Board of County Commissioners Business Meeting - public_hearing

Just check on the room.

All right, Abe, we ready to roll?

Yes, sir.

Okay, Commissioner Van Winkle, ready. Very good. Okay, let's go ahead and come to order. If everyone will please stand and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, everybody, welcome to the Board of Douglas County Commissioners Land Use Meeting and Public Hearing. It is Tuesday, August 4th, 2026. Time now is about, looks like five till 11. We're a little late starting up. We had a nice business meeting prior to this. So let's get right into it. Turning to the county attorney for certification of the agenda.

Yes, sir. The County Attorney's Office has reviewed the items on the agenda. You have appropriate jurisdiction over these matters and appropriate posting has been made where necessary.

Thank you very much. Commissioners, do we have any disclosures for items on this agenda?

None for me, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Nor I. Thank you, Commissioners. Nor I. Cool. Thank you. Our first item up is Pioneer Village filing to First Amendment. It's a replat. Project file is SB2026-015. Mike Pasica, General Principal Planner for Community Development, presenting for staff. Mike, when you're ready.

Thank you, commissioners. Good morning. Mike Pasica, representing community development. And the application before you is the Pinery Village, filing number two, amendment number one, replat, project number SB2026-015, which was continued from the July 28th BCC land use meeting. And the applicant is Craig Campbell with Pinery Owner LLC, who was with us this morning. The request is for a replat to subdivide two superblock lots into 19 lots and three tracks. for business and commercial development in the Pinery Village subdivision. The intent of the replat process is to provide a review process for the replatting of an existing subdivision plat or superblock final plat. The replat process begins with the submittal of an application. Following a 21-day referral period, the request is considered by the Board of County Commissioners. Staff receive no responses from the public. And the applicant has addressed all referral comments, including adding utility easements as requested by Core Electric and Xcel Energy. All referral responses are included as an attachment to the staff report. This is the comprehensive master plan vicinity map. And the site is located in the northeast portion of the county within the Pioneer separated urban area, our sub area of the CMP, shown by the red star on the map. This is the zoning map. The site is outlined in red with zoning overlaid. As you can see, the properties are zoned planned development in the Pinery PD, and the site totals a little over 47 acres in size. And this is an aerial map of the site. Again, the property is outlined in red. There are no existing structures. The site is mostly covered in grasses, and there is no 100-year floodplain on the site. Just a little bit of background, the subject property was zoned planned development in 1982 as part of the Pinery PD. It was zoned for business and commercial uses. A minor development final plat was approved for the project area by the board in March of 2026 for three super block lots and seven tracks. And access to the site is from Wellspring Drive and Pinery Center Boulevard. This is a page from the replat exhibit in your staff report. Again, it proposes 19 lots and three tracks and includes a secondary drainage easement to be dedicated to the county. Internal private drives will be owned and maintained by the Pinery Commercial Metro District number two. And Wellspring Drive, which is along the south part of the development, is constructed and open to travel. And Pinery Center Boulevard is currently under construction and will eventually extend north to the project boundary. Just run through a few site photos. This is standing on Pine Ridge Center Boulevard, kind of looking east-northeast. This is the main portion of the project area. And this is, again, standing at the intersection of Pine Ridge Center Boulevard and Wellspring Drive, looking east. Just in the middle of the horizon would be State Highway 83. And finally, this is looking to the south along Pioneer Center Boulevard. You can see the sidewalks that are in place. And the building off to your left is a King Soopers that's currently under construction. These are the approval standards for a replat, which are discussed in detail on pages 5 through 7 of the staff report. And staff has evaluated the replat request in accordance with Article 7 of the subdivision resolution. Should the board find that the approval standards for the replat are met, the following proposed conditions should be considered for inclusion in the motion. Condition number one, prior to recordation of the replat, technical corrections to the plat exhibit shall be made to the satisfaction of Douglas County. Condition number two, all commitments and promises made by the applicant or the applicant's representative during the public meeting and or agreed to in writing and included in the public record have been relied upon by the Board of County Commissioners in approving the application. Therefore, such approval is conditioned upon the applicant's full satisfaction of all such commitments and promises. Section 70606 of the subdivision resolution sets forth the parameters for the Board's determination on replat requests, as noted on this slide. And this concludes my presentation. I can take questions now. Otherwise, Craig Campbell is here to answer any questions you might have. He does not have a formal presentation today.

All right, thanks much, Mike. Board, questions for Mr. Pasica?

No questions for me, thanks. I have no questions either. I've been through the packet.

