|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Topics:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Opinion: Triview Board Election - Tue., May 6th, 2008 Marks A Time For Change
» 2008/04/26: Position Piece April 26, 2006 By: MonumentMatters.org Triview Board Election Creekside Middle School Tuesday, May 6th - 7:00am to 7:00pm The following are Homestead at Jackson Creek residents who have committed to run for the Triview Board. They are in agreement on the need for fundamental change at Triview and will fight to protect the interests of all Jackson Creek residents. Please vote for: Steve Cox Steve Remington Robert Fisher YOUR VOTE IS CRITICAL. Please Make Time To Vote On May 6! Who is eligible to vote? Anyone who has lived in the District for at least thirty (30) days. Anyone who owns or is married to someone who owns taxed property in the District. Anyone who is required by contract to pay personal property taxes to the District. You do not have to be a registered voter in Colorado or a legal resident of Colorado. Bring proof of residency in the District (Triview water/sewer bill) or an El Paso County Tax Statement showing taxation by the District. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Triview District Manager Resigns After Pushing Through Tax Increase
» 2007/12/17: Position Piece December 17, 2007 By: MonumentMatters.org On Wednesday, December 12th, 2007, less than 24 hours after pushing through a 40% increase in the district's Mill Levy, Larry Bishop resigned as District Manager for the Triview Metropolitan District. Mr. Bishop's resignation coupled with DOLA's denial of a loan due to Triview's inability to meet existing debt requirements and the resignation of two Board members in the last quarter raises a lot of questions about what is going on at Triview and its management. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Triview Metro District Board Approves 40% Mill Levy Increase For 2008
» 2007/12/11: Position Piece December 11, 2007 By: MonumentMatters.org We have been informed that the Triview Metro District Board voted to increase the 2008 Mill Levy from 25 mills to 35 mills (a 40% property tax increase) at its December 2007 Board Meeting. It was claimed that the increase is necessary in order to meet existing debt obligations. Curiously enough, this major tax increase comes right on the heels of the defeat of all four Ballot Issues in which Triview sought to increase debt by a total of $40 Million backed by promises that "taxes would not be increased". However, logic would stipulate that if Triview cannot pay its existing debt without raising taxes, then increasing that debt would have required an even greater tax increase. Therefore, rejecting the Ballot Issues was indeed the wise choice.
Bishop (Triview Metro District Manager Larry Bishop) said the loan application for an additional $2 million from DOLA for the increased costs of the wastewater treatment facility had been rejected. Bishop said that the district's draft credit report from DOLA indicated that the district did not have the money to pay back the loan, due to the downturn in the real estate market and lack of expected tap fees. Currently, all mill levy revenues must be applied to repaying bonds issued by the district in 2003 and 2006. And yet Triview expected home owners to trust that they could re-pay an additional $41 Million in debt "without raising taxes?"
Note that the actual term of the De-TABOR period is 11 years (2007 through 2017, inclusive) not the 10 years that was stated in Triview's press and TABOR statements. In addition, the Ballot Issue also specifically includes the wording "(WITHOUT INCREASING TAX RATES OR IMPOSING A NEW TAX)" yet Triview is raising the property tax (mill levy) rate barely one year after approval. That wording would seem to imply that, in exchange for approving the De-TABOR authorization, tax rates cannot increase nor can any new taxes be imposed during the 11 year De-TABOR period. If indeed the case, Triview is violating the legal commitments in its own Ballot Issue, not just breaking its commitment or promise.
Another argument that will probably be made is that the new Mill Levy is not excessive when compared to other Metro Districts in the area.
