HomeMy WebLinkAbout20141263.tiff PETITION TO STATE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS For Office Use Only
1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Phone: (303)864-7710
Denver, Colorado 80203 Fax: (303) 864-7719 Docket No.
RECEIVED Fee: Y N
MAY 2 2 2014 ChedkCredit Card#
WELD COUNTY Date: May 21, 2014 p ,
PropEctPMMASOMgMtt Corporation
Subject Property: Rural Weld County
Street Address City
Schedule Number(s): E3261805+ (see attached sheet)
Attach separate sheet if necessary
Appeals the decision of the Weld ['Board of Equalization
0 Board of Commissioners Dated: 4/23/2014
County ❑State Property Tax Administrator
This Appeal concerns: (❑Valuation m Refund/Abatement ❑Exemption ❑State Assessed Tax Year: 2011/2012
The subject property is currently classified as:
O Agricultural O Commercial ❑Exempt O Industrial ❑Mixed Use ❑Natural Resources
la Oil &Gas El Personal ®Possessory ❑Producing ❑Residential ❑State Assessed
❑Vacant Land Interest Mines
Actual Value assigned to subject property: Petitioner's estimate of value:
Estimated time for Petitioner to present the appeal: 60 minutes or 1 hours.
Not less than 30 minutes. Board will allow equal time to County or Property Tax Administrator.
Appearance:
O Petitioner will be present at the hearing OPetitioner will appear by telephone
0 Petitioner will be represented by an agent Petitioner is responsible for calling the Board at 303-866-5880
2I Petitioner will be represented by an attorney on the scheduled date and time of hearing(Mountain Time Zone)
D Petitioner would like to appear by video conference
Petitioner must contact the Board at 303-868-5680 at least 20 days in advance
of the scheduled hearing to confirm availability of video conference equipment
if the property owner is an entity,it must appear under the representation of an attorney licensed in Colorado except as follows. A closely held entity may be
represented by an officer of the entity as long as the amount in controversy does not exceed$10,000,exclusive of costs,interest or statutory penalties.
A closely held entity can have no more than three owners. See Section 13-1-127,C.R.S. A closely held entity that will be represented by an officer of the
entity must provide a letter to the Board with this petition stating that It has no more than three owners and that the tax amount at issue does not
exceed$15,000 as of August 7,2013.A trust filing a petition as of August 8,2012 may be represented by a trustee,an attorney or an agent.
Filing Fee:
q None Petitioner is appearing pro se(self-represented)and has not filed more than two Petitions with the Board
of Assessment Appeals during this fiscal year(July 1 —June 30).
O $ 33.75 Petitioner is appearing pro se (self-represented) and has filed more than two Petitions with the Board of
Assessment Appeals during this fiscal year(July 1 —June 30).
g $101.25 Petitioner will be represented by an agent or by an attorney.
In the space below, please explain why you disagree with the value assigned to the subject property
Although Petitioner's leasehold mineral interests and production in rural Weld County are not
within its boundaries, Sand Hills Metropolitan District has erroneously and illegally levied ad valorem
taxes on Petitioner's property as described in the Amended Complaint submitted herewith.
Co Ce •CALW i ctiw,CA\ 070/`-l-/07i351981H 5/22
. 1
Required attachments to this form:
0 Assessor's or Property Tax Administrator's Notice of Valuation or Notice of Denial
❑ Decision of County Board of Equalization, County Board of Commissioners or Property Tax Administrator
Attachments required under certain circumstances:
❑ A notarized Letter of Authorization if an agent will be representing Petitioner
❑ A list of names, last known addresses and telephone numbers of co-owners or parties directly interested in the subject
property if applicable.
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition to the State Board of Assessment Appeals and
attachments were mailed, faxed or hand delivered to:
0 Board of Equalization
Weld8oard of Commissioners
County ❑State Property Tax Administrator
at the following address:^ 1550 O Street, Greeley, Colorado 80632
fo on 1' r 4 ca % o 14 .
c7 ate i 0�
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition to the State Board of Assessment Appeals and
attachments were mailed, faxed or hand delivered to all co-owners or parties directly interested in the subject property
on
Date
I hereby certify that four (4) true and correct copies of the foregoing Petition to the State Board of Assessment Appeals
and attachments were mailed or
315, Denver, CO 80203 on 1 ' ► a t r aQ 14
Date
(One copy may be faxed to the Board but the ginal and two additional copies must be mailed or hand delivered.)
Petitioner's Mailin Address is Required Even if Petitioner is Represented by An Agent or Attorney (per C.R.S.
39-8-10
___T �� lice. _
Signatur of Agent_or Attorney ® Signature of Petitioner
R. Kirk Mueller Ken Wonstolen
Printed Name Printed Name
1550 17th Street, Suite 500 1099 18th Street, Suite 2300
Mailing Address Mailing Address
Denver, CO 80206 Denver, CO 80206
City, State, Zip Code City, State, Zip Code
Telephone: 303.892.7456 Telephone: 303.312.8170
Daytime number
E-Mail: kirk.mueller@dgslaw.com E-Mail: konstolen@billbarrettcorp.com
Attorney Reg. No.: 16746 It is the Petitioner's responsibility to notify the BAA of any
change of address.
Petitioners are strongly encouraged to read the Instructions and Rules of the Board of Assessment Appeals prior to
completing this Petition Form. The Instructions and Rules are available on the Web at www.dola.Colorado.gov/baa or
may be requested by phone at 303-866-5880.
,
® Bill Barrett Corporation
AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER
I, Kenneth A. Wonstolen, Senior Vice President—General Counsel and Secretary
for Bill Barrett Corporation (the "Corporation") hereby inform the State Board of
Assessment Appeals that I give permission to R. Kirk Mueller of Davis Graham &
Stubbs LLP as agent and attorney to represent on the Corporation's behalf the appeals
proceedings with regard to the petition for abatement.
Dated: aO.M 2 1 2 O1 I
�1 1
BILL BARRETT CORPORATION
By: If t)r'1- S _
Kenneth A. Wonstolen
Senior Vice President—General Counsel;
and Secretary
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF fn72.//M/
il
The foregoing was acknowledged before me this f�/' day of May, 2014 by Kenneth
A. Wonstolen, Senior Vice President—General Counsel; and Secretary of Bill Barrett
Corporation.
�, ,%.-
c',,7,2L
Notary pittgl c J
MARY F HOPE
Notary Public
[Notary Seal] State of Colorado
Notary ID 199146358
M Commission Ea Tres Jan 19. 2018
RESOLUTION
RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD CONCERNING PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND
OF TAXES -BILL BARRETT CORPORATION
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,the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, State of Colorado, at a
duly and lawfully called regular meeting held on the 23rd day of April, 2014, at which meeting
there were present the following members: Chair Douglas Rademacher, and Commissioners
Sean P. Conway, Mike Freeman, William F. Garcia, and Barbara Kirkmeyer, and
WHEREAS, notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present has been given to
the taxpayer and the Assessor of said County, with said Assessor, Christopher Woodruff, being
present, and taxpayer, Bill Barrett Corporation, represented by Kirk Mueller, with Davis Graham
and Stubbs, LLP, present, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has carefully considered the attached
petition, and is fully advised in relation thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the Board concurs with the recommendation of the Assessor and the
petition be and hereby is, denied, and an abatement or refund be allowed as follows:
CORRECTION
TO ASSESSED ABATEMENT TAX
VALUATION OR REFUND YEAR
$0.00 $0.00 2011
$0.00 $0.00 2012
c,eA 4 c tct- (SIA)
6f
2014-1263
AS0087
TAX ABATEMENT PETITION— BILL BARRETT CORPORATION
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 23rd day of April, A.D., 2014.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: (�( $ i 1�fir 1 j�1�� e9 liter
��jj G ' D ugla% Radema her;Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board ♦ fL ;
.tea ���L
j 1 I 4 i -���; � .raKirkmeyer/Pro-Tem/
De• i; Clerk to the Boar.
P. Conwayfed
APP ORM: 'L.e.------
Mike Free
my Attorney
f iam . Garcia
Date of signature: ]/S/i4
2014-1263
AS0087
•
•
•
PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES ,J /�
County:WELD Date Received c t rhos/
(Use Assessors or Commissioners Date:Stamp)
•
Section I: Petitioner,please complete Section I only.
tm ^I Ty f xJ
Daler November 15 2013 �, � -It *--2
-_ y '
---Month Day YearAl il
t rf C.1 1
Petitoners Name: Bill Barrett Corporation
Petitioners Mailing Address:-1099 18th Street,Suite 2300 NOV 2 n 2013
Denver Colorado 80202
CitycrTown Slate Zip Code WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR
r
SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER(S). PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL-DESCRIPTOR OF pReamessY, coi.OlrRALD -
See Exhibit A See Exhibit A
r 101.E
Petitioner requests en abatement or refund of the'appropriate taxes and states that the taxes assessed against the
above property for property tax year(s) 2011 and 2012 aro incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly in
describe why the taxes have been levied erroneously or
illegally,whether due to erroneous valuation,irregularity in it] }m
levying,clerical error or overvaluation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) 4 F—LLI
For the reasons set forth in the Complaint recently filed in the Colorado District Court,District of Weld County, > , =o
Case No.2013CV030928,a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B,the saxes certified by the Sand Hills I,' �U)
Metropolitan District and collected by Weld County upon Bill Barrett Corporation's property identified in Exhibit A W o U)
hereto commencing in 2010 and through the present have been levied erroneously or illegally'as described in (1 OC Cl.
C.R.S.§39-10-114 et seq. taieirdCLuZ
125,019 2011 and 891,519 (2012 )
Petitioner's estimate of value: $ ( )
38
Value Year Value Year
I declare,under penalty of perjury in the second degree,that this.petitlon,together with any accompanying exhibits
or statements,has been prepared or examined by me,and to the best of my knowledge,information and belief,is
l true,correc and complete, y
Daytime Phone Numberf 303) 312--c !7V
Petitioner' Signature
By Daytime Phone Number( )
Agent's Signature'
"Letter of agency must bre attached when petition is submitted by an agent.
If the Board of County Commbsibners,pursue silo g 39-10-114(1),C 9.3.,cr the Property Tut Administrator,pursuant to§39-2-115,C.R.S.,
denies the petition for refund or abatement aliases In whole win part.the Petitioner may appeal to the Board of Assessnrent Appeals pursuant
to the provisions of g 39-2-125,C.R.S.,.within!Hwy Says of entry of any such decision.4 39-10-114.5(1),O.R.S.
Section II: Assessor's Recommendation
- (For Assessors Use Only) !�
Tax Year "26_ Tar Year VII
Actual Pssess.d ray Actual Anessert poi
•
oriouPliFs15(e1 fin lDT)0-1O 1 3s1053.57111JttTo14'k 1 ill bto."31ct1b 1 I-PigS'i. 9(o
corrected i 170,44I `d I1let,3`1'fz' 1 12%tc&IF1,f 70, 41, 5 L123 .ii 911 q94• q1P
Abate/Rotund
❑Assessor recommends approval as outlined above.
If:he request tor abatement Is based upon the grounds of overvaluation,no abatement or refund at taxes shalt be made it an ob(ecticn or protest
to such valuation has been tied and a Notice cl Determination has been mated to the taxpayer,5 39- C-114(1)(a)Ig(D),CA.S.
Tax year: Protest? O No Oyes (If a protest was filed,please attach a copy of the NOD.)
