Town Council - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

August 3rd 2026 Parker Town Council meeting we will reconvene this meeting at 7 p.m. Let the record show that all of Council is present First item of business if you would please join me in honoring the Stars and Stripes 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

Thank you all. Good evening. Welcome to the remodeled digs if you haven't been here before. Freshly opened. Opened two weeks ago but I was not here so this is my first time so bear with me if I hit any technical glitches tonight. First item in front of this council is public comments. No action will be taken on these items. Public comment is an opportunity for town residents and other interested individuals to speak about items that are not on the agenda. This comment period is limited to 30 minutes of total time with each individual allowed a maximum of three minutes to speak. You must sign up ahead of time in order to comment and that sign up begins 30 minutes before the start of the meeting. The council will accommodate as many speakers as possible during this time with preference to town residents. But if public comment extends beyond the allotted 30 minutes, Town Council will continue the comment period at the end of the meeting prior to adjourning for those who have signed up before the meeting. As any matters raised by individuals during the public comment are not on the agenda, and other potentially interested parties would not therefore be aware of discussion of these matters, Town Council will not engage in dialogue regarding any items raised during public comment. I have no members on my sign, or no, sorry, no members. I have no citizens signed up on my, Public comment sheet, is there any public wishing to address this council this evening? Please make yourself known. Seeing none, I have one that I'd like to enter into the record. We have a public comment from Ms. Sarah Moore of 10805 Vista Road. Thank you, Ms. Moore. We have your comment, and council has read it, and we will enter it into the record. Appreciate you taking the time to send this in. The next item of business is reports and items from town council. We'll start with Councilwoman Hefta, please.

it's been a long hot summer hasn't it and I just want to welcome back the mayor right now and I myself again many of you know I've had a knee replacement surgery and a long difficult recovery and sometimes that when that happens your other town council members have to fill in for you and you can't attend all the events that you want to attend And so I would just like to thank my fellow town council members tonight for filling in, for being there for me, especially council member Brandy Wilkes. Brandy has gone above and beyond in attending events this summer that I would have had to have attended. So thank you very much from the bottom of my heart, Brandy. Also, thank you, Mayor, for your support. In addition, I've noticed some hardworking folks this summer that I'd also like to give a shout out to. Deputy Assistant Town Attorney Michael Lawson has worked extremely hard this summer on a number of projects, and so I'd like to recognize that. And Deputy Town Attorney Lindsey Jordan has gone above and beyond for Town Council this summer, and I'd also like to recognize her as well. I have no further updates, but I will be returning to some of those duties shortly. Thank you.

Thank you, Laura. Appreciate that. Hear, hear on your comments. Council Member Franzen, please.

So thankfully, I had an opportunity to have some well-deserved vacation. I don't know if it's well-deserved, but it was certainly vacation. So I was out a little bit. I did attend a ribbon cutting for a new business here in town, Sherwin-Williams, down off of Stroh and Parker Road. Always exciting to see new businesses opening and having some employees. That was great. So that was all I have to report. Thank you, sir.

Councilman Dyack, please.

Thank you. I just had a couple of sort of internal town visits. Nothing of note to report, but thank you.

Thanks, sir. Councilman Wilkes, please.

