June 4, 2010
CPN Metro District Board Files Lawsuit Against City's Urban Renewal Authority "Blight" Designations Raise Concern
With unanimous support of its five-member publicly elected Board of Directors, Metro District President Steve Labossiere downplayed the lawsuit's significance and expressed the Board's willingness to work directly with the Mayor and City Council to resolve issues without litigation.
Citing several well-established legal processes and public procedures that the City Council failed to follow in forming its Urban Renewal Authority (URA), the Metro District filed the lawsuit in District Court challenging the City's legal formation of the URA. The Metro District Board believes the lawsuit is a positive, temporary placeholder that will lead the Metro District and the City to negotiate with one another in good faith to secure a win/win solution the people of Castle Pines North expect and deserve.
"While City Council's actions raise substantive legal and financial questions for the Metro District and the people we serve, I think it's fair to say the Board views its decision to file a legal protest as very low-key," said Labossiere. "The URA approved its final Urban Renewal Plan (URP), including final URP boundaries, just last week. Our staff needs time to identify and analyze the legal and financial consequences of the URA and its URP on the Metro District. In the event we unsuccessfully negotiate with the City, this lawsuit merely preserves our ability to protect our public interest."
On April 27, 2010, City Council members voted to appoint themselves as URA Commissioners. They also voted to approve a URP, the boundaries of which include the Metro District's headquarters, the CPN Community Center and the surrounding park/open space parcels.
Mayor Jeffrey Huff was the lone dissenting vote against both the URA and its URP.
State law allows the Metro District, and other parties with vested interests, a 30-day legal protest period in which to contest the URA and any associated "blight" designations imbedded in the URA's final URP.
Even as the Metro District Board expressed its willingness to work with the City, it requested that City Council members be prepared to answer questions during a proposed meeting involving Metro District Board and City Council representatives. For example:
Why did City Council members intentionally include the Metro District's headquarters, the CPN Community Center and the surrounding park/open space parcels in its final URP?
What are the City's specific proposed development plans for each "blighted area" within the Metro District’s service area?
" Frankly, we are somewhat puzzled that the City's approval of the URA fails to publicly disclose its specific development plans and goals for our headquarters and the CPN Community Center, as well as the adjacent park/open space parcels," said Metro District Vice President Dwight Zemp. "We intend to respectfully ask the City to publicly disclose its plans for these assets. Obviously, our parks and open spaces do not constitute 'blighted areas.' That term inaccurately and irresponsibly describes Metro District assets. However, until we learn otherwise, we must assume the City made an unfortunate, but easily rectifiable mistake."
Separate and apart from the Metro District's lawsuit, Douglas County and Happy Canyon Homeowner's Association each filed a lawsuit in District Court challenging the City's formation of the URA.
For more information on the Metro District's lawsuit, please contact Metro District Board President Steve Labossiere at steve@cpnmd.org.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
It's No Plan For World Domination....
But it's fun.... Here's a link to a video of me and the band playing a high school graduation party for the drummer's daughter on 5/30. With all apologies to Taylor Swift fans everywhere, You Belong to Me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBLjlOquliQ
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