Tax year Protest?. O N ❑Yes at a protest was filed,please attach a copy of the NOD.) 2014-1263
Assessor recommends denial for the following reason(s):
'TN aqua i Mluz MS b&n. (O Cu lu lord('crroe+L ricl - C,AJb ,
I •-1 P -ICI;c.14SsUL c(- latei1ur or�r� ,•'-4-' 9,16 Hi .ems is k\
CI L77-er tv leut,t,asc i/15 �`2,9 P ^ikiO t O C. C yi-6fr
!t + - - tL. 1 rt�i * , Asspccor Assessor's o uty Assessor's Si to
l A15-0P�LAR i2.920-to/IIIII ft1�+'
FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY
(Section III of Section IV must de completed)
Every peilien for abatement or refund fled pursuant to 439-10114 0 R.shall be acted upon pursuant to the provisions of this section by tee
Hoard of County Cornmissloners or the ASSEISSOri as appropriate,wdhln six mohtns of the ate Cr sling such pedlionJ➢30 1115(1.:[).C.R.S.
section Ilk Written Mutual Agreement of Assessor and Petitioner
(Only for abatements up to Sto,D00)
The Commissioners of County authorize the Assessor by Resolution No.
to review petitions for abatement or refund and to settle by written mutual agreement any such petition for
11 abatement or refund in an amount of 510,001 of less per tract,parcel,or lot of land or per schedule of personal
property,in accordance with§39-1-113(1.5),C.R.S.
The,Assessor and Petitioner mutually agree to the values and tax abatement/refund oft
Taxvear Tax Year
A uaf licae___ Tax Ridded Assessed Tex
Original
Corrected -...
Abate/Aetund -
Note.The total tax amounf does not Maude accrued Interest penalties:and fees associated with hie and/or dsllmryent fax papnelss,rf
applicable. Please contact the'CountyTreasurer for full payment lnfornietlen,
Petitioners Slgnatum Cate
Assessor's or Deputy Assessors signature - Date
Section IV:. DecISIOn Of the County Commissioners
,(Moat 4e completed if Sectlon Ill does not apply)
WHEREAS,the County Commissioners of. County,State of Colorado at a duly end lawfully
called regular meeting held on / / at which meeting therevrere present the following members:
Month Day Year
11
with notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present having been given to the Petitioner and the Assessor
of said County and Assessor (being present—not present)and
Name
Petitioner (being present--not present),and WHEREAS,the said
Name ..
County Commissioners have carefully considered the within petition;and are'fullyadvised In relation thereto,
NOW BE IT RESOLVED,that The Board(agrees-does not agree)with the reootnmendatlon of the Assessor
and the petition be(approved—approved In part-denied)with an abatement/refund as'fellows:
year Assessed Value- Taxes Atotedasbund. Year AssessedValue Tares Abet/Reefed
Chairperson of the Board orcounty Commissloners'Signature
I, County Clerk and Ex-oflicio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners
in and for the aforementioned county,do hereby certify that the above and foregoing order is truly copied from the
record of the proceedings of the Beard'of Cdunty'Commissioners.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Cuunty
this _ day of..
Month Year
County Clerk'k or Deputy County Clerk's.Signature
Mole: Abatements greater than 510,000 per schedule,per yeah.must be submitted in duplicate to die?roporry TaKMminatratot lot'review.:
Section v: Action of the Property Tax Administrator
(For all abeteiilents greater than$10,000)
f The action of the Board of County Commissioners,relative to this abatement petition,is hereby
C Approved ❑Approved in part$ O Denied for the following reason(s):
i
li Secretary Signature Property Tax Administrators Signature Date ,
n---••
15-OPT-AH No.920-00711 . .
� a
Davis Graham & Stubbs LI. P
November 19, 2013
Via Federal Express
T�
Tr.", a
Christopher M. Woodruff ?'j
lig
Weld County Assessor
1400 N. 17th Avenue t 0 0_ nry
Greely, Colorado 80631rrisfre
John R.Lefebvre, Jr. WELQ./x reY Gf?I"vi
Weld County Treasurer
I,t�
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greely, Colorado 80631
Re: Bill Barrett Corporation's Petition for Abatement and Refund of Taxes
Certified by Sand Hills Metropolitan District and Collected by Weld County
Gentlemen:
On behalf of Bill Barrett Corporation("BBC"), I enclose herewith a"Petition for
Abatement or Refund of Taxes"requesting the refund of all ad valorem taxes levied by and paid
to the Sand Hills Metropolitan District commencing in 2010 and through the present. For the
reasons set forth in the Complaint recently filed in the Colorado District Court,District of Weld
County, Case No. 2013 CV 030928, a copy of which is submitted with the petition, the taxes
certified by the Sand Hills Metropolitan District and collected by Weld County upon BBC's
property identified in the petition"have been levied erroneously or illegally" as described in
C.R.S. § 39-10-114 et seq. and BBC respectfully seeks the abatement and refund of the same.
Should you have any questions or concerns with regard to the foregoing, or should you
need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
R. Kirk Mueller
Davis Graham& Stubbs LLP
Attorneys for Bill Barrett Corporation
CC: Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney
R.Kirk Mueller • 303 892 7456 • kirk.mueller@dgslaw.com
1550 Seventeenth Street . Sure 500 • Denver.Colnrarlo 80202 • 3C3 892 9400 • ;ax 303 893'379
wwwcdgslaw.cam
2958437.1
EXHIBIT A
•
I-
4
I- 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 ^ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Co U U U U U U V U O V V V V V V V V V U U V U V V U U
7 N Cl N a a n.to -racer, •O COto tto l7 clonal 0D to w no m CI CT
tO
N N
O a a -+ a l a a a- a a P a a- 4Cc Y ..rV V V P P P or Q
a a a a 4 < aQ a a s 2 as a ' a a a J
a F a aa
C) H 1- re-- 1- r- F. h }- I- I• r- F- F- 1- F. 1- F- F- F 1- F- F- F- H F
0 C C cc C C C C C cc C C C C cc C C C C C C C 0 C
0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 J 't - 0 J
a-' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 oo 0 0 0 0 Jo 0 0 0 0 J0 0 0 0
V U V U U UV V V Cl V V V V U Li U V V V 00 V V V V
0 W.
W.
V V V V V V V ' -a V V V V V -a V V V V V V V -o v
v v 0 v v v C v N v v 0 v N
3333 _3333333333333333333333
h 0 C C C C C C
0 J 0 0 0 0 0 J 0 0 J J 0 J 0 0 3 J 0 0 ' 0
m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 00 0 0 0
0
Ill V U U U U V U Li V U U U U U v U U U U U U U U U U Li
NV -0 V V V V V V V V V V V V a V V V V a a V V V V -o
Q u v 0 A A 0) a a v N OJ v v a A v W m u v v ow u v
3 3333333333333333333333333
m
ml- m o 0
I- o I-
CU m N = to N L„,
O P a
41
U U
7• V _
C N i m o O m N0 O r C c
K N N N m m m V O N nl O H O m a m m
w N P a O M m m m m N r.1
'� `i q N N N. C) O
a m m N N m m Comm 7N A A A A A A OK . no
O- - N w to to t0 t0 V J ti
C‘ H N N a O P P O P P a a RS CO A A N A N
a. 0 L L L L L L U L -C L L L L L L L L L _
C C C C C C C C C C C C 0 C C C C C C
rci MID C A a a 0 0 N A a ra A A A A
6 CC CC 2 C C 0 S C 6 CC CC C CC K 0: 0 K CC u-
0 0 0 cocoa a O O O O O O O O O O Z 2 2 I E I I
n n n n n n n n n n N. n n n n n n N. N. 7 7 7 7 7 72
O
9
a O w w w w w w w mw w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w
a
' a`
U1
w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
a. U V V U u U U U O U V U U O D U L) U U V U U U L) U U
>
1- 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00 00 0 00 17 0 0 0 0 0
VI in N
O a M a O 0
W a N n CO co N m P Vl N. N N. ut in N N N u) N in 01 rn N to
N a 0 t'1 P en M la M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 P 0 of 0 0
Ba t0 tY in on N 01 a 0) Ol N P M VO O t-t N M a En En a01 0) 0 0
cr. com 0) mU N N al O V a a a Ol -1 N N N N P O V CO W a O
O M M I.-- N. of O) N N N N N. N N C N N tO to w in N an ul N
4 0 0 m 00 10 0 n v) win CO 0 00 N re IN N 0 0 m 0 P o O
T m m n1 m 01 m 0) 0) 01 m m en en en en m CO m m
F- F- 0 0 0 F- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1- O 1- 0 0 I-
c — — — —
J u) ^
n m N m V r0 n n N m ul m N M ` N N C-I H \ r\v rJ
U 0 m o 01 .. m o1 m m m m on v c o o+ o om o N 0 01 m m c c
Ol OI CO N V P V M on 0 Ol t1 N N N N N V V V C co P V
I!)▪ CO N Ir. N N N N N. LO tD ni to to to ul N N N in Ln
m ra M CO n0) 00)i In in en iii in 0 0) 0) al Ol O) m M m M m m ne m N N 0 0 CO CO or 00
ul uJ w w w w w w w w w w w Cu w w W w W w w w w w w w
in 00 0 M V a 0 H on 0 0 0 0 0 0 < f-1 O) !l N
CO
CO N OD N 0 N. N. N. N n 0) i 0 00 N 7 yZ, , Cr. Z Cl 0 Z O
a Cl ^ N tn in m m m N a IP 0) O -, Co,
it • N• N• OD • M•0 in en al in ai rn m w O N CO m P
- N N N 0 N C) re N N ra ro o re ro ro na 0 N N Cl re 0) N N ON
a H H H V rt H N •-I CI H •-1 N tY N N Cl 0 N 01 N O1 fl H O ,K
w CO CO J) N J1 m J1 J) ✓1 Jl JI JI vi N ro N td • m :• 0
F- 1- o en o F 0 0 0 0 0 m o o ry CO rn rn N1 m F- m I- o m F-
•N4 'N4 H Ii H .NY Nf csi ti
LA N t.11J) ✓1 ‘11V) J) J) N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
• Ol N to N N m a n-, a •o • ti) n m 0 H N in
O- CO CC CO N. N. N. N CO CO m 0 m 0 0 W 0 CO CO 0 m
Z w- H• V LO LO
W
J
U
CC C ` L0- C C C C 0 C C 0 0 0 c c 0 C C C C
O 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
J 0 A
C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ill _ n a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a 0. a a u
`• 0 0 0 `0 0 `0 `0 `0 `0 0 0` 0 `0 `0 `0 0 `0 `0 0 `0 `0 `0 `0 `0 s.- 0`
Q U V U U U U U V V V U V V V V U U U U U V V U V U U
• v v_ v w v v C) u m v v 03 `3 v m v r`
7
W R) C a) a .r. m m C La w ui 0) m C 0) CO m 0 a)) 2 m o a 0] a, c.
J
0 m 00 0 m m m m 0 C 0 --T. 0 -Care C 0 C 0 0 0 C 00 C C C
EXHIBIT B
DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Weld County Courthouse
901 9th Ave.
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Plaintiffs: Bill Barrett Corporation and
Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc.
v.
Defendant: Sand Hills Metropolitan District, f/k/a
Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6 A COURT USE ONLY A
Richard Kirk Mueller, #16746
Ann T. Lebeck, #42424
DAVIS GRAHAM & STUBBS LLP
1550 Seventeenth St. Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-892-9400 Case No.
Facsimile: 303-893-1379
E-mail: kirk.mueller@dgslaw.com Ctrm.
ann.lebeck@dgslaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bill Barrett Corporation and
Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc.