So I'll go in reverse order here. On Friday, we participated in the Parker Chamber of Commerce Wine Walk, which is always good just to support local businesses and see the citizens come out and get to enjoy this fun festival that Representative Hartsook wrote into legislation so we could have back to our town. So that was fantastic. Filling in for Councilmember Haft, as she stated, I had the link on demand in Castle Rock ribbon cutting. So We've expanded. Link on Demand is in Lone Tree, and it's in Parker, and it's in Highlands Ranch, and now it's in Castle Rock. And it is a free service. It's a free rideshare service that takes people in our community to these different areas. And it was wonderful to be a part of Castle Rock's ribbon cutting for that and to see that the fleet has expanded and the parameters in which we can take people have expanded. And I love just the numbers that we've already got from our community that we've had over 500 rideshares, and we're pushing – I think it was 598, if my memory serves me. But don't quote me on that. But 598 ride shares that we've done since we launched, which hasn't been very long. So it's a great give back to our community to allow people to be able to get from certain places and people who can't drive themselves. I had an interview with a local paper on the school resource officer bill that all of you guys are probably very familiar with, but the citizens might not be that I've been working on for about three years now. So I'm excited for that to come out. You guys will see that here probably in the next couple weeks because it's, yeah, the beginning of August. So the school resource officer's funding bill is something that I've worked on through my Public Safety and Crime Prevention Federal Advocacy Committee through the National League of Cities. And with this council's blessings, support have been able to move forward with that to try to find a way to help Exactly what it sounds like help fund our school resource officers So with that we also had our local indigenous leaders board that I sit on We're working on strengthening and collaboration between communities for our 250 celebration this year Thank You Brandi cuz one Barrington

Thank you. On the 25th, I attended at the Senior Center a fundraiser. It was called Whimsical Wonders and also participated in the Wine Walk. We had a Douglas County Housing Partnership meeting on the 23rd. And we approved the final financing plan for Ponderosa Pines, which is a 20, 204 unit affordable apartment community. Not in Parker, it's near Parker though. The technical term was Housing revenue bonds, but kind of in plain English because I know a lot of people don't know what that means Douglas County Housing Partnership is helping the developer access lower cost financing So the project can be built so we can have some more attainable housing And these bonds are repaid by the project itself and not by Parker or the taxpayers or the housing partnership We also approved carrying forward a twenty six point five million dollar and private activity bond capacity. And that essentially is a financing tool the state gives local governments to make affordable or attainable housing projects possible. So we're preserving that capacity so it can be used for future projects instead of losing it. So I've learned a lot since I've been on the housing partnership. And I will leave the rest of our time for Mr. Hendricks because he always has a lot to say. Thank you, Ann.

Councilman Hendricks, don't let us down.

I was on vacation. Thank you. But I also attended the Farmer's Market and the Honey Festival. That was at O'Brien Park. And to piggyback on Council Member Hefta's Summer's Hot, I went to the relatively new movie theater, Imagine Theater, and saw Spider-Man. It's great. Go see it.

Thank you, sir. Yeah, myself, I also returned from vacation Friday evening, but I did make it to the Farmer's Market and the Honey Festival and was amazed at the crowds that the Honey Festival brought. And I hadn't been in a couple of years, so I was also amazed at this. DIFFERENT BOOTHS THAT THEY HAD. IT IS A LONG TIME AGO THAT WE HAD JUST A FEW PEOPLE WITH BEES AROUND THE GAZEBO. IT IS NOW THE WHOLE O'BRIEN PARK AND TURNED INTO QUITE THE EVENT. REALLY, REALLY COOL TO SEE AND IT IS GOOD TO BE HOME. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE A VACATION TO REMIND US WHY WE LIVE AND LOVE PARKER. Next up item in front of this council is consent agenda. Consent agenda items are considered to be routine and will be enacted with one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion for consent agenda items unless council votes to remove an item for individual discussion. Ordinances on the consent agenda are for introduction only and will not, cannot be removed for discussion. Council, in front of you are consent agenda items A, I believe, A through J. Do I have a motion to pass consent agenda?

I move to approve consent agenda items A through J.

Second. I have a motion from Wilkes and a second from Hendricks. Hendricks?

Yes.

