Thursday, May 27, 2010
Happy Canyon HOA advises corrections....
Liz West of the Happy Canyon HOA advises the potential payment from The Canyons developer to the city is $1 million, and arbitration has not yet been entered into. These changes are in the blog below.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Now or Never - 5/25 Meeting Recap
The work session began at 6 p.m. with an overview of a badly needed communications plan for the City. That being said, it will not be easy to communicate the City out of the bad feeling that was generated later in the evening. Perhaps if there had been communication with the community prior to actions taken there would not have been such anger displayed. Now, it is what it is.
Next up was a review of the Metro District's water plan by recently retired District Manager Jim McGrady. Jim has been hired by the City to write a report on the now fading notion of integration between the City and the District. One audience member asked if it was true that potable water would be stored in Rueter Hess Reservoir. McGrady replied that every drop of water stored in Rueter Hess will be treated or pre-treated before being stored in the reservoir. He explained water the District owns that will come from the interconnect pipeline from Highlands Ranch is high quality water that goes through conventional treatment. Water the District owns that will come from agriculture north of Barr Lake is low quality water that must be at least pre-treated, and may have to pass through more rigorous and more expensive reverse osmosis treatment. McGrady said efforts will be made to use as much of the high quality potable water as possible for use by the community before storing it in Reuter Hess. McGrady also mentioned water from the Wise Partnership between Denver Water, Aurora, and S. Metro Water Supply Authority may also come into play, once those discussions are completed and agreements can be inked. (I'd like to add that Rueter Hess is the first reservoir on the Front Range to pass muster with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Due to its considerable size, it took twenty-three years to permit this facility. The regulations for use of the facility are exacting, and there will be further discussion as the facility comes on line in 2012.)
The actual council meeting began at 7, and consisted of a long review of components of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) juggernaut, with a very long and detailed response by the URA consultant to letters from Douglas County government and Dan Danser, attornery for the Happy Canyon HOA. This included fantasies about what the economy may bring to the area twenty-five and forty-fve years from now. The discussion did make the case that the effort does comply with current state law (which will be changed on Tuesday, at which time this practice is illegal). The City attorney said Courts will not review this legislative decision of the Council unless there is bad faith or fraud. The consultant pointed out there are 79 parcels that may be impacted by the action, and opined that at least four of eleven items of blight are in evidence somewhere within the boundaries of the proposal.
Public comment was not just negative. It was angry.
a) The URA was not adequately explained to the people of the community. This was mentioned by many speakers. I believe that is gospel truth, no doubt about it.
b) Speakers said there was not adequate notice of the meeting. It is true the council schedules meetings I know nothing about, and I've known when they were meeting, but not where. However, I think it has been easy to understand Council was going to pass this URA measure on May 25th for a at least a month.
c) Citizens said there was a rush to judgement to pass the measure before a law just passed by the legislature outlawed the practice. Oh sure, I believe that is withoug doubt also true.
d) About the URA, a real estate broker said said, "We don't want box stores. We want something nice." (Sadly, box stores are likely the only thing that will make sense for the large commercial area west of I-25 at Castle Pines Parkway.)
e) The fire departments in the area sent their attorney to ask for a written agreement to lessen the impact of the URA on their revenues and operations. These agreements will be addressed at the next council meeting.
f) A resident spoke to how zoning efforts are inconsistent and the URA blights areas due to the desire for private development.
g) The County government sent its representative to state its opposition to the greenfield development contemplated by the URA, stating there were inadequate and inaccurate estimates of impacts to the County and other stakeholders.
h) The President of the Happy Canyon HOA read a letter from their attorney. It sounded to me like they are setting a foundation for possible litigation.
i) Another resident opined that Wal*Mart is not a community benefit. She said, "We don't want to be Highlands Ranch."
j) It a fit of honestly, one resident said simply, "I don't feel I know enough to talk about the plan." He went on to point out that a twenty-five year plan will impact a lot of citizens, and so the process of consideration should be more deliberative. He said, "Let's not start a Civil War".
k) The Library district opined that the URA will deprive the library district of needed resources to operate a library in Castle Pines North.
l) Resident Scott Landley was the most steamed about the entire matter. He pointed out that neither the URA consultant nor the City's attorney know the answers to questions being raised. He pointed out that nowhere in the literature does it say how this move will help homeowners. (Later in the evening, Mayor Huff, who courageously and quite rightly voted no on the matter, gave the only cogent explanation of how the URA could in fact help homeowners. Of course that help is years and years and years away. Our grandkids will know if this is a good move.)
m) One citizen asked if the taxes that were going to be called fees would be like the taxes that are called fees at Park Meadows Mall.
n) Another citizen opined the rush to judgement was about including the ag lands. She pointed out the first meeting on this matter was held after a bill was introduced in the legislature to outlaw the practice. She pointed out notice was posted to approve the matter five days before the Urban Renewal Authority was even created.
o) A resident read a letter into the record from the former City Councilmembers in support of the matter. It said that even if you don't trust elected officials, they should still govern.
