Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR13-024 Rothkopfs Petition on Denail Commissioner () WW I,— moved adoption of the following Resolution: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 2013- 6 ` DETERMINATION ON APPEAL OF THE CORDILLERA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT'S DENIAL OF PETITION FOR EXCLUSION AND DETERMINATION OF EXCLUSION WHEREAS, there was filed with the Board of Directors of the Cordillera Metropolitan District (the "District ") a duly acknowledged Petition for Exclusion (the "Petition "), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein, signed on behalf of the petitioner, Rothkopf GP, the one hundred percent fee owner of the hereinafter described real property (the "Petitioner "), requesting that the District Board of Directors exclude from the District the real property described on Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein (the "Property "); and WHEREAS, the District Board of Directors denied the Petition pursuant to its Resolution Denying the Exclusion of Real Property, dated December 13, 2011; and WHEREAS, Petitioner has elected to appeal the District's denial of the Petition (the "Appeal ") and this Appeal comes before the Board of County Commissioners, Eagle County, State of Colorado (the "Commissioners ") pursuant to Section 32- 1- 501(5)(b), C.R.S., and Commissioners Resolution No. 2013- 008, a copy of which Resolution is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein; and WHEREAS, the District certified to the Commissioners the record of the proceedings before it on the Petition ( "Certified Record "); and WHEREAS, the Appeal on the Petition was heard at a public meeting of the Commissioners on February 26, 2013, at the hour of 11:00 a.m., in the Eagle County Building, Eagle County, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Commissioners have considered the factors set forth in Section 32 -1- 501(3), C.R.S., and have reviewed the Petition and all relevant information related thereto in the Certified Record and hereby determine, THAT: 1. Exclusion of the Property from the District will serve the best interests of the Property. There is a dramatic and inequitable disparity between the revenues the Property 1 generates for the District and the value of the services provided to the Property. Based on an average home value of approximately $2,000,000, other owners of property in the District pay approximately $4,000 and get greater services from the District (gatehouse /security, utility infrastructure and landscaping) than does the Petitioner. For tax year 2011, the Property was valued at $10,000,000 and Petitioner paid approximately $16,823 in operating taxes. The Petitioner pays approximately four times more than other owners of property in the District, but does not receive the same level of service as the other owners. The Petitioner does not receive the benefit of staffed security gates, roaming security patrol, or landscaping at the Summit and Divide entrances. The Petitioner did not receive the equivalent original utility infrastructure to his Property as other owners in the District received. Petitioner already paid for access to his Property by donating 88 acres of his property to the District ( "Tract C ") and by granting an easement for a hiking trail across the Property pursuant to a 2003 reciprocal easement agreement. Petitioner provides his own services for mulching and for tree and yard debris and will continue to do so if the Property is excluded. If the Property is excluded, Petitioner will incur an annual fee of approximately $500 for removal of dead wood and yard debris from the Property. The Petitioner has agreed to comply with the requirements of an agreement between Eagle County and the District with respect to noxious weed control, and the Petitioner already maintains noxious weeds on his Property at his expense. In terms of public safety, Petitioner has a full -time onsite caretaker who receives notice of all alarms and serves same function as District "alarm response ". In terms of trail maintenance, Petitioner is required pursuant to the 2003 reciprocal easement agreement and amendment thereto, to maintain the hiking trail across his Property as well as across Tract C. This is a unique situation and different from the average homeowner in the District due to the location of and lack of proximity of the Property, because certain costs were borne by the Petitioner due to the downzoning of the Property, and because the 2003 reciprocal easement agreement and amendment thereto provide for certain costs to borne by the Petitioner relating to trail maintenance. This Property and the Petitioner have a different relationship than does the average owner to the Metro District. Given the lack of services provided to the Property by the District, it is in the best interest of the Property to be excluded from the District. 