HomeMy WebLinkAbout20092848.tiffJeffrey T. Hare, CPA CISA CIA
16504 Badminton Rd N
Platteville, CO 80651
July 27, 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. 0. Box 758
Greeley CO 80632
Re: Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District Quinquennial Review
Dear Esteemed Commissioners,
I have attached a letter from Beebe Draw Farms Metro District #2 chairperson, Christine Hethcock. Thi≤
letter is in response to concerns I expressed to the District #1 board related to the potential for issuing
more debt in our community. I thought this letter was relevant to the upcoming quinquennial review
process and wanted to bring it to your attention.
As you are aware, the quinquennial review process is a review of the service plan and financing plan
based on the 'current economic conditions.' In this letter, Ms. Hethcock admits the current market
conditions do not support issuance of any debt at this time (see underlined comments).
As it relates to other comments in the letter, I had expressed some concerns about spiraling mill levies
that could happen if additional debt was issued. I have not requested our counsel, Mr. Lyons, to review
of the comments made in this letter as to the statutory limitations on mill levy increases. She may or
may not have merit in her comments. My concerns were made based on my understanding of the
circumstances in the Castle Pines Metro District, of which I am sure you are aware.
I look forward to the quinquennial review meetings in the month ahead. Let me know if you have any
questions.
Regards,,
Jeffrey T. Hare, CPA CISA CIA
Enclosure
CC: Dick Lyons, Recall Committee
yy--
�uVYL�LruLC1�L.z�rJ
/c- <2L -Z O i
2009-2848
51nc(
June 17, 2009
VIA EMAIL
Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1
Board of Directors
Residents
Re: Quinquennial Review
Dear Directors and Residents:
We are in receipt of correspondence to the Board of Directors from Mr. Jei
Hare dated June 11, 2009 ("Correspondence"). While we appreciate Mr.
Hare's compassion for his community, the Correspondence makes
inaccurate assumptions and alarmist and conclusory statements regardinc
the Districts without full knowledge of the facts or the manner in which
metropolitan districts function. We would like to take this opportunity to
reassure the residents within District No. 1 that there are no current plans
by District No. 2 to issue bonds and that any issuance of bonds in the
future will not increase the mill levy currently paid by residents. We would
also like to take this opportunity to explain to the residents the benefits to
the community of the current District structure and the importance of the
Districts retaining their authorized but unissued debt.
BENEFITS TO COMMUNITY
As stated in the Districts' Consolidated Service Plan and set forth in the
original Intergovernmental Agreement and Amended and Restated
Intergovernmental Agreement, the purpose of the structure of the Districts
is to "assure that the construction and operation of each phase of public
facilities will be completed in a manner consistent with the Company's Ions
term development plan. The use of District No. 2 for financing and
construction each new phase of public improvements...will facilitate the
implementation of the Financial Plan, even if timelines change, and will
assist in assuring the coordinated provision of services throughout the
(00149842.DOC v:I
Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1 and Residents
June 17, 2009
Page 2
Development" (Consolidated Service Plan, pages 7-8) The existing
structure provides an incentive for development in an area where the
County and other surrounding municipalities are unable or unwilling to
provide service.
Although the 1998 District No. 1 bond issuance provided some initial
financial support for the existing infrastructure and amenities, the
relationship between the Districts established in the Consolidated Service
Plan and the original Intergovernmental Agreement and in the Amended
and Restated Intergovernmental Agreement, has provided the financing
mechanism for development to continue and has allowed District No. 2 to
provide the infrastructure and amenities benefiting the residents within
District No. 1. The Consolidated Service Plan provides that "the Districts
may obtain financing for the public improvements, if necessary, through the
issuance of general or limited tax obligation bonds or other debt
instruments of District No. 1, including the issuance of notes or tax pledges
to District No. 2 pursuant to the intergovernmental agreements between the
Districts." (Consolidated Service Plan, page 13). The Consolidated Service
Plan also specifically authorizes District No. 2 to issue revenue bonds from
revenues it receives through the tax pledge by District No. 1 (See
Consolidated Service Plan, page 34).
Although authorized to issue bonds under the Consolidated Service Plan,
District No. 2 has not yet issued bonds as it has determined that it is
imprudent to issue debt with the current market conditions and slowed
development. The infrastructure, amenities and operation and
maintenance have been cash flowed by District No. 2 along with advances
from the developer (REI, LLC). However, the community only consists of
approximately 50 homes to date, but full build -out of the development is
anticipated to contain 800 single family homes. In the future, as market
conditions change and additional phasing of the development progresses
more rapidly, additional infrastructure may need to be financed through the
issuance of bonds.
The outcome of the quinquennial review requested by the County could
result in the Districts no longer being able to issue bonds and could hinder
the ability of the Districts to provide for the construction of additional
infrastructure and amenities and the operation and maintenance of the
(00149842.DOC v: I )
Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1 and Residents
June 17, 2009
Page 3
existing public improvements. Such a result could stall development
completely.
LIMITATIONS ON ABILITY TO ISSUE ADDITIONAL DEBT AND IMPOSE
TAXES
The Correspondence contains alarmist statements regarding the possibility
of District No. 2 issuing $29 million in bonds now and claims that any bond
issued by the Districts would raise taxes so high that it would bankrupt the
residents. This assertion is completely inaccurate. The $29 million in
authorized but unissued debt does not simply give the Districts the ability to
issue $29 million in bonds whenever and however they choose and does
not give the Districts the ability to raise taxes to pay back the $29 million in
bonds. The Districts' Service Plans, Colorado statutes, and the bond
market all limit the mill levy the Districts may impose and the Districts'
ability to issue additional debt.
Service Plan Limitations
The Districts' Consolidated Service Plan prohibits the Districts from
imposing a mill levy above 40 mills, which means, no matter how much the
Districts issue in bonds, residents are protected from tax increases. The
taxes can never go above 40 mills, even if the total bonds outstanding are
$30 million. Individual residents do not have any liability for the bonds
(other than the obligation to pay up to 40 mills) and in the event the 40 mills
is insufficient to make payment on the bonds, the risk remains with the
bondholder.
00149842. DOC v: I )
Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1 and Residents
June 17, 2009
Page 4
Statutory Limitations
Section 32-1-1101(6), Colorado Revised Status provides that the total
amount of debt a district can issue shall not at the time of issuance exceed
the greater of $2,000,000 or fifty percent (50%) of the valuation for
assessment of the property in the district unless the mill levy is capped at
50 mills or less or if the debt is (a) rated in one of the four highest
investment grade rating categories, (b) determined by the District to be
necessary to construct or otherwise provide additional improvements
specifically ordered by a federal or state regulatory agency, (c) secured by
a letter of credit, or (d) issued to financial institutions or institutional
investors. The purpose of this statutory provision is to ensure that districts
cannot issue large amounts of bonds that the development cannot support
and to ensure that residents are not burdened with high taxes. Colorado
statutes protects property owners by either limiting the debt service mill
levy to 50 mills or limiting the dollar amount districts may issue in bonds.
Market Limitations
The ability of the Districts to issue bonds is also largely market driven The
Districts cannot issue bonds unless there are financial institutions and
investors willing to buy the bonds. As some of you probably know and can
understand with the current economy, there are few to zero institutions
willing to purchase municipal bonds today. Even if the Districts wanted to
issue bonds, until the market recovers and banks are willing to spend
money, and until the development within Pelican Lake resumes at a steady
pace, no investors are willing to purchase bonds from the Districts.
Given the fact that development is not occurring and there is little to no
municipal bond market, the ability of eitheLDIstrict to issue bonds in the
near future is essentially zero. We agree that now is not the time to issue
bonds in the community. Until the current economic conditions change
across the Country and the housing market rebounds, the Districts will not
be able to issue bonds. However, by requesting the Districts' ability to
issue bonds in the future be removed now, more tax payer dollars will be
spent in the future on additional elections and hearings with the County.
I00I49842.DOC r:1)
Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1 and Residents
June 17, 2009
Page 5
We hope this information is helpful and we encourage you all to attend the
hearing before the Weld County Board of County Commissioners regarding
the Districts' quinquennial review. Information on the date, time, and place
of the hearing will be made available once the hearing is scheduled. In the
meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.
Very truly yours,
BEEBE DRAW FARMS
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 2
By:
cc: MaryAnn McGeady, Esq.
Kristin Bowers, Esq.
Paul Cockrel, Esq.
Jeff Hare
Christine Hethcock, President
303-884-8712 cell phone
001 49842. DOC v: I }
COLLINS COCKREL & COLE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
PAUL R. COCKREL
JAMES P. COLLINS
ROBERT G. COLE
TIMOTHY J. FLYNN
EVAN D. ELA
LINDA G. ALEXANDER
DAVID A. GREHER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
390 UNION BOULEVARD, SUITE 400
DENVER, COLORADO 80228-1556
TELEPHONE 303-986-1551
TOLL FREE: 800-354-5941
FACSIMILE. 303-986-1755
www.cccfrm.com
June 23, 2009
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
Weld County
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
JAMES M. MOCK
BECKY R. LENNON
KATHRYN L. GARNER
ERIC C. JORGENSON
OF COUNSEL
E-MAIL
cccrumacccfirm corn
VIA E-MAIL
AND U.S. MAIL
Re: Beebe Draw Metropolitan District Nos. 1 and 2 — Request for
Quinquennial Review
Dear Commissioners:
This firm serves as general counsel to Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District
Nos. 1 and 2 (the `'Districts"). Per the Board of County Commissioners' ("BOCC")
Resolution dated April 29, 2009, the Districts are required to file quinquennial reports
with the BOCC by July 6, 2009.
Because the Districts were organized and operate pursuant to a Consolidated
Service Plan, District No. 2 will, on behalf of both Districts, prepare the consolidated
quinquennial report which you have requested. District No. 2 is in the process of
collecting information necessary to prepare the consolidated report.
In order to file a complete and responsive report, by letter dated June 11, 2009
from MeGeady Sisneros District No. 2 requested a 30 -day extension to August 6, 2009
for filing the consolidated report. District No. 1 also requests that a concurrent extension
be approved for filing the consolidated report. This extension would allow the review
and hearing for both Districts to proceed together at the same time.
0016544 I_DOC /1
COLLINS COCKREL & COLE
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
June 23, 2009
Page 2
If you have any question, please advise. Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
Sincerely,
Paul R. Cockrel
/hre
cc: Bruce Barker, Esq.
Weld County Attorney
MaryAnn McGeady, Esq.
McGeady Sisneros
Board of Directors
Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1
Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 2
Jeff Hare
00I 65441 _DOC /J
July 7, 2009
TO: PLR Residents
FROM: Beebe Draw Farms Metro District 1 Board (D1)
RE: Status Report of Legal Issues Facing the District and Homeowners
Remarks: This letter is written to inform PLR residents of the current legal and fiscal issues that we face
as a community as of June 9, 2009. The Dl Board believes it is in the best interest of our community to
provide this information so that all residents may be fully informed and engaged. In this letter, we have
listed each event followed by related issues and the fiscal impact, to date. This letter has been
prepared by the Dl Chairman and the Executive Committee and reviewed by all Dl Board members.
Further it has been reviewed by District legal counsel, Mr. Paul Cockrel. This letter does not address any
of the issues or concerns that are under the purview of the Beebe Draw Farms Property Owners
Association (POA) (e.g., covenants, declarant lot fees, or covenant enforcement) as the POA has no
relationship to the Metro Districts. After reviewing the information provided here, please contact Dl
Board Chairman Mr. Steve Cooper with any questions you may have.
Event #1: Recall of three Dl Board Members: In late summer early fall of 2008, three members of our
community, Mr. Mike Welch, Mrs. Angie Powell, Mr. Rod Gantenbein formed a committee and
circulated a petition calling for the recall of three members of the Metro District 1 Board: Mr. Tom Burk,
Mr. Dan Sheldon, and Ms. Christine Hethcock. The petition was signed by 50 eligible voters and filed
with the District on October 15, 2008.
Issue: From the petition, the stated grounds for the recall of these members were "because he (or she)
does not represent the Interests of a majority of the homeowners and residents within the Beebe Draw
Farms Metropolitan District No. 1." It is important to note that there were a variety of passionate
perspectives from community members on the need to recall Dl Board members. In spite of substantial
support from numerous homeowners, on November 3, 2008 Mr. Burk, Mr. Sheldon, and Ms. Hethcock
resigned from the Dl Metro Board and were replaced by the following community residents: Mr.