p) A Metro District board member opined that development will occur without special considerations. He said the discussion did not speak to the importance of open space and parks. He said the area was rural in nature, and asked that they please not put high rise buildings on the land. He asked why weren't impacts to the Metro District listed in the analysis of the URA. (Mayor Huff later mentioned that the Metro District attorney was included in discussions, and felt impacts to the District were minimal.) He said, "We don't want high growth/high density development".
q) The Metro District President asked Council to vote no on this measure. He pointed out that if you vote yes without the trust of citizens, you'll live to regret it.
r) A resident read language from Resolution 1046 Part 4, section (B) indicating that with a yes vote the Council was declaring Castle Pines North to have a shortage of safe and adequate housing now existing in the City, and worse. (This finding is of course less than laughable. One Councilmember opined not to take the word "blight" too seriously. It's just a word they have to use.)
s) The former President of the Master Association pointed out the deadlines imposed by the legislature were only about the ag areas, as the rest of CPN could develop a URA at any time, even in the wake of the state law that goes into effect next Tuesday. She said the only property with "defective title" is The Canyons. She said there have not been adequate stakeholder meetings with citizens.
t) The attorney for The Canyons then said they were for it. HOA negotiations will continue, regardless of the URA vote.
(This last comment by the attorney is important. If the contract between The Canyons and the Happy Canyon and Pinery HOAs can be renegotiated to accommodate the commerical zoning for The Canyons recently approved by the City of Castle Pines North, the annexation agreement includes a provision whereby the city is reported to receive an additional payment from The Canyons of up to $1,000,000. The matter regarding renegotiation of the contract is now in pre-arbitration, but talks are reported to not be making much progress. I see this as an opportunity for the HOA to negotiate renewable water and wastewater from The Canyons, while the HOA does not want urban sprawl. Regardless of what I believe, it's none of my business. Those two parties should be allowed to work out their relationship amongst themeselves. With last night's approval of the URA, there is the perception that the City could condemn the property covered by the URA, thereby setting aside the contract that was negotiated by The Canyons and the HOAs. In that event the zoning would happen and the City would get the money from the developer. This was not greatly discussed as part of the URA conversation, as best I know. In 2004, state representative Mike May got a bill passed that greatly reduces the power of eminent domain (condemnation) by URAs. That's all I know. I guess we'll find out the rest soon enough.)
The Council then voted 5 to 1 to declare the City of Castle Pines north blighted and approve the URA. In casting the dissenting vote, Mayor Jeff Huff pointed out that while there were some merits to the notion, the State legislature was quite clear on intent in this matter. He also expressed reservation about applying the URA to the ag lands. He knew why he was voting no. I'll offer the following specualtion on the yes votes, based upon what I saw. It appeared to me that one of the yes votes knew why they were voting yes. They could be right. I don't understand the matter, and I don't know what the future is. Maybe they are exactly correct. I don't know. It appeared to me one vote thought they understood the matter, but their questions revealed they did not truly get it. One vote was almost a no, because this matter just dusted up since they came to sit on council, and it was likely too much to absorb in too short a time - for anyone. It was like they wanted to abstain. But when you sit on Council you have two choices - Yes or No. They went with Yes. It appeared to me there were two yes votes because of ideology as opposed to specific knowledge of the issue. The matter should have been deferred until there was more discussion and more understanding. Because the state law goes into effect on Tuesday, last night was now or never.
The agreements with the fire departments and others came up next on the agenda, but due to the lateness of the hour that matter was deferred to the next meeting.
They were getting ready to consider the contract to hire the HOA management firm to do our financial accounting when 10:30 struck. I had to depart to pick up my daughter from a last day of high school party. It was a fascinating four and one-half hour lesson in micro government.
Next up was a review of the Metro District's water plan by recently retired District Manager Jim McGrady. Jim has been hired by the City to write a report on the now fading notion of integration between the City and the District. One audience member asked if it was true that potable water would be stored in Rueter Hess Reservoir. McGrady replied that every drop of water stored in Rueter Hess will be treated or pre-treated before being stored in the reservoir. He explained water the District owns that will come from the interconnect pipeline from Highlands Ranch is high quality water that goes through conventional treatment. Water the District owns that will come from agriculture north of Barr Lake is low quality water that must be at least pre-treated, and may have to pass through more rigorous and more expensive reverse osmosis treatment. McGrady said efforts will be made to use as much of the high quality potable water as possible for use by the community before storing it in Reuter Hess. McGrady also mentioned water from the Wise Partnership between Denver Water, Aurora, and S. Metro Water Supply Authority may also come into play, once those discussions are completed and agreements can be inked. (I'd like to add that Rueter Hess is the first reservoir on the Front Range to pass muster with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Due to its considerable size, it took twenty-three years to permit this facility. The regulations for use of the facility are exacting, and there will be further discussion as the facility comes on line in 2012.)
The actual council meeting began at 7, and consisted of a long review of components of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) juggernaut, with a very long and detailed response by the URA consultant to letters from Douglas County government and Dan Danser, attornery for the Happy Canyon HOA. This included fantasies about what the economy may bring to the area twenty-five and forty-fve years from now. The discussion did make the case that the effort does comply with current state law (which will be changed on Tuesday, at which time this practice is illegal). The City attorney said Courts will not review this legislative decision of the Council unless there is bad faith or fraud. The consultant pointed out there are 79 parcels that may be impacted by the action, and opined that at least four of eleven items of blight are in evidence somewhere within the boundaries of the proposal.