Varianton? Yes. Wilkes? Aye. Diak? Yes. Franzen? Yes. Hefta? Yes. And consent agenda passes unanimously. Council, next in front of you is public hearings. First, resolution number 26-059, a resolution consenting to the exclusion of property located within the Cottonwood Highlands Metropolitan District number one from the Cottonwood Metropolitan District approving the intergovernmental agreement and plan regarding the continuation and continuation of services and disposition of assets that will open the public hearing at 7 10 p.m. town attorney Lindsay Jordan please as was stated we're here tonight to

discuss a resolution consenting to the exclusion of property located within Cottonwood Highlands Metro District number one from Cottonwood Metropolitan District. It's also approving the intergovernmental agreement and the plan regarding continuation of services and disposition of assets. Tonight we have with us Kim Crawford, who is special counsel for the town, who has been working with the council for Cottonwood Highlands Metropolitan District number one. They're here to ask the town to assist with facilitating this exclusion. In order to do this exclusion, they do have to file a petition within the district court, and it is helpful for them to have this consent from the town. In addition, they will be presenting to you the IGA that will be addressing the continuation of services and the disposition of assets. To help facilitate this discussion, I would ask that the Council for the Cottonwood Highlands Metropolitan District come up and do their presentation for you.

Thank you, Lindsay. Please come join us. If you would, state your name and address for the record, please.

Thank you, Council. Colin Mielke with the law firm Sutter, Vanderwall, and Mielke. Address is, well,

Crossroads are green.

Yeah, business address. I almost gave you my residential address, which isn't too far away. It's Helen's Ranch. But 7400 East Orchard Road, Suite 3300, Greenwood Village, Colorado. Thank you very much for the time tonight. I know most of you, I think I've seen at least last week and even a couple months before to give this same presentation, so I'll go through it rather quickly, but please stop me if you have any questions along the way. As was just said, we're Council for Cottonwood Highlands Metropolitan District number one. That is a metropolitan district, we'll see if I can here we go, perfect, within the boundaries of Cottonwood Metropolitan District, which is the larger district. So on this map here, you'll see the outline in red of my client, Cottonwood Highlands Metropolitan District number one, and then in the grayed out area is Cottonwood Metropolitan District. What we're asking for is a consent to the exclusion of Cottonwood Highlands Metropolitan District number one from the boundaries of Cottonwood Metro District. The reason for that is we're eliminating overlapping taxing district boundaries. So right now Cottonwood Highlands Metropolitan District number one has a 10 mil property tax levy for operations that it levies on the properties within its boundaries and Cottonwood Metro District has an 8.3 mil levy that it also levies on those properties as well as the other properties within its boundaries. In order to eliminate the overlapping taxation, what we do is we have a petition for exclusion that is distributed throughout the Cottonwood Highlands Metropolitan District community. You need at least 50% of the property owners within the community to sign that petition. the board members who are all residents of cottonwood highlands went door-to-door held public meetings and also some petition signing at kind of get togethers and achieved over 50 of those signatures through a lot of diligent effort from those property owners so now we're at the part where we file that petition that's been signed by the requisite number of property owners with the district court but the district court is going to have to look at the file one determine that we have enough signatures on the petition which we have the affidavits of the circulators that will will show that but then also the court is going to want to see that there's a continuation of the services that were expected from Cottonwood Metro District that somebody else is going to provide The statutes are a little bit quirky in that they assume that the municipality would be the one that's providing those. In this case, that's not what we're asking. Cottonwood Highlands Metro District wants to provide all those services directly to its community. And frankly, it already is in coordination with Cottonwood Metro District. So we have before you tonight a IGA, an intergovernmental agreement, that essentially says the town is consenting to that exclusion on the condition that Cottonwood Highlands, not the town, will be solely responsible for any of those services that need to be provided. so we're not asking the town to take on any additional activities or responsibilities cottonwood highlands will solely be responsible for those and then also there's the resolution that essentially adopts that iga that the statutes require that the town also approve so at the end of this if the town does approve the resolution in the iga tonight we will send that into the district court there will be another public hearing just in case there's anybody who wants to attend that it will be at the district court level assuming nobody objects the court would grant that exclusion and then we would record the order with the county clerk and recorder's office and the exclusion would be completed So the benefit of this, as I said a little bit earlier, is that we're eliminating that duplication of taxes. Right now it's at 18.3 mills if you take both of the metro district entities together. It would drop down to 10 mills as kind of a secondary request that Cottonwood Highlands is asking of the town, and it's included in that IGA. that the town would also allow for Cottonwood Highlands to increase its mill levy up to 18 mills the district doesn't believe that it needs that right now but what that would do is essentially take the money that Cottonwood Metro District collects and instead have Cottonwood Highlands collecting a little bit less than that and using that for the landscaping and other operations within its boundaries We did talk about this at the work session at the end of last month. And one of the questions was, can we see a graph of what the tax savings will actually look like if this is approved? And so we had our group of experts put together some very technical and colorful graphs here for everybody's enjoyment. But 10,000 foot view, as you can see over on the left hand here, this is a graph of the operations mill levy with and without the Cottonwood Metro District exclusion. Now this is with a conservative property value increase. So right now you're looking on the left, there's about $500,000 in taxes that are generated by the 18.3 mills. If we were to effect the exclusion, you could see probably in a conservative range of about $100,000 worth of property tax savings for the community, the Cottonwood Highlands community. And that's including an increase from 10 mils to 14.5 mils for Cottonwood Highlands. Exclusion itself generates a massive tax savings for the community itself. Also localizes the, or tailors the services that are provided to the community. And even if there's an increase of 4.5 mils from what Cottonwood Highlands is currently levying, the community's still seeing at least $100,000 in tax savings. Next graph, this would be if there were an aggressive increase in property values. You can see there's even more tax savings for the Cottonwood Highlands community. in the tune of just over 200,000. So the Cottonwood Highlands community has been very supportive of this. We have not received any comments from any members of Cottonwood Highlands that have objected to this exclusion. And we do have an active residentially filled board that is responsible for all of those ongoing operations and maintenance activities already. So we think this is a great win-win for the entire community and we're hoping that we can get Some approval from the town council so we can move forward with the district court Thank you, sir.