George Barrett, Ms. Linda Black, and Mr. Dan Flanagan, thus no recall election was held.
Fiscal Impact: The recall process cost the District $15,950 in legal fees and related election expenses.
Event #2: REI's Petition to Exclude: On or about October 7, 2008 REI filed a petition with Beebe Draw
Page 1 of 1
Farms Metropolitan District 1 to exclude the real property described in Exhibit A of the original filing of
property description. Two public meetings were held to discuss this Petition (October 20 and November
3, 2008). After a formal presentation by REI's legal counsel, Ms. McGeady, and extensive community
discussion, the Dl Board voted unanimously, on November 3, 2008 to approve the Exclusion. The Board
noted two issues that the Exclusion: 1) had no effect on present or future revenue to the Districts or the
residents and 2) was approved pending REI's submission of title work confirming REI's ownership of the
excluded property. Ms. Hethcock abstained from the public hearing and the Dl vote due to her conflict
of interest. On December 2, 2008, pursuant to Colorado statutes (C. R. S. 32-1-501 (4)(b), the District
Court for Weld County approved the District 1 Board's Order Excluding the REI Property from District 1.
This action became effective January 1, 2009.
On January 15, 2009 a notice of appeal was filed with the Weld County Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) by the attorneys for the appellants Jeff Hare, Angie Powell, Mike Welch, and Rod Gantenbein. In
this document the appellants requested that the BOCC deny the exclusion and "direct that any such
exclusion be considered only after approval, if any, of a modification of the Service Plan which would
reestablish the relationships between the two districts."
Oral arguments were heard before the BOCC on February 18, 2009. On February 23, 2009 the BOCC
granted the appeal citing eleven criteria. This matter has currently been appealed by REI and the Metro
District 2 Board. The District 1 Board has not responded to this action.
Fiscal Impact: From September 2008 through April 2009 the billings for legal, publication, and expenses
related to the Exclusion, and in response to the Appeal were $79, 436.08. The Districts were responsible
for $53,954.58 and REI was responsible for $25,481.50. Prior to these various challenges to the District,
all legal expenses averaged less than $12,000 a year.
Event 3: On or about February 11, 2009, Mr. Hare submitted a letter to the BOCC stating that "on behalf
of many of the 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." In his letter he states that
he 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)." The Districts are currently preparing a response to
this requested review per statute.
Four months later, on June 9, 2009 Mr. Hare sent an email to most members of the community with the
documents attached for review and invited community members to an upcoming, yet unscheduled
hearing.
Page 2 of 2
Fiscal Impact: Not yet known. On May 26, 2009 and June 2, 2009 the D2 Metro Board held meetings to
discuss hiring special legal counsel and other consultants to represent the Districts concerning the
anticipated litigation, financial analysis and preparation of the quinquennial report to the BOCC.
Concerns were noted about budgeting for 2010.
To date the Districts have spent $69,904.58 of your tax dollars on legal fees and related expenses to
address these events which will lead District 1 to propose to District 2 that $100,000.00 be set aside in
the upcoming 2010 budget in anticipation of ongoing, pending, and future claims made against the
Districts. This means there will be potentially $100,000.00 less to apply towards debt service,
amenities, development, beautification and maintenance of our community.
We offer you this information so that you may be informed. We hope this generates reflection and
questions as to the nature and need for these types of events.
We believe it is important to be informed and constructively active in the life of our community. Please
feel free to contact any D1 Board member or the Board of County Commissions should have questions
or wish to voice your perspective. The BOCC's webpage may be accessed at
http://www.co.weld.co.us/departments/commissioners.html
Respectfully submitted,
Steve Cooper
Linda Cox
Dl Chairman
Executive Committee
Page 3 of 3
Dan Flanagan
Linda Black L Geofge Barrett
Executive Committee
Page 4 of 4
Esther Gesick
From: Bruce Barker
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 3:59 PM
To: Esther Gesick
Subject: FW: Beebe Draw Quinquennial Review
Attachments: Weld County Request for Quinquennial Review (00165466).PDF
Original Message
From: Paul Cockrel [mailto:pcockrel@CCCFIRM.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 12:58 PM
To: William Garcia; Sean Conway; Barbara Kirkmeyer; Douglas Rademacher; Dave Long
Cc: Bruce Barker; Christine; Kim; Steve Steele; taburk@comcast.net; MaryAnn McGeady; 'Kristin
Bowers'; 'papabareit@yahoo.com'; 'Black, Linda'; 'Steven Cooper (sdc-mec@msn.com)'; 'Cox
Linda'; 'Dan Flanagan'
Subject: RE: Beebe Draw Quinquennial Review
Please see the attached request regarding the quinquennial review. If you have any question,
please advise.
Paul Cockrel
Collins Cockrel & Cole
390 Union Boulevard, Suite 400
Denver, Colorado 80228-1556
303.986.1551 Telephone
800.354.5941 Toll Free
303.986.1755 Facsimile
PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION. This email may contain attorney -client or otherwise privileged and
confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above.
Dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you
are an attorney or law firm, consult Title I of the federal Electronic Communications Privacy
Act of 1986. If you believe that this email has been sent to you in error, please reply to
the sender that you received the message in error and delete this email.
ATTACHMENTS. Although this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus,
the files should be virus scanned before opening them
1
COLLINS COCKREL & COLE
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
PAUL R. COCKREL
JAMES P. COLLINS
ROBERT G. COLE
TIMOTHY J. FLYNN
EVAN D. ELA
LINDA G. ALEXANDER
DAVID A. GREHER
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
390 UNION BOULEVARD, SUITE 400
DENVER, COLORADO 80228-1558
TELEPHONE: 303-986-1551
TOLL FREE: 800-354-5941
FACSIMILE: 303-986-1755
JAMES M. MOCK
BECKY R. LENNON
KATHRYN L. GARNER
ERIC C. JORGENSON
OF COUNSEL
E-MAIL
www.cccfirm.com cccfrm@cccfirm.com
June 23, 2009
VIA E-MAIL
AND U.S. MAIL
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
Weld County
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Re: Beebe Draw Metropolitan District Nos. 1 and 2 — Request for
Quinquennial Review
Dear Commissioners:
This firm serves as general counsel to Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District
Nos. 1 and 2 (the "Districts"). Per the Board of County Commissioners' ("BOCC")
Resolution dated April 29, 2009, the Districts are required to file quinquennial reports
with the BOCC by July 6, 2009.
Because the Districts were organized and operate pursuant to a Consolidated
Service Plan, District No. 2 will, on behalf of both Districts, prepare the consolidated
quinquennial report which you have requested. District No. 2 is in the process of
collecting information necessary to prepare the consolidated report.
In order to file a complete and responsive report, by letter dated June 11, 2009
from McGeady Sisneros District No. 2 requested a 30 -day extension to August 6, 2009
for filing the consolidated report. District No. 1 also requests that a concurrent extension
be approved for filing the consolidated report. This extension would allow the review
and hearing for both Districts to proceed together at the same time.
(00165441.DOC I)
COLLINS COCKREL & COLE
Weld County Board of County Commissioners
June 23, 2009
Page 2
If you have any question, please advise. Thank you for your consideration of this
request.
Sincerely,
Paul R. Cockrel
/hre
cc: Bruce Barker, Esq.
Weld County Attorney
MaryAnn McGeady, Esq.
McGeady Sisneros
Board of Directors
Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1
Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 2
Jeff flare
{00165441.tYY' /)
Esther Gesick
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Barbara Kirkmeyer
Thursday, June 18, 2009 5:25 PM
imkwelch1@gmail.com.; Sean Conway; William Garcia
Dave Long; Douglas Rademacher; Bruce Barker; Esther Gesick
Re: Quinquennial Review for Beebe Draws Metro District 1 & 2
Bruce and Esther
Please make part of the public file
Thanks
Barb
Original Message
From: Michael welch <mkwelchl@gmail.com>
To: Barbara Kirkmeyer; Sean Conway; William Garcia
Cc: Dave Long; Douglas Rademacher
Sent: Thu Jun 18 11:48:06 2009
Subject: Quinquennial Review for Beebe Draws Metro District 1 & 2
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing you in regards to Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District
1 & 2 and the quinquennial review you, the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC), have requested.
I am a resident of the Metro District. I live at 19466 Badminton Rd
S. I moved to Weld County in 2005. The financial situation of the
Metro District troubled me at the time because I didn't understand it.
Obviously, I overcame this fear and purchased the place, but, I
should have listened to my initial fears more closely.
Metro District 1 and 2 are a time bomb waiting to explode. I speak
of the possibility that the developers (REI, or whomever they sell
this development too) could authorize the $25 million in bonds and
financially bankrupt this part of the county. It has happened in
other parts of Colorado (see Colorado Centre Metropolitan District
July 1991 El Paso County, Hamilton Creek Metropolitan May 1998 Summit
County, Cotton Ranch Metropolitan District, March 2009 Eagle County
and the infamous Castle Pines)
The Developer has had these bonds for ten years and obviously has no
need of them. Yet I feel certain is using them to make the sell of
the development more attractive (hence their use of public monies to
aid their campaign.)
I have been thrilled by your stance on refusing Metro Distict 2 the
exclusion that would have put most of the tax revenue at the control
of REI. They have challenged your decision to the District Court,
please done reward them now by allowing to have this "credit card" of
debt back by my property taxes.
Thanks for your time.
Sincerely,
Michael Welch
2
Esther Gesick
From: Bruce Barker
Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 8:41 AM
To: Jeff Hare
Cc: Esther Gesick
Subject: FW: Requirement for Submittal of Applications for Quinquennial Findings of Reasonable
Diligence for Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2
Attachments: 20091028.pdf; Hethcock Cooper Cockrel Letter 5-8-09.doc
Jeff and Esther:
Here is the e-mail I sent to the Districts. Attached is the Board's resolution dated April
29, 2009. Also attached is the Word version of the letter I sent to the Districts as a
follow-up. I do not have a scanned pdf version of that letter with signature.
Bruce.
Original Message
From: Bruce Barker
Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 4:02 PM
To: 'sdc-mec@msn.com'; 'christine@gccolorado.com'; 'pcockrel@cccfirm.com'
Subject: Requirement for Submittal of Applications for Quinquennial Findings of Reasonable
Diligence for Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2
Mr Cooper, Ms. Hethcock, and Mr. Cockrell:
Attached please find a resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
Colorado, entitled, "Requirement for Submittal of Applications for Quinquennial Findings of
Reasonable Diligence for Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2." I will be
sending you a hard copy of the resolution tomorrow.
As you can see, the resolution requires the Districts to submit to Weld County within 60 days
of this date an application which includes the listed information. The Board of County
Commissioners reserves the right to request additional information.
Please feel free to call me if you have any questions.
Bruce Barker
Weld County Attorney
i
May 8, 2009
Christine Hethcock
16500 Beebe Draw Parkway
Platteville, CO 80651
Paul R. Cockrel
Collins Cockrel & Cole
390 Union Blvd., Suite 400
Denver, CO 80228
Via Certified Mail
Steve Cooper
16500 Beebe Draw Parkway
Platteville, CO 80651
Re: Requirement for Submittal of Applications
for Quinquennial Findings of Reasonable
Diligence for Beebe Draw Farms
Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2
Dear Ms. Hethcock, and Messrs. Cooper and Cockrel:
Enclosed please find copies of the resolution by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, entitled, "Requirement for Submittal of Applications for Quinquennial
Findings of Reasonable Diligence for Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 and 2."
Please call me at (970) 356-4000, extension 4390, if you have any questions or wish to discuss.
Sincerely,
Bruce T. Barker
Weld County Attorney
Enc.
RESOLUTION
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., slates 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."
2009-1028
SD0001
REQUIREMENT FR L OF APPLICATIONS FOR QUINQUENNIAL FINDINGSF
REASONABLE DILIGENCE FORA 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.
.BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
T W E`LD,U NTOLORADO
ATTEST:
Weld County Clerk to the
BY:
Deputy Clerk to the Boa
APPRXdA
ounty Attorney
Date of signature: 5- I"09
Wiam F. Garcia, Chair
ai ac rr , /.Jr
ouglas i(ademach r, Pro-Tem
rcirctli
Davi E. Long
ara Kirkmeyer
2009-1028
SD0001
V,JI..VIL VVY.V
firm, and a law firm
from the Districts, I
,J„ I LIa. r, .......s.+ v, ,.,,,..b %... I ...rgat ,..,....., ..,+..II
to help them with the response. From reviewing the
believe the 60 days you granted should be sufficient.
information you requested
The information you
Jeffrey T. Hare, CPA CISA CIA
16504 Badminton Rd N
Platteville, CO 80651
June 9, 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,
WELD COUNTY
c r. SSI0NERS
-6/31 iun - 9 P 3: 12
I'd like to thank you for agreeing to perform the quinquennial review in response to my letter dated
February 1, 2009. Your resolution dated April 29, 2009 gives our community hope that the $29 million
authorized, but unissued bonds will be removed as a burden to the residents of our community. The
significant amount of outstanding bonds, no doubt, has caused various prospective residents to think
twice about moving into our community, especially with Metro Districts that have experienced
significant financial issues such as Castle Pines. Perhaps, the extinguishment of these bonds, if you
choose to do so, would reinvigorate the interest in living in our beautiful community.
There are several issues that I wanted to bring to your attention since the February meeting. As you
may recall, our district consists of a two board structure. District 1 is the financing district and District
is responsible for spending and administration. District 2 is current represented by employees of the
developer, REI, and affiliates of the developer. Because of the overlapping structure, approved by the
County in 1999, District 2 cannot be represented by residents of filing 1 of our development. Therefore
there is no accountability to the residents of our community for spending decisions of District 2 board.
In this respect, our community has taxation without representation.
The District 2 board met on June 2, 2009 and discussed various issues. One issue that was discussed is
the quinquennial review. Apparently the District 2 board is preparing a response to the quinquennial
review request you sent the district boards and is proceeding with the response without having
consulted with the District 1 board. The District 2 board suggested in this meeting that they intend to
ask for an extension from the County to provide a response to the quinquennial review request. I
strongly urge the County to deny this request.
The District 2 board is in the process of hiring (or has already hired) a bond advisory firm, an accountinf
firm, and a law firm to help them with the response. From reviewing the information you requested
from the Districts, I believe the 60 days you granted should be sufficient. The information you
requested should be readily available to the District with cooperation from the District's accountant am
information provided by the developer. I don't see a need to involve experts and prolong the process.
Many residents in our community have expressed concern about the extraordinary amount of money
the District 2 board is preparing to spend related to this review. The District 2 board has a history of
spending unnecessary funds on issues without consulting the District 1 board.
Let me provide an example. As you know, the developer petitioned the District to exclude over 2,000
acres from District l's boundaries in the massive restructuring of the District's boundaries. The District
boards, primarily represented by developer employees and affiliates at the time, approved the petition
for exclusion. The result of the District's decision was appealed to you by me and others in the
community. Part of the restructuring of the district necessitated a massive change to the
Intergovernmental Agreement between District 1 and District 2. State statute requires that costs
related to the exclusion petition be borne by the petitioner and that the petitioner present a bond or
deposit to cover such funds. Remember at the appeal hearing you heard in February, the District 2
board admitted not requiring collateral from the developer. At the June 2, 2009 meeting, the District 2
board chairman commented that the District has incurred legal fees nearing $50,000 because of the
exclusion hearing and subsequent appeal hearings. It is apparent that the District 2 board, primarily
represented by developer employees and affiliates does not intend to pass on the costs of the exclusior
hearings to the petitioner.
Let me provide another example. At the June 2, 2009 meeting, the District 2 board agreed to hire
special counsel to represent the district's interest in the appeal that is pending at the District Court leve
This appeal is an action taken by the developer to challenge the decision made by the BOCC in February
The case is the developer versus the county and a group of residents. District 2 is not even a related
party to this action, nor should they have an opinion as to decision in the case.
Before summarizing my arguments, I'd also like to make a couple other comments related to the
extinguishment of the bonds. These bonds were authorized as part of a financing plan that called for al
724 lots to be built and sold by 2007. The developer has sold approximately 66 lots as of this point, less
than 10% of the projected 724 lot sales that should have occurred by now. We are also experiencing
unprecedented times in the economy and real estate market.
The purpose of the quinquennial review is to review the financing plan to determine "based upon the
present conditions within the district" the support for the authorized, but unissued bonds. Clearly, the
present conditions within our district do not support the issuance of any more bonds. However, the
extinguishment of the bonds does not mean the County does not support the growth in our community
or the future issuance of bonds. If the County agrees to extinguish the bonds, it does not preclude the
District boards from making a request in the future for a new authorization of bonds in the future, whe
economic conditions may appropriately support the issuance of additional bond indebtedness.
We, in our community, believe the petition for extension of time should be denied for the following
reasons:
• Information should be available to respond to the request from the records of the accountant
and with support from the developer's employees
• Spending on legal, accounting, and bond advisory firms is wasteful and unnecessary and withot
approval from the District 1 board. Such spending follows a pattern of poor spending decisions
by the District 2 board that serve to only benefit the developer and have no benefit the to
District as a whole
• Clearly the 'present conditions' in our economy do not support issuance of any additional bon(
and no amount of evidence could be presented to overcome this issue
In summary, I would encourage you to have the hearing related to the quinquennial review as soon as
possible. During the review process, if you deem it to be necessary you can always grant an extension
request additional information.
Finally, I have been discussing the status of the improvements agreement with Bruce Barker. I am
concerned about the status of the collateral related to this agreement. As you are aware, the develops
made commitments to certain improvements in our community and should have provided sufficient
collateral to support these improvements. I hope that the collateral provided by the developer is still
current. If not, I urge you to update the status of this collateral. Otherwise, if our developer files for
bankruptcy or sells the community to another developer, we have no assurances that these
improvements will be made.
Let me know if you have any questions regarding the above. I look forward to seeing you at the hearir
regarding the quinquennial review.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jeffrey T. Hare, CPA CIA CISA
Enclosures: 1989 Improvements Agreement
CC: Dick Lyons - Bernard, Lyons, Gaddis, and Kahn
Bruce Barker
Eve Canfield - Bernard, Lyons, Gaddis, and Kahn
PLR Recall Committee: Michael Welch, Angie Powell, Rod Gantenbein
PLR Residents via bulletin board and email
AR2309d.6
RESOLUTION
-4U
0
,�+p RE: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT ACCORDING TO POLICY
U REGARDING COLLATERAL FOR INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT BETWEEN WELD
0 COUNTY AND BEEBE DRAW FARMS, LTD.
O 4
0• WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County,
o W Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home
2 Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the
O affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and
U
4n a WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 11-1 of the Weld County
N w Subdivision Regulations, the Board has been presented with an
N Improvements Agreement according to the policy regarding
'" collateral for internal improvements, said Improvements Agreement
N al u being between Weld County and Beebe Draw Farms, Ltd., and
,Ix WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to
w approve said Improvements Agreement, with the terms and conditions
H E being as stated in the Agreement, a copy of which is attached
" W hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
mw NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Improvements
M zZZ Agreement according to the policy regarding collateral for
c a internal improvements between Weld County and Beebe Draw Farms,
>4 Ltd., be, and hereby is, approved.
✓ .-4
n'IS
m h
W W
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made
and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 10th day of
May, A.D., 1989.
ATTEST:
Weld County tAerk- and Recorder
and Clerk to the,Board
C77'c--n.e_.d 4 J
uty County Clerk
APPROVED 4S TO FORM:
_7917� County
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
C.k Kirby, Chirman
EXCUSED
Jaccyyteline Johnson, Pro-Tem
Gene R. Brantner
GeorgeKqpne
Gor
p
890410
IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT ACCORDING
POLICY REGARDING COLLATERAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS
H
� U
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 10th day of May
pit) 1989, by and between the County of Weld, State Trticlorado, acting through
its Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter called "County", BEEBE DRAW
a FARMS, LTD., a Colorado limited partnership, hereinafter called "-Applicant",
o M and BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN -DISTRICT, hereinafter called "District".
0
� ,w WITNESSETH:
0
-WHEREAS, Applicant is the owner of or has a controlling interest in the
M following described property in the County of Weld, Colorado:
en
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL
N
WHEREAS, there has been created by law the District for the purpose of
N providing certain services and facilities to the property owners within the
MO District, including the installation of certain improvements; and
in Z
OH WHEREAS, a final sub -division plat of said property, to be known as REPL-AT
H OF FIRST FILING OF BEEBE DRAW +ARMS AND EQUESTRIAN CENTER has been submitted
`" w to the County for approval; and
wD
en w WHEREAS, Section 11-1 of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations provides
that no final plat shall be approved by the County _until the Applicant has
o z
2 submitted a Subdivision Improvement Agreement guaranteeing the construction
r+ ' of the public improvements shown on plans, plats and supporting documents of
the subdivision, which improvements, along with a time schedule for
completion, are listed in Exhibit "A" and "B" of this Agreement.
r, a NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF the foregoing and of the acceptance
;cr
• ° and approval of said final plat, the parties hereto promise, covenant and
H4 HI agree as follows:
tea,
A. DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES:
1.0 Engineering Services: District shall furnish, at its own expense, all
engineering services in connection with the design and construction of
the subdivision improvements listed on Exhibit "A" , except telephone
and electric, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this
reference.
1.1 The required engineering services shall be performed by a Professional
Engineer and Land Surveyor registered in the State of Colorado, and
shall conform to the standards and criteria established by the County
for public improvements.
1.2 The required engineering services shall consist of, but not be limited
to, surveying, designs, plans and profiles, estimates, construction
supervision, and the submission of necessary documents Lo the Cuuiaay.
89041C
2.0 Construction: District shall furnish and install, at its own expense,
the subdivision improvements listed on Exhibit "A", except telephone and
electric, according to the construction schedule set out in Exhibit "B"
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference.
ei o
o 2.1 Said construction shall be in strict conformance to the plans and
-. - drawings approved by the County and the specifications adopted by the
m C County for such improvements.
a 2.2 District shall employ, at its own expense, a qualified testing company
o 0 3 previously approved by the County to perform all testing of materials or
o ▪ a construction that is required by the County; and shall furnish copies of
u► o test results to the County.
a
u • 2.3 At all times during said contruction, the County shall have the right to
en test and inspect or to require testing and inspection of material and
work at District's expense. Any material or work not conforming to the
N approved plans and specifications shall be removed and replaced to the
.i a satisfaction of the County at the District's expense.
w
rn u 2.4 The District shall furnish proof that proper arrangements have been made
for the installation of interior roads, water, certain landscaping and
c z and the amenity buildings.
�w
ri a B. APPLICANT AND DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES:
w
`° The Applicant shall furnish proof that proper arrangements have been
rnw made for the installation of underground electric and telephone service
o z to each lot.
m
o 2.5 Said subdivision improvements listed on Exhibit "A" shall be completed,
o a according to the terms of this Agreement, within the construction
awc schedule appearing in Exhibit "B". The Board of County Commissioners,
at its option, may grant an extension of the time of completion shown on
tn • v Exhibit "B" upon application by the Applicant or District subject to the
r terms of Section 6 herein. The District responsibility to install the
rH subdivision improvements shall however be subject to the availability of
bond funds in amounts sufficient to pay the costs of installation of
such improvements. In the event bond funds are insufficient to pay the
cost of installation, applicant shall be liable for the completion of
the improvements and shall provide collateral of the type and amount
specified by this agreement. County, at its discretion, inay withhold
issuance of any residential building permits until District gives notice
that funds are sufficient to pay the cost of installation of the
improvements listed in Exhibit "A" or until collateral, in an amount and
type consistent with the terms of this Agreement, is provided by the
Applicant and accepted by the County.
District agrees that the portion of the funds raised by the bond issue
for the purpose of meeting its obligations hereunder shall be segregated
and restricted and shall not be used for any other purpose until the
construction of the improvements defined in Exhibit "A" has been
-2r
890410
completed and the roads accepted for maintenance by the District and
o final inspections performed on any of the construction which requires
• u building permits.
s
o 3.0 Release of Liability: Applicant and District shall indemnify and hold
harmless the County from any and all liability loss and damage County
may suffer as a result of all suits, actions or claims of every nature
and description caused by, arising from, or on account of said design
• and construction of improvements, and pay any and all judgements
cr
w rendered against the County on account of any such suit, action Dr
2 claim, together with all reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred
by County in defending such suit, action or claim except for liability,
loss or damage is caused by, or arises out of the negligence of County
M or its officers, agents, employees or otherwise while acting within the
N scope of their employment. Such indemnification shall be subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of Article 10, Title 24, C.R.S. All
contractors and other employees engaged in construction of the
N u improvements -shall maintain adequate workman's compensation insurance
and public liability insurance coverage, and shall operate in strict
o �z, accordance with the Laws and regulations of the State of Colorado
governing occupational safety and health.
a 4.0 County may, at its option, issue building permits for construction on
w 5 lots for which street improvements detailed herein -have been started but
w not completed as shown on Exhibit "B", and may continue to issue
En building permits so long as the progress of work on the subdivision
Nimprovements in that phase of the development is satisfactory to the
County; and all terms of this Agreement have been faithfully kept by
Applicant and District.