All right, yeah, Mike, this is definitely not our first time seeing this and we've been following this piece of land for a while, so I have no questions at this time. I'll turn, I do see Mr. Campbell in the audience. Mr. Campbell, you are welcome to give comments to the board. Again, we've been tracking this development for quite a long period of time, quite frankly, but we're happy to hear from you, sir.

Yeah, thank you very much, Commissioners. I just want to thank staff. First of all, they've just been fantastic to work with, very timely in their comments and responses and very reasonable. We've had great conversations with some of the public, the pioneering HOA and whatnot as well. And yes, you're right, Commissioner, we've had this project kind of moving forward in different phases for a few years, so it's exciting. This is really probably the final plotting piece that we need. The zoning's all in place. We have a number of... end users under contract. And so as the King Soopers opens up potentially this December, I believe is their target date, we'll have a lot of great activity and energy and synergy on this project. So we appreciate all the support the county has given us.

All right, thank you very much, Craig. Would you be willing to take questions from the board, sir? Yes, by all means. Any questions from the board for Mr. Campbell?

Two items. Yeah, these are the only two. I mean, the two conditions.

Oh, go ahead.

Only question I have, did you see the two conditions presented before? Do you accept those? I do, yes. Okay, thank you.

I appreciate you doing that, Commissioner. It relieved me of having to ask that question.

All right.

Commissioner Layton, any questions for the applicant?

No, Mr. Chair, thank you.

Very good, thank you, sir. Again, Mr. Campbell, I remember when you presented to the Castle Rock Council for the terrain development that you did, and of course, we've been tracking this one for, boy, quite a bit of my time on the board, so I do not have any questions for you, sir.

Thank you.

All right, let's open it up for any public comment at this time. Is there anybody who'd like to come forward and give public comment on this matter? and I am seeing none. So let's come back to the board for action on this replat.

Oh, thank you, Mr. Chair. This has been before us for some time. This is an interesting one, because both CORE and Acceler have been involved. Usually it's one or the other, but I guess that's neither here nor there. I've been through the packet. Like I said, it's been before us for some time. No objections from the public whatsoever. So I move to approve the Pioneer Village filing to First Amendment replat, because it does meet all the approved criteria with those two conditions as presented and accepted by the applicant. The project file here is SB2026-015.

Thank you, Commissioner.

And I'll second that motion.

And there is a second. Thank you, Commissioner. Any discussion, gentlemen? Again, Craig, we've been working on this a while. It's good to see that King Soopers going in. I know that you worked really hard to get that one in, and I think that's gonna be a real benefit for the folks in the Pinery urban area. So I definitely speak in favor of the motion. Any further discussion? There is a motion and a second. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. And the replete is unanimously approved. Congratulations, Mr. Campbell. Moving to our public hearing portion of today's meeting is our first, our only item is the Bloom Metropolitan District new service plan project file is SV2026-001. D.J. Beckwith, Principal Planner, Douglas County Community Development, presented for staff.

