HomeMy WebLinkAbout20040727.tiff 203
1 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Okay. Thank you.
2 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: In fact, and if I can go back
3 to your other statement, I think what you ' re getting at is it
4 does seem a bit ironic, and I think it seems ironic to the
5 residents at Pelican Lake that the developers make up the
6 board members on the Metropolitan District, which my
7 understanding is not all that unusual in new developments,
8 and that they are also appointing new board members. I would
9 just like to say in counter that it 's nice for the people at
10 Pelican Lake to have a more active voice in the developer ' s
11 activities within the Metropolitan District. And so far, I
12 think with maybe the exception of a couple of families, I
13 don 't think that anybody would classify me as somebody who
14 would represent, other than speaking in favor of the filing,
15 would represent the developer ' s interests in any way, shape
16 or form. I have no financial interest. I have no business
17 associations inside of the development or with any of the
18 entities. I 'm just a homeowner up here, and quite frankly,
19 I 'm actually an outspoken homeowner and have been attending
20 their meetings from since I moved out there.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?
22 (No response. )
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
24 MR. COOPER: My name is Steve Cooper. I 'm a
25 resident of Pelican Lake, 16500 Beebe Draw Farm Parkway.
@aw>sN7 k gNY-'4 2004-0727
0t_con
204
1 We've lived there over two-and-a-half years, and
2 those questions related to the previous speaker, I can affirm
3 to you that with my knowledge, that one more repossession,
4 that Brian will be entirely out of debt.
5 I would like to thank the Chairman the
6 Commissioners for being still bright-eyed and bushy-tailed
7 from very early this morning. I 've been watching each and
8 every one of you. I even see that the County Attorney is
9 still awake.
_ 10 I just want to make two notes, two or three notes,
11 and read something from my wife. You don't have to really
12 pay particular attention to me, but my wife does expect you
13 to pay particular attention to her note, which she is not
14 here, but I will report back to her.
15 I grew up in a farming community, a small farming
16 community, not unlike LaSalle and other places. The small
17 town and the surrounding towns are now mostly bordered up,
18 and that is in the North Platte Valley, the Panhandle of
19 Nebraska. And the largest export has been their children.
20 The future of the children in Weld County is dependent -- and
21 I know that all of you know this. I just wrote this down in
22 the kitchen last night, and now I have to read it. The
23 future of the children in Weld County is dependent upon the
24 economic stability of the community. You all know that.
25 Together our efforts can provide the necessary opportunities
205
1 and funding to not only sustain, but increase educational and
2 employment opportunities within the County.
3 The first note, letter, that I got from the County
4 when I went to Pelican Lake was from the Gilcrest School
5 District saying they were broke, and, boy, have I been
6 helping them lately.
7 We are optimistic that this development, Pelican
8 Lake Development, will become an asset to Weld County in
9 providing revenue for the local and independent business,
10 funding for schools in the County infrastructure. As relates
11 to the infrastructure, the problem with the road that runs
12 right before Pelican Lake Ranch, is the fact that all the
13 truckers, 16-wheelers, come through Hudson, escape the port,
14 and come up the LaSalle way. That 's the problem there.
15 And if I may quote Marilyn Ludwig (phonetic) , the
16 neighboring farmer for the past 55 years, from the Greeley
17 Tribune, dated July 30, 2003 , the people moving to Pelican
18 Lake Ranch are just doing what her family did. Home studying
19 just looks a little different now than it used to.
20 As relates to economics, and I realize the time
21 frame here, I gave (inaudible) 26, 000 for my pick-up. I go
22 make my weekly deposit at Home Depot here in Greeley, which
23 is a requirement I understand. Star Bucks on 35th Avenue,
24 you can find me here. I get my hamburgers at J & B and a
25 malt. And my CPA is in LaSalle.
206
1 Now, I 'd like to read something more sensible to
2 you from my wife.
3 "I am a happy and proud resident of Pelican Lake
4 Ranch. My husband and I moved into our retirement home in
5 May, 2001. Our development has had some growing pains, but I
6 am confident that those will pass when the County
7 Commissioners approve Filing No. 2 , and the developers can
8 continue with their plans for the community. There has been
9 some negative press recently, but that is not the reflection
10 of the majority of the homeowners in our community. Most of
11 us are quite content with the God-given amenities of the
12 peacefulness of the wide-open spaces, the panoramic views of
13 the mountains, lakes, sunrises, sunset and wildlife. As to
14 the objections of some of the farmers in the surrounding
15 community, I know the change is very hard, but they must
16 realize that this land was going to be developed in some way.
17 "I can think of a lot less desirable development
18 than the upscale homes and acreages of the community. We are
19 providing much-needed tax dollars to Weld County, and we all
20 patronize local businesses. We don't need shopping and
21 restaurants in our back yard. We've all been there and done
22 that. We're happy to drive a few miles into LaSalle, Evans
23 and Greeley for those needs.
24 "We're all pretty nice people. Our surrounding
25 neighbors should get to know us, would love to know them. "
207
1 That 's submitted by my wife, Elaine Cooper. And
2 Roy over there with the earmuffs is a neighboring farmer, and
3 he always wanted to be an astronaut I think. But Roy, who is
4 our farmer to the west, gave us the hamburgers from his
5 cattle, I suppose, for our picnic last year. So thank you
6 very much, Roy.
7 Thank you, gentlemen. Any questions.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions for Mr. Cooper?
9 (No response. )
10 MR. COOPER: Thank you.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
12 MR. JEPSEN: I don't think any of us can deny
13 anybody' s right to live wherever they want, but it seems like
14 that' s not the issue. The issue is how the development is
15 doing now, what it 's done in the past years, how it ' s acted
16 and reacted to all the problems that they say they faced and
17 where they're going in the future, whether you're going to
18 approve the second part of it or deny it.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: If you could state your name and
20 address first for the record?
21 MR. JEPSEN: Sure, sorry.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: That would be fine, thank you.
23 MR. JEPSEN: Carl E. Jepsen, II .
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
25 MR. JEPSEN: The address is 20121 Road 42 , LaSalle,
208
1 Colorado.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
3 MR. JEPSEN: We have about 320 acres or so to the
4 east of their property that's being developed. We 're down
5 kind of in the low spot there with several small ponds, and
6 we raise cattle down there.
7 Because we're down low, I suppose, maybe I 'm more
8 concerned about the septic tanks and the possible water
9 problems than a lot of people. I think the septic tank idea
10 is more flawed than a centralized sanitary system that would
11 be more controllable and more protectable of the groundwater
12 supplies.
13 When we go to our farmer 's company meetings,
14 sometimes you hear things that kind of surprise you or shock
15 you. When they tell you that Milton Lake is 50 to 75 percent
16 sewage effluent, that was kind of a surprise because I knew
17 Barr Lake was getting water directly from the Denver sewage
18 treatment plants through some pumps that they've had for
19 decades. But coming down the river, you didn 't really
20 realize that, but it ' s kind of something you say, oh, and
21 that 's the way it is in Weld County. The water comes from
22 the south to the north, through the metro area, and all the
23 sewage plants dump in.
24 The metro area is growing a heck of a lot, and the
25 river is only so big, so the total maximum daily loads have
209
1 to be increasing in there. We get a lot of algae and other
2 stuff in our water supply from Barr Lake. It just keeps
3 growing and growing and never seems to stop. A ditch rider
4 puts in some chemicals to try and keep it under control, but
5 it doesn't seem to work. It' s a big issue and a problem for
6 us.
7 I worry about the Milton Lake being used for
8 recreation for those reasons, that it is that much sewage
9 effluent. I think that' s the wrong kind of a lake to be
10 using for any kind of recreation.
11 I don 't know whether it ' s true or not. You
12 probably know more about what' s going on in Loch Buie than I
13 do. I 've heard that they're going to a mechanical sewage
14 treatment plant, and that that water is going to be dumped
15 down this way towards Milton Lake, or something. So I don't
16 know how that' s going to get there or the direction it ' s
17 taking, or whether it goes to the river first or what ' s going
18 on there. But I think that 's going to be another issue for
19 maybe Bromley Park (phonetic) out that way and all those
20 other developments that are going on farther south.