COMPLAINT
• Plaintiffs Bill Barrett Corporation ("BBC") and Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc. (`Bonanza
Creek") state and allege the following for their Complaint against Defendant Sand Hills
Metropolitan District, formerly known as the Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6("Sand Hills"
or the "District"):
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Sand Hills was organized in the Town of Lochbuie, Colorado in 2004 for the
purpose of developing 1,496 single family home units and 70,000 square feet of commercial
space within the Town's boundaries. Nearly a decade later, after transplanting itself to an
isolated location some thirty miles away and collecting millions from taxpayers within its new
boundaries, Sand Hills has not provided any of the services for which it was organized and,
indeed, recently indicated it never will. Because Sand Hills refuses to dissolve and continues to
levy taxes, Plaintiffs bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief.
PARTIES„JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. BBC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1099 18th
Street,Suite 2300, Denver, Colorado 80202.
2. Bonanza Creek is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at
410 17'" Street, Suite 1400, Denver, Colorado 80202.
3. Sand Hills Metropolitan District, formerly known as the Altamira Metropolitan
District No. 6, is a special district organized under Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes with
its principal office at CRS of Colorado,LLC, 7995 Prentice Avenue, Suite 103E, Greenwood
Village, Colorado 80111. Sand Hills' designated contact person is Sue Blair, CRS of Colorado,
LLC, 7995 Prentice Avenue, Suite 103E, Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Art. VI, Section 9 of the
Colorado Constitution, which provides that the district courts "shall be trial courts of record with
general jurisdiction, and shall have original jurisdiction" in all civil cases.
5. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-207(3) because
this Court approved the organization of Defendant Sand Hills in 2004.
6. Upon information and belief, there are entities or individuals who may be subject
to joinder under C.R.C.P. 19(a)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiffs anticipate filing a motion for joinder
in the near term.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek incorporate the preceding allegations of their
Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
8. Plaintiff BBC is an oil and natural gas exploration and development company
with assets located in the Rocky Mountain region.
9. Plaintiff Bonanza Creek is an exploration and production company focused on the
extraction of oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas in the United States.
10. BBC and Bonanza Creek both operate in Weld County and within the current
boundaries of Defendant Sand Hills.
I I. BBC and Bonanza Creek are both subject to and have paid taxes levied by
Defendant Sand Hills, as further detailed herein.
- 2-
Organization of the Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6
12. Defendant Sand Hills was organized in late 2004 under the name "Altamira
Metropolitan District No. 6." The District was formed in conjunction with five other
metropolitan districts: the Altamira Metropolitan District No. 1, Altamira Metropolitan District
No. 2, Altamira Metropolitan District No. 3, Altamira Metropolitan District No. 4, and Altamira
Metropolitan District No. 5. •
13. The District's boundaries at the time of its organization in 2004 were located
entirely within the Town of Lochbuic, Weld County, Colorado.
14. On October 6, 2004, Lochbuic approved the service plan for the District. A copy
of the service plan for the Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6 is attached as "Exhibit A" (the
'2004 Service Plan"). Based on the approved 2004 Service Plan, on November 12, 2004, the
Weld County District Court issued an Order and Decree organizing the Altamira Metropolitan
District No. 6.
15. The District's actions are, and from its inception have been, governed by the 2004
Service Plan.
The 2004 Service Plan
16. The 2004 Service Plan states that the District's purpose is to provide
infrastructure to support the development and construction of a residential neighborhood called
the "Altamira Development" in the Town of Lochbuic, near the intersection of Weld County
Road 4 and Weld County Road 37. In particular, the District was formed to "finance, construct
and install local and regional public improvements, including streets and traffic signals, and
water, sewer, storm drainage and park,open space and recreation facilities" for the Altamira
Development on land encompassed within the District and Altamira Metropolitan Districts Nos.
1 through 5. See Exhibit A at 1, 3-4.
17. The 2004 Service Plan further states that the District "will work closely and
cooperate with the Town to serve and promote the health, safety, prosperity, securityand general
welfare of the Altamira Development's inhabitants." Exhibit A at 4.
18. With respect to the need for the District, the 2004 Service Plan states:
While the area to be served by the District is located entirely within the
boundaries of the'town,the Town does not consider it feasible or practical to
• provide the District with the services and/or facilities described in this Service
• Plan. Therefore, it is necessary that the District he organized to provide its
•
inhabitants with the facilities and services described in this Service Plan.
• Exhibit A at 4.
_ 3 -
19. The 2004 Service Plan states that the "estimated daytime population of the six
Districts at full build-out is approximately four thousand three hundred and fifty three (4,353)
people," and that the property is "being rezoned to Planned Unit Development.- Exhibit A at 5.
20. Exhibits to the 2004 Service Plan identify and describe various future
improvements:
• The"Preliminary Engineering Cost Estimates" lists "Regional Improvements" as
including asphalt pavement, landscaping, "traffic signalization,"gutters and
sidewalks, manholes, and fire hydrants. See Exhibit A at Exhibit F at 1.
• The"Preliminary Engineering Cost Estimates" include as "Local Improvements"
items like water mains, sanitary sewers, manholes, fire hydrants, sidewalks,
"Turn-a-bouts (including Curbing and Landscaping)," asphalt pavement, storm
sewers, drainage facilities, and "Neighborhood Park Landscaping." See Exhibit A
at Exhibit F at 2-3.
• The "Map of Preliminary Location of the Public Improvements"consists of
drawings of a housing subdivision. See Exhibit A at Exhibit G.
• The"Financing Plan" includes a"Development Projection" for Altamira
Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 through 6 indicating that construction of single
family lots would commence in 2005 and that, by 2010, 1,496 single family units
would be completed. See Exhibit A at Exhibit H.
• The "Development Projection" likewise indicates that, starting in 2008,
commercial lots will be developed and, by 2013, 70,000 square feet of
commercial space will be completed. See Exhibit A at Exhibit H.
21. Upon information and belief, as of this date, Sand Hills has not constructed, or
even begun the construction of, any of the features set forth in Paragraph 20, above.
22. Moreover, Sand Hills has indicated that the District has no intention of
constructing the facilities and features set forth in Paragraph 20, above.
Inclusion of 70 Ranch, LLC Property and Activation of the District as a
Funding Mechanism for United Water & Sanitation District
23. From 2005 through the end of 2009, Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6 had
zero revenue and zero expenditures.
24. On November 25, 2008, the District's Board of Directors, including Robert
("Bob") Lemhke, approved certification of a mill levy of 51.118 mills for its "general operating
expenses." At the time of the District's mill levy certification, the District's Board of Directors
- 4 -
certified that the District's gross assessed valuation was $60, so that its revenue for the 2009 year
would be $0.
25. A few months later, on March 30,2009, Bob Lembke signed—on behalf of an
entity named 70 Ranch, LLC —a Petition for Inclusion of Property into the Altamira
Metropolitan District No. 6. Within a few days, the District's Board of Directors (including Bob
Lembke) approved inclusion of the 70 Ranch, LLC property. The inclusion of the 70 Ranch,
LLC property was finalized on April 28, 2009, by Order of the Weld County District Court.
26. The 70 Ranch, LLC property encompasses approximately 12,000 acres located
entirely outside of, and approximately 30 miles removed from, the Town of Lochbuie. The 70
Ranch, LLC property reportedly has less than ten human inhabitants and is the site of significant
mineral exploration and production activities by companies such as BBC and Bonanza Creek.
70 Ranch,LLC property is or at relevant times has been owned, directly or indirectly, by Bob
Lembke.
27. On November 24, 2009, the District's Board of Directors approved the District's
budget and mill levy certification for the following year. This time, with the inclusion of the 70
Ranch, LLC property, the Board of Directors certified that the District's gross assessed valuation
was $17,785,350 and approved a mill levy certification of 55.000 mills (for its "general
operating expenses").
28. The 2010 budget adopted by the District on November 24, 2009 earmarked
$912,275 for an"IGA [Intergovernmental Agreement] Payment"even though the District at that
time had not entered into any intergovernmental agreements.
29. In April 2010, the District moved for, and the Weld County District Court issued,
an Order Confirming Change of Name from Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6 to Sand Hills
Metropolitan District. Upon information and belief, the name "Sand Hills" is inspired by the
remote and desert-like landscape of the 70 Ranch, LLC property.
30. Also in April 2010, Sand Hills entered into a"funding agreement" with the
United Water&Sanitation District (the"United Water Funding Agreement"). A copy of the
United Water Funding Agreement is attached as Exhibit B. In the United Water Funding
Agreement, Sand Hills pledged to"remit to United on a monthly basis as received, Net Revenues
of Sand Hills.' See Exhibit B at 2, § 3.1.
31. Bob Lembke is also a member of the Board of Directors for the United Water&
Sanitation District. At least three other individuals who are members of the Sand Hills Board of
Directors are also members of the Board of Directors of United Water&Sanitation District.
32. Upon information and belief, United Water& Sanitation District consists of a
small, vacant tract of land in Elbert County owned by Bob Lembke, or one of his family
members or entities, and has no residents.
- 5 -
Exclusion of the District's Original Boundaries
33. On April 27, 2011, Sand Hills moved for an order excluding from its boundaries
that land originally comprising the Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6. The next day, the Weld
County District Court granted Sand Hills' motion.
34. As a result of the March 30, 2009 inclusion of the 70 Ranch, LLC property into
Sand Hills, and the April 27, 2011 exclusion of the Town of Lochbuie property from Sand Hills,
the District currently encompasses only the 70 Ranch, LLC property that is entirely outside of
and approximately thirty miles removed from the Town of Lochbuie.
35. Despite the fact that no property in the Town of Lochbuie is contained within
Sand Hills' current boundaries and, as described below, the only tax revenues collected by the
District have been paid by inhabitants of the District's current boundaries and not by inhabitants
of the Town, Lochbuie's Board of Trustees retains jurisdiction over the District's activities.
The District Collects Millions in Taxes
36. Since December 2008, Sand Hills has each year certified a mill levy for its
"general operating expenses." Through this mill levy certification, Sand Hills has collected
millions in property taxes from Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek(and its affiliates and
subsidiaries) among others.
37. To date, and despite inquiries made to Sand Hills, it remains unclear how the
funds generated by Sand Hills' tax levies have been used although it is apparent that none of the
funds are being used to finance the activities set out in the 2004 Service Plan. Upon information
and belief, much of the tax revenue has been channeled to other special districts with which Bob
Lembke is involved.
The District Abandons the 2004 Service Plan and
Proposes to Pursue Different Activities Pursuant to an Amended Service Plan
38. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-207(1), the activities undertaken by a special district
such as Sand Hills must conform as far as practicable to its service plan. Sand Hills has taken
virtually no steps to implement the operative 2004 Service Plan and its activities to date have
deviated widely from those contemplated by the plan. Moreover, Sand Hills has indicated it has
no intention to conform its activities to the 2004 Service Plan on a going forward basis.
39. Having abandoned any effort to conform to the 2004 Service Plan—the only plan
ever approved to support the District's existence—Sand Hills' Board of Directors has proposed a
new service plan to legitimize the District's activities.
40. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-207(2), a special district may make material
modifications of its approved service plan only by petition to and with the approval of the
governing body of the municipality that approved the creation of the special district. In April
6
2013, Sand Hills submitted a revised service plan to the Town of Lochbuie, followed by another
"Updated and Revised" service plan in September 2013. Neither of these revised service plans
has been formally considered or approved by the Town of Lochbuie. A copy of the September
2013 "Updated and Revised" service plan is attached as Exhibit C.