Good morning, commissioners. The project before you is a new service plan application for Bloom Metropolitan District. The project number is SV2026-001. I'm DJ Beckwith representing community development. The applicant representative is Megan Murphy. The application is a request for approval There we go. The application is a request for approval of a service plan application for Bloom Metropolitan District. The proposed district would include the powers to provide the services listed on this slide and in the staff report. The Board of County Commissioners created and adopted guidelines for processing and reviewing special district service plan applications in compliance with Title 32. Service plan applications are sent out on referral and staff works with the applicant to resolve identified issues. Applications are then reviewed by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners at public hearings. At a public meeting on June 15th, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the service plan application by a vote of seven to one. Planning Commission members asked the applicant questions to clarify comments from Parker Water and Sanitation District regarding the timing of inclusion into the district and comments from Douglas County Engineering regarding improvements to Bayou Gulch Road. Planning Commission members also asked questions about the total mill levy for the proposed district. Commissioner Hampton opposed the recommendation citing the current water limitations that Parker Water has placed on residents and the drought conditions that have increased since the will serve letter was issued. There was no public comment. In response to the comments from the Planning Commission, the applicant provided an updated will serve letter dated June 25th of 2026. This is now included in the service plan. The project, marked by the star on this slide, is generally located east of Crowfoot Valley Road, west of Bayou Gulch Road, north of Perdera Parkway, and south of Stroh Road. Specifically, the property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Bayou Gulch Road and Scott Avenue. The district is within the non-urban area of the CMP, specifically the northeast sub area. The district is zoned as state residential and is outlined in red on this slide. The property is anticipated to include 32 residential lots. The population of the district at build out is expected to be 96 residents. The projected average home value is 3 million based on information in the service plan. The district revenues are proposed to be primarily from property tax and may also rely upon other revenue sources such as fees, rates, tolls, penalties, or charges. The estimated total mill levy cap is 60 mills. The proposed initial debt service mill levy is 50 mills. With the initial operations and maintenance mill levy of 10 mills, that may be increased up to a maximum of 60 mills as the debt limit mill levy decreases. The debt service mill levy term is for 30 years. The total authorized debt limit is 20 million. Estimated cost of improvements is 20.8 million. The district anticipates receiving initial funding for both capital and ongoing administrative requirements for developer advances. Anticipated developer advances total 38 million, of which 20 million is anticipated to be reimbursed by the districts. The project was sent out on referral from March 16th to the 31st. Most responses for referral had no comment on the proposed service plan. Douglas County planning staff requested technical revisions to the service plan. These revisions included formatting and language changes. The applicant submitted a revised service plan to address those comments. Douglas County Engineering Services requested clarifying language be added and requested additional information be included in the service plan exhibits. The applicant updated the language and added requested information. Engineering had no further comments. Parker Water and Sanitation District commented that the service plan states that Parker Water will be the water and sanitary sewer service provider, but the project is not in Parker Water service area. Parker Water will not provide service until the district is included into its service area. Inclusion into Parker Water is subject to the Parker Water Board of Approval and its rules and regulations. Parker Water does not object to Douglas County's approval of the proposed district prior to Parker Water inclusion of the district into its service area. BBC Researching and Consulting reviewed the market study and commented that the absorption analysts in the study makes unsupported assumptions on this estimated market demand for higher priced houses and questioned whether these projects would be realized. The applicant provided a revised market study to address these comments. BBC reviewed the revised market study and concluded that if the assumptions prove accurate, the district will be well positioned to generate sufficient property tax and fee revenues to support the proposed debt and structure. Hilltop Securities reviewed the revised service plan and concluded that given the assumptions in the financial plan, it is reasonable that the district will be capable of extinguishing all bonds within the parameters established in the service plan. Staff's assessment of the proposed service plan as it relates to the criteria has been detailed in the staff report. The Colorado revised statutes specify criteria for approval of special district service plans. The board must consider the following nine criteria in evaluating the service plan. In response number one, the area encompassed by the district's boundaries is currently zoned as state residential and there is a projected need for the services proposed to be provided by the district. Response number two, the existing public service infrastructure within the proposed district's boundaries area are lacking. Therefore, existing services are inadequate for the proposed needs of the service area. Number three, based upon comments from the county's financial consultant, the service plan demonstrates that the district can provide these services economically. Number four, based on the comments from the county's financial consultant, the service plan demonstrates that the district's revenues as projected in the financial plan would be sufficient to discharge the proposed indebtedness in response to number five, no entities are able or are willing to provide all the services desired within a reasonable time or on a comparable basis. Number six, all facilities will be constructed in concordance with the standards of the county and any other applicable local state or federal rules and regulations. In response number seven, the service area of the district falls within the non-urban area of the CMP. The CMP outlines goals for the northeast sub area that ensure compatibility with the natural and rural characteristics of the area, utilize existing services where possible. The development and services of the district support these concepts through the dedication of open space, wildlife fencing, and approximate density of 2.5 dwelling units within the development. The previously approved preliminary plan describes the overall project density and laid out lots and open space tracks are consistent with adjacent land use patterns. Goal 5-3 of the 2040 comprehensive master plan promotes the sustainability of special districts, including ensuring that special districts are financially sound. through the independent evaluation of all financing plans. The county works closely with third party consultants to evaluate the financial feasibility of all new special districts and special district amendments. In response number eight, based on information provided by the applicant, the district is in compliance with the Colorado Water Quality Management Plan. And number nine, based upon the level of services proposed for the area and lack of service provisions from existing service providers in the area, the district appears to be in the best interest of the area proposed to be served. Should the board find that the application complies with the criteria found in Colorado revised statute title 32, the board may approve. This concludes my presentation. The applicant representative Megan Murphy is also here to answer any additional questions.

All right, thank you, DJ. Board, any questions for DJ?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have one. You referenced a letter from Parker Water dated June 25th. Can you just summarize the contents of that letter?

So the original, that letter, that would be the second letter. Parker Water came back with that letter stating that they would need to be included into their service area prior to any services being provided, but that park or water would have services if they were included.

And that is contingent upon our approval is the first step to that. Was that in the letter? I read that somewhere.