21 Like you, I 'm kind of surprised that it took 20
22 years to put in 37 houses with all the development problems
23 that they've had. It 's kind of insane or crazy with the
24 markets in the last seven or eight years, the real estate
25 markets that have been going on, and all the interest of
210
1 people to getting out of towns and moving to the country;
2 that 's kind of crazy to me.
3 Concerning the oil well traffic and all that on the
4 roads, I don't know if they fully addressed all of what the
5 traffic is going to do to their asphalt roads in their towns,
6 or in Pelican Lake Ranch. As you move in trucks, 20-ton
7 trucks and all those frac tanks, if they refrac a well, and
8 all the tanks hauling out the condensate, the liquids, the
9 water that they have to haul off, that' s going to be a heck
10 of a hard use of their roads, I think, unless they're really
11 well stabilized. I know some of the County roads get beat up
12 pretty bad from all that, and these guys, I don 't know if
13 they've got any kind of decent road standards, or what 's
14 going on down there.
15 I made a lot of notes, but I think you 've got to
16 start listening to some of the people, and a lot of what I
17 would say would probably be a repeat of what they 're saying.
18 One thing I was wondering about was their
19 development fees. If they are 17 , 500, does that include a
20 water tap fee in that, or is that over and above the water
21 fee?
22 THE CHAIRMAN: We' ll ask the applicant when they
23 come back with their answers.
24 MR. JEPSEN: If that only leaves -- if the water is
25 going to cost 11-12 , 000 a unit, that only leaves four or five
211
1 thousand dollars over and above that for all the other stuff
2 they're doing.
3 I ' ll let it go there.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Are there any questions for
5 Mr. Jepsen?
6 (No response. )
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
8 MS. VAUGHT: Hi, my name is Karen Vaught, and I 'm
9 one of the (inaudible) builders that's left out at Pelican
10 Lake right now at the present. And I really don't like to be
11 up here to talk. I know nobody believes that because I can
12 talk a lot when I 'm not up in front of people, but it really
13 bothers me.
14 But I thank you for all your considerations and
15 your time and patience, and I ' ll do the best I can here real
16 quickly.
17 Firstoff, Monica, did they get my letter?
18 MS. MIKA: Yes.
19 MS. VAUGHT: Oh, okay. Thank you. So you have a
20 letter that I did send to you about a few of the things.
21 And then also I just wanted to state that I 'm
22 really surprised at some of the opinions of some of the
23 homeowners that have gotten up here today because some of
24 them started actually -- started a thing where we hired an
25 attorney and said our first (inaudible) to send letters of
212
1 objection to the Commission concerning the filing of Phase 2 .
2 And now today they're up here talking for Filing 2 , and I
3 don't understand the differences. But I guess they have
4 their reasons because the people I 'm seeing here against --
5 or for Filing 2 just a few weeks ago or a few months ago were
6 100 percent against it. So I don 't know what causes all the
— 7 changes.
8 Some of my biggest problems is the
9 misrepresentation that has gone on out there that brought me
10 out there in the first place. One of the problems I have,
11 too, is that Filing 1 has still -- well, there ' s 90 lots that
12 have roads in front of them with infrastructures for, you
13 know, to build on. There ' s 98 lots that does not have roads
14 in front of them or any way to build on those sites still in
15 Filing 1. That leaves about 50 lots that still could have
16 homes on them and could kind of share this debt service.
17 I 'm really concerned. I fell in love with Pelican
18 Lake Ranch. Don 't misunderstand this. So I went out there
19 to build and to build speculation houses, and also was told
20 they were going higher in price. And so I jumped in and
21 built a couple that were supposed to appraise, or did
22 appraise at that time around $600, 000 each. This is -- well,
23 actually, it's two-and-a-half years later. I 'm still paying
24 interest on those houses, and I 'm determined not to let them
25 put me under. So I 've built for 20 years, and this is
213
1 probably the worst experience I 've had.
2 And like I say, a lot of the reasons I went out
3 there, because I love the area, but I also had multiple
4 things misrepresented to me. And I guess that' s why it kind
— 5 of shattered my faith as far as for Filing 2 . I don't
6 believe it should be allowed to go forward, and I 'd like to
7 give a few of my reasons.
8 Earlier the applicant was asked if covenants had
9 changed. Only, I haven't read the new covenants, so I don 't
10 know, except that they said that the new covenants that the
11 minimum house that can be built is 1, 900 square feet. The
12 covenants on the Filing 1 said 1, 400 square feet. So that
13 alone is a very minor change really probably to you. But if
14 one thing has changed, then how many other things have
_ 15 changed in the covenants for Filing 2 that I 'm not aware of
16 or that other people aren't.
17 Also, they said they had very good covenants, very
18 well-controlled, very well taken care of. I 'd like to show
19 you an article from the Greeley Tribune that you all probably
20 saw here a while back showing a site that 's out there that
21 has been like this for approximately a year and a half. If
22 covenants are so good, and I mean, there' s material and
23 debris around this house, and it' s really in very bad shape.
24 You can see what it looks like. If covenants are so good,
25 something would have been done by this house. It either
214
1 would have been -- I don't know what. I don 't know what the
2 answers are to enforce covenants. That' s not my job.
3 But we also have trash (inaudible) where people
4 have just dumped dump loads of trash, that we keep being told
5 they're going to be taken care of; even if they have to pay
6 and haul it to the dump and then put a lien on the people
7 that have done it, they' ll take care of it. But things don 't
8 get done. So I question how good the covenants and the
9 control of the covenants really are. And that ' s been certain
10 for all the homeowners, not just my houses.
11 Like I say, I 'm one of the builders that got caught
12 in the speculation.
13 Something else I 'd like to talk about is the roads
14 and the infrastructure to put in new roads for Filing 2 . My
15 understanding is that the development fee, and I have closed
16 on sites out there, and I see the money go to the developers,
17 approximately $17 , 500. My understanding is that
18 approximately 11, 000 of that goes straight to the water to
19 help pay off the indebtedness that has been accrued by having
20 these water taps. If that' s the case, then there ' s only a
21 few thousand left for development. And so how is the
22 developer's fee going to pay for any of these roads or this
23 new structure?
24 Already there 's a two million dollar debt by 37
25 houses, and five of those I have built. I don't know of
215
1 those 37, but I have built five houses out there since I came
2 out there in March of 2001. And so I question how these are
3 going to get paid for if each of these houses, and I have two
4 lots that I 'm still paying on, how much is my debt in this
5 really?
6 And I 'd like the Commissioners to please ask the
7 applicant what is my indebtedness right now, today. If they
8 would decide to walk away from this project, like some down
9 south have done, how much am I going to owe divided by these
10 37 houses? What 's my indebtedness.
11 And if you pass Filing 2 today and they go out and
12 they can borrow up to $20 million, and there ' s still 37
13 houses out there, or in five more years there' s 70 houses,
14 what is my indebtedness going to be? And I think it ' s not
15 just for me, but the people that live there and want to stay
16 there and retire there. And so to me, that ' s a very serious
17 question that you need to ask, is when we 've asked the
18 question at meetings, and I personally have, they always say,
19 I ' ll get back to you on it. I don 't know the exact figure,
20 but I ' ll get back to you on it. But I never get an answer.
21 Also, I know at night it' s very quiet out there.
22 You can hear the frogs. But during the day when I 'm out
23 there and when construction is going on, I have a house that
24 is only approximately 300 feet from one of the rigs. And
25 they come in there with the big tanks. And in the two-and-a-
216
1 half years since I started that house, they have come in
2 three times and just filled the entire back area between
3 which is open space between one house and another house, with
4 huge red tanks, and the big rigs go up. And I ask what
5 they're doing? And, well, they have to catch a different
6 pocket, and so they have to move it. That 's happened three
7 times to one well in two-and-a-half years by one of my
8 houses.