41. The "Updated and Revised"—but not approved—service plan describes various
facilities and "regional improvements" Sand Hills proposes to construct to support "public
infrastructure resources of benefit on a regional basis." The "Updated and Revised" service plan
lists, as examples of such improvements, construction of water truck depots and a "reservoir and
recharge site"within the District's boundaries, as well as a 36 mile-long pipeline to convey water
from Kersey to Brighton, Colorado. See Exhibit C at 7. The"Updated and Revised"plan also
calls for payment by Sand Hills to the Town of Lochbuie, some thirty miles to the southwest, to
repair one of Lochbuie's reservoirs.
42. The"Updated and Revised" service plan—and the activities proposed therein to
be conducted by Sand Hills—cannot justify the District's continued existence because there is no
need within the District boundaries for the services the District proposes to undertake.
43. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-103(20), a special district must provide services for its
inhabitants and, pursuant to § 32-1-203(2) and Colorado case law, there must be a sufficient need
by and benefit to the taxpayers within a district's boundaries for the proposed services. Here,
there is no need within Sand Hills' existing boundaries for the services described in the 2004
Service Plan which would be provided 30 miles away in the Town of Lochbuie. Nor is there a
need for any of the services described in the proposed,but not operative, "Updated and Revised"
service plan attached as Exhibit C.
44. Plaintiff Bonanza Creek, together with another oil and gas operator,has
previously notified Sand Hills that there is no need within the District for the types of public
infrastructure and improvements described in the"Updated and Revised" service plan and that
the improvements would be of no benefit to the taxpayers within the District. See August 23,
2013 letter to Sand Hills' counsel, Miller& Associates, Exhibit D hereto, at I. Given that the
District is not pursuing the activities described in its operative 2004 Service Plan, and in the
absence of any need for the services described in the "Updated and Revised"plan, Plaintiff
Bonanza Creek and another oil and gas operator called upon the District to prepare and file a
petition for dissolution pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-701 et seq., and to return the taxes it has
collected to the taxpayers. Id. at 2. Sand llills has expressly refused to honor these requests.
See October 1, 2013 letter from Miller & Associates, Exhibit E hereto, at 1.
45. On September 16, 2013, despite that it has not secured approval to amend its 2004
Service Plan, Sand Hills filed a "notice" with this Court declaring its intention to undertake the
"planning, design, construction and financing" of some or all of more than a dozen"facilities and
improvements in Weld County." See "Notice of Intention Pursuant to § 32-1-207(3)(b) Sand
Hills Metropolitan District, Weld County, Colorado," Filing ID No. 205241870941, Case No.
04CV 1743 (Dist. Ct., Weld County, Colorado), Exhibit F hereto. The improvements described
- 7
it
in the September 16, 2013 notice are entirely unrelated to any activities set forth in the District's
operative 2004 Service Plan. However, similar activities are described in the District's proposed
"Updated and Revised"— but not approved— service plan.
46. In sum, Sand Hills has given notice that it intends to break the law. Having
implemented none of the projects described in the 2004 Service Plan despite collecting taxes
pursuant to that plan for the last three years, and having never secured approval to amend its
service plan from the Town of Lochbuie, Sand Hills intends to commence construction of
projects for which there is no need and which do not deliver any value to the District's taxpayers.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Injunctive Relief for Failure to Conform With
2004 Service Plan in Violation of C.R.S. § 32-1-207(1))
47. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek incorporate the preceding allegations of their
Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
48. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-207, a special district must "conform so far as
practicable" to its approved service plan.
49. Since its inception in 2004, Sand Hills has not provided or attempted to provide
any of the services or facilities for which the District was organized.
50. Those actions taken by Sand Hills—including, without limitation, its pledge of
revenue to United Water&Sanitation District— are inconsistent with the services or facilities for
which the District was organized.
51. Accordingly, Sand Hills has failed to conform with the 2004 Service Plan and an
injunction should issue as described in the Prayer for Relief infra.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF •
(Injunctive Relief for Failure to Provide Needed Services or Benefit for Taxpayers in
Violation of C.R.S. §§ 32-1-103(20),32-1-203(2),and Colorado Case Law)
52. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek incorporate the preceding allegations of their
Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
53. Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 32-1-103(20), 32-1-203(2), and
Colorado case law, a special district must provide services and benefits for the inhabitants and
taxpayers within the district's boundaries.
54. The inhabitants and taxpayers of Sand Hills have no need for the improvements
and services described in the 2004 Service Plan nor do they have any need for the services and
improvements described in the proposed"Updated and Revised" service plan or in the
September 16, 2013 notice.
_ 8 _
•
55. The inhabitants and taxpayers of Sand Hills will receive no meaningful benefit
from the improvements and services described in the 2004 Service Plan, and would receive no
benefit from the improvements and services set out in the "Updated and Revised" service plan
and the September 16, 2013 notice.
56. Accordingly, there is no need for the services Sand Hills proposes to provide nor
would the services benefit the inhabitants and taxpayers of the District.
57. An injunction should issue as described in the Prayer for Relief infra.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Injunctive Relief for Unapproved Modification of
Service Plan in Violation of C.R.S. § 32-1-207(2))
58. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek incorporate the preceding allegations of their
Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
59. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-207(2), a special district may make material
modifications of its approved service plan only by petition to and with the approval of the
governing body of the municipality that approved the creation of the special district.
60. Sand Hills has prepared and submitted to the Town of Lochbuie an"Updated and
Revised" service plan but has not sought nor received final approval of the plan, nor has there
been a public hearing on the proposed amended service plan as required by C.R.S. § 32-1-204.
61. On September 16, 2013, Sand Hills gave notice to this Court that it intends to
implement myriad activities that are described generally in the"Updated and Revised"—but not
approved--service plan.
62. Accordingly, Sand Hills is threatening to embark on a material departure from its
2004 Service Plan without following legally prescribed procedures.
63. An injunction should issue as described in the Prayer for Relief infra.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Injunctive Relief Compelling Refund of Revenues Pursuant to
TABOR Amendment, Colorado Constitution,Article X, § 20(1))
64. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek incorporate the preceding allegations of their
Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
65. Pursuant to Colorado's "Taxpayer Bill of Rights,"Colorado Constitution, Article
X, § 24(a) ("TABOR"), voter approval is required in advance for"any new tax, tax rate
increase," or"mill levy above that for the prior year . . . ."
_ 9
66. Pursuant to TABOR, Colorado Constitution, Article X, § 20(1), "revenue
collected, kept or spent illegally . . _ shall he refunded with 10% annual simple interest" to the
taxpayers along with costs and reasonable attorney fees.
67. Upon information and belief, the only approval by taxpayers for the collection
and expenditure of tax revenues by Sand Hills has been pursuant to the 2004 Service Plan. Sand
Hills has, through its funding agreement with United Water&Sanitation District and otherwise,
collected and disbursed revenues on matters or projects entirely unrelated to the services
described in the 2004 Service Plan.
68. Accordingly, Sand Hills has illegally collected and disbursed tax revenues and
must refund those revenues with interest.
69. A mandatory injunction should issue as described in the Prayer for Relief infra.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Action for Declaratory Relief pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-51-101 et seq.)
70. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek incorporate the preceding allegations of their
Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
71. Pursuant to Colorado's Declaratory Judgment Act, C.R.S. § 13-51-101 a seq.,
this Court has the "power to declare rights, status,and other legal relations" of the parties herein.
C.R.S. § 13-51-105.
72. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek seek declarations that:
(a) The exclusion of the District's original boundaries within
Lochhuie either(i) constituted the creation of a new district requiring the Weld
County Board of Commissioners' approval or (ii) constituted a material
modification of the 2004 Service Plan, requiring approval by the Town of
Lochbuie;
(b) Since its organization, Sand Hills has not provided or attempted
to provide any of the services or facilities in the 2004 Service Plan for which
the District was organized nor has it otherwise conformed with that plan;
(c) Sand Hills' actions— including, without limitation, entering into a
funding agreement with United Water& Sanitation District—are unauthorized,
illegal, and ultra vines because those actions (i) lack any link to the 2004
Service Plan or district inhabitants, (ii) do not address any need or bestow any
benefit upon taxpayers within of the District, and (iii) were not approved by
taxpayers as required by TABOR;
- 10 -
•
(d) Sand Hills must submit its 2004 Service Plan and any
amendments thereto to the Weld County Board of County Conunissioners as
that is the proper governing body of a special district located entirely outside
Lochbuie and inside Weld County; and
(e) Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-701 et seq., the District should be
dissolved.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Bill Barrett Corporation and Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc.
respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant Sand Hills
Metropolitan District and grant relief as follows:
1. A preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant Sand Hills prohibiting
it from certifying mill levies,collecting taxes, making expenditures, and transferring any of its
assets or revenues;
2. An order declaring that:
(a) The exclusion of the original Altamira Metropolitan District No.
6 property from Sand Hills Metropolitan District either (i) constituted the
creation of a new district requiring the Weld County Board of
Commissioners' approval or(ii) constituted a material modification of Sand
Hills Metropolitan District's 2004 Service Plan,requiring approval of same
by the Town of Lochbuie;
(b) Since its inception in 2004, Sand Hills Metropolitan District has
not provided or attempted to provide any of the services or facilities for
which it was organized, nor has it otherwise conformed with that plan;
(c) Sand Hills' actions— including, without limitation, entering into a
funding agreement with United Water & Sanitation District -are
unauthorized, illegal, and ultra vires because those actions (i) lack any link
to the 2004 Service Plan or district inhabitants, (ii) do not address any need
or bestow any benefit upon taxpayers within of the District, and (iii) were
not approved by taxpayers as required by TABOR;
(d) Sand Hills Metropolitan District must submit its 2004 Service
Plan and any amendments thereto to the Weld County Board of County
Commissioners as that is the proper governing body of a special district
located entirely outside the boundaries of the Town of Lochbuie and inside
Weld County;
- 11 -
(e) Sand Hills Metropolitan District is enjoined from(1) expending
any funds or delivering any funds to other individuals or entities including
United Water &Sanitation District, (ii)constructing any facilities including
any facilities described in its September 2013 "Updated and Revised"
service plan or September 16, 2013 "notice." or(iii) certifying or levying
any further taxes, levies, fees, tolls, or charges, or issuing any bonds or
other financial obligations;
(f) Sand Hills Metropolitan District must develop a plan as provided
by TABOR to refund to BBC and Bonanza Creek the revenues it has
collected, with 10% annual simple interest, and the reasonable attorney fees
and costs, within 20 days; and
(g) Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-701 et seq.,the Sand Hills
Metropolitan District should be dissolved.
3. Costs;
4. Reasonable attorneys' fees;
5. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law; and
6. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just.
Dated this 1st day of November, 2013
s/R. Kirk Mueller
R. Kirk Mueller, #16746
Ann T. Lebeck, #42424
DAVIS GRAHAM&STUBBS LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bill Barrett Corporation and
Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc.
- 12 -
CLERK TO THE BOARD
PHONE: (970)336-7215, EXT. 5226
FAX: (970) 352-0242
1150 O STREET
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
va COUNTY .
April 2, 2014
Bill Barrett Corporation
1099 18th Street, Suite#2300
Denver, CO 80202
RE: SCHEDULE NUMBER E3261805+
Dear Property Owner:
This is to advise you that the Weld County Board of Commissioners will hear your petition for
abatement or refund of taxes on the property described as: various sites. The meeting is
scheduled for April 23, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., in the Chambers of the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado,Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O Street,
Assembly Room, Greeley, Colorado 80631.
The Assessor is recommending that the Board deny your petition. You are not required to be
present at this hearing; however, this is your opportunity to have your position heard, especially
if your position is opposed to the Assessor's recommendation. If you intend to submit any
documentation in support of your position for this hearing, all such documentation must be
submitted to the Office of the Clerk to the Board and to the Weld County Assessor's Office at
least seven calendar days prior to the meeting date in order for it to be considered at the
scheduled hearing.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(970) 336-7215, Extension 5226.