4.1 Upon completion of the construction of streets within a subdivision and
r- 'krw the filing of a Statement of Substantial Compliance, the District
m N may request in writing that the County Engineer inspect its streets for
"-• that portion of the work. Not sooner than nine months after the initial
a+ w inspection the County Engineer shall, upon request by the District,
inspect the subject streets, and notify the District of any
deficiencies. The County Engineer shall reinspect the streets after
notification from the District that any deficiencies have been
corrected. If the County Engineer finds that the streets are
constructed according to County standards, he shall so recommend and the
District shall accept them from the contractors for maintenance by the
District.
5.0 General Requirements for Collateral:
a) Funds for the interior roads and water distribution system will be
segregated and held in the bond proceeds Construction Fund and be
disbursed as the work is completed.
b) For the telephone and electric services, advance cash payments will
be made by the Applicant to the utility companies involved covering
-3-
890411
1
the total cost of the first phase contracts with each for providing
service.
rIo
rI U
0
tao
0
a
o 1
O3
o w
ww�
U
rn a
N
▪ w
N
N r7
at II
O H
w
�o P
rn W
oow
oZ
N• ye
0
w�
r-
�n
in w
ri
W
The standard utility company land development contracts of U.S. West
and Union REA shall provide that the refunds or rebates due to the
developer for each line that has been put in service will be paid
into an escrow account to be used to pay for additional services as
required until all of the platted lots in the Beebe Draw Farms PUD
have had service lines extended to them.
The Replat shall be recorded within six months of the Final Plat
approval. The improvements shall be completed in accordance with
the schedule in Exhibit "B" unless the Applicant or the District
requests that this Agreement be renewed at least thirty (30) days
prior to its expiration and further provides that cost estimates for
the remaining improvements are updated and collateral is provided in
the amount of 100% of the value o₹ the improvements remaining to be
completed. If improvements are not completed and the agreement not
renewed within these time frames, the County, at its discretion, may
make demand on all or a portion of the Bond Construction Fund and
take steps to see that the improvements are made.
5.1 The Applicant may choose to provide for a phased development by
means of designating portions of a Planned Unit Development,
Subdivision, or Change of Zone, that the Applicant wishes to
develop. For the telephone and electric services, the Applicant
would need only to provide collateral for the improvements in each
portion of the Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, or Change of
Zone, and will submit documents which will prohibit the conveyance
of the property or the issuance of building permits on said portions
until collateral is provided for those portions or until
improvements are in place and approved pursuant to the requirements
of the County.
This paragraph shall be interpreted to allow the tendering of
contracts for deed which contain provisions that indicate that
utilities and other improvements will not be available to service
the lot until a date certain and providing that the actual deed
conveying said lots is to be placed in escrow and building permits
not be issued until the utilities and improvements are in place or
the restrictions are lifted by the County upon a showing that
another governmental entity, such as a Metropolitan District, is
available to guarantee the construction of the utilities and
improvements.
6.0 improvements Guarantee: If collateral is needed in the future for any
work not provided for by the Metropolitan District, the five types of
collateral listed below are acceptable to Weld County subject to final
approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
6.1 An irrevocable Letter of Credit from a Federal or State licensed
financial institution on a form approved by Weld County. The
-4-
890410
Letter of Credit shall state at least the following:
The Letter of Credit shall be in an amount equivalent of 100% of
the total value of the improvements as set forth in Section 6.0
and exhibits "A" and "B".
4 The Letter of Credit shall provide for payment upon demand to
Weld County if the developer has not performed the obligations
specified in the Improvements Agreement and the issuer has been
notified of such default.
The Applicant may draw from the Letter of Credit in accordance
with the provisions of this policy.
The issuer of the Letter of Credit shall guarantee that at all
times the unreleased portion of the Letter of Credit shall be
equal to a minimum of 100% of the estimated costs of completing
the uncompleted portions of the required improvements, based on
inspections of the development by the issuer. In no case shall
disbursement for a general improvement item exceed the cost
estimate in the Improvements Agreement (i.e., streets, sewers,
water mains and landscaping, etc.). The issuer of the Letter
of Credit will sign the Improvements Agreement acknowledging
the agreement and its cost estimates.
The Letter of Credit shall specify that 15% of the total Letter
of Credit amount cannot be drawn upon and will remain available
to Weld County until released by Weld County.
The Letter of Credit shall specify that the date of proposed
expiration of the Letter of Credit shall be either the date of
release by Weld County of the final 15%, or two years from the
date of Final Plat approval, whichever occurs first. Said
letter shall stipulate that, in any event, the Letter of Credit
shall remain in full force and effect until after the Board has
received sixty (60) days written notice from the issuer of the
Letter of Credit of the pending expiration. Said notice shall
be sent by certified mail to the clerk to the Board of County
Commissioners.
6.2 Trust Deed upon all or some of the proposed development or other
property acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners provided that
the following are submitted:
In the event property within the proposed development is used
as collateral, an appraisal is required of the property in the
proposed development by a disinterested M.A.I. member of the
American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers indicating that
the value of the property encumbered in its current degree of
development is sufficient to cover 100% of the cost of the
improvements as set forth in the Improvements Agreement plus
all costs of sale of the property.
89041(
a In the event property other than the property to be developed
has been accepted as collateral by Weld County, then an
H O appraisal is required of the property by a M.A.I. member of the
o Institute of Real Estate Appraisers indicating that the value
--- o of the property encumbered in its current state of development
u is sufficient to cover 100% of the _cost of the improvements as
a) set forth in the Improvements Agreement plus all costs of sale
o w of the property.
oz
o z w A title insurance policy insuring that the Trust Deed creates a
le- ce
A valid encumbrances which is senior to all other liens and
a encumbrances.
O
u
el r4 • A building permit hold shall be placed on the encumbered property.
N
ta
cm 6.3 Escrow Agreement that provides at least the following:
H
N a r The cash in escrow is at least equal to 100% of the amount
m u specified in the Improvements Agreement.
el
0 '-' - The escrow agent guarantees that the escrowed funds will be
el H used for improvements as specified in the agreement and for no
'' a other purpose and will not release any portion of such funds
] without prior approval of the Board.
to
rw
co
w The escrow agent will be a Federal or State licensed bank or
in z financial institution.
o , If the County of Weld County determines there is a default of
u the Improvements Agreement, the escrow agent, upon request by
a the County, shall release any remaining escrowed funds to the
County.
tfl
H i 6.4 A surety bond given by a corporate surety authorized to do business
• w in the State of Colorado in an amount equivalent to 100% of the
value of the improvements as specified in the Improvements
Agreement.
6.5 A cash deposit made with the County equivalent to 100% of the value
of the improvements.
7.0 County Inspection of Subdivision Improvements: Prior to final approval
of the entire project or for a portion of the project by Weld County for
maintenance by the District, the District must present a Statement of
Substantial Compliance from an Engineer registered in Colorado that the
project or a portion of the project has been completed in substantial
compliance with approved plans and specifications documenting the
following:
7.1 The Engineer or his representative has made regular on -site
inspections during the course of construction and the construction
plans utilized are the same as those approved by Weld County.
89041
46.
7.2 Test results must be submitted for all phases of this project as
per Colorado Department of Highway Schedule for minimum materials
sampling, testing and inspections found in CDOH Materials Manual.
7.3 "As built" plans shall be submitted at the time the letter
requesting final approval is submitted. The Engineer shall certify
that the project "as built" is in substantial compliance with the
• o
• u plans and specifications as approved or that any material
deviations have received prior approval from the County Engineer.
co 0
7.4 The Statements of Substantial Compliance must be accompanied, if
appropriate, by a letter -of acceptance of maintenance and
o al responsibility by the appropriate utility company or the District.
o 7.5 A letter must be submitted from the appropriate Fire Authority
a indicating the fire hydrants are in place in accordance with the
8 approved plans. The letter shall indicate if the fire hydrants are
operational and state the results at fire flow tests.
.L 7.6 The requirements in 8.0 thru 8.5 shall be noted on the final
construction plans.
el X
N w 8.0 The obligations of the Applicant and the District hereunder shall not be
c) assigned without the prior written consent of the County, but such
o H consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
�w
N w 9.0 Successors and Assigns: This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs,
executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the
Applicant and the District, and upon recording by the County, shall be
m w deemed a covenant running with the land herein described, and shall be
c binding upon the successors in ownership of said land.
z
c 10.0 This Agreement is not intended to bestow a third party benefit upon any
person not a _party to this Agreement with respect to the obligations of
the parties hereto nor i.s it intended to create a standard which may
affect third parties. Futhermore, this Agreement is not intended to
r- m constitute a waiver of any privileges or immunities held by the parties
M n to this Agreement nor their agents, officers, or employees.
el el
07.
890410
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the day and year first above written.
o a ATTEST:
ON
ox
4* 121
eput�y Couy
M
ABED •1S TO FORM:
Li
N a As -/-4 ounty Attorney
ON C.)
uf2
H
w
H CA
W
C0 5
mw
CO 44
rn
oz
M�N
O
yr
r
Mn
H H
Ca W
Weld County Clerk and Recorder
and Clerk to the Board
:S44crlibed. and sworn to be
My co11M4ie 1p'expires: 3/3i
*-O•
ATTEST:
C
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
APPLICANT:
BEEBE AW FA S, LTD.
By HON's Burk, eneral Partner
ore me this (Pg day of
homas cur , ecretary
u 1ASCK
DISTRICT:
BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT
va8-
, 1989.
890410
EXHIBIT "A" PHASE I
Name of Subdivision: Beebe Draw Farms & Equestrian Center PUD
o Filing: Replat of First
v
o Location: See Attached Legal
Q
a Intending to be legally bound, the undersigned Applicant hereby agrees to
o provide throughout this subdivision and as shown on the subdivision final
plat dated , 19 , recorded on , 19 ,
s.m in Book , Page No. Reception No. ,ifie
9a following improvements.
O
2 Estimated
N Improvements Unit Cost Construction Cost
0, `"
Street grading $9 Y $30 per linnear foot $509,000
H M a Street base
n I.1
• Street paving
m o Culverts
in • z Retention ponds
o H Ditch improvements
i H On -site Sewer facilities by Home Owners
'" a On -site Water supply and storage
4 • Water mains
m W Fire hydrants
CO Ch �' Survey & street monuments & boxes
mo z Street name signs 64 x $25 1.600
N4 Landscaping 20.000
o
>4 Park improvements Amenity Buildings and Marina 510.000
286.336
112.000
734.000
o g Electric
ca
as z Telephone
N
SUB -TOTAL
rol
H H
• N Engineering and Supervision Costs 90,000
(testing, inspection, as -built plans and work in addition to preliminary
and final plat; supervision of actual construction by contractors)
2.172,936
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AND SUPERVISION $ 2,262,936
The above improvements shall be constructed in accordance with all County
requirements and specifications, and conformance with this provision shall be
determined solely by Weld County, or its duly authorized agent.
Said improvements shall be completed according to the schedule set out in
Exhibit "B".
BED DRAW jARMS, LTD.
or or isur ,general Partner
89041
EXHIBIT "B" PHASE I
Name of Subdivision: Beebe Draw Farms & Equestrian Center KID
Filing: Replat of First
o
�U
Location: See Attached Legal
Intending to be legally bound, the undersigned Applicant hereby agrees to
n
construct the improvements shown on the final subdivision plat of Replat of
0
o 411•
w First Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Subdivision, dated
oig , Recorded on , 19 in Book , Page No.
on a , Reception No. the following schedule.
All improvements listed on Exhibit "A" shall be completed within 2 years
N
C\ u from the date of the signing of this Agreement.
n Z
O H
N The County, at its option, and upon the request by the Applicant, may grant
,o a an extension of time for completion for any particular improvements shown
in W
CO
x on Exhibit "A", upon a showing by the Applicant that the above schedule
`Al
cannot be met.