I appreciate your presentation We will open up for questions questions to our team and our special counsel first correct Todd questions for our team and our special counsel none and

So you mentioned that this was citizen.

Sorry, not to the applicant yet. To our team or Kim Crawford. Do you have questions for them?

Well, she could answer the same thing.

I would invite Ms. Crawford up, please.

So this is, it's complicated. Please, I'm sorry, state your name and record. Kim Crawford from Butler-Snow. Special counsel to the city.

Thank you. So this came in front of us at a study session and it was, we had great information and there was a board member, a resident, and it's my understanding that he was the one that kind of took charge, this initiative was, because he was paying attention. But he needed to get you guys involved because there's, it's very complicated to make something like this happen and it's been going on for I think over a year.

I think so, I think they came to the town about a year ago with this proposal. At that point we had an executive session and a study session again, and asked them, said that generally you were probably supportive, but you wanted more information. So not making any promises, they had to go out and do a little footwork to see what the community really wanted. And they did go out and they got, I think they sold about 52% of the signatures of the property owners, the voters. And then they stopped because it's hard work. So they do have the community support and Colin can answer I guess when he gets back up but they did have public meetings and public outreach and they talked to people and their community is behind it. Metro district, the special district law does say that you shouldn't have overlapping metro districts providing the same services and so when Cottonwood Highlands was formed There was some sort of distinguishing factors that allowed them to form this little another metro district inside of a bigger metro district So it was something that Parker contemplated when they allowed that to happen in 2015 But it just hasn't worked the way that they in and you essentially had thought that it was going to work So they decided there would be more cost effective to just put the districts back up again Thank you.

Thank you

Brandy, questions for our team? Nope.

John? I think I'm good at this point. Eric? No questions for staff.

Laura, questions for staff?

Yes. Ms. Crawford? Yes. You've worked with accountants as well on this? No, I have not. OK. So this has been yourself working on this with the metro districts?

No, I actually worked with the town. So we just review what they present to us and then we ask questions. They have their own set of consultants and experts that they get the numbers from. Generally, I don't check any of their math. We just rely on them to provide information. I mean, because again, projections are, we don't know what the assessed values are gonna be or what they're actually gonna be saving, but they provide that information and we assume that we can rely on that.

