HomeMy WebLinkAbout20062383 Page 1 of 1
Donna Bechler
From: Myrna Folsom [myrna_f_2000@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, August 19, 2006 7:23 AM
To: Esther Gesick
Subject: kitely approval
To: Weld Board of County Commissioners:
Some of the reasons given by you as reported in the hearing certification for approval of the
Kitely Farms change of zone are interesting.
Commissioners Jerke and Masden allude to the necessity of both approval of a petition of
annexation by Mead trustees and its electorate. The Municipal Annexation Act makes the annexation
process complicated for the protection of the public. Adding the element of approval by the electorate
just adds one more safeguard.
Commissioner Vaad apparently implies that his approval is based on the rejection of another
development to the northwest by Mead. Every application should be judged on its own merits, not
prejudged that it would be rejected also by Mead.
Even in the absence of a growth boundary agreement the county code states that inside of a
municipal service area boundary annexation is encouraged. It does not distinguish whether the services
be provided by the municipality, a special district or other entity.
Add to this the unsubstantiated allegations that special districts perform their services more
economically than a municipality, that the town's impact fees are designated for funding the
construction of a waste treatment plant and that the taxes paid by property owners in the county
development will be less than if it were in the town [which doesn't take into account the metropolitan
district mill levy, which unsuspecting home purchasers in the development will discover with their first
property tax bill], and the bases in fact for the commissioners' decision is suspect. Then, there is the
absence of a fiscal impact report from which it might judged whether revenues from the development
will offset the cost of services to the development [including those provided by other entities than the
county], or will a burden be put on the shoulders of other taxpayers in the county.
There is a ray of hope with Commissioner Geile's opinion that there should have been a
petitioning for annexation. Unfortunately, he will be lost to us come January 1st.
The statement that the applicant has a private property right to develop the property to the
highest and best use shows an entire disregard for the public interest. After all, the rights of property
owners in Colorado are not unlimited. They ultimately are those originating with government, whether
they be from Spanish land grants, federal land grants to railroads or Homestead Act titles. What came to
mind relating to this unlimited owner property rights argument was the famous statement of William K.
Vanderbilt; "the public be damned".
John Folsom
Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out
EXHIBIT
8/22/2006 2006-2383
Bernard Lyons Gaddis Et- Kahn
A Professional Corporation_( "'•-- Attorneys and Counselors
Weld County Planning Department
August 17, 2OO6 SOUTHWEST BUILDING
AUG 1 8 2006
Paul R. Cockrel RECEIVED
Collins Cockrel & Cole
39O Union Boulevard,Suite 4OO
Denver, CO 8O228-1556
Re: Kiteley Ranch Metro District
Dear Paul:
I am in receipt of your August 8, 2006 response to my previous letter to Mr. Kim Ogle of the Weld
County Planning Department regarding the comments of my client, the St. Wain Sanitation District,
on the proposed Kiteley Ranch Metro District.
You indicated that your client had no objections to the proposed conditions of service by my client to
the new metro district except for condition 7 which would require the metro district to dissolve upon
payment/retirement of the bonds used to fund the sanitary sewer improvements. You indicated that
this would not be feasible because the metro district would be required to continue in existence to
maintain the roadways, parks, and related improvements within the proposed development.
I will recommend to my client that it delete condition 7 in this instance and I am confident that it will
not object to the deletion, provided that the IGA addressed and clarified this issue. The next Board
meeting is scheduled for September 6, and I will obtain my client's consent at that time and get back
to you.
I look forward to working with you on this project.
Very truly yours,
BERNARD, LYONS, GADDIS & KAHN,
a Pro - ionnaal/Corp. .tion
By SifiL/
•ichard N. Lyoa s, II
ri ons@bl_ . .com
cc: St. Vrain Sanitation District
(att'n: Eric Doering)
Mr. Kim Ogle
EXHIBIT
515 Kimbark Street • Second Floor • P.O. Box 978 • Longmont, CO 80502-0978 I
Phone: 303-776-9900 • Fax: 303-413-1003 www.blglaw.com
KITELEY FARMS,LLLP
13844 Weld County Road 7
Longmont,CO 80504
(970) 535-4323
August 14,2006
Mr.Kim Ogle
Lead Planner
Weld County Planning Department
1555 North 17'"Avenue
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Re: Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake-PZ-1082; located in
Northwest 1/4 of Section 27, Township 3 North,Range 68
West of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado
Owned by Kiteley Farms LLLP
Dear Mr. Ogle:
Please accept this letter as authorization for Jerry Eckelberger as Member/Manager of
Longs Peak Investors,LLC to represent Kiteley Farms LLLP for the purposes of organizing and
submitting a Service Plan for the Kiteley Ranch Metropolitan District and to pursue Final Plat for
Kiteley Ranch at Foster Lake.
Kiteley Farms,LLLP,
a Colorado limited liability partnership
By: t .;wc;, iL f�'
Ernie Kiteley, Generalkrtner
SCHEE
Imo_
Page 1 of 2
Jennifer Luna
From: Kim Ogle
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:42 AM
To: Bruce Barker; Jennifer Luna
Subject: FW: Kiteley Ranch Metro District
Attachments: Kim Ogle.vcf
Please add to file
Kim Ogle
Planning Manager
Southwest Weld Service Center
4209 CR 24.5
Longmont, CO 80505
720.652.4210 extension 8730 T
720.652.4211 Facsimile
kogle@co.weld.co.us
From: Paul Cockrel [mailto:pcockrel@cccfirm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:41 AM
To: Kim Ogle; Bruce Barker; 'eckelberger'
Subject: FW: Kiteley Ranch Metro District
For your information.
From: Richard N. Lyons [mailto:RLyons@blglaw.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 9:47 AM
To: pcockrel@cccfirm.com
Cc: barry@longspeakwater.com
Subject: Kiteley Ranch Metro District
Paul, I reviewed your letter of August 10 to Mr. Dykes, the general manager of my client, Longs Peak
Water District, regarding the inability of Kiteley Ranch Metro District to dissolve upon repayment of
debt, due to the proposal/requirements imposed that the metro district continue to operate and
maintain the parks, roadways, etc. This one exception to the listed conditions set forth in Mr. Dykes'
letter is acceptable to Longs Peak Water District. We will simply address my client's concerns in the
IGA by an additional explanatory sentence or two in the limitations on authority of the metro to engage
in water activities. Accordingly, you have my permission to represent to Mr. Ken Ogle of Weld County
that your exception is acceptable! My client has no objection to removing that one condition from the
list of conditions in Mr. Dykes' letter. Let me know if you need this in a more formal written letter for
the hearing on Wednesday, August 30. Regards, D. Lyons
Richard N. Lyons, II
Bernard, Lyons, Gaddis & Kahn, P.C.
P.O. Box 978
Longmont, CO 80502-0978
303-776-9900; Facsimile 303-413-1003
rlyons@blg/aw.com
www.b/glaw.coin
Exton
8/29/2006
Page 2 of 2
CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: THIS E-MAIL MESSAGE AND ANY ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS CONTAIN INFORMATION WHICH IS ATTORNEY
PRIVILEGED, CONFIDE YOU AREDHEREBY
RINTENDED ONLY FOR THE
NOTIFIED THAT ANYUSE OF THE DISSSEM ATION,VDISTRIBUTION,PIENT. IF PRINTINGT
HE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE
INTENDED RECIPIENT, OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY
-� PROHIBITED.IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS MESSAGE IN ERROR,PLEASE IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US BY TELEPHONE OR RETURN THE E-MAIL MESSAGE TO
THANK YOU.
8/29/2006
Hello