Public comment was not just negative. It was angry.
a) The URA was not adequately explained to the people of the community. This was mentioned by many speakers. I believe that is gospel truth, no doubt about it.
b) Speakers said there was not adequate notice of the meeting. It is true the council schedules meetings I know nothing about, and I've known when they were meeting, but not where. However, I think it has been easy to understand Council was going to pass this URA measure on May 25th for a at least a month.
c) Citizens said there was a rush to judgement to pass the measure before a law just passed by the legislature outlawed the practice. Oh sure, I believe that is withoug doubt also true.
d) About the URA, a real estate broker said said, "We don't want box stores. We want something nice." (Sadly, box stores are likely the only thing that will make sense for the large commercial area west of I-25 at Castle Pines Parkway.)
e) The fire departments in the area sent their attorney to ask for a written agreement to lessen the impact of the URA on their revenues and operations. These agreements will be addressed at the next council meeting.
f) A resident spoke to how zoning efforts are inconsistent and the URA blights areas due to the desire for private development.
g) The County government sent its representative to state its opposition to the greenfield development contemplated by the URA, stating there were inadequate and inaccurate estimates of impacts to the County and other stakeholders.
h) The President of the Happy Canyon HOA read a letter from their attorney. It sounded to me like they are setting a foundation for possible litigation.
i) Another resident opined that Wal*Mart is not a community benefit. She said, "We don't want to be Highlands Ranch."
j) It a fit of honestly, one resident said simply, "I don't feel I know enough to talk about the plan." He went on to point out that a twenty-five year plan will impact a lot of citizens, and so the process of consideration should be more deliberative. He said, "Let's not start a Civil War".
k) The Library district opined that the URA will deprive the library district of needed resources to operate a library in Castle Pines North.
l) Resident Scott Landley was the most steamed about the entire matter. He pointed out that neither the URA consultant nor the City's attorney know the answers to questions being raised. He pointed out that nowhere in the literature does it say how this move will help homeowners. (Later in the evening, Mayor Huff, who courageously and quite rightly voted no on the matter, gave the only cogent explanation of how the URA could in fact help homeowners. Of course that help is years and years and years away. Our grandkids will know if this is a good move.)
m) One citizen asked if the taxes that were going to be called fees would be like the taxes that are called fees at Park Meadows Mall.
n) Another citizen opined the rush to judgement was about including the ag lands. She pointed out the first meeting on this matter was held after a bill was introduced in the legislature to outlaw the practice. She pointed out notice was posted to approve the matter five days before the Urban Renewal Authority was even created.
o) A resident read a letter into the record from the former City Councilmembers in support of the matter. It said that even if you don't trust elected officials, they should still govern.
p) A Metro District board member opined that development will occur without special considerations. He said the discussion did not speak to the importance of open space and parks. He said the area was rural in nature, and asked that they please not put high rise buildings on the land. He asked why weren't impacts to the Metro District listed in the analysis of the URA. (Mayor Huff later mentioned that the Metro District attorney was included in discussions, and felt impacts to the District were minimal.) He said, "We don't want high growth/high density development".
q) The Metro District President asked Council to vote no on this measure. He pointed out that if you vote yes without the trust of citizens, you'll live to regret it.
r) A resident read language from Resolution 1046 Part 4, section (B) indicating that with a yes vote the Council was declaring Castle Pines North to have a shortage of safe and adequate housing now existing in the City, and worse. (This finding is of course less than laughable. One Councilmember opined not to take the word "blight" too seriously. It's just a word they have to use.)
s) The former President of the Master Association pointed out the deadlines imposed by the legislature were only about the ag areas, as the rest of CPN could develop a URA at any time, even in the wake of the state law that goes into effect next Tuesday. She said the only property with "defective title" is The Canyons. She said there have not been adequate stakeholder meetings with citizens.
t) The attorney for The Canyons then said they were for it. HOA negotiations will continue, regardless of the URA vote.
(This last comment by the attorney is important. If the contract between The Canyons and the Happy Canyon and Pinery HOAs can be renegotiated to accommodate the commerical zoning for The Canyons recently approved by the City of Castle Pines North, the annexation agreement includes a provision whereby the city is reported to receive an additional payment from The Canyons of up to $1,000,000. The matter regarding renegotiation of the contract is now in pre-arbitration, but talks are reported to not be making much progress. I see this as an opportunity for the HOA to negotiate renewable water and wastewater from The Canyons, while the HOA does not want urban sprawl. Regardless of what I believe, it's none of my business. Those two parties should be allowed to work out their relationship amongst themeselves. With last night's approval of the URA, there is the perception that the City could condemn the property covered by the URA, thereby setting aside the contract that was negotiated by The Canyons and the HOAs. In that event the zoning would happen and the City would get the money from the developer. This was not greatly discussed as part of the URA conversation, as best I know. In 2004, state representative Mike May got a bill passed that greatly reduces the power of eminent domain (condemnation) by URAs. That's all I know. I guess we'll find out the rest soon enough.)