Sincerely,
Rafaela A. Martinez
Deputy Clerk to the Board
cc: Assessor
4- R3- aoi-{
CLERK TO THE BOARD
9 PHONE: (970) 336-7215, Ext. 5226
1861 FAX: (970) 352-0242
1158 O
80632
P.O. BOX 758
COLORADO GREELEY, 80632
COUNTY
May 5, 2014
Bill Barrett Corporation
1099 18th Street Suite 2300
Denver, CO 80202
RE: SCHEDULE NUMBER E3261805+
Dear Property Owner:
On April 23, 2014, the Board of Weld County Commissioners considered your petition for
abatement or refund of taxes and denied same.
Pursuant to Section 39-2-125(f), C.R.S., you have the right to appeal this decision to the State
Board of Assessment Appeals within thirty days. You may obtain the appropriate forms and
instructions from:
Board of Assessment Appeals, Department of Local Affairs,
1313 Sherman Street, Room 315
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303-866-5880
In preparation for appealing to the State Board of Assessment Appeals you may also go to the
following state link to obtain any further information you may need to proceed,
http://www.dola.state.co.us/baa/index.htm
Very truly yours,
Rafaela A. Martinez
Deputy Clerk to the Board
cc: Assessor
RM/eg
RESOLUTION
RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD CONCERNING PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND
OF TAXES - BILL BARRETT CORPORATION
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, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, State of Colorado, at a
duly and lawfully called regular meeting held on the 23rd day of April, 2014, at which meeting
there were present the following members: Chair Douglas Rademacher, and Commissioners
Sean P. Conway, Mike Freeman, William F. Garcia, and Barbara Kirkmeyer, and
WHEREAS, notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present has been given to
the taxpayer and the Assessor of said County, with said Assessor, Christopher Woodruff, being
present, and taxpayer, Bill Barrett Corporation, represented by Kirk Mueller, with Davis Graham
and Stubbs, LLP, present, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has carefully considered the attached
petition, and is fully advised in relation thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, Colorado, that the Board concurs with the recommendation of the Assessor and the
petition be and hereby is, denied, and an abatement or refund be allowed as follows:
CORRECTION
TO ASSESSED ABATEMENT TAX
VALUATION OR REFUND YEAR
$0.00 $0.00 2011
$0.00 $0.00 2012
,3sgL-S' e (SA)
6fs
2014-1263
AS0087
TAX ABATEMENT PETITION — BILL BARRETT CORPORATION
PAGE 2
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted
by the following vote on the 23rd day of April, A.D., 2014.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
ATTEST: d 1' t / �i ✓
�jl1N� _es;
CL/o ugla Radema her/Chair
Weld County Clerk to the Board IS La
4 `�•',/,;� y�� ara Kirkmeyerf Pro-Tem/
BY.
De. i2 Clerk to the Boar•�������•�'
= P. Conway
APP ORM: ®v '
Mike Free
my Attorney
iam . Garcia
Date of signature: S/S/f4
2014-1263
AS0087
y
r
1
4
PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES �
County:WELD Date Received cReD i.-65 f
(Use Assessor's or Commissioners'Date Stamp)
•
Section I: Petitioner,please complete Section I only. •
November 15 2013 t
Date. L " ;Ii (','` ' tf Fr Fro c
Month Day Year 7 ki ,r7 WI) :
Petitioner's Name: Bill Barrett Corporation
Petitioner's Mailing Address:1099 18th Street,Suite 2300 lOVV 2 0 2013
Denver Colorado 80202
City orTown State Zip Code WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR
Nj SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER(S) PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PR +-� Y, E.0��p-%-nr A
See Exhibit A See Exhibit A
tyoiC{ -1-
Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes and states that the taxes assessed against the
above property for property tax year(s) 2011 and 2012 are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly {!)
describe why the taxes have been levied erroneously or illegally,whether due to erroneous valuation,irregularity in Q >-cc
levying,clerical error or overvaluation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) . . I-w
For the reasons set forth in the Complaint recently filed in the Colorado District Court,District of Weld County, > N MO
Case No,2013CV030928,a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B,the taxes certified by the Sand Hills °"' al-... CD
Metropolitan District and collected by Weld County upon Bill Barrett Corporation's property identified in Exhibit A L CoU
hereto commencing in 2010 and through the present"have been levied erroneously or illegally"as described in 4�1�t B2
C.R.S.§39-10-114 et seq. i at
38 Petitioner's estimate of value: $125,019 (2011 )and $91,519 (2012 ) >[�11
Value Year Value Year
I declare,under penalty of perjury in the second degree,that this petition,together with any accompanying exhibits
or statements,has been prepared or examined by me,and to the best of my knowledge,information and belief,is
true,correc and complete.
[/X �c Daytime Phone Number(a 03) 312--e -
Petitioner's Signature
By Daytime Phone Number( 1
Agent's Signature"
*Letter or agency must be attached when petition is submitted by an agent.
If the Board of County Commissioners,pursuant to§39-10-114(1),C.R.S.,or the Property Tex Administrator,pursuant to§39-2-118,C.R.S.,
denies the petition for refund or abatement of taxes In whole or in part,the Petitioner may appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals pursuant
to the provisions of§39-2-125,C.R.S.,within thirty days of the entry of any such decision,§39-10.114.5(1),CRS,
Section II: Assessor's Recommendation
Obi (For Assessor's Use Only)
Tax Year Obf I Tax Year 00
Actual Assessed Thai Actual Assessed IgIc
original"'«j7 15if 1 V iD"--1 j0 5 D3801)3.571 liglyi1 1 I1 t�I.iel�:i� i 17a(g5`r 9(ra
' t I '44I 51_ [(p3 G ' 11 c19-I. rilP
Corrected i, L(444-1 --`� (o�,�i�r� � ..._ 1�i
Abate/Refund _____,___. PC ____/ —
❑Assessor recommends approval as outlined above.
if the request for abatement Is based upon the grounds of overvaluation,no abatement or refund of taxes shall be made if an objection or protest
to such valuation has been filed and a Notice of Determination has been mailed to the taxpayer,§39-10-114(1)(a)(I)(D),C.R.S.
Tax year: Protest? 0 No 0 Yes (if a protest was filed,please attach a copy of the NOD.)
Tax year Protest? 0 No ❑Yes (If a protest was filed,please attach a copy of the NOD.) 2014-1263
Assessor recommends denial for the following reason(s):
-Rik actual VOJUL nos b --k ealcuicaid ex,rr ' - j -& Q c o ,
•-ih.e 1cfiA a 1 tssull, - 4etkiLP or obi,- Sa-a_A i .e Pt. is '
CW
e,s;_, )V1 bi .}i „ (1g S� f* Assessor's o eputy,Assessor's Sig uc)\ )5.-6.\
f 15-DVPTT--AR Nio.920-68//1111
FOR ASSESSOA$':AND CO UNTYCOMMISS$QNERS,ME ow y, •
:SSegtion IUrx fin:tilti:must be completed)
Every petition for abatement or refu ilitg tl pgsstiardte¢39-1q-11'4 G.R.S.shall be acted upon pursuant to the provisions of this section by the
Board of County Commissioners ortfie-A§sessgr,se:appr ptfate.,within six months of the date of filing such petition,§39-1-113(1.7),C.R.S.
Section III: Written:�lutuatif Agrittement of Assessor and Petitioner
ON**411ietements up ft S11ff;00A).
The Commissioners of °f ttfntyaUthorize the Assessor by Resolution No
to review petition by for abatement or refund and to settle written mutual agreement any such petition fOr
abatement or refund in an amount of$10,000 or less per tract,parcel,or lot of land or per schedule of paEaortat w
property,it :accardance.with.&39-1-1 13(1.5),C.R.S.
TheAsseSeOr and Peflth inOr mutually agree to the values and tax-_abatement/tieflulnd of .
TaxYear T ''ar'
atilt Assessed TL4 ,/t$sessed Tax
•
0tiafeat. . _......... . u
,
Note The`totettax amount does not include=rued interest ienaIt ea;is d teees essedated witis lete and/or delinquent tax peyibeetalOP ,
applicable.Please contact ltlfrOsti tyTreasurerfortull ptiymeet kifO ttatfin.
•
Petitioner's Signature Date
Assessor's or Deputy Assessors;Slana1iiie' Date
Section IV: Decision of the County Commissioners .'
(Must:,be completed'if:5ectign tit dpea.siot apply)
WHEREAS,:the County Commissioners of County, State of Colorado,at a duly and lawfully •
ular meetln' held on / :at Which meeting,there were present the following members ,
oiled?.a9 .ff. /
Month D Year
-:.
utiith.notice of such meefleg And an opportunity to be present F1004,040 been given to the Petitioner and the Assessor ; ,.
afSatd.County and Assessor ..... ... .. . ... .. ... •
... ..(being present--not present)and.- ':
Nartre.. _.........
bet .fbiRef1₹-Flo[. . t and WHEELS,the saki
Qetiho.rtet . (belt* p'e ::), '
Name
,
.':County Commiss(nn..ers have carefully considered the within plefitior'r;.and are fullyad Used in reiattdrt t'tetetto, •
r NOW BE IT RESOLVED,thatttia=Board;(a grees- oesnotugme)with the recommendation,of
:and.the petitir3fl:t a(approved:,approvodt ln;paf•! n1.ad).writ!On abatement/re fund.as folioW.t
Year Assessed Value Taxes Abate/R*04 Year .tAgsessedVigne Taxes Abat turd.
.
• Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners'Signature
1, County Clerk and.Ex officio Clerk of the Board Of-County Commissioners
in sand for the aforementioned county,do hereby certify that the above and foregoing order is truly copied from tfie
record of the'proCeedings of:tfie Bc rd of County gmmrsalehate.
, IN WITNESS WHEREOF;.thave hefeunta sat my har .and.affixed tilostiott'said.Cgrinty
' this ... .. 1ay:.of:_:. :. ...:. .. . ..r_
.. . .. .• < .
�irtfiifb...... Year ..... _.._..
County ClarksiitiBep Ry tilt......:It te11i.'fpf0
Note`Abeternent8 lItiaii,$)009 Per schedule, rstexonitsileisubrnitted in duplicate to the Pa r rbiRIcAdministrator 0r review.
v 10:000 of.mor:Property Tax Administrator
alldibptetYr its greater than$10,000)
t�'.
The action of the Board of Court 1'optirilissiostoi.relative to thisabatement petition,is hereby
' ❑Approved ❑Approved in palt$ . .. ... ... .Q D&ied.fprthe following reason(s):
•
.
Secretary's Signature Propertg'T9oi,Administratot's Signature Date
15-OPT-AR No.920-66/11 -- ... ...:
Ga
MEE
Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP
November 19, 2013
Via Federal Express
Christopher M. Woodruff "I 'rs i ul t' �'iaj
Weld County Assessor �t�t '`
1400 N. 17th Avenue o 2a5
Greely, Colorado 80631 ‘03 ‘,
i
John R. Lefebvre, Jr. WELD ei< COLOR"' '
Weld County Treasurer
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greely, Colorado 80631
Re: Bill Barrett Corporation's Petition for Abatement and Refund of Taxes
Certified by Sand Hills Metropolitan District and Collected by Weld County
Gentlemen:
On behalf of Bill Barrett Corporation ("BBC"), I enclose herewith a"Petition for
Abatement or Refund of Taxes"requesting the refund of all ad valorem taxes levied by and paid
to the Sand Hills Metropolitan District commencing in 2010 and through the present. For the
reasons set forth in the Complaint recently filed in the Colorado District Court, District of Weld
County, Case No. 2013 CV 030928, a copy of which is submitted with the petition, the taxes
certified by the Sand Hills Metropolitan District and collected by Weld County upon BBC's
property identified in the petition"have been levied erroneously or illegally" as described in
C.R.S. § 39-10-114 et seq. and BBC respectfully seeks the abatement and refund of the same.