BEEBEAN FtMS, LTD.
h rI
ta
Morris'$urk, teneral Partner
ww
89041
Esther Gesick
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bruce Barker
Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:47 PM
Esther Gesick
FW: Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District Appeal #2
Just sent this to the Board. Should have copied you. Sorry!
b^ Cepiouwil
/
Original Message
From: Bruce Barker
Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2009 2:46 PM
To: William Garcia; Douglas Rademacher; Dave Long; Barbara Kirkmeyer; Sean Conway
Subject: FW: Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District Appeal #2
Here is some e-mail correspondence to and from the parties to that second appeal for the
Beebe Draw Farms Metro District exclusion. Remember that there was another 39 acres that
was not in the first exclusion, but instead was excluded at a subsequent hearing before
the District Board on February 9th. The parties are in agreement that we will hold the
second appeal in abeyance waiting for the District Court to make a decision whether to
uphold or reverse your decision in the first case. I will put together a resolution to
hold that second appeal in abeyance. Will put that resolution on Monday's agenda.
Original Message
From: Bruce Barker
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 4:01 PM
To: 'jhare@erpseminars.com'; MaryAnn McGeady; Paul Cockrel
Cc: Kathryn Garner; Julia Dybdahl
Subject: RE: Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District Appeal #2
Thanks. It appears that the consensus is to have the appeal regarding the exclusion of
the 39 acres held in abeyance or stayed, pending the outcome of the District Court case on
the first appeal. I will ask the Board of County Commissioners to approve a resolution
saying that with the understanding that all of the parties are in agreement. The
resolution should be on the Board's agenda for Monday, April 6, 2009. I will send each of
you a copy prior to putting it on the Board's agenda.
Original Message
From: jhare@erpseminars.com [mailto:jhare@erpseminars.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:50 PM
To: Bruce Barker; MaryAnn McGeady; Paul Cockrel
Cc: Kathryn Garner; Julia Dybdahl
Subject: RE: Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District Appeal #2
Bruce,
At that hearing for the exclusion of the 39 acres, I pleaded with the developer and the
District boards to delay the hearing pending the outcome of the BOCC hearing on the first
exclusion (and any further appeals). Neither the developer nor the District boards
listened to my plea to delay the hearing at that time. I think their opportunity to delay
the hearing on the 39 acres was prior to the second exclusion process being filed, as I
requested, not in the middle of the appeal process.
At the meeting for the exclusion of the 39 acres, Kristen Bowers, from McGeady Sisneros -
attorneys for REI, stated that it was likely that REI would be filing the appeal to the
district court for the land in the first exclusion petition. Ms. Bowers mentioned at that
time that they expected the appeal to the District Court to take up to two years to be
resolved.
If the developer is serious about minimizing costs for all parties, I think the best
course of action is for the developer is to withdraw their petition for exclusion. They
1
can always consider re -submitting their request for exclusion after the appeals for the
first exclusion have run their course.
Having said that, to minimize unnecessary time and cost for the County, I am willing to
concede to the delay as long as my appeal is preserved.
Jeff
--- On Tue, 3/31/09, Paul Cockrel <pcockrel@CCCFIRM.COM> wrote:
From: Paul Cockrel <pcockrel@CCCFIRM.COM>
Subject: RE: Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District Appeal #2
To: "Bruce Barker" <bbarker@co.weld.co.us>, "MaryAnn McGeady"
<MMCGeady@mcgeadysisneros.com>, jhare@erpseminars.com
Cc: "Kathryn Garner" <kgarner@CCCFIRM.COM>, "Julia Dybdahl"
<JDybdahl@mcgeadysisneros.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 2:43 PM
Bruce - I believe that an action on this appeal should be deferred
pending a final decision by the District Court on REI's appeal of the
development parcel exclusion. The issues are essentially the same, and
we could better manage everyone's time and expenses by agreeing to defer
action on this proceeding at this time. Should we confer by telephone
conference? Thanks.
Original Message
From: Bruce Barker (mailto:bbarker@co.weld.co.us]
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 2:28 PM
To: MaryAnn McGeady; Paul Cockrel; jhare@erpseminars.com
Cc: Kathryn Garner; Julia Dybdahl
Subject: RE: Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District Appeal #2
Mary Ann, Paul and Jeff:
Attached is the appeal documents for the other 39 acres which were
excluded from the Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District. The appeal
was filed with the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners on
February 25, 2009. It is my understanding that the hearing on the
matter was before the District's Board of Directors on February 9, 2009.
Mr. Hare is representing himself in this appeal. Mr. Lyons will not be
participating.
I suggest that we proceed in roughly the same fashion as we did for the
first appeal, where the District Board prepare a transcript and then
briefs be exchanged. The same briefs that were submitted for the first
appeal could be used in this appeal, if you wish.
Please let me know your thoughts as to how we process this appeal.
Thanks!
Bruce Barker
Weld County Attorney.
2
Jeffrey T. Hare, CPA CISA CIA
16504 Badminton Rd N
Platteville, CO 80651
March 11, 2009
Weld County Commissioners
915 Tenth Street
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Re: Improvements Agreement
Dear Commissioners,
Subsequent to the submission of the letter I sent to you on February 9, 2009 where I requested that you
consider the quinquennial review for the Beebe Draw Farms Metro District, a new piece of information
came to my attention. I have attached the Improvements Agreement that was entered into by the
current developer's predecessor and runs with the land (see section 9.0).
In this agreement, the developer promises to fulfill certain obligations outlined in Exhibit A and B. These
obligations appear to include certain improvements including park Improvements and various
infrastructure improvements (streets, water main, electric and telephone) to the 188 lots in Filing 1.
Included in the Park Improvements according to the First Filing (see document S-299) the following
improvements were to be made: Property Owners Clubhouse, Outdoor Arena, Dressage and Stadium
Jumping Arenas, and an Indoor Arena.
This agreement was originally put in place in 1989 and 20 years later, both the County and the residents
of our community are left with a community that hasn't risen to its potential. There are approximately
80 lots without infrastructure to them and another 8 lots that have infrastructure, but aren't paved. The
most significant of the Park improvements have yet to be built, including the Dressage and Stadium
Jumping Arenas, the Indoor Arena, and Property Owners Clubhouse Facility overlooking Milton
Reservoir.
As you know, I have requested an appeal on the second exclusion approved by the District Board on
behalf of the developer. Once that appeal process is complete, I and a few others from our community
would like to schedule a working session with the Commissioners to discuss our community and its
issues.
I provided the improvements agreement with Mr. Barker a week or so ago via email and thought I'd
forward it to you for your review and records as well.
Feel free to contact me at 324-1450 (cell) or 785-2435 with any questions. I look forward to meeting
with you in the weeks ahead and appreciate the service you are providing the residents of Weld County.
Regards,)
/7 aut
Jeffrey` . Hare, CPA CISA CIA
Enclosures
cc: Bruce Barker, Esq., w/ enclosure
Esther E. Gesick, Deputy to the Board w/ enclosure
(14-_‘
ruz. aYQ of e Yt?� S
u10 °Ukiah/MA 44(-47
f_or in.Le.
(L 5
L
AR23D983(,
•+ c,
^1U
0 ri O
U
C
a w
O$
D a
w0
°a
U
u
w
N
N �
N
H t4
N U
an
H
0 O H
-F
�m
a
m5
m Cwa
m
0 y
N Q, 7
O
N
va
rH
U")r-
N N
H
R7 W
RESOLUTION
RE: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT ACCORDING TO POLICY
REGARDING COLLATERAL FOR INTERNAL IMPROVEMENT BETWEEN WELD
COUNTY AND BEEBE DRAW FARMS, LTD.
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, pursuant to Section 11-1 of the Weld County
Subdivision Regulations, the Board has been presented with an
Improvements Agreement according to the policy regarding
collateral for internal improvements, said Improvements Agreement
being between Weld County and Beebe Draw Farms, Ltd., and
WHEREAS, after review, the Board deems it advisable to
approve said Improvements Agreement, with the terms and conditions
being as stated in the Agreement, a copy of which is attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED bv the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Improvements
Agreement according to the policy regarding collateral for
internal improvements between Weld County and Beebe Draw Farms,
Ltd., be, and hereby is, approved.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made
and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 10th day of
May, A.D., 1989.
ATTEST:
Weld County t7;erk- and. Recorder
and Clerk to the. Board
f 7r�r 0.;
Deputy County Cl rk
APPROVED A5 TO FORM:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
C.n Kirby, Ch irman
EXCUSED
Jacgyteline Johnson, Pro-Tem
/�
Gene R. Brantner
George Ktnne
Go . a ��
R90410
IMPROVEMENTS AGREEMENT ACCORDING
POLICY REGARDING COLLATERAL FOR IMPROVEMENTS
�o
ti O
0 THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 10th day of May
No 1989, by and between the County of Weld, State iii —Colorado, acting through
• its Board of County Commissioners, hereinafter called "County", BEEBE DRAW
a FARMS, LTD., a Colorado limited partnership, hereinafter called "Applicant",
o w and BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN -DISTRICT, hereinafter called "District".
03
WITNESSETH:
c
-• WHEREAS, Applicant is the owner of or has a controlling interest in the
o following described property in the County of Weld, Colorado:
M
SEE ATTACHED LEGAL
ev
• WHEREAS, there has been created by law the District for the purpose of
rya providing certain services and facilities to the property owners within the
U District, including the installation of certain improvements; and
z
H WHEREAS, a final subdivision plat of said property, to be known as REPLAT
• El
OF FIRST FILING OF BEEBE DRAW FARMS AND EQUESTRIAN CENTER has been submitted
x to the County for approval; and
m P
mw WHEREAS, Section 11-1 of the Weld County Subdivision Regulations provides
a, w that no final plat shall be approved by the County _until the Applicant has
m z submitted a Subdivision Improvement Agreement guaranteeing the construction
N< of the public improvements shown on plans, plats and supporting documents of
N the subdivision, which improvements, along with a time schedule for
completion, are listed in Exhibit "A" and "B" of this Agreement.
C4
N NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF the foregoing and of the acceptance
M N and approval of said final plat, the parties hereto promise, covenant and
agree as follows:
Ww
A. DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES:
1.0 Engineering Services: District shall furnish, at its own expense, all
engineering services in connection with the design and construction of
the subdivision improvements listed on Exhibit "A" , except telephone
and electric, which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this
reference.
1.1 The required engineering services shall be performed by a Professional
Engineer and Land Surveyor registered in the State of Colorado, and
shall conform to the standards and criteria established by the County
for public improvements.
1.2 The required engineering services shall consist of, but not be limited
to, surveying, designs, plans and profiles, estimates, construction
supervision, and the submission of necessary documents La the CuunLy.
890410
2.0 Construction: District shall furnish and install, at its own expense,
the subdivision improvements listed on Exhibit "A", except telephone and
electric, according to the construction schedule set out in Exhibit "B"
which is attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference.
I-1 0
c 0 2.1 Said construction shall be in strict conformance to the plans and
n o
drawings approved by the County and the specifications adopted by the
u County for such improvements.
w 2.2 District shall employ, at its own expense, a qualified testing company
o
o a: previously approved by the County to perform all testing of materials or
o a construction that is required by the County; and shall furnish copies of
w ww test results to the County.
o
O • 2.3 At all times during said contruction, the County shall have the right to
test and inspect or to require testing and inspection of material and
V work at District's expense. Any material or work not conforming to the
•• a, approved plans and specifications shall be removed and replaced to the
.-+ 24 z satisfaction of the County at the District's -expense.
w
a u 2.4 The District shall furnish proof that proper arrangements have been made
— a for the installation of interior roads, water, certain landscaping and
O H and the amenity buildings.
-w
4-1 E -1
• B. APPLICANT AND DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES:
w
`o a The Applicant stall furnish proof that proper arrangements have been
w w made for the installation of underground electric and telephone service
°' z to each lot.
m
cw
o 2.5 Said subdivision improvements listed on Exhibit "A" shall be completed,
ow according to the terms of this Agreement, within the construction
till schedule appearing in Exhibit "B". The Board of County Commissioners,
at its option, may grant an extension of the time of completion shown on
u Exhibit "B" upon application by the Applicant or District subject to the
ti terms of Section 6 herein. The District responsibility to install the
4-1
subdivision improvements shall however be subject to the availability of
m 4' bond funds in amounts sufficient to pay the costs of installation of
such improvements. In the event bond funds are insufficient to pay the
cost of installation, applicant shall be liable for the completion of
the improvements and shall provide collateral of the type and amount
specified by this agreement. County, at its discretion, may withhold
issuance of any residential building permits until District gives notice
that funds are sufficient to pay the cost of installation of the
improvements listed in Exhibit "A" or until collateral, in an amount and
type consistent with the terms of this Agreement, is provided by the
Applicant and accepted by the County.