However, as the previous table reveals, it is predominantly NEW Metro Districts with a higher Mill Levy. New districts which have significantly lower assessed valuations and are still in the early stages of initial infrastructure construction. By contrast, Triview is a 20+ year old district with 10+ years of development and infrastructure in place. A district which is already significantly in debt yet hoped to dig it way out of debt by expanding into major new development projects, projects which would more than double the existing residential base upon completion. New development projects that require significant capital expenditure despite Triview having already reached its authorized debt limit of $50 Million. And then the housing market slowed, further complicating an already flawed plan. It is obvious that Triview Board and staff need new leadership. It cannot be allowed to continue to operate this irresponsibly. So what can you do... Protest! Call, E-Mail, send a fax, write a letter, or visit the Triview Metro District to express your concerns about how it is being managed. Complain about the rate increase. And next Spring (2008) when Board members are up for (re-)election... Research the candidates, decide who is best qualified to represent your interests, and VOTE for them. If we continue to ignore the situation and allow the district to presistently be mismanaged (degrading service and increasing taxes), it will eventually impact property values and resale opportunities in the area. Protect what is likely your greatest personal investment... Your Home! Triview Metropolitan District 171 North Washington Street Monument, CO 80132 Main: 719/488-6868 Fax: 719/488-6565 www.TriviewMetro.com info@TriviewMetro.com |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Monument Seeks To De-TABOR For Parks, Recreation, & Seniors
» 2007/10/01: Position Piece October 01, 2007 By: MonumentMatters.org On the El Paso County Coordinated Election Mail-In Ballot, the Town of Monument has placed has placed a Ballot Issue (2A) which seeks authorization the De-TABORing of "TOWN REVENUES GENERATED FROM ALL SOURCES" for four years in with the intent of spending the additional revenue on Town Parks, Recreation, and Senior Services. The amount of surplus revenue that would be retained is estimated to be between $100K - $300K ($20 to $60 per resident based upon a current estimated population of 5000), depending upon the economy and continued growth of retail development in the Monument area. We hope that the voters in the town will carefully read the Ballot Issue, consider all the facts, and then vote accordingly. Link to information on TABOR (CO Office of State Planning & Budget) At this point, we have not found any reason to take a aggressive position against the Ballot Issue 2A. While no one wants increased spending or taxes, there are some issues for which it can and should be viewed as an investment. And it is difficult to argue against Town Parks, Recreation, and Senior Services in a community like Monument. Therefore, we are merely encouraging voters to be sure to exercise their constitutional right to have their voice heard by voting. As this Ballot Issue will be part of a mail-in ballot coordinated by the Election Department of the El Paso County Clerk & Recorder's Office, please be sure to complete and mail the ballot by the last postal pickup time on Monday, November 5th in order for it to be received before the Tuesday, November 6th 7:00pm deadline. YES 58% / NO 42% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Here We Go Again! Triview Ballots Seek Debt Increase & De-TABOR
» 2007/09/28: Position Piece September 28, 2007 By: MonumentMatters.org On the El Paso County Coordinated Election Mail-In Ballot, the Triview Metropolitan District has placed four Ballot Issues: 5B, 5C, 5D, and 5E. Each seeks permission to increase debt, increase taxes, remove TABOR restrictions from "ALL OTHER DISTRICT REVENUE" without a maximum amount or time limitation, and increase the Mill Levy "IN ANY YEAR WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE". If any one of the Ballot Issues is approved by voters, TABOR controls are removed from all district revenue until specifically restored by the district and the Mill Levy can be increased without limitation. We hope that the voters in the district will carefully read each of these Ballot Issues, consider all the facts, and then vote accordingly. Link to information on TABOR (CO Office of State Planning & Budget) Note: Mail-In Ballot must be delivered by Tuesday, November 6th @ 7:00pm, either mailed by the day before or dropped off at a designated County Clerk's office by the deadline. The good intentions of the Ballot Issues notwithstanding, we recommend that Triview Metropolitan District residents vote: NO ON ALL FOUR BALLOT ISSUES. Our recommendation is based upon the following facts: (Click on fact for more info)
More information on each fact:
We encourage everyone to review these facts and the wording in the ballot issues, then vote. We are confident after considering all the pertinent facts that the majority of people will vote NO on all of the Ballot Issues: We encourage ALL RESIDENTS of the Triview Metropolitan District to take the time to vote to protect what is probably your greatest investment... Your Home! As these Ballot Issues will be part of a mail-in ballot coordinated by the Election Department of the El Paso County Clerk & Recorder's Office, please be sure to complete and mail the ballot by the last postal pickup time on Monday, November 5th in order for it to be received before the Tuesday, November 6th 7:00pm deadline. YES 34% / NO 66% November 2007, voters rejected Ballot Issue 5C: YES 34% / NO 64% November 2007, voters rejected Ballot Issue 5D: YES 38% / NO 62% November 2007, voters rejected Ballot Issue 5E: YES 35% / NO 65% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Democratic Process Is Under Fire In Monument