Should you have any questions or concerns with regard to the foregoing, or should you
need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
P. cJNa
R. Kirk Mueller
Davis Graham& Stubbs LLP
Attorneys for Bill Barrett Corporation
CC: Bruce Barker, Weld County Attorney
R.Kirk Mueller • 303 892 7456 • kirk.mueller@dgslawcom
1550 Seventeenth Street • Suite 500 • Denver,Colorado 80202 • 303 892 9400 • fax 303 893 1379
www d g sl a w.com
2958437.1
EXHI ;:', jT A
W
H
C
0) 00000000000000000000000000
UUUUUUUUUUUULJUUU Li Li Li Li UUUUUU
N Ol N Ol Ol N N N N N N O) GO N 0) CD N Ol Ol OD OD Ol Cl N 01 Ol
(0 (Ii to lD LID to to tD LID l0 LID (0 l0 (0 0 to to to (0 to to lD lD N tD lD
Z N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
0 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
H a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
o H H H H F H H I- H 1- H H I- H H V H H H H H H H F- - -
a T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T T
a- a- a+ C C C ♦- a+ C C C a� a� a- �+ a� Y C C C « a- L- t•> 4,>..74.>:L- C
(n 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C C C C C C 0 C C C 'C C C C
J J J J J J J J J J J J J 3 J J J J J J J J
a 0 0 o a 0 a 0 a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V V a
V a
a
a
a
a
V U U U U V U U U U V U V a
U a
U
-0 0 a -0 v -0 '0 -0 -o -0 0 -0 0 -0 0 0 -W W W -0 a -0 'o -v -o
v v v v v v v v v v v W W W v v v v v W v v v v v v
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
x C C C C• T C C T T T T T C T T T T C T T T T T T T T T T C C T T
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
Cl) C= 0 = = Dr 0 = = ° r DDDDr = rDp = = = = 0
CO O O O o 0 O 00000000000000000000000000 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O
W 0000000000 (30000 (3
N a -O a a 0 a a a a U U a a 0 -0 0 U V V -0 V L -0 U V U U
0 v N 0 N v W v N m 000000 v v v 0 v v 0 W N 0000
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
00
m H 00 O O
H O H N O N
w M =
D N w
3 3 rh
0 a a U
Q Z U o c _c .c
Z V CC a o 0 0 0 c C
T CYl M M Z Z = Z M N Cr M Cr Cr N LO
H N CC m N CO W OlAL, 2' K
W re N N O M CO M M M M O O m m `y m m M o r O
ri V O N w tt0 it-' IT
a0 N .i M N M to to to to 3 3 = i o� no OP
1p W 4 4 4 tp J J J J J J
IX HI HI Cr 1' T a a a a a V V V J J J J J J rl Ito N N in
h h
4' -C -C S -C -C L = a a L L .C .C a .C _C a .C -C k- N N N N N
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = = 0 0 J
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C J J
N CO to N CO CO CO M CO CO N M R M M N@ N J COMM
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 CC CC CC CC CC CCU
U-
0000000000000000000 = = = = = = =
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
O
V
•a O W W W W W W W W w W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
0-0
w
W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0- O V V V 0 0 V 0 0 0 0 U 0 U V V V V 0 V 0 0 U 0 U U
FT- U' (39 O l7 (39 O l9 U' O U' U' U' 3.9 3.9 U' U' (.9 l (- (7 l7 l.5 (7 l9 V L9
00000000000000000000000000
vl in N N rl N
co M co o 0
t- oN o o ti CT)
tto'I M M M 0 0 0 0 Ill
0 0 0 0 0 a 0 CC 0 0 WC
# (D (D H U) M N C> N O) CT) N a M 00 0 HI N M a vl Vl Cl Cl Ol to Vl
O Cr NO) Ol 00 V) a s a' a 00) 0- 0) N TNT N a 00 00 00 a O
o CO M N N rl Ol N Cr N Cr N N N W (D ti) VD LID (D 0) N O) H TM Cr
CC 0 0 00 00 M O Vl N V) Vl 00 00 CO Cr N N N N N 0 O 00 O a o 0
T 00 0 M M C) m Ol CI) CT) Ol M M M M M M M M M N co N M N Cr m
H H O O O H O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O H O H O O H
O 0 0 0 0 0 t-1 m to m MM C00000 ,000000000000
0 T1, 0001010
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U CO O HI 0 CTCO a a a a00 0 Ol 0 OH ON N TT M .0 a a a CO a s
LO t0 N N H N N N N N N N N (O LO LID (D (O tD M LID O) Ol N V) Vl
Ti N 00 00 v) Ul U) vl Vl vl CO CO 00 N N N Cr Cr N O 0 CO CO a CO 0
M M M M Ol 0 0 0 Ol Ol M M M M M M M M M N w H W w w w W W W W W WW W W W W W W W W W W W W W
M 00 0 M a a N M M to 0 ti to 0 0 0 0 0 0 x 0 0“1110O
M to tD Z Ill M M M M M (D Z M M Z Z Z Z Z Z N Z N M Z M
00 N 0 in O N N N N N Ol no O 00 in no no y) N 0 01 00 0
0 N M LO M M m U) M a c) h 0l 0 O CJ
# TT N O Cr CO M M CO N O N N O N N O M H N rl N N Cr
O to ii to N to to to to to M M MCC) to (o m CO M N to N M M CO to
N N N CNN N N O N N N N C N N OEN M N N O N
Q N rl t-I .Cr rl rl tH r1 rl rl r1 a r1 r1 N N O N N Ol H Ol H rl O r1
w on L Ln N LA do to In LA LA LA N LA LA N N Cr N N N M' N co L.lo N W'
• H H O M O H 0003430 0 O to trt tvl o tr) M H M H O M H
N N N N N N N N N N
HI HI H N. rl rl
N N V) V) to LA In In N N
O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O
Q Ol N (D HI N M a M a Vl Vl LLDN co O N N M a In
O rl rl a a a a rl HI HI 0 0 0 0 HI HI CJ N N N
- CO 00 CO N N N N 00 CO CO 00 CO CO CO W CO CO 00 00 CO
F (D (O (O N N N N tD ID (D (D 0 U VD to ID tD (O CO W
Z H H HI rl rl rl rl `4 rl rl rl HI HI N rl rl 'i HI H H
W
J
0
C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
`0 0• ` `0 `o `0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `0 0 0 `0 `0 `o o `0 0 0 0 0 0
W a n a a n a a a a n n a a a a a a a a a a a a a a n
O D U U U U U ,3 v0 0 0 0 u V U U U U U U U Lii U (.8) U 0
H• 000000000W W O O 0 v v v `1 v m a m v 0 v 0
Z `to `m `m `m `o `m `m
w co0) 000000003000000000) 00000000000) 00) 0003000 m
J
EXHIBIT
•
DISTRICT COURT, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO
Weld County Courthouse
901 9th Ave.
Greeley, Colorado 80631
Plaintiffs: Bill Barrett Corporation and
Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc.
v.
Defendant: Sand Hills Metropolitan District, f/k/a
Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6 A COURT USE ONLY A
Richard Kirk Mueller,#16746
Ann T. Lebeck, #42424
DAVIS GRAHAM &STUBBS LLP
1550 Seventeenth St. Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: 303-892-9400 Case No.
Facsimile: 303-893-1379
E-mail: kirk.mueller@dgslaw.com . Ctrm.
ann.lebeck@dgslaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bill Barrett Corporation and
Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Bill Barrett Corporation("BBC") and Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc. ("Bonanza
Creek") state and allege the following for their Complaint against Defendant Sand Hills
Metropolitan District, formerly known as the Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6("Sand Hills"
or the"District"):
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Sand Hills was organized in the Town of Lochbuie, Colorado in 2004 for the
purpose of developing 1,496 single family home units and 70,000 square feet of commercial
space within the Town's boundaries. Nearly a decade later, after transplanting itself to an
isolated location some thirty miles away and collecting millions from taxpayers within its new
boundaries, Sand Hills has not provided any of the services for which it was organized and,
indeed, recently indicated it never will. Because Sand Hills refuses to dissolve and continues to
levy taxes, Plaintiffs bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
1. BBC is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 1099 18th
Street, Suite 2300, Denver, Colorado 80202.
2. Bonanza Creek is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at
410 17th Street, Suite 1400, Denver, Colorado 80202.
3. Sand Hills Metropolitan District, formerly known as the Altamira Metropolitan
District No. 6, is a special district organized under Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes with
its principal office at CRS of Colorado, LLC, 7995 Prentice Avenue, Suite 103E, Greenwood
Village, Colorado 80111. Sand Hills' designated contact person is Sue Blair, CRS of Colorado,
LLC, 7995 Prentice Avenue, Suite 103E, Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Art. VI, Section 9 of the
Colorado Constitution, which provides that the district courts "shall be trial courts of record with
general jurisdiction, and shall have original jurisdiction" in all civil cases.
5. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-207(3) because
this Court approved the organization of Defendant Sand Hills in 2004.
6. Upon information and belief, there are entities or individuals who may be subject
to joinder under C.R.C.P. 19(a)(2). Accordingly, Plaintiffs anticipate filing a motion for joinder
in the near term.
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
7. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek incorporate the preceding allegations of their
Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
8. Plaintiff BBC is an oil and natural gas exploration and development company
with assets located in the Rocky Mountain region.
9. Plaintiff Bonanza Creek is an exploration and production company focused on the
extraction of oil and associated liquids-rich natural gas in the United States.
10. BBC and Bonanza Creek both operate in Weld County and within the current
boundaries of Defendant Sand Hills.
11. BBC and Bonanza Creek are both subject to and have paid taxes levied by
Defendant Sand Hills, as further detailed herein.
- 2 -
Organization of the Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6
12. Defendant Sand Hills was organized in late 2004 under the name "Altamira
Metropolitan District No. 6." The District was formed in conjunction with five other
metropolitan districts: the Altamira Metropolitan District No. 1, Altamira Metropolitan District
No. 2, Altamira Metropolitan District No. 3, Altamira Metropolitan District No. 4, and Altamira
Metropolitan District No. 5.
13. The District's boundaries at the time of its organization in 2004 were located
entirely within the Town of Lochbuie, Weld County, Colorado.
14. On October 6, 2004, Lochbuie approved the service plan for the District. A copy
of the service plan for the Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6 is attached as "Exhibit A" (the
"2004 Service Plan"). Based on the approved 2004 Service Plan, on November 12, 2004, the
Weld County District Court issued an Order and Decree organizing the Altamira Metropolitan
District No. 6.
15. The District's actions are, and from its inception have been, governed by the 2004
Service Plan.
The 2004 Service Plan
16. The 2004 Service Plan states that the District's purpose is to provide
infrastructure to support the development and construction of a residential neighborhood called
the "Altamira Development" in the Town of Lochbuie, near the intersection of Weld County
Road 4 and Weld County Road 37. In particular, the District was formed to "finance, construct
and install local and regional public improvements, including streets and traffic signals, and
water, sewer, storm drainage and park, open space and recreation facilities" for the Altamira
Development on land encompassed within the District and Altamira Metropolitan Districts Nos.