9 And to do that, they don't use the main roads now.
10 They're saying that when Filing 2 goes in, they're going to
11 use the blacktop roads, the roads that they're going to put
12 in to service these wells. Right now, they don ' t come on our
13 roads. They go through the property. You know, I 've got one
14 lot that kitty-corner cut across the three acres to get to a
15 well. But the roads are there; we know they 're there. But
16 they' ll fly over from like one area, one lot, they' ll fly
_ 17 across a blacktop, and literally, if you don't know they 're
18 using it and using those two wells say at that time, the
19 trucks are just literally flying.
20 There 's one person out there (inaudible) that
21 rides, has a couple of horses, and that' s the only person
22 I 've seen most of the time just riding out there. They talk
23 about how they really have to watch out for the trucks
24 because they can pop over a hill; you don 't even know that
25 they're coming. And, to me, it' s quite serious, the safety
217
1 factor, because other trucks out there, and I think they do
2 the best that they can, but they can't control all the
3 different people. Most of them are very courteous and very
4 nice, but there are exceptions. And there are kids out there
5 that walk home from the bus. And if this goes on, and more
6 wells and more houses and more kids and more people, and
7 hopefully more horses, I 'm concerned about safety of the
8 people.
9 We also had issued -- brought up the issue about
10 ruts and how much erosion possibly could be caused from
11 horses and that kind of thing. We only have one person, to
12 my knowledge, out there riding now, and she rides one horse
13 and leaves the other one because it 's a very old horse. And
14 we already are getting -- you know, and she rides different
15 places, but because it' s purely sand, and it is a continuous
16 size of sand, it doesn't take anything to make a path or to
17 destroy a path.
18 And the walking paths that they talk about, I have
19 yet to see a walking path. The first time that the trails
20 were mowed was just recently, just within probably the last
21 couple months, and I assume partly because of the hearing
22 coming up.
23 Also, I 've heard people say different things about
24 valuation on the property. I have three banks. All three of
25 the banks that I am working with and have worked with will
218
1 refuse to do any kind of house on speculation at Pelican Lake
2 Ranch. The market has been so bad. There has been so many
3 that have not sold, and it's not just my homes. There are
4 other homes that have not sold either. And so they just
5 literally -- they call it a dead -- a dead development is
6 their words, and they're not interested.
7 And like I say, I 'm not saying all banks will say
8 that. I 'm saying I can name three that have, and two of them
9 are in Weld County.
10 I 'd like you to ask the questions of like, who is
11 the new bonds, and who is going to pay for the new cost of
12 Development 2? Is it the homeowners? The Metro District 1
13 -- let me back up just a little bit.
14 When I bought out my lots, first lots out there,
15 yes, I guess they missed me, and excluding my lots. So later
16 -- I bought them in March of 2001. In May of 2002 -- well,
17 that' s when it was actually filed, so I don't know the exact
18 date. I was out in the field on the job site. Kent Colburn
19 came to me and said, you have to sign this now, today. It
20 was a paper that was missed when you closed on the lots, and
21 I 've got to get you to sign it today. It ' s got to get
22 recorded. It was my mess-up. I don't want to get in
23 trouble. You've got to sign this.
24 I signed it, and I know that's stupidity on my
25 part. I 've been in business 20 years. I knew better than
219
1 sign something and not know what I was signing. I later
2 found out what I signed was an exclusion from Metropolitan
3 District No. 2 , which meant that I gave up all my rights as a
4 lot owner or a homeowner to be able to ever vote to what my
5 monies and my taxation went for because Metropolitan 1 is set
6 up and has the debt of the subdivision and of the entire
7 Metropolitan Districts. This I found out later. I also took
8 it to an attorney, and he said I really should have made the
9 objection 30 days -- within 30 days. I don't even think I
10 got a copy of it in 30 days, yet alone to know what I signed
11 to get an objection.
12 But what it did is it excluded me out of
13 Metropolitan District No. 2 , who has all of the control of
14 the monies, the debt issues. They do what they want to with
15 things, and make the voting of how the money is going to be
16 spent. I gave it away because it was an emergency, a paper
17 they missed me signing at closing. But it still upsets me
18 because it was total misrepresentation.
19 Also, just I 'd like to go through why I think
20 Filing 2 shouldn't pass because I don't -- I guess I have
21 lost all faith, and I don't trust any of the issues anymore.
22 I don't trust what they've told me because I had liked to so
23 many times.
24 I was misrepresented about the water at the lake.
25 I 've talked to the Weld County Health Department. They say
220
1 the water shouldn't even be touched. Let alone you go
2 boating or canoeing, and I 'm sure there ' s a lot of good
3 canoers, I 'm sure, boaters that don't touch the water. I 'd
4 have to touch a wet rope to tie up a boat. They say it ' s
5 serious that you do not play in the water.
6 Another misrepresentation, I know you don't want me
7 to repeat, is rattlesnakes. I was told that when you build,
8 then the rattlesnakes go away. Well, I 've since found out
9 that rattlesnakes come back to where they lived when it turns
10 time to -- or to go in for the winter. I 've seen multiple
11 rattlesnakes. We killed a six-foot one in one of the houses
12 I built. And we've killed multiple rattlesnakes. I hate
13 snakes. And I know where the anti-venom is even for my dogs
14 in case they get bit. But anyway, the rattlesnakes don't go
15 away and stay away.
16 Another thing that was misrepresented, not just to
17 me, but to other homeowners I feel out there, is to -- oh,
18 sorry, just a minute here --
19 THE CHAIRMAN: If you could kind of summarize.
20 MS. VAUGHT: -- oh, differ from motions, pardon,
21 that --
22 THE CHAIRMAN: If you'd kind of summarize your main
23 points --
- 24 MS. VAUGHT: Okay.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: -- in respect for other people ' s
221
1 time who wish to testify.
2 MS. VAUGHT: I sure will. I guess the main thing
3 is that I just feel like that services have been not what I
4 was told and a lot of misrepresentations. Things didn't
5 happen the way they were supposed to. I know we have new
6 people, but I 'm still getting misled by some of the same
7 people, and so I have a problem and I would ask that you not
8 go on with Filing 2 at this time.
9 I think it' s critical that the homeowners out there
10 have you ask and get the answers for them as to what their
11 indebtedness is going to be if we start developing Filing 2
12 and there' s no more homes out there because something has to
13 happen to bring people out to an area, or what is it
14 offering? If it' s not offering the lake and amenities, what
15 is bringing them out? And the roads to get there are going
16 to only get more cumbersome getting there on because of the
17 traffic and such.
18 So thank you for your time, and I appreciate you
19 listening to me.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you.
21 MS. VAUGHT: Any questions?
22 THE CHAIRMAN: No, thank you.
23 MS. VAUGHT: You're wore out. Thank you.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: After these two, or --
25 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: I 've got to make some phone
222
1 calls here pretty soon.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Now?
3 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Well, I think we can stand
4 one more.
5 MS. ADKINS: Hello.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: And then we' ll take a break here
7 after this.
8 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: All right.
9 MS. ADKINS: Chairman, Commissioners, my name is
10 Sandy Adkins, and I am a resident at Beebe Draw Farms at
11 16493 Essex Road South, Platteville 80651. I 'm also the
12 elected representative on the Homeowners ' Association for
13 Beebe Draw and Pelican Lake Ranch.
14 And I just wanted to make -- I 'm absolutely for the
15 second filing. When we purchased our home, actually, we went
16 out over two summers, it was probably a year and a half, that
17 we went back and forth to make our decision to move out
18 there. We made the decision with the understanding that the
19 filing and the community would be built out.