» 2007/03/08: Position Piece » » 2007/03/27: Mayor Glenn's Response » » » 2007/03/30: Issue Summary March 8, 2007 By: MonumentMatters.org Democracy took a hit Monday night, March 5th, at the Monument Board of Trustees meeting but not in a way that would make headlines on the New York Times or probably even any local newspaper. Still, rights were denied which chips away at the very foundation on which this great country was built because when any one of us is denied a right, we all suffer from that lose of democracy. Last year, LandCo sought approval from the Town of Monument for the annexation, rezoning, and development of Promontory Pointe. Several adjoining neighborhoods aggressively opposed the project in its original form. After public packed meetings with the town featuring organized opposition and passionate resident objections, LandCo managed to reach agreements with the principal neighborhood representatives, subsequently leading to their support for approval of the project. Among the groups involved was th e Homestead at Jackson Creek neighborhood which adjoins the Promontory Pointe development along its northwest border. The Homestead at Jackson Creek HOA Board and residents aggressively sought and received three conditions on the development: 1). The disconnection of Walters Creek Road between the two neighborhoods to avoid traffic from Promontory Pointe and the properties it connects to from short-cutting through the Homestead neighborhood to get to Creekside Middle School, the Monument Marketplace, and other points up Jackson Creek Parkway and into Monument; 2). An agreement for comparable lot sizes along the border bet ween the two properties to protect property values in the Homestead and provide a transition to the denser interior of the development; and, 3). The dedication of a 30' wide trail between the two properties that would interconnect between an existing trail system in the Homestead and a similar trail which had been negotiated with the developer of the Home Place Ranch project, both of which would connect to the county-wide trail system linking to Fox Run Park. All three conditions were agreed to by LandCo and outlined in a letter provided by LandCo to the HOA Board. These same conditions were subsequently incorporated into the final documents accepted and approved by the Town of Monument Board of Trustees at publicly attended meetings. Additionally, the Triview Metropolitan District also passed a special resolution regarding the third condition, specifically seeking the dedication of the land to be used as a trail separate from the individual lots which were t o adjoin it. Both the HOA Board and residents were pleased and confident that they had a binding agreement with a developer who they then supported in the approval process. However, LandCo subsequently sold the Promontory Pointe project to John Laing Homes who opposed the dedication of the trail system along the border with the Homestead subdivision. Without anyone either the HOA Board or residents, the Town of Monument and Triview allowed John Laing Homes to rework the previously approved development plans, changing the 30' wide dedicated trail to a 30' no-build easement deeded to the individual property owners. This also also allowed John Laing Homes to include the 30' wide strip, on average over 3000 square feet, in their comparable lot size calculation, eliminating the continuity and purpose of the strip previously agreed upon as a condition to de velopment. When public notice was issued that John Laing was seeking approval for their new plans, the HOA Board attempted to contact all of the parties involved to verify that the previously agreed upon conditions were being honored. It was not until the final days before the Planning Commission meeting, way too late in the process to rally support and mount public opposition to the change, that the HOA Board even learned about the change. Given the recently passed Town of Monument Ordinance that essentially fast tracks the development approval process by allowing concurrent public notices to be posted for both the Planning Commission and Board of Trustee meetings for development project votes, the modified project sailed through the process with the town staff's endorsement in less than two weeks; and only 26 days after receipt of the first official notice in the two hearing process, ignoring objections by the HOA Board to the change and re quests for further discussion to allow for a fair process. Allowing a developer to change a condition that was previously lobbied for by residents of the Town of Monument and publicly approved without including those same residents in the subsequent process where the change was made violates the democratic principal of fair and equal representation. The loss of the condition is obviously frustrating to the Homestead at Jackson Creek residents who lobbied within the rules for the condition. But nothing compares to the anger and disappointment at the failure of the Town staff and elected officials to represent the interests of their constituents as they have sworn an oath to do. Democracy took a hit in Monument on March 5th... What's next? Is it really in the best interest of residents, individually or as a whole, to have the democratic process compromised to expediency? Remind the Mayor and Board of Trustees that trust is an integral part of their position and failing to properly represent the democratic rights of their constituents violates that trust. Call, write, or E-Mail the Town of Monument Mayor and Board of Trustees to defend your rights.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Democratic Process Is Under Fire In Monument