And you provide the legal advice to the town that this is legally compliant to our legal staff. Yes. Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you. With that, I invite the applicant back up for questions from counsel. Laura, we'll go back to you. Questions for the applicant?

I can't see the downside on this. Could you tell me, is there any downside to this proposal at all?

No I could tell you there is not from my perspective exactly as Ms. Crawford said these are two overlapping districts Cottonwood Highlands already provides all the services to the landscaping and the public infrastructure within its boundaries this is really I don't want to say a cleanup, but it feels a little bit like a cleanup because it allows for the community members in Cottonwood Highlands to focus their tax resources on the public improvements that directly impact them. We have Cottonwood Metro District's letter agreeing to this exclusion as well, so there's no There's no issues with them as well. They'll actually be the district that is presenting this to the district court as well. So they'll be involved hand in hand with Cottonwood Highlands as well. So this is a very collaborative process. It's gonna be a tax saving process and result for the community. So I think it's a good thing.

Thank you. Eric, questions for their council?

So even though the mill, current mills with the Highlands District I'm going to get the terminology wrong here. So the current mills are 10. We're going to increase them to 18. They're currently paying 18.3 combined. So we're going to reduce it by three mills. Do they believe in the near term that they're going to have to use all 15 mills? Or are there going to be some cost savings there as well?

No, and just to clarify, so 10 mils is what Cottonwood Highlands is currently levying for its operations mill levy. So that covers all the operations costs for Cottonwood Highlands. That's the maximum it's allowed to levy right now pursuant to an agreement with the town of Parker when the district was formed. Cottonwood Metro District has a mill levy as well. It's 8.3 mils. So that's where we get that total 18.3 mils. And so what this exclusion is accomplishing is the 8.3 mils that Cottonwood Metro is currently levying will go away. but because Cottonwood Highlands has ongoing operations and we don't know what the cost increases for landscaping and things of that nature will be in the future, we're asking that it be authorized pursuant to that agreement with the town to go up to 18 mils. So we don't anticipate going up to 18 mils anytime soon. We're asking that you authorize Cottonwood Highlands to do so, but as that graph showed too, 14.5 mils, that would be 4.5 more mils of tax revenue coming into Cottonwood Highlands to allow for its operations expenses. But you'd still see that's almost a four mil savings in taxes for property owners in Cottonwood Highlands. So while, regardless of what were to happen tonight with approving 18 mils, there'd be a tax savings if the exclusion goes through, but we anticipate that the tax savings will be a lot greater than 18.3 mils down to 18 mils because Cottonwood Highlands, which again is governed by five board members that live directly in the community and are taxpayers in the community, they want to see a lower tax rate, but they think 14.5 mils will get them where they need to be to make sure the community's looking nice It's taken care of, but also being conscientious of people's tax dollars.

And just for further clarification, too, the board currently is just residents. There's no developers. There's no. Correct. No profiting on this.

It is a board of five homeowners within the district and there are no developers. Thank you.

John, questions for their counsel?

Yeah. I mean, this might be our counsel thing, but I just sort of want to kind of clarify the, you know, we as a part of our agreements allow mill capacity. We don't say you can increase, we can't lever taxes. It's a TABOR thing. But within context, similar type of agreement. subdivisions This is more geared towards town of Parker Those the capacity is is higher from our from our town council study session Is that a fair statement Lindsay or should we go to? Kim on that I Would defer to Kim, okay Sorry Kim

So your model service plan currently allows 10 mills for operation and maintenance. So when you get a new service plan that comes in, that's what we would generally recommend that they do. But that's your model. And as with any service plan, when it comes before council, if there are specific reasons why they can deviate, you can certainly consider that. This deviation is being requested for the higher mill levy because that's what they're currently using, the 18.3 mills. to operate and maintain the district it just so happens that it comes from two different levees a levee from Cottonwood Metro District and one from Cottonwood Highlands they just want to be able to provide the same type of improvements and services that they're providing now so they want to they're just asking that they can go to 18 with the expectation that it won't be 18, but again, just allowed to go there to maintain the services that they have now. And you can approve deviations with specific, and they're not coming for a new service plan. They're just coming for an amendment to the IGA. And the IGA is what sets forth what, their service plan says 10 mils. But your IGA is going to let them go to 18 with deviations. with this exclusion.