20 One of the items that hasn't been covered that I 'd
21 like to just bring to your attention is we actually have a
22 resident who lives out there now who is on the -- works with
23 the Department of Reclamation and has been coaching many of
24 us in our landscaping. We're very concerned about that. We
25 are putting in drought-tolerant plants, trees, we 're working
223
1 with five-star turf on our grasses, the local seed companies
2 on a mix of buffalo and prairie grass for the communities or
3 in our individual landscaping. And the trees that we 're
4 putting in, we got ours from the tree farm, who is getting
5 ready to cut those down, actually, to put alfalfa in, so we
6 felt we were saving the trees and brought them over. So
7 there' s a lot of effort being put in by the homeowners to
8 make sure that erosion isn't a problem and to keep our soil .
9 And the other item that I wanted to bring up is,
10 I 'm sort of a big city girl, too, so this has been a great
11 experience for me. I -- I can't tell you what it felt like
12 when I had an owl come and sit on my railing on my deck.
13 That' s probably about my most favorite experience out there
14 so far.
15 So we would like to see amenities going forward,
16 but just the wildlife and the neighborhood, the quiet that we
17 have out there. Yeah, sometimes the cattle get out and
18 they' ll walk through the yard. We just kind of herd them
19 back. That' s happened once or twice. You -- you get used to
20 that and it's kind of comforting to know that everybody out
21 there pulls together for things that are needed. We're a
22 pretty tight knit community, even though we have a lot of
23 different opinions, we're pretty tight knit. So we have
24 times where we get together, we discuss, we debate.
25 And that 's probably my summary right now. I 'm
224
1 going to be short, because it 's getting late.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions --
3 MS. ADKINS: Do you have any questions?
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions for Ms. Adkins?
5 (No response. )
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
7 MS. ADKINS: Thanks.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: We' ll take a ten-minute break and
9 then we' ll -- we have some more people I think that wanted to
10 talk and we ' ll resume that when we come back. So thank you.
11 (Whereupon, a short recess was taken. )
12 THE CHAIRMAN: We' ll reconvene at this point. I
13 know we had at least one more person that wanted to testify
14 during the public testimony portion. I 'd ask you if you 'd
15 like to come forward, please, and if you could start with
16 your name and address for the record, please, and welcome.
17 MR. ADKINS: I 'm Glen Adkins, I live at 16493 Essex
18 Road South out at Pelican Lake. And I know it ' s getting
19 late, so I 'm going to be pretty brief.
20 You know, the people living out there at Pelican
21 Lake Ranch, we 've actually only had one family up here
22 objecting today, and I would like to point that out. I think
23 the majority of the people are pretty happy out there. There
24 have been some issues we've had to work through with the
25 builder and such, but overall I think we're satisfied with
225
1 the direction things are going. And I think it would really
2 be unfair to deny the second filing because that' s going to
3 put that financial tax burden right back on the people that
4 have built out there now. So, yeah, we'd like to see it go
5 forward.
6 And as far as property values, I just had to have
7 my house reappraised so I could take advantage of one of
8 those low interest loans that have been available right now.
9 And this is from the appraisers, this is not what I think or
10 what somebody told me or what some real estate person told
11 me, that our property is going up $40, 000 since we bought it,
12 and it' s been about a year and a half. I know not everybody
13 has had that same experience, but that ' s been our experience.
14 Thank you.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions --
16 MR. ADKINS: Any questions?
17 THE CHAIRMAN: -- questions for Mr. Adkins?
18 (No response. )
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
20 Sir? If you could start with your name and address
21 for the record, please, and welcome.
22 MR. JEPSEN: My name' s John Jepsen, I live at 20121
23 Weld County Road 42 , LaSalle. I 'm really up here because
24 Monica says I should come up here and give one last
25 presentation for her, so -- I 'm more or less an habitual
— 226
1 objector to this from day one, and I 'm concerned right now
2 about the cost of the County taking over the maintenance of
3 the roads internal in the subdivision and improving the
4 existing roads to handle the amount of traffic that this
5 might or might not generate if this goes through or if it's
6 ever built out. With the, you know, tax structure and the
7 various tax amendments in the state and the county Home Rule
8 Charter, the amount of taxes the County can actually collect
9 from this, and will it be enough to take care of the
10 maintenance for these roads, is one concern.
11 And I 'm concerned, you know, with more people
12 around the lake and the threat of West Nile now, will the
13 County have to do an extensive spraying program? I can
14 remember in the early ' 80 's there was a very bad grasshopper
15 infestation there and they were using converted DC3 ' s to
16 spray the grasshoppers out there day after day on the
17 prairie. So if that happens again sometime, somebody' s going
18 to have to spray.
19 Other than that, you know, I ' ll ditto everything
20 that other people have said about this. With oil and gas,
21 you know, it is hazardous, there's accidents and almost
22 accidents all over the county, and I 'm concerned about, you
23 know, erosion and the horses and blowing dust. The gentleman
24 there was speaking how soon they reseed the building sites
25 after they're constructed, and they start reseeding before
227
1 they screw in the last light bulb, but if you look at some of
2 their sales ads, you see these houses that have been sitting
3 there for years and there's nothing but bare dirt around the
4 sides. I 'm concerned about that blowing.
5 That' s all.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any questions for Mr.
7 Jepsen? .
8 (No response. )
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
10 Mr. Wardell?
11 MR. WARDELL: Roy Wardell, 18253 Weld County Road
12 32 , Plattville, Colorado 80651. I removed my astronaut
13 headgear when the people accused me of having (inaudible) . I
14 didn't get my hearing aid back in, so if I have questions, I
15 might have a little trouble hearing that.
16 I want -- I want to do a little bit of an overview.
17 By the way, I border on the Pelican Lake property for three
18 and a half miles, two and a half -- almost the entire west
19 side, and then almost the entire south side, so I 've had a
20 lot of experience. And my intent here is not in any way to
21 disparage anybody that lives out there. In fact, I -- I
22 consider -- I 've gotten on a first-name basis with a lot of
23 the homeowners, quite a few of them, and I like to do that
24 and I feel good about the people that live there, and there 's
25 good people, and I have no reason to question the integrity
228
1 and the well-meaningness of the people that live there and I
2 think they should continue to live there. In fact, that ' s my
3 whole point that I 'm going to try to make, is that those
4 people that live there should continue to be able to live
5 there, and I see no reason why -- other than (inaudible) --
6 that 188 homes couldn't be built there. But as you guys well
7 know, 188 homes out there in the middle of where we are is a
8 whole bunch of houses. That's a -- that ' s a big development.
9 Six hundred houses is -- and I know I 'm talking about zoning
10 here, but -- and I know that was approved way back when, but
11 a bad plan perpetuated is not a good plan.
12 And I -- I feel that I 'm a victim of some bad
13 decision-making and I think -- some bad decision-making, and
14 really even more than that, I think that people were misled
15 about this from the very beginning. And really the problem
16 with why we 're here today and we ' re here again and again and
17 again is because from the beginning there' s been some not
18 good faith but some bad faith stuff from the beginning that
19 has undermined the development -- this whole development.
20 And I say that not from any one individual except maybe the
21 original developer, who is not here today and can't answer
22 for this, but I really believe that he misled the county
23 commissioners 20 years ago. And just for an example -- and I
24 can give an example, and there's more -- that he was going to
25 pave Road 39 if this was approved. That was never done, and
229
1 finally the County came along and paved it. But there was --
2 there' s been many examples of not good faith development.
3 And I believe that the developers have every intention of
4 trying to make this go, but I think they're barking up a dead
5 horse. I really do. I don't -- that' s not a good analogy.
6 They're barking up a bad tree. There' s no coon in the tree.
7 But I really do believe the developers have good
8 intentions, but I really believe that they also, because of
9 the money involved, have done some bad faith kind of things
10 and I think there ' s a lack of integrity and I think there ' s
11 been some deception, and that is what has undermined this
12 thing from the get-go. And until that gets taken care of and
13 this gets started up -- started at a reasonable place, I
14 think you're going to keep having this problem over and over.
15 And if you prove it -- Mike mentioned something about
16 mitigating factors -- you 're going to have a whole bunch of
17 mitigating factors until this thing gets managed better and
18 the developers get to the point where something is manageable
19 and the finances are worked out.