» 2007/03/08: Position Piece » » 2007/03/27: Mayor Glenn's Response » » » 2007/03/30: Issue Summary Note: MonumentMatters.org was informed that Mayor Byron Glenn composed a response to the opinion posted on this WEB Site and a preceding E-Mail sent to the Homestead at Jackson Creek HOA members by the WEB Master / Founder of this site who is also an Officer on the HOA Board. We were provided with an electronic copy of the letter in advance of the mailing and chose to post it here both in fairness and to provide a reply. The Mayor's letter follows in normal text with our comments in italics, where appropriate: March 27, 2007 By: Byron J. Glenn, Mayor Town of Monument Dear Homestead @ Jackson Creek Residents Thank you for the emails. I apologize for the late response, but I wanted to digest the contents in order to respond with a basis on fact and not emotion. I also reviewed the article written by Mr. Meyer in his Monument Matters web site to understand the information your e-mails were addressing. I would first like to outline the facts concerning this 30-foot strip of land and then address the issue with my abstention from voting. I believe there is a misunderstanding that a written agreement was created between the Triview Metropolitan District and the Homestead @ Jackson Creek HOA; I also believe it is incorrect that a resolution or similar agreement was given to the homeowners by Triview; Triview does not pass such resolutions or agreements at their Board meetings. The minutes of their August 23, 2006 Board meeting outline a very short discussion between the Triview Board of Directors and Mr. Fisher, the President of the Homes tead HOA. During this discussion the Board made a motion to accept fee title of the 30-foot strip of land with the condition that there would be an agreement reached between the District and the HOA regarding the use and maintenance of this easement. I have neither seen nor heard of the existence of a signed agreement. Without this agreement, the motion is void. After careful review of the meeting minutes for the August 23, 2006 Triview Metropolitan District Board meeting, it appears the conversation regarding the western boundary of Promontory Pointe indicated two strips of land: a 50-foot strip owned by Jackson Creek Land Company, and the original 30-foot strip located along the western boundary of Promontory Pointe needed for a trail and utility corridor from north to south. Since that meeting, Triview has purchased the adjacent 50-foot strip of land and h as relocated the utilities and trail corridor to this parcel, thus eliminating the need for the 30-foot strip. El Paso County Parks and Recreation approved the relocation of the trail connection. The original Development Plan was approved indicating the 30-foot trail located in the easement along the rear yards of the individual lots within Promontory Pointe. The land was then sold to John Laing Homes who revised the site to better accommodate their building plans. Because of the changes a new public hearing was necessary. During the re-design, the trail corridor was replaced with a 30-foot "no-build' buffer. This was to ensure a separation between Jackson Creek and Promontory Pointe; the main tenance is to be the responsibility of the individual homeowners within Promontory Pointe. It is not unusual for developments to be bought and re-sold before any construction takes place. To ensure quality, the Town requires plans to go through the public hearing process again if major changes are made. The meeting of March 5, 2007 was an example of the Town's process, as well as the democratic process being followed. The trail relocation was an amendment to the final plan, as were the lower density, larger lots and better roadway configuration. Most residents following the process have been much happier with the latest plan for Promontory Pointe. In an attempt at the briefest of summaries, the developer sought to change the 30' trail and was allowed to do so in their submittal without ANY consultation with the Homestead @ Jackson Creek HOA Board. Such action ignores the fact that the HOA aggresively fought for and won the right to a trail in the first place. The HOA Board did not learn of the alteration until a few days before the Planning Commission meeting. The HOA Board was never informed that any change was being considered, much less invited to participate as a principal party in previous negotiations on a matter which was of direct interest to its home owners. With the recent acceleration of the approval process by the Board of Trustees, the HOA Board ended up blind-sided. The resubmittal with the change flew through the approval process in under two weeks. Throughout the process, the Homestead HOA attempted to point out the injustice of being excluded from the discussions which resulted in the change. However, everyone on the town staff, the Planning Commission, and the Board of Trustees chose to focus solely on the 30' trail easement. The purpose of the E-Mail and WEB Site posting was not to complain about the change but rather the inequity of the process that allowed the change while excluding the HOA from participation. The loss of the 30' trail was disappointing but being left out of the discussions concerning the change was unjust. Moreover, the failure of the Mayor and Board of Trustees to recognize the injustice is frustrating and not representative of what we believe to be a fair, democratic process. When the Mayor is prepared to look past the 30' trail and focus on the problems in the process, only then will the purpose of the E-Mail and WEB Site postings be properly addressed and the interests of the constituents in the Homestead @ Jackson Creek HOA properly served. Information on the 30' trail issue was included in the E-Mail and WEB Site posting in response to the numerous requests for a complete background on