I know that they could, and I'll ask Lauren if that,

This is Lauren Pulver with staff. The letter from Parker Water doesn't really contemplate our process. We do typically see a district will want to form the district prior to paying the cost of inclusion into the water provider.

Okay. But Parker Water will be holding hearings of their own for the inclusion into their district in a probably a timely manner upon our approval today, if that were to happen.

That's my understanding, Commissioner.

Okay, thank you. Further questions from the board?

BJ, good presentation. Just one question. You said that there was one planning commissioner that voted against this application. Do you want to provide a little bit more detail on the rationale for that?

Yes. Commissioner Hampton, um, mentioned that he had concerns with Parker water, um, going into water restrictions and just the drought season that we're in. Um, and wanted was a little concerned about additional water resources going to new developments at this time when the current residents were already feeling the press pressure of being limited in the, or their own water usage.

Got it. Okay. Thank you.

DJ, my questions are on the financial side. I mean, so we've got two market analyses that were done. One had concerns about market absorption of this new neighborhood. When tweaks were made, it sounds like the second market analysis was more acceptable, but it is based on the market analysis, excuse me, the market analysis is, as you said, based on assumptions. I do wanna talk about a worst case scenario and in the event that this district is formed by us today, we give this approval and credit is extended and the market analysis proves insufficient, who actually is going to be on the hook for that debt servicing?

Lauren Pulver was staff, that would be the property owner or the developer would be responsible for paying back those bonds if they're issued.

Okay, so if indeed they do extend debt, they do extend bonds, it is their debt to service. It's not the people of Douglas County's debt to service. That's correct. If indeed it is successful, that debt would be serviced through the mill levies that are in this plan by the residents. If they are not fully successful, then those residents who have purchased homes would still be subject to the mill levies and would be required to service that debt through their annual property tax. Okay, but I think the most important point for us to make here is that if indeed we are in a iffy financial future, the debt obligation would not fall on the people of Douglas County.

That's correct, Commissioner.

All right, thank you, Lauren. Thank you, DJ. I think those are my questions at this time. Any further questions for Staff Board?

Oh, actually, Mr. Chair, so one vote against in the Planning Commission. How many votes in favor?

Seven, Commissioner.

Seven, okay, thank you.

All right, thank you, Commissioner. Any further questions? All right, let's go ahead and hear from the applicant at this time. Ma'am, if you'd please step forward. Please give us your name. You've been before the board before, but give us your name and tell us your role with this project.

Good morning, my name is Megan Murphy, general counsel for the applicant and eventually the formed metropolitan district with the firm WBAPC. I don't have a formal presentation because your staff does such a great job, but I'm happy to answer questions. And I did just want to add to further your questions, Commissioner Thiel, that in the event the bonds are issued and unable to be repaid, the risk of repayment falls on the bondholders. You have a maximum mill levy here for a maximum term. If that's not enough money to repay the bonds, then the bondholders will be left short. Who the bondholders are is a mystery. Some huge institutional funds, but not the people of Douglas County.

Very good, counselor, appreciate that. Anything else? And are you willing to take questions from the board?

Always willing to take questions, nothing else.

All right, board, do we have any questions for the applicant's representative?

None for me, thanks to our, I've directed them all on our staff, so thank you.

And none for me either.

All right. Ma'am, I do not thank you for clarifying my earlier question for staff. Again, that is the most pressing concern. I always have, during my time here on the board, during my time in elected office, we've had... Good real estate markets in the past. We've had challenging real estate markets in the past. I'm always willing to consider You know Development plans that are brought before us my concern always with Metro District is making sure who has that final obligation and then of course what is that obligation that will reside on the property owners who occupy that neighborhood eventually. And I think you guys got a pretty good plan here. I don't think anybody's gouging future residents based on what I've seen. So I don't think I have any further questions for you. But board, one more time, any further questions for the applicant? All right, thank you, ma'am. Very much appreciate it. All right, let's go ahead and open up for public comment at this time. Is there anyone who'd like to give public comment on this matter? Seeing none, let's return to the board for action. Board, how would we like to consider this new service plan before us?

Well, Mr. Chair, if it pleases the board, I will make a motion to approve Blue Metropolitan District new service plan because it does meet all of the approval criteria, project file SB 2026-001. And I wish to speak in favor of the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner. Is there a second?