I through 5. See Exhibit A at 1, 3-4.
17. The 2004 Service Plan further states that the District "will work closely and
cooperate with the Town to serve and promote the health, safety, prosperity, security and general
welfare of the Altamira Development's inhabitants." Exhibit A at 4.
18. With respect to the need for the District, the 2004 Service Plan states:
While the area to be served by the District is located entirely within the
boundaries of the Town, the Town does not consider it feasible or practical to
provide the District with the services and/or facilities described in this Service
Plan. Therefore, it is necessary that the District be organized to provide its
inhabitants with the facilities and services described in this Service Plan.
Exhibit A at 4.
- 3 -
19. The 2004 Service Plan states that the "estimated daytime population of the six
Districts at full build-out is approximately four thousand three hundred and fifty three (4,353)
people," and that the property is "being rezoned to Planned Unit Development." Exhibit A at 5.
20. Exhibits to the 2004 Service Plan identify and describe various future
improvements:
• The "Preliminary Engineering Cost Estimates" lists "Regional Improvements" as
including asphalt pavement, landscaping, "traffic signalization," gutters and
sidewalks, manholes, and fire hydrants. See Exhibit A at Exhibit F at 1.
• The "Preliminary Engineering Cost Estimates" include as "Local Improvements"
items like water mains, sanitary sewers, manholes, fire hydrants, sidewalks,
"Turn-a-bouts (including Curbing and Landscaping)," asphalt pavement, storm
sewers, drainage facilities, and "Neighborhood Park Landscaping." See Exhibit A
at Exhibit F at 2-3.
• The "Map of Preliminary Location of the Public Improvements" consists of
drawings of a housing subdivision. See Exhibit A at Exhibit G.
• The "Financing Plan" includes a "Development Projection" for Altamira
Metropolitan Districts Nos. 1 through 6 indicating that construction of single
family lots would commence in 2005 and that, by 2010, 1,496 single family units
would be completed. See Exhibit A at Exhibit H.
• The "Development Projection" likewise indicates that, starting in 2008,
commercial lots will be developed and, by 2013, 70,000 square feet of
commercial space will be completed. See Exhibit A at Exhibit H.
21. Upon information and belief, as of this date, Sand Hills has not constructed, or
even begun the construction of, any of the features set forth in Paragraph 20, above.
22. Moreover, Sand Hills has indicated that the District has no intention of
constructing the facilities and features set forth in Paragraph 20, above.
Inclusion of 70 Ranch, LLC Property and Activation of the District as a
Funding Mechanism for United Water & Sanitation District
23. From 2005 through the end of 2009, Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6 had
zero revenue and zero expenditures.
24. On November 25, 2008, the District's Board of Directors, including Robert
("Bob") Lembke, approved certification of a mill levy of 51.118 mills for its "general operating
expenses." At the time of the District's mill levy certification, the District's Board of Directors
- 4 -
certified that the District's gross assessed valuation was $60, so that its revenue for the 2009 year
would be $0.
25. A few months later, on March 30, 2009, Bob Lembke signed—on behalf of an
entity named 70 Ranch, LLC— a Petition for Inclusion of Property into the Altamira
Metropolitan District No. 6. Within a few days, the District's Board of Directors (including Bob
Lembke) approved inclusion of the 70 Ranch, LLC property. The inclusion of the 70 Ranch,
LLC property was finalized on April 28, 2009, by Order of the Weld County District Court.
26. The 70 Ranch, LLC property encompasses approximately 12,000 acres located
entirely outside of, and approximately 30 miles removed from, the Town of Lochbuie. The 70
Ranch, LLC property reportedly has less than ten human inhabitants and is the site of significant
mineral exploration and production activities by companies such as BBC and Bonanza Creek.
70 Ranch, LLC property is or at relevant times has been owned, directly or indirectly, by Bob
Lembke.
27. On November 24, 2009, the District's Board of Directors approved the District's
budget and mill levy certification for the following year. This time, with the inclusion of the 70
Ranch, LLC property, the Board of Directors certified that the District's gross assessed valuation
was $17,785,350 and approved a mill levy certification of 55.000 mills (for its "general
operating expenses").
28. The 2010 budget adopted by the District on November 24, 2009 earmarked
$912,275 for an"IGA [Intergovernmental Agreement] Payment" even though the District at that
time had not entered into any intergovernmental agreements.
29. In April 2010, the District moved for, and the Weld County District Court issued,
an Order Confirming Change of Name from Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6 to Sand Hills
Metropolitan District. Upon information and belief, the name "Sand Hills" is inspired by the
remote and desert-like landscape of the 70 Ranch, LLC property.
30. Also in April 2010, Sand Hills entered into a "funding agreement" with the
United Water & Sanitation District (the "United Water Funding Agreement"). A copy of the
United Water Funding Agreement is attached as Exhibit B. In the United Water Funding
Agreement, Sand Hills pledged to "remit to United on a monthly basis as received, Net Revenues
of Sand Hills." See Exhibit B at 2, § 3.1.
31. Bob Lembke is also a member of the Board of Directors for the United Water &
Sanitation District. At least three other individuals who are members of the Sand Hills Board of
Directors are also members of the Board of Directors of United Water & Sanitation District.
32. Upon information and belief, United Water & Sanitation District consists of a
small, vacant tract of land in Elbert County owned by Bob Lembke, or one of his family
members or entities, and has no residents.
- 5 -
Exclusion of the District's Original Boundaries
33. On April 27, 2011, Sand Hills moved for an order excluding from its boundaries
that land originally comprising the Altamira Metropolitan District No. 6. The next day, the Weld
County District Court granted Sand Hills' motion.
34. As a result of the March 30, 2009 inclusion of the 70 Ranch, LLC property into
Sand Hills, and the April 27, 2011 exclusion of the Town of Lochbuie property from Sand Hills,
the District currently encompasses only the 70 Ranch, LLC property that is entirely outside of
and approximately thirty miles removed from the Town of Lochbuie.
35. Despite the fact that no property in the Town of Lochbuie is contained within
Sand Hills' current boundaries and, as described below, the only tax revenues collected by the
District have been paid by inhabitants of the District's current boundaries and not by inhabitants
of the Town, Lochbuie's Board of Trustees retains jurisdiction over the District's activities.
The District Collects Millions in Taxes
36. Since December 2008, Sand Hills has each year certified a mill levy for its
"general operating expenses." Through this mill levy certification, Sand Hills has collected
millions in property taxes from Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek (and its affiliates and
subsidiaries) among others.
37. To date, and despite inquiries made to Sand Hills, it remains unclear how the
funds generated by Sand Hills' tax levies have been used although it is apparent that none of the
funds are being used to finance the activities set out in the 2004 Service Plan. Upon information
and belief, much of the tax revenue has been channeled to other special districts with which Bob
Lembke is involved.
The District Abandons the 2004 Service Plan and
Proposes to Pursue Different Activities Pursuant to an Amended Service Plan
38. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-207(1), the activities undertaken by a special district
such as Sand Hills must conform as far as practicable to its service plan. Sand Hills has taken
virtually no steps to implement the operative 2004 Service Plan and its activities to date have
deviated widely from those contemplated by the plan. Moreover, Sand Hills has indicated it has
no intention to conform its activities to the 2004 Service Plan on a going forward basis.
39. Having abandoned any effort to conform to the 2004 Service Plan—the only plan
ever approved to support the District's existence— Sand Hills' Board of Directors has proposed a
new service plan to legitimize the District's activities.
40. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-207(2), a special district may make material
modifications of its approved service plan only by petition to and with the approval of the
governing body of the municipality that approved the creation of the special district. In April
- 6 -
2013, Sand Hills submitted a revised service plan to the Town of Lochbuie, followed by another
"Updated and Revised" service plan in September 2013. Neither of these revised service plans
has been formally considered or approved by the Town of Lochbuie. A copy of the September
2013 "Updated and Revised" service plan is attached as Exhibit C.
41. The "Updated and Revised"—but not approved— service plan describes various
facilities and "regional improvements" Sand Hills proposes to construct to support "public
infrastructure resources of benefit on a regional basis." The "Updated and Revised" service plan
lists, as examples of such improvements, construction of water truck depots and a "reservoir and
recharge site" within the District's boundaries, as well as a 36 mile-long pipeline to convey water
from Kersey to Brighton, Colorado. See Exhibit C at 7. The "Updated and Revised" plan also
calls for payment by Sand Hills to the Town of Lochbuie, some thirty miles to the southwest, to
repair one of Lochbuie's reservoirs.
42. The "Updated and Revised" service plan—and the activities proposed therein to
be conducted by Sand Hills —cannot justify the District's continued existence because there is no
need within the District boundaries for the services the District proposes to undertake.
43. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-103(20), a special district must provide services for its
inhabitants and, pursuant to § 32-1-203(2) and Colorado case law, there must be a sufficient need
by and benefit to the taxpayers within a district's boundaries for the proposed services. Here,
there is no need within Sand Hills' existing boundaries for the services described in the 2004
Service Plan which would be provided 30 miles away in the Town of Lochbuie. Nor is there a
need for any of the services described in the proposed, but not operative, "Updated and Revised"
service plan attached as Exhibit C.
44. Plaintiff Bonanza Creek, together with another oil and gas operator,has
previously notified Sand Hills that there is no need within the District for the types of public
infrastructure and improvements described in the "Updated and Revised" service plan and that
the improvements would be of no benefit to the taxpayers within the District. See August 23,
2013 letter to Sand Hills' counsel, Miller & Associates, Exhibit D hereto, at 1. Given that the
District is not pursuing the activities described in its operative 2004 Service Plan, and in the
absence of any need for the services described in the "Updated and Revised"plan, Plaintiff
Bonanza Creek and another oil and gas operator called upon the District to prepare and file a
petition for dissolution pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-701 a seq., and to return the taxes it has
collected to the taxpayers. Id. at 2. Sand Hills has expressly refused to honor these requests.
See October 1, 2013 letter from Miller & Associates, Exhibit E hereto, at 1.
45. On September 16, 2013, despite that it has not secured approval to amend its 2004
Service Plan, Sand Hills filed a "notice" with this Court declaring its intention to undertake the
"planning, design, construction and financing" of some or all of more than a dozen"facilities and
improvements in Weld County." See "Notice of Intention Pursuant to § 32-1-207(3)(b) Sand
Hills Metropolitan District, Weld County, Colorado," Filing ID No. 205241870941, Case No.
04CV1743 (Dist. Ct., Weld County, Colorado), Exhibit F hereto. The improvements described
- 7
in the September 16, 2013 notice are entirely unrelated to any activities set forth in the District's
operative 2004 Service Plan. However, similar activities are described in the District's proposed
"Updated and Revised" —but not approved— service plan.
46. In sum, Sand Hills has given notice that it intends to break the law. Having
implemented none of the projects described in the 2004 Service Plan despite collecting taxes
pursuant to that plan for the last three years, and having never secured approval to amend its
service plan from the Town of Lochbuie, Sand Hills intends to commence construction of
projects for which there is no need and which do not deliver any value to the District's taxpayers.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Injunctive Relief for Failure to Conform With
2004 Service Plan in Violation of C.R.S. § 32-1-207(1))
47. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek incorporate the preceding allegations of their
Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
48. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-207, a special district must "conform so far as
practicable" to its approved service plan.
49. Since its inception in 2004, Sand Hills has not provided or attempted to provide
any of the services or facilities for which the District was organized.
50. Those actions taken by Sand Hills—including, without limitation, its pledge of
revenue to United Water & Sanitation District— are inconsistent with the services or facilities for
which the District was organized.