The Council then voted 5 to 1 to declare the City of Castle Pines north blighted and approve the URA. In casting the dissenting vote, Mayor Jeff Huff pointed out that while there were some merits to the notion, the State legislature was quite clear on intent in this matter. He also expressed reservation about applying the URA to the ag lands. He knew why he was voting no. I'll offer the following specualtion on the yes votes, based upon what I saw. It appeared to me that one of the yes votes knew why they were voting yes. They could be right. I don't understand the matter, and I don't know what the future is. Maybe they are exactly correct. I don't know. It appeared to me one vote thought they understood the matter, but their questions revealed they did not truly get it. One vote was almost a no, because this matter just dusted up since they came to sit on council, and it was likely too much to absorb in too short a time - for anyone. It was like they wanted to abstain. But when you sit on Council you have two choices - Yes or No. They went with Yes. It appeared to me there were two yes votes because of ideology as opposed to specific knowledge of the issue. The matter should have been deferred until there was more discussion and more understanding. Because the state law goes into effect on Tuesday, last night was now or never.
The agreements with the fire departments and others came up next on the agenda, but due to the lateness of the hour that matter was deferred to the next meeting.
They were getting ready to consider the contract to hire the HOA management firm to do our financial accounting when 10:30 struck. I had to depart to pick up my daughter from a last day of high school party. It was a fascinating four and one-half hour lesson in micro government.
Castle Pines North Declares 3,000 Acres Blighted
CASTLE PINES NORTH — The City Council late Tuesday declared blighted more than 3,000 acres of prime land for a new development despite concerns from residents that the process was rushed.
On Tuesday, a new law kicks in that, with a few exceptions, prevents local governments from using urban-renewal authority to declare agricultural land blighted.
Urban renewal allows cities to create tax increment financing districts so that taxes generated from the authorized area can go toward public improvements within that boundary.
"I feel like this process has been rushed," said Tori Willis, one about 70 people who packed a room at the city's community center. "I wish there was more time to talk to the community to see what we wanted."
Council members Doug Gilbert, Shelley Hamilton-Bruer, Kim Hoffman, Tera Radloff and Maureen Shul voted in favor of creating the urban-renewal area, or URA, for a project called The Canyons. Some nearby commercial and open areas were also declared blighted.
Mayor Jeff Huff voted against the resolution and received resounding applause from the crowd. Councilman John Ewing was out of town.
The urban-renewal area will mean the creation of about 650,000 square feet of commercial and office space, Anne Ricker of Leland Consulting Group said at the meeting.
About 1,500 single-family homes and 400 multifamily units would also be included in the URA.
The single-family homes to be built in The Canyons property were originally included in the taxing district but later removed.
Improvements within the urban-renewal boundary will instead be paid for mainly with commercial-property taxes.
During a 25-year buildout, the project is expected to generate $25 million in taxes for the public improvements. The money can be used for a variety of things, from roads and other infrastructure to police and fire facilities.
"This plan has been rushed," Resa Labossiere told the council. "It's been rushed for the sole purpose to include the ag land."
Critics say governments for years have abused urban-renewal laws, initially designed for cities to use to redevelop rundown urban areas. Many have instead declared as blighted undeveloped parcels of land. That prompted Colorado lawmakers to pass this year's bill, preventing them from doing so in most cases.
Ricker said despite the community's concerns, the boundary area met enough of the criteria for it to be blighted.
She also noted that there are 78 other parcels in the area, including existing commercial areas of the city that will see improvements as well.
Carlos Illescas: 303-954-1175 or cillescas@denverpost.com
On Tuesday, a new law kicks in that, with a few exceptions, prevents local governments from using urban-renewal authority to declare agricultural land blighted.
Urban renewal allows cities to create tax increment financing districts so that taxes generated from the authorized area can go toward public improvements within that boundary.
"I feel like this process has been rushed," said Tori Willis, one about 70 people who packed a room at the city's community center. "I wish there was more time to talk to the community to see what we wanted."
Council members Doug Gilbert, Shelley Hamilton-Bruer, Kim Hoffman, Tera Radloff and Maureen Shul voted in favor of creating the urban-renewal area, or URA, for a project called The Canyons. Some nearby commercial and open areas were also declared blighted.
Mayor Jeff Huff voted against the resolution and received resounding applause from the crowd. Councilman John Ewing was out of town.
The urban-renewal area will mean the creation of about 650,000 square feet of commercial and office space, Anne Ricker of Leland Consulting Group said at the meeting.
About 1,500 single-family homes and 400 multifamily units would also be included in the URA.
The single-family homes to be built in The Canyons property were originally included in the taxing district but later removed.
Improvements within the urban-renewal boundary will instead be paid for mainly with commercial-property taxes.
During a 25-year buildout, the project is expected to generate $25 million in taxes for the public improvements. The money can be used for a variety of things, from roads and other infrastructure to police and fire facilities.
"This plan has been rushed," Resa Labossiere told the council. "It's been rushed for the sole purpose to include the ag land."
Critics say governments for years have abused urban-renewal laws, initially designed for cities to use to redevelop rundown urban areas. Many have instead declared as blighted undeveloped parcels of land. That prompted Colorado lawmakers to pass this year's bill, preventing them from doing so in most cases.
Ricker said despite the community's concerns, the boundary area met enough of the criteria for it to be blighted.