20 I haven't heard any of -- and I know there' s more
21 than one family of homeowners that are dissenting, maybe
22 there 's only one that came, and I know -- and I feel very sad
23 that there 's homeowners out there -- and I basically blame
24 this on the developers, or maybe the original guy, because of
25 the bad faith stuff, that there ' s been deception, they needed
230
1 to sell this thing, and so now I think the homeowners are
2 paying for this with having dissention between themselves.
3 And what I think should happen, and everything I
4 can understand is that if this is stopped for now -- and
5 maybe you can say in the future if this development of 188
6 houses goes well and works that -- and I don't see any reason
7 to think that because we do this today that all of a sudden
8 they're going to be able to sell more houses.
9 I don't see any reason to think about that. I
10 haven't heard any good argument for that. But if this -- if
11 they go ahead and do -- even develop three-fourths of it and
12 does well and the homeowners -- and I think there ' s some
13 problems with Metropolitan District, I think there ' s some
14 constitutionality issues, I think -- I think you really need
15 to put a hold on this thing, give some time to see if this
16 188, see if the Metropolitan District actually is fair to the
17 people that own it, and give them -- and I haven't heard any
18 of the homeowners say it's really important that we have all
19 these amenities now. Most of them are saying that ' s not that
20 important. What I think they're mostly concerned about and
21 why there's not more up here objecting to some of the
22 misleading things that have been done, is that they ' re
23 worried about their worried about their bottom dollar, their
24 bottom line, the value of their investment. I don't blame
25 them a bit, they should be worried about that.
231
1 But I think, from what I 've heard about what debt
2 they've incurred so far, they'd be better off to stick with
3 that right now and not incur anymore until they have a
4 project going that -- and some developers that can really
5 say, "We have a plan that 's going to make this work. "
6 Because right now I think what the best thing that' s going to
7 happen is, if we go ahead with the big one, the best -- I
8 would bet some money, I wouldn't give 100 percent, but I 'd
9 bet some money that it won't work and it will be a big
10 problem, and it ' ll be a belly up thing. That ' s a hard thing
11 to say, but I don't see any track record. I don't think that
12 the developers have shown a track record that ' s going to make
13 this big thing work. I don't see any reason. They don't
14 have -- if they can come back and show you guys some
15 different things, that'd be fine.
16 I ' ll quit with that. Any questions?
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Any questions for Roy?
18 (No response. )
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Thank you.
20 Anybody else?
21 (No response. )
22 THE CHAIRMAN: With that I will close public
23 testimony and I will at this point ask for the applicant or
24 representative thereof if you would like to respond to a lot
25 of the questions that have been raised at this point through
232
1 the public testimony and then finally by the commissioners.
2 MR. CLINGER: Thank you, sir.
3 I 'm going to be the main rebutter, but before I get
4 into rebutting the various points that were made, I 'm going
5 to ask Paul Cockrel, attorney for the District, to make some
6 comments in rebuttal regarding the District.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Very well. And if you could, just
8 for the record, please, state your name and address again,
9 thank you.
10 MR. COCKREL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Paul Cockrel,
11 again, general counsel for the District. My address is 390
12 Union Boulevard, Suite 400, Denver, Colorado.
13 I listened to I think 90 percent of the testimony
14 while I was in the -- almost 100 percent of the testimony
15 while I was in the room, but I stepped out of the room for
16 awhile, and I think I understand that there were basically
17 two issues that were raised over and over again, and that had
18 to do with the amount of district debt and the financing
19 plan, which is contained in the service plan. Let me address
20 those and then respond to any questions that you might have.
21 Once again, the District, in 1998 , issued unlimited
22 rate general obligation debt in the amount of $2 million.
23 That was issued on a 20-year term. It' s a level amortized
24 term, just like your mortgage is, over 20 years. As in any
25 mortgage or debt of that nature, interest is paid first,
— 233
1 principle is paid last, incrementally. And there' s nothing
2 unusual about that. The debt service payments are level on
3 an annual basis, and they're slightly over $200, 000 . And
4 that was the situation in 1999. when the Consolidated Service
5 Plan was approved.
6 Now, under the old Service Plan of the Beebe Draw
7 District, the District could have issued millions of dollars
8 of unlimited tax obligation bonds, and that was changed.
9 This current service plan authorized the District to issue
10 only another $2 . 6 million in unlimited rate bonds. And
11 that' s the cap. Beyond that, all the Service Plan
12 anticipates that any additional debt issued by the District
13 would have a mill levy cap of 50 mills so that there would be
14 protection to individual property owners.
15 The financing plan itself -- and I would just point
16 this out in context -- the issue before you today is not the
— 17 District Service Plan, it' s the approval of the Land Use
18 Plan. The Service Plan is drafted to implement the
19 infrastructure needs for the development, and as you change,
20 as the County changes, the nature of the development, the
21 Service Plan itself has to change to correspond to that. The
22 financing plan, for example, anticipated 724 units and about
23 $20 million to 25 million in infrastructure costs. That' s
24 not the case today. Those infrastructure costs will be
25 reduced significantly.
234
1 Will the District revisit the financing plan? Yes,
2 it will. As soon as it' s determined what development plan
3 will be authorized for this property, then the District will
4 necessarily have to revisit that. And, in accordance with
5 all the statutory requirements and all the provisions of the
6 service plan, if that results in a material change, we have
7 to come back to you and you have to approve that. But it
8 would be premature to make those changes in advance of your
9 determination on the land use plan.
_ 10 There is some confusion, for example, about the
11 amount of fees that are generated for the District. The
12 District' s development fee is currently 17 , 500. That
13 basically -- it was anticipated to pay for roadways,
14 drainage, and water distribution systems within the
15 development. In addition to that, the Central Weld Water
16 District has a tap fee, a portion of which is rebated to the
17 District in the amount of $10, 500. That rebate amount is
18 intended to pay for the purchase price of the water supply,
19 the CBT units that are required by the District and then
20 transferred and dedicated to Central Weld to provide water
21 supply to the individual units.
22 So there are multiple sources of revenue, all of
23 which are intended to pay for the primary costs of
24 development. The additional amounts come from the District ' s
25 mill levy, which has been, and is today, 40 mills and is used
235
1 to pay off that existing debt. And as I stated earlier in my
2 testimony, to the extent that there is any surplus, that can
3 be used for other purposes, including capital purposes of the
4 District. The structure of the District, the operations of
5 the District, the administration of the District are all in
6 compliance with law. They're all in compliance with the
7 service plan. The District has never received notice from
8 any state agency that its in noncompliance. It operates in
9 accordance with statutory requirements, it operates exactly
10 the way the Consolidated Service Plan anticipates that it
11 would operate.
12 And I don't think it's necessary to respond to
13 innuendo, so I 'm just not going to do that, but I would be
14 more than happy to respond to any questions that you have,
15 and if we find, after you have gone through this process,
16 it ' s necessary to amend the service plan, we ' ll come back to
17 you with those proposed amendments and you will have every
18 opportunity to question the feasibility of those amendments.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Vaad?
20 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Yes, Mr. Cockrel, so I
21 understood $2 million, about a $200, 000 a year debt service
22 over 20 years as I understand it, then you mentioned $2 . 6
23 million?
24 MR. COCKREL: Yes.
25 COMMISSIONER VAAD: And so is that added on?
- 236
1 MR. COCKREL: The service plan allowed the District
2 to issue another $2 . 6 million in debt.
3 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Which they did?
4 MR. COCKREL: Which it has not done.
5 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Oh, okay. So --
6 MR. COCKREL: So the only outstanding tax-supported
7 debt is the $2 million, a nominal of the principle amount has
8 been reduced over the five years. The District has a revenue
9 note for $400, 000, and that revenue note is repaid if
— 10 revenues are available from the sale of water taps. That
11 revenue note, the proceeds from that note, were used to
12 acquire the CBT water. So as we get the tap fees back in, we
13 repay that note, but it ' s not supported by property taxes.