51. Accordingly, Sand Hills has failed to conform with the 2004 Service Plan and an
injunction should issue as described in the Prayer for Relief infra.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Injunctive Relief for Failure to Provide Needed Services or Benefit for Taxpayers in
Violation of C.R.S. §§ 32-1-103(20), 32-1-203(2),and Colorado Case Law)
52. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek incorporate the preceding allegations of their
Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
53. Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes §§ 32-1-103(20), 32-1-203(2), and
Colorado case law, a special district must provide services and benefits for the inhabitants and
taxpayers within the district's boundaries.
54. The inhabitants and taxpayers of Sand Hills have no need for the improvements
and services described in the 2004 Service Plan nor do they have any need for the services and
improvements described in the proposed "Updated and Revised" service plan or in the
September 16, 2013 notice.
- 8 -
55. The inhabitants and taxpayers of Sand Hills will receive no meaningful benefit
from the improvements and services described in the 2004 Service Plan, and would receive no
benefit from the improvements and services set out in the "Updated and Revised" service plan
and the September 16, 2013 notice.
56. Accordingly, there is no need for the services Sand Hills proposes to provide nor
would the services benefit the inhabitants and taxpayers of the District.
57. An injunction should issue as described in the Prayer for Relief infra.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Injunctive Relief for Unapproved Modification of
Service Plan in Violation of C.R.S. § 32-1-207(2))
58. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek incorporate the preceding allegations of their
Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
59. Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-207(2), a special district may make material
modifications of its approved service plan only by petition to and with the approval of the
governing body of the municipality that approved the creation of the special district.
60. Sand Hills has prepared and submitted to the Town of Lochbuie an "Updated and
Revised" service plan but has not sought nor received final approval of the plan, nor has there
been a public hearing on the proposed amended service plan as required by C.R.S. § 32-1-204.
61. On September 16, 2013, Sand Hills gave notice to this Court that it intends to
implement myriad activities that are described generally in the "Updated and Revised"—but not
approved— service plan.
62. Accordingly, Sand Hills is threatening to embark on a material departure from its
2004 Service Plan without following legally prescribed procedures.
63. An injunction should issue as described in the Prayer for Relief infra.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Injunctive Relief Compelling Refund of Revenues Pursuant to
TABOR Amendment, Colorado Constitution, Article X, § 20(1))
64. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek incorporate the preceding allegations of their
Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
65. Pursuant to Colorado's "Taxpayer Bill of Rights," Colorado Constitution, Article
X, § 24(a) ("TABOR"), voter approval is required in advance for"any new tax, tax rate
increase," or"mill levy above that for the prior year . . . ."
- 9 -
66. Pursuant to TABOR, Colorado Constitution, Article X, § 20(1), "revenue
collected, kept or spent illegally . . . shall be refunded with 10% annual simple interest" to the
taxpayers along with costs and reasonable attorney fees.
67. Upon information and belief, the only approval by taxpayers for the collection
and expenditure of tax revenues by Sand Hills has been pursuant to the 2004 Service Plan. Sand
Hills has, through its funding agreement with United Water & Sanitation District and otherwise,
collected and disbursed revenues on matters or projects entirely unrelated to the services
described in the 2004 Service Plan.
68. Accordingly, Sand Hills has illegally collected and disbursed tax revenues and
must refund those revenues with interest.
69. A mandatory injunction should issue as described in the Prayer for Relief infra.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Action for Declaratory Relief pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-51-101 et seq.)
70. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek incorporate the preceding allegations of their
Complaint as though set forth fully herein.
71. Pursuant to Colorado's Declaratory Judgment Act, C.R.S. § 13-51-101 et seq.,
this Court has the "power to declare rights, status, and other legal relations" of the parties herein.
C.R.S. § 13-51-105.
72. Plaintiffs BBC and Bonanza Creek seek declarations that:
(a) The exclusion of the District's original boundaries within
Lochbuie either (i) constituted the creation of a new district requiring the Weld
County Board of Commissioners' approval or (ii) constituted a material
modification of the 2004 Service Plan, requiring approval by the Town of
Lochbuie;
(b) Since its organization, Sand Hills has not provided or attempted
to provide any of the services or facilities in the 2004 Service Plan for which
the District was organized nor has it otherwise conformed with that plan;
(c) Sand Hills' actions — including, without limitation, entering into a
funding agreement with United Water & Sanitation District—are unauthorized,
illegal, and ultra vires because those actions (i) lack any link to the 2004
Service Plan or district inhabitants, (ii) do not address any need or bestow any
benefit upon taxpayers within of the District, and (iii) were not approved by
taxpayers as required by TABOR;
- 10 -
(d) Sand Hills must submit its 2004 Service Plan and any
amendments thereto to the Weld County Board of County Commissioners as
that is the proper governing body of a special district located entirely outside
Lochbuie and inside Weld County; and
(e) Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-701 et seq., the District should be
dissolved.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Bill Barrett Corporation and Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc.
respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant Sand Hills
Metropolitan District and grant relief as follows:
1. A preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendant Sand Hills prohibiting
it from certifying mill levies, collecting taxes, making expenditures, and transferring any of its
assets or revenues;
2. An order declaring that:
(a) The exclusion of the original Altamira Metropolitan District No.
6 property from Sand Hills Metropolitan District either (i) constituted the
creation of a new district requiring the Weld County Board of
Commissioners' approval or (ii) constituted a material modification of Sand
Hills Metropolitan District's 2004 Service Plan, requiring approval of same
by the Town of Lochbuie;
(b) Since its inception in 2004, Sand Hills Metropolitan District has
not provided or attempted to provide any of the services or facilities for
which it was organized, nor has it otherwise conformed with that plan;
(c) Sand Hills' actions— including, without limitation, entering into a
funding agreement with United Water & Sanitation District—are
unauthorized, illegal, and ultra vires because those actions (i) lack any link
to the 2004 Service Plan or district inhabitants, (ii) do not address any need
or bestow any benefit upon taxpayers within of the District, and (iii) were
not approved by taxpayers as required by TABOR;
(d) Sand Hills Metropolitan District must submit its 2004 Service
Plan and any amendments thereto to the Weld County Board of County
Commissioners as that is the proper governing body of a special district
located entirely outside the boundaries of the Town of Lochbuie and inside
Weld County;
- 11 -
ti
(e) Sand Hills Metropolitan District is enjoined from(i) expending
any funds or delivering any funds to other individuals or entities including
United Water & Sanitation District, (ii) constructing any facilities including
any facilities described in its September 2013 "Updated and Revised"
service plan or September 16, 2013 "notice," or(iii) certifying or levying
any further taxes, levies, fees, tolls, or charges, or issuing any bonds or
other financial obligations;
(f) Sand Hills Metropolitan District must develop a plan as provided
by TABOR to refund to BBC and Bonanza Creek the revenues it has
collected, with 10% annual simple interest, and the reasonable attorney fees
and costs, within 20 days; and
(g) Pursuant to C.R.S. § 32-1-701 et seq.,the Sand Hills
Metropolitan District should be dissolved.
3. Costs;
4. Reasonable attorneys' fees;
5. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest to the extent permitted by law; and
6. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper and just.
Dated this 1st day of November, 2013
s/R. Kirk Mueller
R. Kirk Mueller, #16746
Ann T. Lebeck, #42424
DAVIS GRAHAM&STUBBS LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Bill Barrett Corporation and
Bonanza Creek Energy, Inc.
- 12 -
CLERK TO THE BOARD
PHONE: (970) 336-7215, EXT. 5226
1861 FAX: (970) 352-0242
1150 O STREET
IATr 1",," P.O. BOX 758
+n /� GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
\
G■iOUJ�,NTY
April 2, 2014
Bill Barrett Corporation
1099 18th Street, Suite#2300
Denver, CO 80202
RE: SCHEDULE NUMBER E3261805 +
Dear Property Owner:
This is to advise you that the Weld County Board of Commissioners will hear your petition for
abatement or refund of taxes on the property described as: various sites. The meeting is
scheduled for April 23, 2014, at 9:00 a.m., in the Chambers of the Board of County
Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O Street,
Assembly Room, Greeley, Colorado 80631.
The Assessor is recommending that the Board deny your petition. You are not required to be
present at this hearing; however, this is your opportunity to have your position heard, especially
if your position is opposed to the Assessor's recommendation. If you intend to submit any
documentation in support of your position for this hearing, all such documentation must be
submitted to the Office of the Clerk to the Board and to the Weld County Assessor's Office at
least seven calendar days prior to the meeting date in order for it to be considered at the
scheduled hearing.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(970)336-7215, Extension 5226.
Sincerely,
C4frctigiL,CA Jeadt.--
Rafaela A. Martinez
Deputy Clerk to the Board
cc: Assessor
4. a3- aoW
CLERK TO THE BOARD
1861_yC'� PHONE: (970) 336-7215, Ext. 5226 EO FAX: (970) 352-0242
1150 O STREET
P.O. BOX 758
\ GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
<>
May 5, 2014
Bill Barrett Corporation
1099 18th Street Suite 2300
Denver, CO 80202
RE: SCHEDULE NUMBER E3261805+
Dear Property Owner:
On April 23, 2014, the Board of Weld County Commissioners considered your petition for
abatement or refund of taxes and denied same.
Pursuant to Section 39-2-125(f), C.R.S., you have the right to appeal this decision to the State
Board of Assessment Appeals within thirty days. You may obtain the appropriate forms and
instructions from:
Board of Assessment Appeals, Department of Local Affairs,
1313 Sherman Street, Room 315
Denver, CO 80203
Phone: 303-866-5880
In preparation for appealing to the State Board of Assessment Appeals you may also go to the
following state link to obtain any further information you may need to proceed,
http://www.dola.state.co.us/baa/index.htm
Very truly yours,
cgca___ a.
Rafaela A. Martinez
Deputy Clerk to the Board
cc: Assessor
RM/eg
U.S. Postal SerVICeTM
CERTIFIED MAIL. RECEIPT
(Domestic Mall Only;No Insurance Coverage Provided)
DU
co
O
P- l
Lri i T
Postage i s
m l-- I
O Certified Fee I
O _, Postmark
I:3 Return Receipt Fee Here
(Endorsement Required) ��
Restricted Delivery Fee r I
0' (Endorsement Required) _J
c0ru Total Postage A Fees $ _I
S
OI
O Sent To l7 G `,��[yyl I��.Ckirao raetl�A.
[Street,roax . 1nQ l.__'so
C15.4._
i,')e r (rY --3OQ
barreat
ror PO Box No. !�J ) _ J V
City.State,ZIP+4
S F rm 3:.I,June 2 r 02 See Reverse ror Instructs ne
SEN II E': C•M'LETE THIS SECTI•N
C e M•LETF THIS SE'CT:•N eN •EIJVE•Y
• Complete items 1,2,and Also complete A Si -ure
O Agent
item 4 if Restricted Delivery `
is desired. X O Addressee
• Print your name and address on the reverse
so that we can return the card to you. B. Received by(Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery
• Attach this card to the back of the mailplece,
or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from item 1? O Yes
1. Article Addressed to: If YES,enter delivery address below: O No
tLLLT o-rrefit Corporut<-o
toga I� 5---.
n 3. Service Type
,---,ua l „. d n3
14 Certified Mail O Express Mail
O Registered O Return Receipt for Merchandise
The"
t 0 r l Co2]0�O O Insured Mail O C.O.D.
t✓1 \N"U liV V V 4. Restricted Delivery?(Extra Fee) O Yes
2. Article Number 7004 2890 0003 5708 9998
(Transfer from service It
PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt
102595-02-M-1540
Hello