She also noted that there are 78 other parcels in the area, including existing commercial areas of the city that will see improvements as well.
Carlos Illescas: 303-954-1175 or cillescas@denverpost.com
Sunday, May 23, 2010
No More Expenditures on Court Rulings, Let's Return Focus to City Issues
The Court has given the Metro District an additional six months to work up its dissolution plan, with permission to request additional time after the six months is up.
The City's request to limit the extension to only three months additional time, DENIED.
The City's request for monitoring and monthly status reports, DENIED.
The City's request for two members of City Council and two members of the Metro District to act as designated representatives, DENIED.
The City's motion for clarification. DENIED. The order says the Court has ruled on the requests and does not need additional pleadings or filings on this issue.
OK, so wouldn't any additional legal fees incurred in this matter be imprudently incurred? Should we now turn the City focus to issues facing the City, such as how operations of the City will be funded until such time as development is completed at LaGae and The Canyons? Does anyone have any idea how to do that? How much of a mil levy will be needed to run the City? Can we stop trying to tell the Metro District how to run its business? Can we stop trying to tell the people of the Happy Canyon HOA how to live their lives? Can we now focus on the business of the City?
The City's request to limit the extension to only three months additional time, DENIED.
The City's request for monitoring and monthly status reports, DENIED.
The City's request for two members of City Council and two members of the Metro District to act as designated representatives, DENIED.
The City's motion for clarification. DENIED. The order says the Court has ruled on the requests and does not need additional pleadings or filings on this issue.
OK, so wouldn't any additional legal fees incurred in this matter be imprudently incurred? Should we now turn the City focus to issues facing the City, such as how operations of the City will be funded until such time as development is completed at LaGae and The Canyons? Does anyone have any idea how to do that? How much of a mil levy will be needed to run the City? Can we stop trying to tell the Metro District how to run its business? Can we stop trying to tell the people of the Happy Canyon HOA how to live their lives? Can we now focus on the business of the City?
Friday, May 21, 2010
It's Your Dough, Vote NO!
See the City's new bond attorney Dee Wisor presenting information on the fall ballot initiatives to the Arvada City Council, 5/10/2010: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2_KGxIC9f0&feature=related
If what he says comes true, and people vote for this, it sounds like taxes could triple due to these initiatives. (There are several related videos. The complete presentation runs about an hour.)
It's your dough, vote no.
If what he says comes true, and people vote for this, it sounds like taxes could triple due to these initiatives. (There are several related videos. The complete presentation runs about an hour.)
It's your dough, vote no.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Accountant, Bond Attorney, Court Says Yes to District, No to City
The council hired a firm to do its accounting. They have a background with HOAs, but not cities or water providers. Maybe we can help them learn how to do City accounting.
The council hired a top notch Bond Council to look into the City asking citizens for tax money to fund operations of the City. There is no free lunch.
Keep an eye on the Metro District website this afternoon, www.cpnmd.org, for an annoucement concerning a Court ruling. It's favorable for the District, but not for the City. Now the voters have spoken, and the Court has spoken. Let's roll up our sleeves and move on along.
The council hired a top notch Bond Council to look into the City asking citizens for tax money to fund operations of the City. There is no free lunch.
Keep an eye on the Metro District website this afternoon, www.cpnmd.org, for an annoucement concerning a Court ruling. It's favorable for the District, but not for the City. Now the voters have spoken, and the Court has spoken. Let's roll up our sleeves and move on along.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
A Good Metro District Meeting
I attended the 5/18 Metro District Board meeting. The Board interviewed two candidates for the District Manager job. The Q&A session was active, and both candidates sound interesting. Steve Labossiere was elected President, with Dwight Zemp as Vice-President.
The audience gave a hearty thanks to Bruce Thompson for his four years of service to our community. Very few people understand how many hours it takes to properly perform service on our community boards, and without what are essentially volunteer hours, our community would not function. The next time you see Bruce Thompson, thank him for his efforts. He will continue to advise the Board on water issues.
The District voted to pay down the outstanding balance on it's short-term variable interest rate debt. That's called the "2006 C" bonds". Current interest rate is below 2%. Outstanding balance is $4.8 million. This no-cost prepayment of $1.6 million leaves $3.2 million outstanding in this portion of the Metro District's debt. It has been a long standing practice of the Metro District board to pay down debt as prudent.
The District hired a consultant to look at consolidation with three to four entities, including Castle Pines Metropolitan District (my choice), Parker Water and Sanitation District, Centennial Water and Sanitation District, and possibly the Town of Castle Rock's utility department. (A consolidation with a smaller entity such as Castle Pines Metro is a good first step. Surrey Ridge, Oak Hills, and Beverly Hills should be consulted about their plans for a water future. Once those discussions come to fruition, discussions with a larger entity such as Centennial or Parker or Castle Rock, is a good next step in further consolidation. It's great to see movement on this front again. Regional consolidation by water providers spreads costs across a larger number of people and is a meritorious notion.)