District agrees that the portion of the funds raised by the bond issue
for the purpose of meeting its obligations hereunder shall be segregated
and restricted and shall not be used for any other purpose until the
construction of the improvements defined in Exhibit "A" has been
890410
0
�u
0
0
OW
03
OX
w w❑
0
w
N a
N
ya
T
nz
OH
w
a
Mw
mw
oz
mz
w
nv
m
mr
m
completed and the roads accepted for maintenance by the District and
final inspections performed on any of the construction which requires
building permits.
3.0 Release of Liability: Applicant and District shall indemnify and hold
harmless the County from any and all liability loss and damage County
may suffer as a result of all suits, actions or claims of every nature
and description caused by, arising from, or on account of said design
and construction of improvements, and pay any and all judgements
rendered against the County on account of any such suit, action or
claim, together with all reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred
by County in defending such suit, action or claim except for liability,
loss or damage is caused by, or arises out of the negligence of County
or its officers, agents, employees or otherwise while acting within the
scope o₹ their employment. Such indemnification shall be subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of Article 10, Title 24, C.R.S. All
contractors and other employees engaged in construction of the
improvements shall maintain adequate workman's compensation insurance
and public liability insurance coverage, and shall operate in strict
accordance with the Laws and regulations of the State of Colorado
governing occupational safety and health.
4.0 County may, at its option, issue building permits for construction on
lots for which street improvements detailed herein have been started but
not completed as shown on Exhibit "B", and may continue to issue
building permits so long as the progress of work on the subdivision
improvements in that phase of the development is satisfactory to the
County; and all terms of this Agreement have been faithfully kept by
Applicant and District.
4.1 Upon completion of the construction of streets within a subdivision and
the filing of a Statement of Substantial Compliance, the District
may request in writing that the County Engineer inspect its streets for
that portion of the work. Not sooner than nine months after the initial
inspection the County Engineer shall, upon request by the District,
inspect the subject streets, and notify the District of any
deficiencies. The County Engineer shall reinspect the streets after
notification from the District that any deficiencies have been
corrected. If the County Engineer finds that the streets are
constructed according to County standards, he shall so recommend and the
District shall accept them from the contractors for maintenance by the
District.
5.0 General Requirements for Collateral:
a) Funds for the interior roads and water distribution system will be
segregated and held in the bond proceeds Construction Fund and be
disbursed as the work is completed.
b) For the telephone and electric services, advance cash payments will
be made by the Applicant to the utility companies involved covering
890410
the total cost of the first phase contracts with each for providing
service.
H0
U
0
Lc, O
U
7
oW
03
oW
w Ca
7p U.
mcc
N
N a
▪ a
ow m t)
Oz
O H
elF
Hz
W
cn0
m
to
oz
mZ
N i<
o�
U
a
r a,
u, <
M r
el
aw
The standard utility company land development contracts of U.S. West
and Union REA shall provide that the refunds or rebates due to the
developer for each line that has been put in service will be paid
into an escrow account to be used to pay for additional services as
required until all of the platted lots in the Beebe Draw Farms PUD
have had service lines extended to them.
The Replat shall be recorded within six months of the Final flat
approval. The improvements shall be completed in accordance with
the schedule in Exhibit "0' unless the Applicant or the District
requests that this Agreement be renewed at least thirty (30) days
prior to its expiration and further provides that cost estimates for
the remaining improvements are updated and collateral is provided in
the amount of 100% of the value of the improvements remaining to be
completed. If improvements are not completed end the agreement not
renewed within these time frames, the County, at its discretion, may
make demand on all or a portion of the Bond Construction Fund and
take steps to see that the improvements are made.
5.1 The Applicant may choose to provide for a phased development by
means of designating portions of a Planned Unit Development,
Subdivision, or Change of Zone, that the Applicant wishes to
develop. for the telephone and electric services, the Applicant
would need only to provide collateral for the improvements in each
portion of the Planned Unit Development, Subdivision, or Change of
Zone, and will submit documents which will prohibit the conveyance
of the property or the issuance of building permits on said portions
until collateral is provided for those portions or until
improvements are in plate end approved pursuant to the requirements
of the County.
This paragraph shall be interpreted to allow the tendering of
contracts for deed which contain provisions that indicate that
utilities and other improvements will rot tie available to service
the lot until a date certain and providing that the actual deed
conveying said lots is to be placed in escrow and building permits
not be issued until the utilities and improvements are in place or
the restrictions are lifted by the County upon a showing that
another governmental entity, such as a Metropolitan District, is
available to guarantee the construction of the utilities and
improvements.
6.0 Improvements Guarantee: If collateral is needed in the future for any
work not provided for by the Metropolitan District, the five types of
collateral listed below are acceptable to Weld County subject to final
approval by the Board of County Commissioners.
6.1 An irrevocable Letter of Credit from a Federal or State licensed
financial institution on a form approved by Weld County. The
890410
+O
0
CJ
1/40 O
V
o na
03
co
4.O
114
WVW
nrt
0,a
cn
uu, 2
O H
W
.. a to
m
1/40
n
n
co
ON
o z
n z
es,
o„
O 2a
�wE
r` W
in •
n r-
03 04
Letter of Credit shall state at least the following:
The Letter of Credit shall be in an amount equivalent of 100% of
the total value of the improvements as set forth in Section 6.0
and exhibits "A" and "B".
The Letter of Credit shall provide for payment upon demand to
Weld County if the developer has not performed the obligations
specified in the Improvements Agreement and the issuer has been
notified of such default.
The Applicant may draw from the Letter of Credit in accordance
with the provisions of this policy.
The issuer of the Letter of Credit shall guarantee that at all
times the unreleased portion of the Letter of Credit shall be
equal to a minimum of 100% of the estimated costs of completing
the uncompleted portions of the required improvements, based on
inspections of the development by the issuer. In no case shall
disbursement for a general improvement item exceed the cost
estimate in the Improvements Agreement (i.e., streets, sewers,
water mains and landscaping, etc.). The issuer of the Letter
of Credit will sign the Improvements Agreement acknowledging
the agreement and its cost estimates.
The Letter of Credit shall specify that 15% of the total Letter
of Credit amount cannot be drawn upon and will remain a-vailable
to Weld County until released by Weld County.
The Letter of Credit shall specify that the date of proposed
expiration of the Letter of Credit shall be either the date of
release by Weld County of the final 15%, or two years from the
date of Final Plat approval, whichever occurs first. Said
letter shall stipulate that, in any event, the Letter of Credit
shall remain in full force and effect until after the Board has
received sixty (60) days written notice from the issuer of the
Letter of Credit of the pending expiration. Said notice shall
be sent by certified mail to the clerk to the Board of County
Commissioners.
6.2 Trust Deed upon all or some of the proposed development or other
property acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners provided that
the following are submitted:
In the event property within the proposed development is used
as collateral, an appraisal is required of the property in the
proposed development by a disinterested M.A.I. member of the
American Institute of -teal Estate Appraisers indicating that
the value of the property encumbered in its current degree of
development is sufficient to cover 100% of the cost of the
improvements as set forth in the Improvements Agreement plus
all costs of sale of the property.
890410
O
N0
0
o W
Og
o
»w
0
C.)
w
en a
to
�x
w
N c]
mU
L z
O N
4-1 CO
.+E
.0 Ca
rnw
mw
m
nz
N
ua
a
NC -
in v
mn
ri
CO 44
• In the event property other than the property to be developed
has been accepted as collateral by Weld County, then an
appraisal is required of the property by a M.A.I. member of the
Institute of Real Estate Appraisers indicating that the value
of the property encumbered in its current state of development
is sufficient to cover 100% of the Lost of the improvements as
set forth in the Improvements Agreement plus all costs of sale
of the property.
A title insurance policy insuring that the Trust Deed creates a
valid encumbrances which is senior to all other liens and
encumbrances.
A building permit hold shall be placed on the encumbered property.
6.3 Escrow Agreement that provides at least the following:
The cash in escrow is at least equal to 100% of the amount
specified in the Improvements Agreement.
The escrow agent guarantees that the escrowed funds will be
used for improvements as specified in the agreement and for no
other purpose and will not release any portion of such funds
without prior approval of the Board.
The escrow agent will be a Federal or State licensed bank or
financial institution.
If the County of Weld County determines there is a default of
the Improvements Agreement, the escrow agent, upon request by
the County, shall release any remaining escrowed funds to the
County.
6.4 A surety bond given by a corporate surety authorized to do business
in the State of Colorado in an amount equivalent to 100% of the
value of the improvements as specified in the Improvements
Agreement.
6.5 A cash deposit made with the County equivalent to 100% of the value
of the improvements.
7.0 County Inspection of Subdivision Improvements: Prior to final approval
of the entire project or for a portion of the project by Weld County for
maintenance by the District, the District must present a Statement of
Substantial Compliance from an Engineer registered in Colorado that the
project or a portion of the project has been completed in substantial
compliance with approved plans and specifications documenting the
following:
7.1 The Engineer or his representative has made regular on -site
inspections during the course of construction and the construction
plans utilized are the same as those approved by Weld County.
+6•
890410
7.2 Test results must be submitted for all phases of this project as
per Colorado Department of Highway Schedule for minimum materials
sampling, testing and inspections found in CDOH Materials Manual.
7.3 "As built" plans shall be submitted at the time the letter
requesting final approval is submitted. The Engineer shall certify
that the project "as built" is in substantial compliance with the
-I Q plans and specifications as approved or that any material
o deviations have received prior approval from the County Engineer.
o
u 7.4 The Statements of Substantial Compliance must be accompanied, if
Q appropriate, by a letterofacceptance of maintenance and
o ai responsibility by the appropriate utility company or the District.
w w 7.5 A letter must be submitted from the appropriate Fire Authority
o indicating the fire hydrants are in place in accordance with the
o approved plans. The letter shall indicate if the fire hydrants are
u operational and state the results of fire flow tests.
:a
n
N 7.6 The requirements in 8.0 thru 8.5 shall be noted on the final
N construction plans.
a
N a 8.0 The obligations of the Applicant and the District hereunder shall not be
O, u assigned without the prior written consent of the County, but such
uU, z consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
O H
W
.. H 9.0 Successors and Assigns: This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs,
`"ui
z executors, personal representatives, successors and assigns of the
Lo 5 Applicant and the District, and upon recording by the County, shall be
m w deemed a covenant running with the land herein described, and shall be
co c binding upon the successors in ownership of said land.
z
mz
g' 10.0 This Agreement is not intended to bestow a third party benefit upon any
o
• person not a party to this Agreement with respect to the obligations of
ai the parties hereto nor is it intended to create a standard which may
x affect third parties. Futhermore, this Agreement is not intended to
N m constitute a waiver of any privileges or immunities held by the parties
n r- to this Agreement nor their agents, officers, or employees.
.i .i
mw
-7-
890410
ww
0
No
0
•
an O
a ATTEST:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed on the day and year first above written.
Weld County Clerk and Recorder
and Clerk to the Board
epu ty County
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
{ir.,l=County Attorney
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
APPLICANT:
BEEBE I'AW FA S. LTD.
By:
eyeur—
orr s :ur enera artner
:Sukk;cribedAnd sworn to be ore me this hi day of
My FoRtilat0p expires: 3/3/
ATTEST:
r
,,,/,,,, d
4as urk
Secreta
ry
ary
ary
ELLIE MO
DISTRICT:
BEEBE DRAW FARMS METROPOLITAN
DISTRICT
, 1989.
resi
ent
890410
EXHIBIT "A" PHASE I
Name of Subdivision: Beebe Draw Farms & Equestrian Center PUD
-, coi Filing: Repl at of First
0
off u Location: See Attached Legal
a Intending to be legally bound, the undersigned Applicant hereby agrees to
o a provide throughout this subdivision and as shown on the subdivision final
plat dated , 19 recorded on , 19
w w in Book , Page No. .7 -Reception No. ,76e
2 following improvements.