the matter. That the Mayor received enough E-Mails on the subject he felt it necessary to send a letter to the residences in the Homestead @ Jackson Creek reflects the discontent of many residents who have been following the process. On a more personal note, I have a family with three growing teenage boys and a mortgage like most people and, therefore, I am required to work a full time job. I am a civil engineer and a real estate developer and a resident of Monument. I prepare entitlements, planning documents and engineering plans and specifications for projects throughout Colorado, and through my career I have developed relationships with people in many different fields. At the present time I have a working relationship with John Laing Homes on a few projects in the City of Colorado Springs. As required by law, I therefore recused myself from this hearing to avoid any perception of a conflict of interest. It is not uncommon for a Trustee to recuse himself because of a potential conflict of interest or just an appearance of such. The important thing is that we do recuse ourselves when warranted. I do not take lightly the accusation that anything improper occurred; in my book this statement constitutes slander. The author of the E-Mail regrets if anyone misinterpreted the intent of the comments and hereby states the comments were not intended to imply an impropriety on the part of the Mayor or any of the Board of Trustees involved in approving the change. However, stating public facts that the Mayor himself acknowledges in his letter does not constitute slander, especially in light of his being a public official. Everyone on the Board of Trustees, and for that matter the members of the Triview Metropolitan Board of Directors as well, are volunteers, taking time out of their busy days to serve the community of Monument. We all take our elected positions very seriously, and we do our very best to ensure the health, safety and welfare of not only our constituents, but the surrounding population as well. I encourage you to consider attending future meetings. We meet at 6:30 in Town Hall on the first and third Mondays of each month excluding holidays. I believe you will find that the Board works diligently, asks hard questions and demands a lot from potential developers. We currently have an opening on the Planning Commission and I know that the Triview Metropolitan District is also looking for individuals to serve as Board members. I hope this letter answers some of your concerns. If you have any questions or comments, you can reach me at (719) 200-7770 or e-mail me at byronglenn11@earthlink.net. Sincerely, Byron J. Glenn, P.E. Mayor, Town of Monument |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Democratic Process Is Under Fire In Monument
» 2007/03/08: Position Piece » » 2007/03/27: Monument's Response » » » 2007/03/30: Issue Summary March 30, 2007 By: MonumentMatters.org Note: Since it appears to be difficult for some to see past the 30' trail easement, we have decided to simplify the issue into focused bullet points... Four Parties:
The Democratic Process worked the first time but failed the second! |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Triview Seeks To De-TABOR Without Limits
» 2006/04/02: Position Piece » » 2006/04/26: Triview Responds » » » 2006/05/02: Results April 02, 2006 By: MonumentMatters.org On Friday, March 31st, all registered voters in the Triview Metropolitan District should have received a Notice Of Election On A Referred Measure in their mailbox. This mailing served as official notice that an election would be held on the Tuesday, May 2nd, 2006 at Creekside Middle School on the Triview Metropolitan District Ballot Issue A. The Ballot Issue incorporates special (vague) wording that has significant impact and should be noted accordingly:
How much debt should TriView be allowed to incur before demonstrating the ability to fully service, much less better manage, such debt? Shouldn't TriView demonstrate it can operate within its existing income base before aggressively accepting so many new projects while at the same time seeking a TABOR override to help fund such development? Should the existing home owners be required to subsidize new development without receiving a share of the profits from such projects? Do we really need this explosiv e of growth? Are there sufficient resources to support it? At this point, the logical choice is to Vote NO on the Triview Metropolitan District Ballot Issue A on May 2nd. Force Triview to demonstrate better resource management before bailing them out through a TABOR override (TAX INCREASE). To promote responsible growth and management by Triview, be sure to VOTE NO against Ballot Issue A on May 2nd! Triview Seeks To De-TABOR Without Limits » 2006/04/02: Position Piece » » 2006/04/26: Triview Responds » » » 2006/05/02: Results April 26, 2006 By: Ron Simpson, District Manager Triview Metropolitan District 1). The Ballot Issue is to allow the Triview Metropolitan District (TMD) to retain the tax that it is presently entitled to in order to pay down its debt rather than rebate it to the taxpayers that include the commercial businesses and the major land holders (developers). This is not a new nor an increase in tax but an allowance to use what will be collected. A rebate has to be "reasonable" in terms of repayment which means that TMD can not just rebate to the homeowners but to everyone that pays taxes. One test of being reasonable is to repay at the percentage of taxes paid. This would mean that the more taxes paid, the more the rebate. The TMD Board is concerned that this could mean that the commercial businesses would receive a disproportionate share of the rebate, as would the major land holders. 