And what would that process look like if I was a homeowner within that district to get to 18? Would they have to come to me? Would there be a vote process? What would that?

no they when when the district was formed they had a vote and the vote allowed for a dollar amount of operation and maintenance mill levies and whatever that dollar amount wasn't I don't know what that was but it's way more authorized voter authorized debt or VOTER AUTHORIZED REVENUE THAN THEY'RE CURRENTLY IMPOSING. SO THEY HAVE THE VOTER AUTHORIZATION ALREADY. SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS WHEN THEY GET YOUR PROPERTY TAX BILLS, INSTEAD OF SEEING COTTONWOOD HIGHLANDS, 10 MILLS, COTTONWOOD METRO, 8.3, YOU WOULD JUST SEE COTTONWOOD HIGHLANDS FOR 10 OR 18 OR WHATEVER IT'S GOING TO BE.

THANK YOU. Right. And then I have a question for the for applicant or for the other attorney. So I think in our study session, we talked about efficiencies. So create efficiencies. There was there were sharebacks, percentages. Could you maybe touch on that in terms of. HOW THIS WOULD ASSIST IN ALLOWING 100% VERSUS MAYBE A LESSER AMOUNT GIVEN TO THIS OTHER DISTRICT.

YEP. SO COTTONWOOD METRO DISTRICT, AGAIN, THAT'S THE 8.3 MILLS. And Mr. Forrestal, who was the board president at the time for Cottonwood Highlands, had reached out to Cottonwood Metro and said, hey, we would like to see more of this revenue that our property owners are generating utilized to improve our neighborhood. And Cottonwood Metro and Cottonwood Highlands entered into an IGA where there was a sharing. Cottonwood Metro acknowledging that 8.3 mils, there's a revenue that is associated with that. that they would share back 80% the first year, and then there was 90%. And so Cottonwood Highlands was getting those revenues in that were being generated by Cottonwood Metro's mill levy and able to use them within the Cottonwood Highlands community This exclusion essentially says that's no longer necessary. Cottonwood Highlands is just going to generate its own revenues that otherwise would have been generated by Cottonwood Metro and utilize them for their own public infrastructure. Great. Thank you. Yeah.

Councilman Wilks.

And I know we know this, but I just want to clarify. When we say the 52% of signatures, and because it's a lot, we didn't need that, that does not mean that 48% of the residents were not in favor of this. It just means that so many were in favor, you collected enough signatures, you didn't need more, correct?

Correct.

Okay, and then with the, I think the way it's working in my brain is the Cottonwood Metro District was established I think decades before the Cottonwood Highlands even existed. And so Cottonwood Highlands needed to establish a secondary metro district in order, because new build communities are expensive. And so now that it's established, it's essentially wanting to break free from the overlapping one and give whatever tax break it possibly can to its people, but knowing that the money that the homeowners in that area are paying are going specifically for their community improvements, correct?

Correct.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure my head was fully wrapped around all that, so thank you.

Absolutely. And yeah, the 52% too, that's a monumental task to get 52% of the people in your community to actually sit down, listen to you talk about a petition for exclusion, explain what it is, and then be willing to put pen to paper. I think one of the even more important highlights is that during the 52% signature collection, there wasn't anybody that said, I disagree with this and I want to stay within the Cottonwood Metro and That's a very telling statistic that there wasn't any objection.

Perfect. Thank you.

Thank you, Brandy. Ms. Barrington, please.

So between the two districts, what's the population over there?

Oh, that's a great question that I wish I knew the answer off the top of my head. I believe there's around 700 residences in, is it 700 homes? Okay, so we're 655 approximately in Cottonwood Highlands, approximately 1,800 in Cottonwood Metro.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Ann.