14 COMMISSIONER VAAD: So the total obligation is the
15 2 million less that bit of principle that ' s been paid.
16 MR. COCKREL: Yes, and all those debt service
17 schedules are in the District' s audit.
18 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Thank you.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Geile.
20 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Yeah, it was mentioned by one
21 -- some of the testimony -- one of the points mentioned today
22 was that I think the terminology was "without limits" . In
23 other words, if the District were to fail, the whole debt
24 obligation of the District would be assessed against the
25 homeowners, or the owners of the lots.
237
1 MR. COCKREL: Um-hum.
- 2 COMMISSIONER GEILE: And of course I can recall the
3 Colorado Springs case that in essence went into the
4 legislature and that established the limitation as far as the
— 5 mill levy. But I want to make sure I understand the
6 document, because there were some quotes taken out of the
— 7 document, and the one "without limits" , in essence, the
8 interpretation of that is that there was not a 40 mill limit
9 or a 50 mill limit, that it would be limitless. Can you help
10 me with that?
11 MR. COCKREL: Sure. The issue debt of the
— 12 District, again, the $2 million debt of the District issued
13 in 1998, does not have a mill levy limit on it at all . And
14 theoretically, the District is required to increase its mill
15 levy as necessary to pay debt service, okay? And the point
16 is that the 13 million in assessed valuation more than
17 supports -- and the 15 mill levy of the District -- more than
18 supports that. If the District lost all of its valuation,
19 then the mill levy would necessarily go up. But as you
20 suggested, there are state law limitations on how far that
21 could go. So there are protections, if necessary.
22 COMMISSIONER GEILE: But I want to make sure, since
23 this district was created prior to the legislature dealing
24 with that, is this grandfathered in as far as being --
25 MR. COCKREL: Well, I think you 're referring to the
238
1 100 mill limit that was imposed under the -- under --
2 actually, it applies to various taxing districts, not only
3 Title 32 districts, but yes, it would apply here. If there
4 was this -- the situation that occurred in Castle Pines and
5 in Colorado Springs where the debt service requirements of
6 the District were going up and the assessed valuation wasn't
7 keeping track with that, then state law does allow a district
8 effectively to take bankruptcy protection at 100 mills. But
9 it just isn't even anticipated in this situation because
10 there' s ample -- there ' s ample assessed valuation to support
11 the current debt service on the bonds. The District has not
12 wanted to issue additional debt because we don't want to put
13 the District in that position. It would be financially
14 irresponsible to do so.
15 COMMISSIONER GEILE: The other question, if I may,
16 Mr. Chairman.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Please.
18 COMMISSIONER GEILE: We've got two districts --
19 MR. COCKREL: Um-hum.
20 COMMISSIONER GEILE: -- that we 're talking about,
21 but I assume District 1 is Phase 1 --
- 22 MR. COCKREL: Actually -- okay, go ahead.
23 COMMISSIONER GEILE: -- District 2 is Phase 2 ; is
24 that a correct interpretation?
25 MR. COCKREL: No.
239
1 COMMISSIONER GEILE: No.
2 MR. COCKREL: No, not really. District 1 is the
3 entire development, if you will. They -- and the structure,
4 again, as anticipated in the Service Plan, recognizes that
5 the undeveloped portions, which are essentially Filing 2 ,
6 will become District No. 2 . And as District No. 2 builds
7 out, then basically the property is excluded, it remains only
8 in District 1, and by the end of this process you end up with
9 a single district and District No. 2 goes out of business.
10 The reason for that is to enable the development to phase the
11 construction and to enable the District to do phased
12 financing to meet the infrastructure requirements for the
13 development.
14 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Well , I can understand that,
15 that makes sense now. But, if I was in Phase 1, I would
16 certainly want to have some kind of reassurances that all
17 that' s been invested and my obligations towards that
18 investment as a property owner aren't stranded if something
19 were to happen.
20 MR. COCKREL: Um-hum.
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Does that make sense to you?
22 In other words, what kind of guarantee do the people in Phase
23 1 have with this kind of structure that they won't all of a
24 sudden be left out there in the cold?
25 MR. COCKREL: We 'd be happy to provide you with
240
1 copies of the intergovernmental agreement between the
2 District which sets the basic responsibility and duties of
3 each district, and --
4 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Are those intergovernmental
5 agreements prepared in accordance with the laws and all that
6 --
— 7 MR. COCKREL: Yes, I believe they are fully legal.
8 I don't see any question of unconstitutionality regarding
9 these District structures, they're used all over the state.
10 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I 've not heard of this
11 structure before. Do you know of other occasions where this
12 structure has been used?
13 MR. COCKREL: Yes, I do. And --
14 COMMISSIONER GEILE: And so it' s -- it ' s been
15 upheld somewhere, I would assume, in some courtroom or --
16 MR. COCKREL: All I can tell you is it ' s a common
17 technique that 's being used throughout the state.
18 COMMISSIONER GEILE: okay.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Counsel?
20 MR. MORRISON: The only -- Well, I am not aware of
21 any other within unincorporated Weld County, I believe
22 there 's some in Windsor. In fact, I 'm certain there ' s some
23 in Windsor and some other municipalities. While we were here
24 I ran a Westlaw check to see if there was any case law on
25 this issue, and I was unable to identify anything that would
241
1 indicate a problem with this type of dual metropolitan
2 district. So I couldn't find any case law addressing that
3 issue one way or the other.
4 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Thank you.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Commissioner
6 Vaad?
7 COMMISSIONER VAAD: One final thing. So did I hear
8 you correctly that the current assessment of 15 mills
9 produces -- on the current property assessment -- produces
10 the $200, 000 a year?
11 MR. COCKREL: It covers the debt service, the 15
12 mills.
13 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Okay.
14 MR. COCKREL: The other 25 mills is accumulated to
15 pay for infrastructure improvements.
16 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Oh, so that' s the 40 mills, 15
17 pays and --
18 MR. COCKREL: That's the 40.
19 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Okay.
20 MR. COCKREL: That's right. And I think as you --
21 you gentlemen have dealt with District financing previously,
22 you also know that you essentially have to finance the
23 infrastructure as it comes on line in advance of receiving
24 taxes, and you have to do that all in accordance with, you
25 know, financially sound purposes. It was always anticipated
242
1 that the District would operate at no more than a 40 mill
2 amount, and with the mill levy combined with the developer
3 fees would pay for this infrastructure. And that ' s the thing
4 I would say in completing my remarks, is if the District
5 determines that it can't be -- the infrastructure can 't be
6 paid for by the District, then the developer is going to have
7 to pay for that directly in order to complete the phase
8 development in accordance with the subdivision improvement
9 requirements and everything else. So the District isn't
10 going to put itself in a position that it would be
11 financially unsound.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Geile.
13 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Okay, that' s fine, but when a
14 district is created -- and I think I know what I 'm talking
15 about, but I 'm not sure I do -- 20 percent -- and I can't
16 remember, I think it 's 20 percent of the bonding needs are
17 actually put up front by the developer, and then as it goes
18 beyond that, then the other starts kicking in as far as the
19 property owner obligations. I might have that kind of
20 intertwined some way, but can you -- and the reason I 'm
21 asking that question, I get back to the $6 million that was
22 mentioned; is that the developer' s part of the phase -- or
23 the Metropolitan District 2? Or does he have any financial
24 obligation up front?
25 MR. COCKREL: Let me tell you there are just a
243
1 variety of financing --
2 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I know that, that 's why I --
3 MR. COCKREL: -- techniques that are used. So I
4 don't think there is a common place. Maybe with a fire
5 district or a big rec district, I mean they're going to issue
6 straight GO bonds just like the school district. Developer
7 districts, though, are required by state law to issue no more
8 than 50 percent -- they're restricted in issuing -- in
9 incurring debt, and the debt cannot exceed 50 percent of the
10 total valuation of the district unless they qualify for a
11 number -- any one of a number of exceptions. And in
12 developer district, that generally means that the developer
13 has to securitize those bonds. He has to put a Letter of
14 Credit behind the bonds to assure that the bonds are repaid,
15 just very similar to the situation where a developer puts a
16 Letter of Credit with the County to ensure that subdivision
17 improvement agreements are completed.