O
ca Estimated
PI N a Improvements Unit Cost Construction Cost
N Street grading $9 - $30 per linnear foot $509,000
a Street base
rya • Street paving
o'o Culverts
y Retention ponds
O H Ditch improvements
.—n. On -site Sewer facilities by Home Owners
'" a On -site Water supply and storage
o Water mains 734.000
1/40
rn ra Fire hydrants
co m w Survey & street monuments & boxes
m l Street name signs 64 x $25 1.600
N ac Landscaping 20.000
o
✓ Park improvements Amenity Buildings and Marina 510,000
O i Electric 296.336
Telephone 112.000
r o
Lel el WSUB-TOTAL 2.172,936
el
m , Engineering and Supervision Costs 90000
(testing, inspection, as -built plans and work in addition to preliminary
and final plat; supervision of actual construction by contractors)
TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENTS AND SUPERVISION $ 2,262,936
The above improvements shall be constructed in accordance with all County
requirements and specifications, and conformance with this provision shall be
determined solely by Weld County, or its duly authorized agent.
Said improvements shall be completed according to the schedule set out in
Exhibit "B".
BE
DRAW
ARMS, LTD.
MorAi rk, G
s u
890410
EXHIBIT "B" PHASE I
Name of Subdivision: Beebe Draw Farms & Equestrian Center PUD
o Filing: Replat of First
U
o , Location: See Attached Legal
o
Intending to be legally bound, the undersigned Applicant hereby agrees to
wa
c 3 construct the improvements shown on the final subdivision plat of Replat of
.
o w First Filing of Beebe Draw Farms Subdivision, dated
0 19 , Recorded on , 19 , in Book , Page No.
U
W
en cc Reception No. , the following schedule.
All improvements listed on Exhibit "A" shall be completed within 2 years
N 4
a% u from the date of the signing of this Agreement.
n Z
o H
-W
ti N The County, at its option, and upon the request by the Applicant, may grant
a
Lo O an extension of time for completion for any particular improvements shown
en ol
w w
o z
M
N .C cannot be met.
N
z"y BEEBE �AW FORMS, LTD.
N -
M N Morris uric, eneral Partner
on Exhibit "A", upon a showing by the Applicant that the above schedule
cn
890410
Jeffrey T. Hare, CPA CISA CIA
16504 Badminton Rd N
Platteville, CO 80651
February 24, 2009
Weld County Commissioners
915 Tenth Street
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Dear Commissioners,
Enclosed please find are the original and one copy of the Appeal of the Decision of the Board of
Directors of Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1 regarding the Granting of Petition for
Exclusion of Certain Property.
Please date stamp the copy with the date it was received and return the copy to me in the enclosed
envelope. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Jeffrey T. Hare, CPA CISA CIA
Enclosures
cc: Dick Lyons, Esq., w/ enclosure
Bruce Barker, Esq., w/ enclosure
Paul Cockrel, Esq., w/ enclosure
Esther E. Gesick, Deputy to the Board w/ enclosure
et tamtemas itme
_env A nii- a 1keM
i s gu , ,
gio-3`?A- 1LtS7).
hares ..Q.,s� -.
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WELD COUNTY
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
Pursuant to §32-1-501(5) ((b) (I), C.R.S., Jeff Hare, Mike Welch, Rod Gantenbein and Angie Powell,
as taxpaying residents of the Beebe Draw Metropolitan District No. 1 hereby appeal the February 9,
2009, Order of Exclusion entered by the Board of Directors of Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan
District No. 1, and in support of the Appeal state the following:
I. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE BEEBE DRAW METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1
On February 9, 2009, the Board of Directors of Beebe Draw Farms Metropolitan District No. 1
("District No. 1") adopted a resolution ordering the exclusion of 39 acres of land as petitioned by
REI LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, a Wyoming Limited Liability Company, CHRISTINE HETHCOCK,
an individual, KIM DELANCEY, an individual, STEVE STEELE, an individual, THOMAS A. BURK, an
individual, and DANIEL R. SHELDON, an individual (collectively, the "Petitioners") as property
owners. The Board entered its exclusion order on February 9, 2009 which granted the petition.
The exclusion order removes the acreage from District No. 1 and leaves only the platted First
Filing of approximately 188 lots and 55 existing homes depending on the outcome of the 2266
acres that was excluded by the District, but overturned on appeal by the Board of County
Commissioners on February 23, 2009, the legal status which is currently unknown pending the
potential appeal of the Board of County Commissioners decision to the District Court.
On or about November 3, 2008, the Board of Directors also approved a new amended
intergovernmental agreement (the "IGA") between District No. 1 and Beebe Draw Farms
Metropolitan District No. 2 (District No. 2) which was necessitated by this exclusion of property.
II. APPELLANTS ARE INTERESTED PARTIES.
The appellants are electors and taxpaying property owners and residents of District No. 1, were
provided notice by publication of such exclusion hearing pursuant to § 32-1-501 (2), C.R.S., and
Appellants Jeff Hare, Mike Welch, Rod Gantenbein, and Angie Powell were present at the hearing
and Jeff Hare presented their objections, and those of other resident taxpayers, in writing to the
Board of Directors. The Appellants are also interested parties under §32-1-207(3) (a), C.R.S.
and § 32-1-204(1), C.R.S.
1
III. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL.
A. The Exclusion is a Material Modification of the Consolidated Service Plan and Therefore
Requires Service Plan Amendment Pursuant to § 32-1-207, C.R.S.
A material modification to a service plan requires prior county approval or formal notice to
the county of the intended action. In this instance, neither requirement occurred.
This exclusion is a material modification to the Consolidated Service Plan adopted in May
1999 ("Service Plan") because it materially changes the boundaries of District No. 1 and
post -exclusion, the boundaries of the two districts are no longer overlapping but are distinctly
separate. This is contrary to the Plan which calls for overlapping districts with all property
initially lying in both districts as explained as follows:
Page 10 of the Plan Provides:
"District No. 2 will contain approximately 3,408 acres of platted and unplatted
property owned by the Company and located completely within the boundaries
of District No. 1, excluding the property in the first phase of development in
Filing No. 1"
Pages 9 -10 of the Plan provides:
"District No. 1 contains approximately 4,120 acres.
Furthermore, there is a material change to the manner in which property will be excluded
as set forth in the Service Plan as follows:
Page 11 of the Plan Provides:
"In accordance with the procedures set forth in the District Act, property within
each new phase of the Development will be excluded from District No. 2, when
such property has been platted, and lot sales have been commenced by the
Company or other developers."
Page 13 of the Plan Provides:
"As development occurs within District No. 2, improved property will be excluded
from the District, and the total assessed valuation of property within the District
will decrease."
Page 14 of the Plan Provides:
"The responsibility for payment of a portion of the costs of public facilities will
be shifted incrementally to all property within District No. 1 as development
occurs, and the total assessed valuation of property within the District
increases."
2
The proposed scheme of immediate exclusion from District No. 1 of this undeveloped
property will now require that such excluded property be re -included into District No. 1
when the undeveloped property is platted. This is provided for on page 23, Section 4.4
of the newly signed IGA which states:
"As contemplated in the Service Plan, District No. 1 shall process and approve
the inclusion of platted property that is excluded from District No. 2 following
infrastructure development."
Clearly, the structure provided for in the Service Plan has now been materially modified
because future re -inclusion of the property into District No. 1 on a piecemeal basis will
require the petitioning for inclusion by the property owner (not District No. 2), a hearing
conducted by the Board of Directors of District No. 1, and a determination as to whether
such inclusion is in the best interests of District No. 1 under the provisions of §32-1-401,
C.R.S. The IGA purports to bind the future board members to vote to approve such inclusion
petition, but under Colorado law, a board can not bind the exercise of discretion of future
members of that board.
The Service Plan contemplates that all property within the Development is contained in
District No. 1 and District No. 1 imposes a mill levy. The Service Plan also contemplates that
District No. 2 can arrange for alternate financing structures. However, such alternate
financing structures refer to temporary loans based on pledged revenues, not an imposition
of an additional mill levy by District No. 2. While the Service Plan does not explicitly prohibit
the establishment of any type of mill levy by District No. 2, the initial TABOR elections in
1999 for District No. 1 were not conducted nor authorized by voters of District No. 2, and
thus it is clear that the intent of the 1999 Service Plan Amendment was not to authorize or
impose a mill levy within District No. 2
The exclusion of this land is in violation of the Service Plan which contemplates that all
property remains in both districts until the lots are platted and marketed, at which time they
are removed from District No. 1 through the normal exclusion process which does not require
Plan amendment, either by statute or under the terms of the Plan. The distinction between
the current Service Plan providing for future exclusion upon development and the new IGA
binding the future boards to agree to exclude is that the former is written into the Service
Plan which operates as a "charter" or "constitution" of the districts and its provisions are
binding on the districts when formed; whereas, inserting provisions into a new IGA that
obligates future boards to exercise discretion in a certain fashion in the future is contrary to
Colorado law. Such a provision would be tantamount to the current Board of County
Commissioners attempting to bind the discretion of future Commissioners regarding zoning
decisions in the future.
Such a limitation on future board discretion is in violation of the legal maxim first recognized
in City of Denver v. Hubbard, 17 Colo. App. 346, 68 P. 993 (1902) that a governmental body
can not surrender its legislative powers. Stated differently, one board can not bind future
boards with respect to the discretionary exercise of legislative powers. See, Keeling v. City of
Grand Junction, 689 P.2d 679, 680 (Colo. App. 1984), (setting of salaries is a legislative
function that can not be restrained by contract), and Bennett Bear Creek Water District v.
Denver, 928 P.2d 1254, 1269-1270, (Colo. 1996) (contracts of a governmental entity
cannot divest its legislative powers); and see, also, Pear- Mack Enterprises Co. v. City and
County of Denver, 568 P.2d 468 (Colo. 1977) and Colowyo Coal Co. v. City of Colorado
3
Springs, 879 P.2d 438 (Colo. App. 1994) explaining that proprietary functions are exempt
from rule of non -surrender of legislative or police powers).
Here, the removal of all legislative discretion in establishing the appropriate mill levy would
be a violation of this legal concept.
Sec. 32-1-207(2), C.R.S., explains that service plan modification is required "only with regard
to changes of a basic or essential nature." The changes here are both of a basic and an
essential nature because the massive exclusion removes the property from District No. 1 and
thus exposes District No. 1 to the discretion of the developer as to whether it will or will not
petition for inclusion into District No. 1. The developer/land owner is not a party to the new
IGA and therefore it must petition to be included in the future. Under the current Plan, the
property lies in both districts and the developer would exclude the property from District No.
2 upon sale of the property to a homebuyer. Absent Service Plan amendment and
modification to address this issue, there is nothing that legally encumbers the excluded
property to force the future developer/owners to re -include their properties into District No. 1
upon development/sale.
B. The District Board Erred in its Finding that the Exclusion Was In the Best Interests of Metro
District No. 1.
Under the structure established by the Plan, all property remained in both districts until the
property was sold and then it was moved out of District No. 2. Thus, all improvements were
technically being built within the same District — District No. 1. However, now, by removing
this undeveloped property from District No. 1, the new scheme established by the new IGA
will require the residents of District No. 1 to tax themselves for improvements that will be
built in District No. 2 not in their district, with only the promise of District No. 2 that the
landowner (not District No. 2) will hopefully petition for re -inclusion.
The petitioner failed to present evidence or any cost/benefit anlaysis that such exclusion was
in the best interests of District No. 1. The petitioner stated on the record that they think the
exclusion facilitates the financing, construction, operation, and maintenance of the capital
improvements set forth in the Service Plan in the most efficient way. However, no details,
cost/benefit analysis, or explanation were provided other than this statement of opinion and
not fact.
To the contrary, the exclusion is not in the best interests of District No. 1 because in order to
conform to the Service Plan's requirements, a new convoluted IGA relationship is required
whereby District No. 2:
will have to conduct a TABOR election in the fall of 2009 to increase
taxes, to approve the incurrence of debt, or approve a multi -year
financial obligation to provide funds to build new facilities for the
benefit of property that now lies exclusively within District No. 2; and
ii. will require District No. 1 to be bound by, and impose by virtue of the
new IGA, the same mill levy that District No. 2 will impose (assuming
passage of such tax increase at the November 2009 TABOR election);
thus removing all discretion from the Board of Directors of District No. 1
as to what the mill levy should be levied within District No. 1; and
4
will require such uniform mill levy imposed within District No. 1 to be
utilized in part to pay the debt or other financial obligations of another
legal entity for improvements that are to be constructed in District No.