The Board will pursue the opportunity for some additional water storage space at Chatfield Reservoir. Work on the interconnect pipeline with Centennial Water and Sanitation District is proceeding to 90% construction drawings. The Wise Partnership between S. Metro Water Supply Authority, City of Aurora, and Denver Water may be moving faster than expected. Water rights cases continue to move along through the Water Court process. The District's efforts with water conservation were heralded in the S. Metro Water Supply Authority annual report. The Board expressed interest in including rotary sprinkler nozzles in their rebate program, and asked staff to make specific recommendations at the next meeting.
Andy Rhodes opined the District has grown weary of having cups of coffee to talk to the City about nothing much. It's my sense the door is open to discussion, if credible information could be developed by the City. Parks management is something that could be transferred from the District to the Master Association or the Parks Authority, or the City, or one of the other entities the District will speak with about consolidation - if there are any savings or better service levels to be gained from such a move.
I think so far the people of the community have said they want a City, they want the mil levy to stay with the Metro District, they wanted a change in the Mayor's slot, and they want the Metro District to continue its efforts in pursuit of a sustainable water supply. I hope our City Council will move away from focus on the business of the District or area HOAs, and instead refocus its attention on the City. I sure would like to see a capital plan developed, with a thought to how we will perform significant repairs and replacement on the City's assets as they age. When that information is generated, we will have our first real glimpse at the financial status of the City. That would be a good thing in my view.
The audience gave a hearty thanks to Bruce Thompson for his four years of service to our community. Very few people understand how many hours it takes to properly perform service on our community boards, and without what are essentially volunteer hours, our community would not function. The next time you see Bruce Thompson, thank him for his efforts. He will continue to advise the Board on water issues.
The District voted to pay down the outstanding balance on it's short-term variable interest rate debt. That's called the "2006 C" bonds". Current interest rate is below 2%. Outstanding balance is $4.8 million. This no-cost prepayment of $1.6 million leaves $3.2 million outstanding in this portion of the Metro District's debt. It has been a long standing practice of the Metro District board to pay down debt as prudent.
The District hired a consultant to look at consolidation with three to four entities, including Castle Pines Metropolitan District (my choice), Parker Water and Sanitation District, Centennial Water and Sanitation District, and possibly the Town of Castle Rock's utility department. (A consolidation with a smaller entity such as Castle Pines Metro is a good first step. Surrey Ridge, Oak Hills, and Beverly Hills should be consulted about their plans for a water future. Once those discussions come to fruition, discussions with a larger entity such as Centennial or Parker or Castle Rock, is a good next step in further consolidation. It's great to see movement on this front again. Regional consolidation by water providers spreads costs across a larger number of people and is a meritorious notion.)
The Board will pursue the opportunity for some additional water storage space at Chatfield Reservoir. Work on the interconnect pipeline with Centennial Water and Sanitation District is proceeding to 90% construction drawings. The Wise Partnership between S. Metro Water Supply Authority, City of Aurora, and Denver Water may be moving faster than expected. Water rights cases continue to move along through the Water Court process. The District's efforts with water conservation were heralded in the S. Metro Water Supply Authority annual report. The Board expressed interest in including rotary sprinkler nozzles in their rebate program, and asked staff to make specific recommendations at the next meeting.
Andy Rhodes opined the District has grown weary of having cups of coffee to talk to the City about nothing much. It's my sense the door is open to discussion, if credible information could be developed by the City. Parks management is something that could be transferred from the District to the Master Association or the Parks Authority, or the City, or one of the other entities the District will speak with about consolidation - if there are any savings or better service levels to be gained from such a move.
I think so far the people of the community have said they want a City, they want the mil levy to stay with the Metro District, they wanted a change in the Mayor's slot, and they want the Metro District to continue its efforts in pursuit of a sustainable water supply. I hope our City Council will move away from focus on the business of the District or area HOAs, and instead refocus its attention on the City. I sure would like to see a capital plan developed, with a thought to how we will perform significant repairs and replacement on the City's assets as they age. When that information is generated, we will have our first real glimpse at the financial status of the City. That would be a good thing in my view.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
They Say It's Chip's Birthday
Past city council member Chip Coppola just celebrated a birthday. Here's a video salute to Chip from S2B2 (you may have to paste the link into your browser):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOOBCcm2hqc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOOBCcm2hqc
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
This is really very good....
http://vimeo.com/11237479
Video of the Fab Faux playing the 2nd side of The Beatles Abbey Road album. NOT about Castle Pines North, but worth note. A team pulling together, making music.
Video of the Fab Faux playing the 2nd side of The Beatles Abbey Road album. NOT about Castle Pines North, but worth note. A team pulling together, making music.
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Fear and Loathing in Castle Pines North
It was a weird week, no doubt about it. I attended the council meeting on Tuesday the 27th, having missed the past three. (Family vacation for spring break, water efficiency meeting in Albuquerque, and no one told me the other meeting was public. Due to restrictions imposed on Doug last year, I'm not invited to attend executive sessions. Given the recent course of events, I'm happy about that. As you may know, the Treasurer does not vote. These two factors give me welcome plausible deniability.)
