board shall hear the petition or resolution at a public meeting after publication of notice of the filing of the petition or preliminary adoption of the resolution, the place, time, and date of the meeting, the names and addresses of the petitioners, if applicable, a general description of the area proposed for exclusion, and notice that all persons interested shall appear at the designated time and place and show cause in writing why the petition should not be granted or the resolution should not be finally adopted. The board may continue the hearing to a subsequent meeting. There shall be no withdrawal from a petition after publication of notice by the board without the consent of the board. The failure of any person in the existing special district to file a written objection shall be taken as an assent on his or her part to the exclusion of the area described in the notice. (3) The board shall take into consideration and make a finding regarding all of the following factors when determining whether to grant or deny the petition or to finally adopt the resolution or any portion thereof: (a) The best interests of all of the following: (I) The property to be excluded; 11111 11111 111111 1111 1111111 111111II 11111111111111 3611632 03/19/2009 11:17A Weld County, CO 6 of 11 R 0.00 O 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder (II) The special district from which the exclusion is proposed; (III) The county or counties in which the special district is located; (b) The relative cost and benefit to the property to be excluded from the provision of the special district's services; (c) The ability of the special district to provide economical and sufficient service to both the property to be excluded and all of the properties within the special district's boundaries; (d) Whether the special district is able to provide services at a reasonable cost compared with the cost that would be imposed by other entities in the surrounding area to provide similar services in the surrounding area or by the fire protection district or county fire improvement district that has agreed to include the property to be excluded from the special district; (e) The effect of denying the petition on employment and other economic conditions in the special district and surrounding area; (f) The economic impact on the region and on the special district, surrounding area, and state as a whole if the petition is denied or the resolution is finally adopted; (g) Whether an economically feasible alternative service may be available; and (h) The additional cost to be levied on other property within the special district if the exclusion is granted. (4)(a)(I) Except as provided in subparagraph (II) of this paragraph (a) and if the board, after considering all of the factors set forth in subsection (3) of this section, determines that the property described in the petition or resolution or some portion thereof should be excluded from the special district, it shall order that the petition be granted or that the resolution be finally adopted, in whole or in part. (II)(A) If the property to be excluded from the special district will be served by a special district not yet organized, the board shall not order that the petition be granted or that the resolution be finally adopted until the special district has been organized pursuant to part 3 of this article. (B) If the property to be excluded from the special district will be served by a fire protection district or county fire improvement district as provided in subsection (1.5) of this section, the board shall not order that the petition be granted or that the resolution be finally adopted until the fire protection district or county fire improvement district has adopted a resolution agreeing to include the property in the district immediately after the effective date of the exclusion order and has filed the resolution with the court. (C) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article to the contrary, the property to be excluded may be included within the boundaries of the proposed special district. (b) Upon granting the petition or finally adopting the resolution, the board shall file a certified copy of the order of the board excluding the property from the district with the clerk of the court, and, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this subsection (4), the court shall order the property to be excluded from the special district and, if applicable, included into the fire protection district or county fire improvement district that has previously agreed to include the property as provided in subsection (1.5) of this section. 1111111 11111 111111 1111 IIII 111111! 111111111 1111111111111 3611632 03/19/2009 11:17A Weld County, CO 7 of 11 R 0.00 0 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder (c)(I) If the property to be excluded from the special district will be served by a fire protection district or county fire improvement district that has previously agreed to include the property as provided in subsection (1.5) of this section and that has a higher mill levy than the special district and after the certified copy of the order of the board excluding the property from the district is filed with the clerk of the court, the court shall direct the question of excluding the area from the special district and including it in the fire protection district or county fire improvement district with a higher mill levy to the eligible electors of the area sought to be excluded. The court shall order the secretary to give published notice, as provided in part 2 of article 5 of title 1, C.R.S., of the time and place of the election and of the question to be submitted, together with a summary of any conditions attached to the proposed exclusion. The election shall be held within the area sought to be excluded and shall be held and conducted, and the results thereof determined, in the manner provided in title 1, C.R.S. The ballot shall be prepared by the designated election official and shall contain the following words: "Shall the following described area be excluded from the district, which has a current mill levy of , and become a part of the district, which has a current mill levy of , and upon the following conditions, if any? (Insert general description of area) (Insert accurate summary of conditions) For exclusion from district and inclusion in district Against exclusion from district (II) If a majority of the votes cast at the election pursuant to subparagraph (I) of this paragraph (c) are in favor of exclusion to become a part of another district and the court determines the election was held in accordance with title 1, C.R.S., the court shall enter an order with any conditions so prescribed excluding the area from the special district and including it in the fire protection district or county fire improvement district with a higher mill levy. The validity of the exclusion to become a part of another district may not be questioned directly or indirectly in any suit, action, or proceeding, except as provided in article 11 of title 1, C.R.S. (d) The order of exclusion entered pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c) of this subsection (4) shall recite in the findings a description of any bonded indebtedness in existence immediately preceding the effective date of the order for which the excluded property is liable and the date that the bonded indebtedness is then scheduled to be retired. After July 1, 1993, failure of the order for exclusion to recite the existence and scheduled retirement date of the indebtedness, when due to error or omission by the special district, shall not constitute grounds for correction of the omission of a levy on the excluded property from the assessment roll pursuant to section 39-5-125, C.R.S. (5)(a) If the board, after considering all of the factors set forth in subsection (3) of this section, determines that the property described in the petition or resolution should not be excluded from the special district, it shall order that the petition be denied or that the resolution be rescinded. 