I second the motion. I'll just briefly say my only thing I'll say in favor is there appears to be a sufficient need. Existing services are lacking. And there appears to be, we did go through, I went through the packet very thoroughly, looked at the financing. There does appear to be a solid financial plan and an ability to discharge that debt in a very timely manner. So I second the motion.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Layden, speaking in favor of the motion.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, under Title 32, metro districts are an interesting animal and special districts in general. But for just the lay public, it's so important that we have this mechanism to establish the infrastructure that would otherwise be far too expensive for a local government or singular landowners to do on their own. And this conversation comes up a lot when we're talking about LIDs and unincorporated Douglas County where there are neighborhoods, but they are not under a metro district and don't have the resources to develop the kind of infrastructure that's needed to have a thriving, successful community. So metro districts do serve a very important purpose, but with that comes the ominous power of taxation. And, you know, the financing mechanisms associated with it are not insignificant. So it's always a balancing for me. And I'm thankful that the board does take a close look at these applications, that it's a balance of the need under the approval criteria. But then again, to your point, Commissioner Thiel, Chairman Thiel, that it's not overly burdensome to the people of Douglas County.

Indeed. Thank you, Commissioner. I'm going to go ahead and speak in favor of the motion. I very much appreciate the advice we always get from our planning commission. And Commissioner Hampton is one of my appointees. I very much always appreciate his perspective that he brings. For the many times that I do agree with Commissioner Hampton in this instance, I'm not sure I agree. I think... Our water plan, the study inherent there shows that we do have plenty of water resources, and yet I really do support our water districts when they do apply water restrictions during, known and apparent times of water shortage, times of drought like we are experiencing this year in particular. And yet, those are temporary. By the time, if I understand the timeline, by the time the development team is willing to bring forward that plan for inclusion into Parker Water, we may be out of the drought. We may be out of the drought that we're in right now. We may be in a time when we do not have to be curbing our water usage. And so I leave that to the board members with Parker Water. We know the neighborhood cannot proceed without that full support from Parker Water. And quite frankly, that's why we have water districts so that the individual communities can make those decisions for themselves. For our role here today, my focus really is on, well, quite frankly, the questions that I asked earlier about the finances. And just to make sure, as Commissioner Layden pointed out, you know, metropolitan districts sometimes get a bad rap, and sometimes it's a bad rap that is well-earned. Quite frankly, as a resident of Castle Rock, I am very well aware of the 100 years of debt that the Meadows Metropolitan District carries. That's debt that will not be completed for another 50 years. And as a former Meadows resident, That was part of the reason why I did move out of that neighborhood. So that is always my concern in our role. I very much appreciate counsel for the applicant answering further detail on my questions. And I just want the people of Douglas County to know as far as this service plan for this metropolitan district, that is not an obligation that will fall upon us as taxpayers of Douglas County. For that reason, I do speak in favor of the motion and I am willing to support it at this time. Board, any further discussion?

I'll just, thankful for those thoughtful comments from both my fellow commissioners. It is an interesting setup of government here where South, or I'm sorry, Parker Water and Sanitation will get their own view of it, as will the fire district, the South Metro Fire as well. I'm confident in what we've heard from both of those entities. Also, I've found confidence in the third party financing. Reviews that were done not by the county or consultants of the developer or anyone. It was done by Hilltop Securities and BBC Research. They both did independent basically audits to make sure that this debt in the financing plan made sense. I found confidence in both those reviews and have no problem voting in favor today.

Thank you, Commissioner. You know, just one more point I'd like to make. I mean, colleagues, we've been to NACO and we've met other county commissioners from around the country. A few of them have to deal with this when there is a new neighborhood. You know, other states don't have metropolitan districts the way Colorado does. And so I think all of us have spoken to other county commissioners from around the nation and how they agonize over can they put county budget on developing the infrastructure for a new neighborhood. It was something that when I was a municipal elected official here in Castle Rock and going to National League of Cities, that I heard over and over and over again, where you had metropolitan leaders, municipal leaders, excuse me, around the country, agonizing of do we or don't we allocate from the taxpayer coffers in order to build out a new neighborhood? Or do they have one more year, maybe one more decade of stagnation where the municipality can't grow? Thanks to being in Colorado and having the metropolitan district process, that's something actually we don't have to agonize over. And our taxpayers don't have to bear the burden of market uncertainty. Instead, that will fall to, as we heard, the actual bondholders. With that said, I still speak in favor of the motion. Any further comments from the board? Any further discussion? We do have a motion and a second on the approval of the new service plan for Bloom Metropolitan District. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye. And the new service plan is unanimously approved. That concludes our matters for today's land use meeting and public hearing. Our next land use meeting and public hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 11th, 2026 at 2.30 p.m. We are adjourned.