18 And so in this case, in order for the District to
19 issue debt, it would have to comply with that 50 percent
20 debt-to-assess valuation ratio. It couldn't issue more than
21 6 million, but that 's only a theoretical amount. The reality
22 of the marketplace is that today the investment bankers and
23 the investment markets will not allow you to speculate on
24 development. You have to have contracts in place or you have
25 to have developers essentially providing security to assure
244
1 the repayment of the bonds. You just can 't go out and sell
2 bonds.
3 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Okay, but I want to get back
4 to what is the developer's financial responsibility for Phase
5 2?
6 MR. COCKREL: Okay, I 'm sorry, I missed that. The
7 developer' s financial responsibility currently is a
8 development agreement under which the developer agrees to pay
9 developer fees on properties as they open those phases. The
10 District actually -- I looked at the audit -- in 2001
11 collected around 500, 000 in developer fees. I think the
12 developer holds developer fees now for future lots; is that
13 correct?
14 (No audible response. )
15 MR. COCKREL: And that money, the District will
16 continue that into subsequent phases of the development. So
17 if we have to build a million dollars worth of improvements,
18 we're going to require the developer to obligate itself to
19 pay the District fee sufficient to cover that portion of the
20 infrastructure costs.
21 COMMISSIONER GEILE: What would happen if there is
22 no development? In other words, if they don't sell any
23 houses.
24 MR. COCKREL: If there were no further development
25 today and if the assessed valuation of the District did not
245
1 decline, there' s no jeopardy to the repayment of the
2 District's bonds and it would not exceed the 15 mill limit.
3 Now, you know what 's happened with the State and
4 Gallagher. The rate of residential improvements decreased 13
5 percent last year, and that has a very negative effect over
6 time, certainly, over District valuations. But in the long
7 term, it could have some effect upon the District. In the
8 short term, it ' s -- it 's nominal, because the District ' s
9 primary assessed valuation does not come from improved
10 property anyway.
11 And I 'd also like to point out that there is -- the
12 District has a uniform tax levy, so whatever tax levy is
13 applied to an improved property is also applied to all the
14 developer controlled properties. By law, there can 't be
15 differential rates. Well, there can be under limited
16 circumstances, but there is a single mill levy that ' s applied
17 to all property in the District.
18 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I appreciate it. I 've asked
19 you the same question about three different ways and you've
20 answered it consistently. I guess --
21 MR. COCKREL: Yeah, the development fee agreement
22 is the only real tie at this time, but that can -- if
23 necessary, it will be revised in the future to meet the
24 financial needs of the District.
25 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Thank you.
246
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Commissioner
2 Jerke.
3 COMMISSIONER JERKE: I assume that the District
4 gets no good whatsoever out of all that oil and gas
5 development that happens to be on the lands? How does that
6 work, any good at all from it?
7 MR. COCKREL: The answer is yes. The District
8 receives tax revenue from that, just as any taxing agency
9 does.
10 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Is it a portion of your
11 assessed valuation then?
12 MR. COCKREL: It is. Oil production is a portion
13 of assessed valuation.
14 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Okay. I guess it does you a
15 lot of good, then.
16 MR. COCKREL: It ' s how they pay for their share of
17 roads and all the other improvements within the districts.
18 They certainly pay their way.
19 COMMISSIONER JERKE: Okay, thank you.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Vaad.
21 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Who would be the authority, or
22 who would have the power to make the decision to convert all
23 40 mills to debt service?
24 MR. COCKREL: The Board of Directors.
25 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Of -- now, we were talking
247
1 about two different --
- 2 MR. COCKREL: Of the two districts. Well, first of
3 all, the District, what is now District No. 1, the original
4 Beebe Draw, issued its bonds, and it by law and by contract
5 is obligated to continue to pay off those bonds. So it has
6 continuing authority for and responsibility over those bonds.
7 COMMISSIONER VAAD: So District 1?
8 MR. COCKREL: Yeah. District 2 can't preempt that.
9 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Okay. Thank you.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?
11 (No response. )
12 THE CHAIRMAN: The question was raised during
13 testimony in regards to the planning fee -- or the
14 development fee that went -- the 17 , 500 . Was that -- water
15 tap a part of that fee?
16 MR. COCKREL: No.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay.
18 COMMISSIONER VAAD: The water tap is on top of it.
19 I think the total fees that are paid to the District are the
20 10, 500 plus the 17, 500.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
22 MR. COCKREL: Yeah.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?
24 (No response. )
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
248
1 MR. COCKREL: Thank you very much. I ask to be
2 excused. If you think you need me for further questions,
3 I ' ll be happy to hang around, but otherwise I 'd ask to be
4 excused.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: It's up to you. Sometimes questions
6 do arise that might be --
- 7 MR. COCKREL: Okay.
8 THE CHAIRMAN: -- might be of interest or advisable
9 for you to stay, but that 's -- it 's your call .
10 MR. COCKREL: Thank you.
11 MR. CLINGER: For the record, David Clinger, and I
12 think I 've given you my address. I 'm going to go through on
13 the rebuttal by quoting the name of the person that objected
14 and then try and respond to that issue. I 'm going to try and
15 do this very quickly, concisely, to the best of my knowledge
16 and belief. I 'm not going to use any windows or get
17 emotional, although being a land planner, you know, and being
18 a designer, when you hear some of the things that were said
19 today, it kind of hurts. But I 'm not going to get into that,
20 I 'm going to try and be professional and answer these
21 questions as quickly as I can to you.
22 THE CHAIRMAN: I think just go through your
23 rebuttal without the names I think would be just fine.
24 MR. CLINGER: Okay.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: And answering the questions.
249
1 MR. CLINGER: All right, I will do that.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: That would be fine.
3 MR. CLINGER: All right.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Geile.
5 COMMISSIONER GEILE: Mr. Chairman, I think that
6 most everything has been said. And I know that we are
7 dealing with Section 28 of the old Zoning Ordinance and
8 Regulations, however, I keep going back to Section 28 ,
9 whether it ' s Section 28 of what we 're currently operating
10 today, there's one thing that ' s very consistent, and that has
11 to do with health, safety, and welfare of the people in Weld
12 County. And in 1989 and in the ' 80 ' s, I would suspect there
13 wasn't the amount of drilling and oil well activity going on
14 on the property. And even though the applicant has done a
15 tremendous job in bringing together the oil companies to come
16 up with an agreement, the fact of it is there ' s a tremendous
17 amount of oil batteries, oil wells, and other facilities
18 located in this area, and I 'm very, very concerned about that
19 as it deals with the health, safety, and welfare of the
20 people in the area.
21 Having said that, I do realize that when we go back
22 to the year 2000 and we heard this case that there were
23 things that concerned us that had been dealt with. One of
24 them is I think there's probably been resolution for the
25 water with Central Weld, I think perhaps the septic system
250
1 has been dealt with, even though I still have concerns when
2 you talk about a project this size not being on some kind of
3 a public system. We can -- we can talk forever about the
4 ability to engineer systems, to put treatment systems in, but
5 it really comes down to how are we going to look to the
6 future as it relates to this site, because obviously through
7 the years we're going to have changes in the Metropolitan
8 District, we're going to have changes in the Homeowners '
9 Association, changes in philosophy. And consequently, we
10 look down the road, we know that this is by then
11 environmentally sensitive. It' s also got some health issues
12 as we take a look at the level of nitrates in the soil. So I
13 still, as I get back in 2000, have a concern that we need to
14 look at some kind of a public system in this area to protect,
15 again, the health, safety, and welfare of the people.