The Tuesday meeting saw citizens voice significant concerns about the dissolution petition filed by City council towards the Metro District, and the move to declare portions of Castle Pines North "blighted" in order to create an Urban Renewal Authority. Should the Metro District be dissolved? Of course not. The District can be improved, as can all human endeavors. It might combine some functions with other water providers, and there may be a couple things it could share or bequeath to the City, but somehow merging the City and the District into one consolidated blob is not a valid notion. And besides, that's decision is now the business of the District and NOT the City. The District will present a plan to the voters, and we get to vote yes or no. The City can withdraw the petition at any time. In a perfect world, the City and the District would pull together on this, and the petition would go away. Right now things are all crazy, and there are too many "control" issues taking over avenues of communication. This too shall pass.
As to an Urban Renewal Authority, of all the gin joints in all the world, is Castle Pines North blighted? Of course not. My understanding is the City wants the HOA to renegotiate a contract with The Canyons so that the commercial areas can be developed, and density can be increased. If that happens, the City gets $850,000 in cash from the developer. The HOA didn't move here to see urban sprawl, and has no interest in renegotiating the contract. The Urban Renewal Authority could declare the Canyons blighted. That designation could then set aside the contract. The developer would get the commercial development. The City would get the $850,000. The HOA would get the shaft. That's not nice. It's the law until June 1st. The City will try to take action on this May 25th. After that, a new law just passed by the legislature takes effect and this would no longer be lawful. In a perfect world the developer will give the HOA something it really needs (perhaps a surface water supply and a wastewater services connection at a reasonable price), the HOA will give the developer something it can live with, and we move on along.
After listening to citizen comment, the vote was 5-1 for the Urban Renewal Authority, Jeff being the lone no vote. Jeff did make a motion to withdraw the dissolution petition. It failed due to lack of a second. The council wouldn't even discuss the idea.
Jeff also voted no on a motion to hire another communications consultant. We paid for the CH2MHill communications guy to fly in from Atlanta, but he wasn't even given the opportunity to speak. Instead, a new firm was hired to "tell the truth" about things the Metro District has been saying about the City. Maureen asked for a three month contract worth $28,500 to fund the effort. I asked what the predicted response rate was, and what the impact metrics would be to assess the value of the endeavor. Doug reduced the initiative to $5,000 and one month, and expanded the scope beyond message to counter Metro District messaging. Most of that runs less than $200 an hour, plus the cost of any deliverables.
Our legal fees ran over $15,000 this month, with $5000 being spent on chasing the Metro District over dissolution. Most of this runs $200 an hour. It's good work if you can get it.
There was a special meeting on Friday, April 30th. The day before Doug and Jeff got into it over Doug's attendance at a staff meeting. It apparently got heated, so the thought was to come together to talk about everybody just cooling off. All that stuff got talked out Friday morning, so the meeting was largely a non-event. John made the case to hire immediate past Metro District manager Jim McGrady to work as a consultant for the City to help draft a plan for the two entities to work together. Jim ran the District from February 2005 to February 2010. Council voted 7-0 to approve negotiating a personal services agreement with Jim. Talk is +/- $120 per hour. This is going to be interesting. If Jim stays with what he believes about integration, Council isn't going to like what he has to say.
Rather than a takeover of the Metro District by the City, the best plan is more of a take under of the City by the Metro District (until development at The Canyons takes place). In a perfect world, the City would continue the land use function, the District would combine a lot of functions under contracts or an IGA with the Castle Pines Metro District, and Jim would be hired by both districts to be a hunter-gatherer of water assets for both communities. We could notch down the cost of the City until development takes place at The Canyons, but still preserve the land use authority if we want to annex additional parcels, determine things like the speed limit on Castle Pines Parkway, or set the tax rate on goods purchased in CPN. Jim is also affiliating with a water rights broker. If he shows the Districts good deals, they should consider buying them. He would receive a commission on those deals. We should keep in mind it's not what you pay, but what you get in such matters.
Jeff passed out information to the Council on what Moodys says it takes to get them to give a potential bond issuer a credit rating. He explained this would be the first step in the City looking at raising its own taxes to repay a bond. The people would have to be asked for higher taxes in order to issue the bond. The bond rating would determine the rate of interest paid on the bond in this economic environment. Credit markets have been extremely stressed the past couple years, so nothing is a given in the world of bond issuance. Dee Wisor of Sherman and Howard is an attorney who could give us advice on these matters. He is bond counsel for Douglas County, and other entities. We heard some Council members opine at the meeting on bonds and such. We should keep in mind the job of council is to set policy, not be experts in topics before the City. So, let's thank them for their community service, and then hire an expert to advise us in these matters. Dee's hourly rate is likely ugly. You get what you pay for, and he's very good.
Even if we can consolidate with the Metro District, and the Metro District can combine functions with Castle Pines Metro District, the City may still need more money to operate. I asked Council to look at authorizing a repair and replacement reserves study for the assets the City already owns. They said OK. Book value of city assets is thought to be seventy million dollars. We may have to put aside some money to keep those assets in good working order. We may also want to fund a capital budget to purchase new things for the community. I don't know what those things might be. We should talk about it. The notion of the city was sold to resident on "no new taxes". We should do everything we can to spend other people's money efficiently, but I've never ever believed that to be true. Those numbers never crunched in my view. So, here we are. Time to saddle up.