111111Wit111111IIIIIII\1111111tel tIIIIIIII\I\\U 3611632 0311 S of 11 R 0.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder • • (c)(I) Any decision of the board of county commissioners may be appealed for review to the district court of the county which has jurisdiction of the special district pursuant to section 32-1-303 within thirty days of such board's decision. (II) On appeal, the court shall review the record developed at the hearing before the special district board and, after considering all of the factors set forth in subsection (3) of this section, shall make a determination whether to exclude the properties mentioned in the petition or resolution. 111111 11111 111111 IIII 1111 1111111 111111 III 11111 1111 1111 3611603/19/2 9 of 30 11:17A Weld CountV, CO 11 R O.OII D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder • I NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO.1 REGARDING THE GRANTING OF A PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY (2,266.118 ACRES OWNED BY REI, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY) PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there was filed with the Clerk to the Board of Weld County, Colorado, an Appeal of Decision of the Board of Directors of Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1 Regarding the Granting of a Petition for Exclusion of Certain Property (2,266.118 acres owned by REI, Limited Liability Company). The Appeal and related documents are now on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado 80631, and are available for public inspection during normal business hours. E -Mail messages sent to an individual Commissioner may not be included in the case file. To ensure inclusion of your E -Mail correspondence into the case file, please send a copy to egesick@co.weld.co.us. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that by Order of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, a public hearing on such Appeal will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado 80631, at the date and time specified below. DOCKET #: 2009-11 DATE: February 18, 2009 TIME: 10:00 a.m. APPELLANTS: Michael Welch, Rod Gantenbien, Angie Powell, and Jeff Hare do Bernard Lyons Gaddis and Kahn, P.C. 515 Kimbark P.O. Box 978 Longmont, Colorado 80502-0978 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A parcel of land being a portion of that certain parcel of land described on the boundary survey recorded April 12, 1995, in Book 1487, Page 123, under Reception No. 2433894 on file in the office of the Clerk and Recorder, Weld County Colorado, situated in Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 17, Township 3 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, excepting therefrom the School Site located in the NW1/4 of Section 4, and the NE1/4 of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 65 West, and the Fire Station Site located in the NW 1/4 of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO DATED: January 30, 2009 PUBLISHED: February 6, 2009, in the Greeley Tribune IIIIII 11111 IIIIII IIII IIII 1111111 111111 III 111111 III IIII 3611632 03/19/2009 11 17A Weld County, CO 10 of 11 R 0.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder ,;?co(- ego) • • Affidavit of Publication NOTICE OF HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1 REGARD- ING THE GRANTING OF A PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY LIABILITY COMPANY) RED I 18 ACRES OWNED BY AEI, PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that there was filed with the Clerk to the Board of Weld County, Colorado, an Appeal of Decision of the Board of Directors of Beebe Drew Farms Metro- politan District No. 1 Regarding the Granting of a Petition for Ex- clusion of Certain Property (2,266.118 acres owned by REI, Lim- ited Liability Company). The Appeal and related documents are now on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Third Floor, Greeley, Colorado 80631, and are available for public inspection during normal business hours. E -Mail mes- sages sent to an individual Commissioner may not be included in the case file. To ensure inclusion of your E -Mail correspon- dence into the case file, please send a copy to egesick@co.weld.co.us. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that by Order of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, a public hearing on such Appeal will be held in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, First Floor, Greeley, Colorado 80631, at the date and time specified below. DOCKET e: 2009-11 DATE: February 18, 2009 TIME: 10:00 a.m. APPELLANTS: Michael Welch, Rod Gantenbien, Angie Powell, and Jeff Hare do Bernard Lyons Gaddis and Kahn, P.C. 515 Kimbark P.O. Box 978 Longmont, Colorado 80502-0978 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: A parcel of land being a portion of that certain parcel of land described on the boundary survey record- ed April 12, 1995, in Book 1487, Page 123, under Reception No. 2433894 on file in the office of the Clerk and Recorder, Weld County Colorado, situated in Sections 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 17, Township 3 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, excepting therefrom the School Site located in the NW1/4 of Section 4, and the NE1/4 of Section 5, Township 3 North, Range 65 West, and the Fire Station Site located in the NW 1/4 of Section 4, Township 3 North, Range 65 West of the 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO DATED: January 30, 2009 The Tribune February 6.2009 11111111111 1111 1111 1111111111111III111111III IIII 3611632 03/19/2009 11:17A Weld County, CO 11 of 11 R 0.00 D 0.00 Steve Moreno Clerk & Recorder STATE OF COLORADO County of Weld, Jennifer Usher SS. of said County of Weld, being duly sworn, say that I am an advertising clerk of THE TRIBUNE that the same is a daily newspaper of general circulation and printed and published in the City of Greeley, in said county and state: that the notice or advertisement, of which the annexed is a true copy, (days): that the notice was published in the regular and entire issue of every number of said newspaper during the period and time of publication of said notice, and in the newspaper proper and not in a supplement thereof; that the first publication of said notice was contained in the, issue of the said newspaper - bearing date the Sixth day of February AD. 2009, and the last publication thereof: in the issue of said newspaper bearing date the Sixth day of February AD. 2009: that said The Tribune has been published continuously and uninterruptedly during the period of at least six months next prior to the first issue there of contained said notice or advertisement above referred to; that said newspaper has been admitted to the United States mails as second-class matter under the provisions of the Act of March 3, 1879, or any amendments thereof; and that said newspaper is a daily newspaper duly qualified for publishing legal notices and advertisements within the meaning of the laws of the State of Colorado. February 6, 2009 Total Charges: $15.30 ItAi 74, ising Clerk ' rah day of February 2009 My Commission Expires 06/14/2009 Hello