2, not District No. 1; and such mill levy has to reflect the increased
costs of a TABOR election within District No. 2 to authorize the new mill
levy and any future indebtedness (thus District No. 1 will be essentially
paying for needless legal proceedings); and
iv. will require District No. l's future Board of Directors to disregard its
fiduciary duties to the residents of District No. 1, and blindly include any
property which is developed, even though such inclusion may, in the
future, not be in the best interests of District No. 1 at that time; and
v. such new IGA constitutes a multi -year financial obligation on the part of
District No. 1 which is in contravention of Article X, Section 20 of the
Colorado Constitution (known as TABOR) absent voter approval
because it pledges the full faith and credit of District No. 1 and
obligates it to pay the future debt service of District No. 2; and
vi. there is a basic premise that, because the property has now been
removed from District No. 1, the taxpayers of District No. 1 will be
paying for public improvements built in District No. 2; and
vii. thus District No. 1 taxpayers must pay for improvements to be installed
in District No. 2 without any voice, input, or representation on the board
of directors for District No. 2; and
viii. there is no legal obligation that binds the property owners of the
excluded property that is now only included within District No. 2 to sign
any petition for re -inclusion into District No. 1, thus reducing this
scheme to the voluntary actions of future owners of the developable
land.
Clearly, this exclusion is NOT in the best interests of District No. 1 or its taxpayers and residents.
C. The District Board Erred in its Finding that the Exclusion was in the Best Interests of the
Property to be Excluded.
It is in the best interests of the property to remain in District No. 1 which is obligated to provide
the services and incur the indebtedness to provide for the financing of all future improvements.
The current unitary structure of having all property in both districts for purposes of incurring debt
and for constructing infrastructure is embedded in the current Plan. It is not in the best interests
of this property to remove it from the protection, benefits, and obligations imposed by that Plan
and subject the property to mere third party beneficiary status pursuant to a revised IGA to which
the property owner is not a signatory party.
The current Plan ensures that the property will obtain development infrastructure. The removal
from District No. 1 and the replacement of the rights and benefits of the Plan with a contract is
not in the property's best interests because in the event that the IGA is deemed void, in whole or
in part, or is rescinded by a future District No. 1 board of directors, the property is left without
any assurance of development.
5
D. The District Board Erred in its Finding that the Exclusion Was In the Best Interests of Weld
County.
The petitioner failed to present sufficient and clear evidence or any cost / benefit analysis that
such conclusion was in the best interest of County. The petitioner stated that exclusion was in
the County's best interests because it implements the plan that they approved, not only the
Service Plan but the approval of Filing 1 development plan and also, in the future, the approval
of Filing 2 development plan.
The exclusion is not in the best interests of Weld County because the exclusion was made
contrary to the proposed procedures for development and exclusion from District No. 2 as set
forth in the Plan. Any exclusion which materially changes the contemplated procedures set forth
in the Plan is not in the best interests of Weld County because the County does not have on file
any record of the material modifications and thus without knowledge of this important structural
change, it is unable to adequately monitor development and the operations of special districts
within Weld County.
Furthermore, the existing Service Plan assures orderly development and a sharing of costs of
improvements that are installed for the benefit of all. With this exclusion, the residents of
District No. 1 will be literally paying for improvements to property lying only within District No. 2
with no legally binding obligation on the property owner to include its property into District No 1,
thus presenting the prospect of requiring the existing development to pay for the new growth and
development.
Finally, the exclusion may put the Districts at financial risk, placing an undue burden on the
County. If the TABOR election in 2009 is NOT passed, the total revenue for the Districts could be
reduced. Given that the Districts have not established any maintenance reserves, the Districts
may not have the ability to adequately maintain its infrastructure, including its roads and water
facilities thus forcing the Districts to ask the County to bear that burden.
E. The District Board Erred in its Finding Regarding An Economically Feasible Alternative.
Section 32-1-501(3) (g), C.R.S., requires that the Board of Directors determine "whether an
economically feasible alternative service may be available." On this point, the Board found that
the exclusion will lead to more economically feasible alternative services which will be provided
to the Final Exclusion Property by District No. 2 pursuant to the IGA in the form of Improvements
being constructed which will directly serve the Final Exclusion Property.
However, it is undeniable that an economically feasible alternative is not legally available until
and unless there is a successful election in November, 2009, that will allow the levying of a tax
of at least 40 mills within District No. 2, and that the voters approve the issuance of debt or
other financing to pay for new infrastructure. Although the Board assumes that these elections
will be successful because the property is owned by one entity which has, or will, transfer
fractional interests in the property to qualify persons to vote, this alternative is still totally
dependent upon a contingency over which the District has no legal control. Thus this alternative
is not feasible because such feasibility is totally dependent upon a non -legally binding or
controllable event.
The developer/property owner can not assure that the TABOR election will be successful
because to bind its employees (who are or may become qualified electors of District No. 2) and
6
any non -employee electors would be criminal violations of §§1-13-720, 1-13-721, and/or 1-13-
719, C.R.S.
IV. §32-1-501(5)(b)(II), C.R.S., Authorizes the Board of County Commissioners To Make an
Independent Determination Whether to Exclude the Property Based Upon the Record
Developed At the Hearing.
This Board may make an independent determination whether to exclude the property based
upon the record before it by applying the same criteria/factors set forth in §32-1-501(3),C.R.S.
Those factors are:
A. Whether the exclusion is in the best interests of the property. Here, the exclusion is not
in the best interests of the property to be excluded because the property can only issue
debt or incur financial obligations after such indebtedness is approved by the electorate
within District No. 2 and yet there is no legal assurance that the required TABOR election
in November, 2009 will be successful. Absent a Plan modification, there is no legal
requirement that the property will be re -included into District No. 1 in the future.
Exclusion does not facilitate the financing, construction, operation or maintenance of the
improvements.
B. Whether the exclusion is in the best interests of the excluding district. The exclusion is
not in the best interests of District No. 1 for the reasons stated in Section III -C, above,
which are incorporated herein. Exclusion does not facilitate the financing, construction,
operation or maintenance of the improvements.
C. Whether the exclusion is in the best interests of the county. The exclusion is not in the
best interests of Weld County. The exclusion violates the previously approved Service
Plan, disrupts the long range planning for the area as to the orderly development, and
removes the certainty as to which district is performing which function and for what
constituency. Allowing the exclusion to occur without modification of the Plan weakens
the statutory role of the County in its vital oversight of special district formation and
execution of service plans. Exclusion does not facilitate the financing, construction,
operation or maintenance of the improvements.
D. The relative cost and benefit to the property to be excluded from the provision of the
special district's services. There is no financial benefit for the property to be excluded
because it will not benefit from the valuation of District No. 1 when the excluded property
is develop using various financing instruments included bonded indebtedness.
E. 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. This
factor is not applicable because District No. 1 does not provide the services.
F. 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.
G. The effect of denying the petition on employment and other economic conditions in the
special district and surrounding area. There would be no adverse effects if the petition
were denied.
7
H. The economic impact on the region and on the special district, surrounding area, and
state as a whole if the petition is denied. There would be no negative impacts if the
petition is denied.
I. Whether an economically feasible alternative service may be available. There is an
economically feasible alternative: leave the property within District No. 1 to fully
effectuate the purposes and intent of the existing Plan.
J. The additional cost to be levied on other property within the special district if the
exclusion is granted. As explained above, the properties in District No. 1 will now be
bearing the costs of improvements that will be installed in District No. 2—a different
district, whereas (and as contemplated by the Plan) before exclusion the improvements
would be constructed in both overlapping districts because the undeveloped properties
lay in both.
V. RELIEF REQUESTED.
For these reasons, Appellants respectfully request that the Board of Commissioners for Weld
County:
a. direct the Board of Directors of Beebe Draw Metro District No. 1 to file a certified record
of proceedings with the County on or before March 15, 2009;
b. after a review of the record, deny this exclusion; and
c. find that such a massive exclusion is a material modification of the Service Plan; and
d. require that the Board of Directors of both Beebe Draw Metropolitan District No. 1 and
District No. 2 seek a Service Plan amendment for this material modification involving
such a massive exclusion.
Dated: February 25, 2009
Respegtfu fy %ubmitted, 11
Jeffre . are, CPA CISA CIA
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This is to certify that on the 25 day of February, 2009 a true and correct copy of the foregoing was
deposited in the U.S. Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed to:
Mr. Paul R. Cockrel
Collins Cockrel & Cole, P.C.
390 Union Boulevard, Ste. 400
Denver, CO 80228-1556
Attorneys for Bebee Draw Farms Metropolitan Districts
8
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
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,
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
nap://www.michie..com/colorado printIpExt.dII/cocode/53a84/53aaI/.
For the constitutionality of former § 32-4-124 under § 25 of art. II, Colo. 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 I, 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 A
ni�cuica UC aI ncSVUI CCS
http://www.mi chi e.com/co I orado_pri ndl pExt.dl I/cocode/53a84/53 as l /
(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 finding, 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) Any 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 I, 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, § I, 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
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
Maximum
Interest Rate
Maximum
Annual
Property Tax
Increase
$ 2,000,000
$ 3,000,000
$ 6,000,000
$ 20,590,000
$ 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
NOTE 5 — RELATED PARTIES
$ 4,239,000
11,454,000
13,547,000
$ 29,240,000
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 Time 7001
EXHIBIT C
,TASTE , i
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
EXHIBIT C
[flat?. 2 ]
ASSESSED VALUATION
Year
Aggregate Units Assessed Valuation
Mill Levy Total Taxes
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
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
51
28
45
32
1,449,920
734,537
486,077
561,036
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
Capital improvement 613,270 59,905 673,067
Average
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
S 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
613,270
(135,081)
$ 478,189
Balance at
December 31,
Retirements 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, 2006
NOTE 4— PROPERTY
The following is an analysis of changes in property for the year ended December 31, 2006:
By Classification
Balance at
January 1,
2006
Land $ 1,482,975
Roads 2,375,696
Water distribution facilities 1,134,655
Offsite water facilities 300,000
Water capacity 615,260
Recreation facilities 1,936,572
Irrigation and landscape 68,658
7,913,816
Additions' Retirements
$ — $ —
51,139 —
8,766 —
59,905j
Less accumulated depreciation (1,071,457) (165,544)
$ 6,842,359 $ (105,639) $
Balance at
December 31,
2006
$ 1,482,975
2,426,835
1,143,421
300,000
615,260
1,936,572
68,658
7,973,721
(1,237,001)
$ 6,736,720
Depreciation expense for the year 2006 is $165,544.
Water system capacity is provided for 179 lots of which 60 have been connected as of December
31, 2006.
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.
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:
By Classification
Land
Roads
Water distribution facilities
Offsite water facilities
Water capacity
Recreation facilities
Irrigation and landscape
Balance at
January 1,
2007
$ 1,482,975
2,426,835
1,143,421
300,000
615,260
1
Addi
21;8
148,74
s
Balance at
December 31,
Retirements 2007
$ - $ 1,482,975
2,641,707
- 1,292,161
615 60
300,000 /
09 455 - (2.246.02
68,658 -
7,973,721 673.067)
Less accumulated depreciation (1,237,001) (186,361)
$ 6,734,720 $ 486,706 $
8,646 88
1,423,362
$ 7,223,426
Depreciation expense for the year 2007 is $186,361.
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
R.PELICAN LAKE RANCH
June 2008
DE ELOPER 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 Ranch owever, there-istnuch
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
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
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.
Grading has begun on the new parking lot and
area designated for the restroom facilities.
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 adjoining, our pool/playground area. We anticipateoe o brought
a ptheing green icto r located review ed south and:
approval by mid -summer. It will then go to Weld County forappro al of plans and design.
Board for
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 surve which identified our pool/la
as Priority No. 1, was completed in 2003. y'
Finally, we should recognize the current Board structure of our metropolitan district. Thisstruyground complex
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
district opera F
participation in
Fishing docks are being installed featuring sat
railing and offer enhanced fishing positioning.
Our newly completed 18 slot RV Lot is startin
fill up with folks gladly taking advantage of th
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 remo'
and cleaned up.
All the equestrian arena gates have new locks,
there's a new water tank at the windmill, whicl
was repaired to provide fresh water for the hor
Projects I'll be involved with for the rest of the
year will include creating the walking trails arot
the lake, a picnic shelter, parking areas, and
additional horse trails, to name a few.
Enjoy all the diverse amenities already complel
and look forward to the new ones on the way!
New Fishing Dock
Photo courtesy of
DeWayne Colby
a
Hello