2). Currently, TMD has $28 million in debt principal and around $7 million in debt interest. The loan of the expansion of the Wastewater Treatment Facility will be $5 million. The total is approximately $40 million. The reason for this debt is that TMD is required by its 1985 Service Plan approved by District Court and the 1987 Annexation and Intergovernmental Agreement with Monument requires TMD to build and maintain the major infrastructure within its boundaries as defined at that time. This means that TMD has had to build and maintain: the major roads (Leather Chaps, Lyons Tail, Kitchener Way and Jackson Creek Parkway); the major treatment facilities (Water Treatment Plants and Wastewater Treatment Facility); the major distribution and collection lines; the major drainage facilities (Detention Ponds, Drainage Channels and Storm Sewer); and public landscape and park areas. Totally, TMD has over $29 million of infrastructure in the ground it has had to complete in order to serve its residents. These major facilities can not be built incrementally as each home comes on line but in stages (Wastewater Facility loan of $5 million) which costs millions of dollars. Thus the debt has been incurred to provide the major infrastructure up to this point in time as required under the Service Plan and Agreements. 3). The revenue source of major concern is from taxes, primarily sales tax. There are other taxes revenues that TMD receives that are not set nor controlled by TMD (Auto Tax; Ownership Tax and Use Tax) and that could create issues as TMD grows. The rate charges and tap fees are related to the Enterprise side of TMD (Water and Sewer) and do not fall under TABOR and are not a concern. What has happened is TMD has experienced a large increase in commercial building in a short period of time. This is a good news-bad news situation. It is good that we finally can shift a large part of the financial burden to commercial businesses instead of the homeowner. The bad is that, because of this sudden revenue increase, TMD will receive more revenue than in previous years and will probably exceed the revenue limitations set by TABOR. We finally start getting the amount of revenues needed to reduce debt but will have to rebate this revenue when the limits are exceeded. 4). The primary reason that the Ballot Issue does not have a time limit is to allow TMD to refinance most of the debt to receive a lower interest rate. Some of the current debt is at 9% and the 1987 debt is at 12.21% interest rates. It makes sense to reduce this interest carry. TMD needs to demonstrate to the financial community the sources for repayment will be in place as long as it takes to repay debt. If there is a time limit placed on this Ballot Issue it will cause difficulties in that community which will result in higher interest rates, higher costs for credit enhancement or not being able to refinance at all. None of which serves the best interests of the residents. The bond market understands the significance of the taxes that will be generated by commercial development. 5). First of all, TABOR is a revenue limitation more than a debt limitation measure. Meeting all of the TABOR requirements does not make the need for debt disappear but does limit ones ability to pay for it and in a timely manner. In 1987, there was $4.95 million of debt place on TMD at a 12.21% interest rate (Prime was in double digits then and mortgages were at 16+%). This initial debt was not repaid and the original developers went away. The interest kept running and now this 1987 combined debt is almost $11 million of the current amount; an amount the Board thinks is significant. The point that was not made clear in the Gazette article is that the die had been cast by that 1987 action and the requirements of the Service Plan and Agreements were initiated. That debt, however, did not complete service requirements for TMD and millions more had to be spent to provide the necessary services to the first homes built in 1999. The debt level of $50.8 million for TMD was approved in the 1987-88 timeframe. Again, long before TABOR was enacted. TMD has been implementing the Service Plan for the land within its 1987 boundaries. Everything that has been constructed with TMD lies within that area, including the Marketplace and all of the existing residential areas. Some this infrastructure may provide some service to the proposed new subdivisions listed; however, the three mentioned are not within the 1987 Service Plan boundary and those same requirements do not totally apply as related to "build and maintain". TMD is currently negotiating with those projects to create a situation where TMD does not have to take on the level of financial commitment as it has had to within its 1987 limits. As an example, TMD will not be responsible for building the major roads within those developments as it now has to. TMD will receive significant financial benefits, especially over time, from including those properties into the District. Not a lot more can be stated relative to these because of the current on-going negotiations. It can be stated that TMD has looked at the cost benefit of serving said properties and it is a positive picture. As an example, there will be at least $28 million coming into to TMD just from impact fees (assuming the current number of lots involved). Triview is not subsidizing urban sprawl but is systematically trying to manage the coming growth to the benefit of everyone. The property in question will be developed in the Town and within TMD or in the County and probably with new service districts. It benefits TMD to capture the revenue from those developments rather than have them occur at its boundaries without financial benefit. YES 39% / NO 61% Link to more information November 2006, voters passed a revised De-TABOR Ballot Issue: YES 61% / NO 39% Link to more information |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||