2. The best interests of the District will not be affected if the Property is excluded from the District. The District provides little or no services to the Property. Exclusion of the Property from the District will therefore not result in an appreciable cost savings to the District. Petitioner will remain responsible for payment of the debt service portion of the taxes owed to the District until the debt is paid. In addition, District did not receive any written objections to 2 the Petition for exclusion. Pursuant to C.R.S. 32- 1- 501(2), failure to file a written objection shall be taken as consent to the exclusion of the area set forth in the Petition. 3. The best interests of Eagle County will not be affected if the Property is excluded from the District. 4. There is a positive cost and quality of service benefit to the Property to be excluded from the District. There is a dramatic and inequitable disparity between the revenue the Property generates for the District and the value of the services provided to the Property. As set forth above, the Property does not receive the same level of service as other properties in the District. 5. As set forth above, the District does not provide the most economical and sufficient services to the Property; however, the exclusion of the Property will not affect the District's services to its remaining properties. 6. The District is not able to provide services at a cost which some would consider reasonable compared with the cost that would be incurred by the Petitioner upon exclusion of the Property from the District. If the exclusion is granted, Petitioner would incur approximately $500 per year to replace the yard and tree debris pickup services that the District currently provides. Petitioner will continue to provide weed control and will continue to maintain the hiking trail across his Property and across Tract C. Petitioner will continue to have access to his Property via Carterville Road because he already paid for access pursuant to the 2003 reciprocal easement agreement. In contrast, the Petitioner pays approximately $16,000 per year to the District for operating taxes. 7. There is no measurable effect of denying the Petition on employment and other economic conditions in the District and surrounding areas. 8. There is no measurable economic impact on the region and on the District, surrounding area and the State as a whole if the Petition is denied. 9. There exist economically feasible alternative services that can be obtained or provided by the Petitioner. If the exclusion is granted, the only service that would have to be replaced by the Petitioner is tree and yard debris removal. The Petitioner could replace this service at an estimated $500 per year. Petitioner provides all other services for his Property. 10. The additional cost to be levied on the remaining properties in the District if the Property is excluded is minimal. According to the 2012 budget, the mill levy would need to increase by 0.194 mills to maintain the same revenue level. That equates to $1.54 per $100,000 of actual value for residential property owners and $5.63 for every $100,000 of actual value for vacant land owners. If there is a cost savings to be obtained from exclusion of the Property, the District's budget can be adjusted accordingly. 3 11. The bonded indebtedness of the District in existence immediately preceding the effective date of this resolution for which the excluded property is liable and the date the bonded indebtedness is scheduled to be retired are set forth on Exhibit D, attached hereto and incorporated herein. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle State of Colorado: 1. THAT it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Property that the Property be excluded from the District; 2. THAT the Commissioners hereby determine to exclude the Property from the District; 3. THAT the determination of the District to deny the Petition in the District's Resolution Denying the Exclusion of Real Property, dated December 13, 2011, is hereby reversed; and 4. THAT the Petition is hereby granted as to the Property pursuant to the provisions of Section 32- 1- 501(5)(b), C.R.S., and Section 32 -1 -503, C.R.S.; and 5. THAT the boundaries of the District shall be altered by the exclusion of the Property; and 6. THAT the District Court of Eagle County, Colorado, in which Court an order was entered establishing the District, be requested to enter an order that the Property be excluded . from the District. MOVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Count Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the IWday of March, 2013. [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW] 4 II COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO, By and Through Its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTEST: 0' / 4111. I P � .r/► i " * B Z..1. �� By: 4 'f f � r Clerk to the Boa 4 of... Jon ney County Commissioners Ch.. an gi` M.J, 1 Ii _ Sara J. Fisher Commissions J f H. Ryan ommissioner Commissioner ` ilaV" 14 seconded adoption of the foregoing resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was as follows: Commissioner Stavney { " Commissioner Fisher ta-r. Commissioner Ryan " This resolution passed by / 0 vote of the Board of County Commissioners. 5 PETITION FOR EXCLUSION In accordance with Section 32- 1- 501(1), C.R.S., the undersigned, ROTHKOPF GP, an Illinois general partnership (the "Petitioner "), does hereby respectfully petition the Cordillera Metropolitan District ( "District "), acting by and through its Board of Directors ( "Board "), for the exclusion of certain real property from the boundaries of the District, subject to the conditions described herein (the "Exclusion "), The Petitioner represents to the District as follows: 1. The land to be excluded consists of approximately 142.471 acres situate in the County of Eagle, State of Colorado and is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the "Property"), and, at present, constitutes a portion of the District. 2. The Petitioner is the fee owner of one hundred percent (100 %) of the Property and no other person(s), entity or entities own(s) an interest in the Property except as beneficial holder(s) of encumbrances, 3. The Petitioner hereby assents to the exclusion of the Property from the boundaries of the District and to the entry of an Order in the District Court, County of Eagle, State of Colorado (the "Court"), excluding the Property from the boundaries of the District. The Petitioner acknowledges that there shall be no withdrawal of the Petition from consideration by the Board after publication of notice of the hearing therefore, without the Board's consent. 4. The Petitioner agrees that it will pay, or cause to be paid, the fees incurred by the District for the Exclusion if this Petition is accepted, including the costs of publication of appropriate legal notices and legal fees and costs incurred by the District in connection with the Exclusion of the Property. 5. This Petition is accompanied by a deposit of money sufficient to pay all costs of the exclusion proceedings. [Signature page follows] EXHIBIT 5 The Petitioner hereby requests that the Board approve the Exclusion of the Property from the boundaries of the District and that the District file a motion with the Court requesting that an Exclusion Order be entered, stating that from and after the effective date of the Exclusion Order, the Property shall not be liable for bonded indebtedness, assessments or other obligations of the District which may be incurred after the effective date of the Order. Signed this f3' day of August, 2011. ROTI - IKOPF GP An 1llinoi neral partnership._____ 2 By: Name: lard E. Rothkopf Its: Managing Partner Address of Petitioner: c/o Sarah J. Baker PC 1914 Beard Creek Trail Post Office Box 425 Edwards, Colorado 81632 STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. COUNTY OF Eagle ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged betbre me this day of August, 2011, by Richard E. Rothkopf as Managing Partner of Rothkopf GP, an Illinois general partnership. Witness my hand and official seal. • My Cornfrit. :I: i !7! My commission expires: .Apr Ll_ti_ ;:13- SHAY A CAI - 1111 — — — Notary Public `otary lie State of Colorado • 2 EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property Tract A, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing No. 33 A -I EXHIBIT Legal Description of Property Tract A, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing No. 33 EXHIBIT Commissioner gelg- moved adoption of the foll ing Resolution: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 2013- 60 SETTING A HEARING UPON APPEAL OF DENIAL OF PETITION FOR EXCLUSION OF ROTHKOPF GP PROPERTY FROM CORDILLERA METROPOLITAN DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners received an appeal filed by Rothkopf GP ( "Appellant ") contesting the denial by the Cordillera Metropolitan District (the "District ") of a Petition for Exclusion of certain real property owned by Appellant and legally described as Tract A, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing No. 33, County of Eagle, State of Colorado (the "Property "); and WHEREAS, Colorado Revised Statutes § 32- 1- 501(5)(b) provides that any denial of such a Petition for Exclusion may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners of the County in which the special district's petition for organization was filed for review by the Board of County Commissioners of the special district board decision; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners hereby finds that the Appeal was timely and properly filed, and has duly considered its statutory obligations, and does hereby conclude that the Appeal shall be heard. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle State of Colorado as follows: 1. A hearing is hereby scheduled on Tuesday, February 26, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in the County Commissioner's Hearing Room, located in the Eagle County Building, 500 Broadway, Eagle, Colorado. 2. Pursuant to § 32- 1- 501(5)(b), C.R.S., the hearing will be on the record and no new facts or evidence will be presented or introduced. At the hearing, the Appellant will be entitled to a 15 minute oral argument consisting of a presentation of the appeal; the District will be entitled to a 15 minute response; and the Appellant will be entitled to a 5 minute rebuttal. 3. The Board of Directors of the Cordillera Metropolitan District is hereby directed to certify to the Board of County Commissioners the complete record of the proceedings on said Petition for Exclusion; said record to be received by this Board on or before the 28 day of January, 2013. D ■ . v 4. Applicant, Rothkopf GP, shall bear the reasonable costs of preparing the record, which cost is not expected to exceed $250.00. ` 5. At the hearing referenced herein, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the record and any questions thereby posed by the Commissioners for clarification purposes in applying the statutory criteria contained in § 32- 1- 501(3), C.R.S., and deciding whether to grant or deny the Petition for Exclusion. MOVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the -lay of , 13. ,. _ COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF (5 A;6444 �' COLORADO, By and Through Its Vik , , BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ATTE * Q vP ' % „Li . ti z By: tkA _ lerk to the Board of vney Y Count Commissioners Ch. an Sara J. Fisher Commissioner �' U Jils: H. Ryan ff mmissioner r Commissioner tr %64 seconded adoption of the foregoing resolution. The roll having been called, the vote was . 'ollows: Commissioner Stavney Commissioner Fisher ?ti:� Commissioner Ryan . This resolution passed by 6 vote of the Board of County Commissioners. . ` CD CD r-- N N. C4 '4' 04 LID 0) CO CD •- CI r- CO 0) Cs4 .s-- CD 0) 0 CO 0) r Te . . 0 r•-: 6 6 6 6 6 0 i— — co co 0 co o o 0 0 0 0 C'D ,.., .0 0 E a, — N N- CV 'Cr N li) CO CO 0 X Chi CD r- CO CO CV r- 0 0) 0 Cr) OD W TO cp N CO r- cr) CO V7 CV 1"-- LC) CV CO 0 I — C 0.1 — .. 0 CD CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 0 0>0000000 -31 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD CD 0 0 0 CO . 45 6 v5 45 6 45 6 c5 u5 c5 45 k O C V) 1.0 CO CO h- 00 0> CO CO CI CO a v- r r r r r r ()) co Nr 0) ..a CO rt (0 (o) CA r ■ r-- CO h- CD 0) N- r- 0) CD CI CO . iiii CO "Cl CO N. C4 0 CV CV (0 0) 0) r- T3 0 ,zr 44- co CV r OD CO CO "I' CV , 8 g ,it . '— - — — 1-- Cr) In LE5 (i) 2) • CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — 00000000000 7 - 73 tri 0 Iti 6 Ci 6 vi 6 u5 c5 6 -_— (0 (0 co> 6 co (0 (0 a) 0) 6 6 -a 0. -- 6 7 ti tO c 2 ) . O LJ 00 0 C> LO C7 0 1.1) CO c 7,51 cv CNI C, -Cy 1.5 V 0 CO - ....2 17 C.3) a 0) h- rt CV -kt 7) a) —0- c - a co> — O .*- • •-• 0 'S..3 Lr i 0) C4 CD e LL (1) 5 °c' (0 c cn co LO CO 5 0.2 cNi CD 0 CM CD .cr c ni •■••• r- W C:) C) CD C) 2 o • 0 C 0 co E o • 6 6 6 6 ) 0 (1) 1.1- c 0 IN- 0 •ct - 2 E - E - 6 ..,, a , o CC N _ O .... ti ° -0 E aoc000cocococo CO O a 0 0 OD 0) CO 0) N. r-- cn Nr. O o ( . • 1 ) L I . ..- r . - - N. N. N . . , c i - co C7 (0 0 O 1'2 -0 CD 0 0.1 N CV N 1 1- 6 co C 73 •° 0 (*° 5 4 — r O 0 o co 0 c .4 .a a CD M O c; o) c .,,, ry . ,., w co C `'- ....-f. . - M 0 0 0 0 0 N. 77 a , Se .,.,-,, co o C) 0 0 `c;, z 11 CD CI 0 C. C> , 2 0 .) 45 6 tri ui - - , o w ( C.) 0 N N. CD 1 C 0 r r N tt) r _ T- '- T [... ..ti 0) " E ' ,..... . 03 UP CD cM M CD CD 0 0 CO CO 0 CD 73 ,C ..,, (0 O . c3) 6 2 N.7 coi r-- 0 ...,- c • 0 -I- cn 1- 0' 0 co - 6 0 cr, o Ce 0 U) )6 cv (Y> c 0 0 c 71- ° ° Ct - — CD 0 0 CO tr) , IL ....• CO 0 0 0 0 0. cl co co co IX W 2 0 5 6 6 6 6 0 0 ‘-. c . CO 0 CC) '.•-• U- CD C C-- •Ct 'Cr' 6 xt ,-- 70 C cn m W CM M On 1:13 W C° /a co ,-. •-• ,... 55 ,-- ,-- v- ,-- ,-- ‘-- n-- CV CV Cv -o a) '.- E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ..... 7 0 C C 0 ..-• , , , 0 CVNNCVNNC4NNN 03 2 o 0