16 I think the traffic is something that will evolve
17 as time goes on. I mean even if we were to approve this
18 today and if we were to move on, the traffic is something
19 that will have to be dealt with down the road. However --
20 and I guess I don't have as great a concern there as others
21 do, but I am concerned about some statements that
22 Commissioner Jerke made as far as the traffic patterns in the
23 area, and I don't think that was taken into consideration.
24 But what it comes down to, and I know that
25 sometimes you have to back up and go in and reorganize
251
1 various financial structures, in this case the Metropolitan
2 District, to be able to not only enhance your present value
3 but also to provide a value for the future. But I think this
4 -- the Phase 1 has got to be closer to completion to show
5 that this particular area will develop rather than to move
6 ahead now with more lots that won't be able to be sold for a
7 long time into the future.
8 So I think there needs to be more progress showed
9 in Phase 1, and I agree with the statements that have been
10 made, perhaps more of a realistic, if I could say, phasing
11 plan be brought forth to the Board, I think that would make
12 more sense than to just move ahead with a carte blanche
13 another 400 units to be built. So I will be -- my
14 conclusions do, I think, follow the rest of the
15 commissioners, and I will in essence act accordingly.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. First of all, I 'd like
17 to also thank everybody on the staff, the applicant and
18 respondents, and the testimony that 's been brought forward.
19 This board always takes very seriously, and intends to take
20 very seriously, the public input that is brought before these
21 hearings, because it does help us to be able to draw I guess
22 from our -- for our deliberation purposes the truth as we are
23 able to see it and discern and be able to apply it through
24 all the parameters that we are charged with. And we couldn't
25 do that without everybody's participation, so first I 'd like
252
1 to do that. I also realize the efforts that have gone
2 forward to this time with the applicant and making great
3 strides and great progress, taking a lot of resources and
4 time and professionalism and experience to be able to draw up
5 to this point.
6 However, I do still have to concur with my
7 colleagues in regards to all the comments that have been
8 made. In seeing that, this is a -- in looking at the zoning,
9 I think, you know, this is a place where this type of
10 development is going to happen. I 'm not sure that this -- I
11 am sure that this is not what would be the best benefit for
12 the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Weld
13 County. I would say at this time this type of development
14 I 'm concerned with the oil situation, with the setbacks and
15 the shear numbers. And as far as a solution-oriented
16 position looking at it as proposed by my colleagues, I would
17 find myself in agreement with those.
18 I also find myself -- I live in an area like that
19 out near New Raymer, and I chose that for the very reasons
20 that I heard from the testimony of the homeowners both in
21 support and opposition in realizing that those areas are
22 fragile and need to be taken care of and be good stewards of
23 the land.
24 I do appreciate the suggestions or the solutions
25 that have come forward through the -- by the applicant in
253
1 trying to resolve those issues, however, I think the sheer
2 numbers and the total scope of it would be problematic to be
3 able to -- for the land and the people to coexist in that
4 fashion. So with that I would find myself not supporting the
5 application.
6 If there 's no other comments -- Commissioner Vaad,
7 please.
8 COMMISSIONER VAAD: If I could direct a question to
9 counsel?
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Absolutely.
11 COMMISSIONER VAAD: I 've been thinking about --
12 it's certainly not my intention to prolong anyone ' s anxiety,
13 homeowners that are for it or homeowners that are opposed to
14 it that don't get a clear and definite answer right now. Nor
15 is it my desire to cause the applicant to unnecessarily spend
16 more amounts of money. And so what I was wondering is if we
17 deny, either by lack of a motion to approve it or a direct
18 motion to deny it, then the option left to the applicant is
19 to change the proposal and come back on another -- what ' s our
20 term?
21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Substantial change.
22 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Thank you. -- substantial
23 change, or are there other options for the applicant at their
24 choosing, like withdrawing? What does that do if that were
25 an option? Maybe it's --
254
1 MR. MORRISON: Withdraw? You mean withdraw at this
2 point?
3 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Yeah.
4 MR. MORRISON: Well, I -- if they could do that, to
5 what effect, then, to recast the proposal?
6 COMMISSIONER VAAD: Answer questions, or --
7 MR. MORRISON: I mean I think it ' s a -- there have
8 been occasions where someone has withdrawn a proposal during
9 a commissioner hearing and then come back that would usually
10 at least require going back to the Planning Commission that
11 might require restarting the application process. It would
12 avoid the Substantial Change.
13 I ' ll remind you that we did change the Substantial
14 Change process to where you can combine that with the
15 application after a period of one year, so you don't need to
16 do both steps. If it were withdrawn, at the very least they
17 would have to go back through the entire hearing process, if
18 not reapply. But they could -- I don't know that now that
19 you 've closed testimony that 's really a reasonable approach,
20 but I 'm not -- you know, I guess if someone' s inclined to
21 suggest that, it' s probably within the power of the Board to
22 allow that to happen.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Jerke.
24 COMMISSIONER JERKE: I think it' s clear to the
25 applicant the hearing's provided us with problems that it
255
1 would take substantial change, and it 's been outlined now to
2 them that a year later they could come in with a substantial
3 change showing the different changes that hopefully they
4 would be able to take to heart and make the proposal better.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Geile.
6 COMMISSIONER GEILE: I 'm going to really ruin your
7 day, counsel. Can we continue it for a period of time, let' s
8 say a year, to allow the applicant -- well, first of all,
9 certain things, see exactly how the market fulfills, see how
10 the Metropolitan District performs -- I was trying to think
11 of some of the others -- to deal with the road situation, and
12 then for this Board to make a final determination in a year
13 based upon what we have heard as far as testimony?
14 MR. MORRISON: Well, you can continue it without
15 expressing any -- I mean, you certainly could continue it. I
16 think the complication is what you do with it after that
17 period of time if there ' s to be any changes in the
18 application. But I think -- I mean we have done things like
19 that, remanded it in some cases back to the Planning
20 Commission, continued it for setting and a determination of
21 what they would choose to do and a determination by your
22 Board whether you need it to go back to the Planning
23 Commission. That would be my -- if you're inclined to do
24 something like that, I would suggest not scheduling it for a
25 hearing but scheduling it for a setting to determine what
256
1 direction it 's going to go at that -- at that stage.
2 THE CHAIRMAN: Commissioner Jerke.
3 COMMISSIONER JERKE: All I 'd point out is, remember
4 the amendments that Monica covered, multiply those times ten
5 without having a new proposal, without doing anything else.
6 With that, Mr. Chairman, I would be prepared to go
7 ahead and make a motion at this point to deny Site Specific
8 Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final Plan PF
9 1021 for the second filing of Beebe Draw Farms for 406 lots
10 for REI, LLC.
11 COMMISSIONER MASDEN: Second.
12 (Motion seconded. )
13 THE CHAIRMAN: It 's been moved by Commissioner
14 Jerke and seconded by Commissioner Masden to deny the Site
15 Specific Development Plan and Planned Unit Development Final
16 Plan PF 1021 as cited by Commissioner Jerke. Any further
17 discussion?
18 (No response. )
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Seeing none, all those in favor say
20 "aye" .
21 (whereupon, "ayes" were heard. )
22 THE CHAIRMAN: All those opposed same sign.
23 (No response. )
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Motion carried unanimous.
25 (Whereupon, motion passed. )
- 257
1 THE CHAIRMAN: That concludes the business of the
— 2 Board on this day. We are adjourned.
3 (Whereupon, the hearing was adjourned. )
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
— 22
23
24
25
258
1 CERTIFICATE
2 I, Nancy Wehrheim, do hereby certify that the
3 foregoing recorded hearing before the Board of Weld County
4 Commissioners is a true and correct transcript to the best of
5 my ability and understanding; that I am not counsel, not
6 related to counsel or the parties hereto, and not in any way
7 interested in the outcome of this matter.
8
A
10 Nancy Wehrheim
11
12 ;l'.{;Z? lit(7 Y t) ( 3
13 Date
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
- 24
25
Hello