The Tuesday meeting saw citizens voice significant concerns about the dissolution petition filed by City council towards the Metro District, and the move to declare portions of Castle Pines North "blighted" in order to create an Urban Renewal Authority. Should the Metro District be dissolved? Of course not. The District can be improved, as can all human endeavors. It might combine some functions with other water providers, and there may be a couple things it could share or bequeath to the City, but somehow merging the City and the District into one consolidated blob is not a valid notion. And besides, that's decision is now the business of the District and NOT the City. The District will present a plan to the voters, and we get to vote yes or no. The City can withdraw the petition at any time. In a perfect world, the City and the District would pull together on this, and the petition would go away. Right now things are all crazy, and there are too many "control" issues taking over avenues of communication. This too shall pass.
As to an Urban Renewal Authority, of all the gin joints in all the world, is Castle Pines North blighted? Of course not. My understanding is the City wants the HOA to renegotiate a contract with The Canyons so that the commercial areas can be developed, and density can be increased. If that happens, the City gets $850,000 in cash from the developer. The HOA didn't move here to see urban sprawl, and has no interest in renegotiating the contract. The Urban Renewal Authority could declare the Canyons blighted. That designation could then set aside the contract. The developer would get the commercial development. The City would get the $850,000. The HOA would get the shaft. That's not nice. It's the law until June 1st. The City will try to take action on this May 25th. After that, a new law just passed by the legislature takes effect and this would no longer be lawful. In a perfect world the developer will give the HOA something it really needs (perhaps a surface water supply and a wastewater services connection at a reasonable price), the HOA will give the developer something it can live with, and we move on along.
After listening to citizen comment, the vote was 5-1 for the Urban Renewal Authority, Jeff being the lone no vote. Jeff did make a motion to withdraw the dissolution petition. It failed due to lack of a second. The council wouldn't even discuss the idea.
Jeff also voted no on a motion to hire another communications consultant. We paid for the CH2MHill communications guy to fly in from Atlanta, but he wasn't even given the opportunity to speak. Instead, a new firm was hired to "tell the truth" about things the Metro District has been saying about the City. Maureen asked for a three month contract worth $28,500 to fund the effort. I asked what the predicted response rate was, and what the impact metrics would be to assess the value of the endeavor. Doug reduced the initiative to $5,000 and one month, and expanded the scope beyond message to counter Metro District messaging. Most of that runs less than $200 an hour, plus the cost of any deliverables.
Our legal fees ran over $15,000 this month, with $5000 being spent on chasing the Metro District over dissolution. Most of this runs $200 an hour. It's good work if you can get it.
There was a special meeting on Friday, April 30th. The day before Doug and Jeff got into it over Doug's attendance at a staff meeting. It apparently got heated, so the thought was to come together to talk about everybody just cooling off. All that stuff got talked out Friday morning, so the meeting was largely a non-event. John made the case to hire immediate past Metro District manager Jim McGrady to work as a consultant for the City to help draft a plan for the two entities to work together. Jim ran the District from February 2005 to February 2010. Council voted 7-0 to approve negotiating a personal services agreement with Jim. Talk is +/- $120 per hour. This is going to be interesting. If Jim stays with what he believes about integration, Council isn't going to like what he has to say.
Rather than a takeover of the Metro District by the City, the best plan is more of a take under of the City by the Metro District (until development at The Canyons takes place). In a perfect world, the City would continue the land use function, the District would combine a lot of functions under contracts or an IGA with the Castle Pines Metro District, and Jim would be hired by both districts to be a hunter-gatherer of water assets for both communities. We could notch down the cost of the City until development takes place at The Canyons, but still preserve the land use authority if we want to annex additional parcels, determine things like the speed limit on Castle Pines Parkway, or set the tax rate on goods purchased in CPN. Jim is also affiliating with a water rights broker. If he shows the Districts good deals, they should consider buying them. He would receive a commission on those deals. We should keep in mind it's not what you pay, but what you get in such matters.
Jeff passed out information to the Council on what Moodys says it takes to get them to give a potential bond issuer a credit rating. He explained this would be the first step in the City looking at raising its own taxes to repay a bond. The people would have to be asked for higher taxes in order to issue the bond. The bond rating would determine the rate of interest paid on the bond in this economic environment. Credit markets have been extremely stressed the past couple years, so nothing is a given in the world of bond issuance. Dee Wisor of Sherman and Howard is an attorney who could give us advice on these matters. He is bond counsel for Douglas County, and other entities. We heard some Council members opine at the meeting on bonds and such. We should keep in mind the job of council is to set policy, not be experts in topics before the City. So, let's thank them for their community service, and then hire an expert to advise us in these matters. Dee's hourly rate is likely ugly. You get what you pay for, and he's very good.
Even if we can consolidate with the Metro District, and the Metro District can combine functions with Castle Pines Metro District, the City may still need more money to operate. I asked Council to look at authorizing a repair and replacement reserves study for the assets the City already owns. They said OK. Book value of city assets is thought to be seventy million dollars. We may have to put aside some money to keep those assets in good working order. We may also want to fund a capital budget to purchase new things for the community. I don't know what those things might be. We should talk about it. The notion of the city was sold to resident on "no new taxes". We should do everything we can to spend other people's money efficiently, but I've never ever believed that to be true. Those numbers never crunched in my view. So, here we are. Time to saddle up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