Mr. Hendricks, please. No questions, thank you.

I just have one question. I'm talking about dollar savings. Is there a loss in the economies of scale when you have, is there duplicate services that are answered between the two districts? And now if you have a district trying to get landscaping done at a smaller scale, do we not lose the benefit of having a bigger district or no? And that's not a question for council. It's probably a question for a monetary person or somebody, but I'm just wondering. absolutely it i can see i can see where there would be a rationale if they were utilizing the same service providers but they're not um and cottonwood highlands has its own service providers that that was probably my question i made it more difficult than it needed to be thank you any other questions for either sets of council see none thank you very much we will open up public comment at 7 35 any members of the public wishing to address council on this specific item please make yourself known Seeing none, we will close public comment and the hearing at 7.35 and go back for deliberation. Mr. Hendricks, start us off, please.

Thank you, Mayor. This seems like a pretty straightforward request, and it's a win-win. I mean, there's public support. I see beneficial opportunity here with cost-effectiveness, and I am in support of this.

Thank you, Mr. Hendricks.

Ms. Barrington, please.

Yes, I'm also in support of this. I think that any time you see your tax bill go down, it's not very often. So it's a cleanup, but it's going to save a lot of money. overlap so I think it just makes sense and I really appreciate all the hard work that went into this and the fact that this was citizen led I would so I'm glad that you are here tonight I would met the gentleman that was on the board and that's a lot of work to get 52% so I I understand why you didn't go for the hundred seventy-five even so great job Thank You Ms. Barrington Ms. Wilkes please

Yeah, what I love about this, just to piggyback on that as well, is this isn't the government telling you guys, hey, you need to do this with your metro. This is you guys coming to us saying like, hey, this is what we want to do, so just approve it. And that's always what we want to see. We want to see... um when you find a break in the system or you find a way to improve the system you come to us and we fix it and that's it really is it really is nice to see and now i'm sitting there i'm like huh how can we lower it in ours but no we're all good so i appreciate the work on this thank you

THANK YOU, BRANDINE. MR. DYAK, PLEASE.

YEAH, NO, METRO DISTRICTS, AGAIN, I THINK PEOPLE OUT THERE, IT'S A VERY SOMETIMES PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A VERY POSITIVE OPINION OF METRO DISTRICTS. OVER THE PAST COUPLE MEETINGS, WE'VE TRIED TO make it more beneficial. I think our last meeting, we basically took out the developers and made it citizen-led so they have control, which is always a good thing. In this week, we had one citizen just probably one day take a look and ask the question aloud. You know, this doesn't make sense to me. I think we can do something better. And he just didn't leave it there. He continued on to figure it out, to not only figure it out, but step up and cause his community to take action. As the examples have indicated, to streamline this and to give their own district the power, it creates a tax savings for everyone in his community. So I truly appreciate his efforts. I salute him, and I hope we have more people like him step up and figure this out to provide savings to everybody.

Thank you, John. Mr. Franzen, please. I'd like to say ditto. Ryan Forrestal, who was the citizen that led this initiative, actually, we had an opportunity to have him come and speak. And he was passionate about it and appreciate his initiative. This is led by a resident board. They have majority support from the homeowners. It's going to have some cost savings. And this is, frankly, going to simplify their taxation. So I'm in full support.

Thank you, Eric. Ms. Hefta, please.

Yes, I just want to point out one more time that this is under Colorado Revised Statute section 32-1502, the steps that must be taken. So if any citizen or resident wants to look up the steps that can be taken, they can look up that revised statute and see the steps. that so far the cottonwood and highlands community has followed to bring this before us right now and they again the court still has to hear hold a hearing on the petition to see if the conditions are met and if the conditions are met then that would take place on january 1st entered by the court on the following year september 2027. thank you

Thank you, Ms. Hefta. Yeah, this is an, I don't know, to me it's an incredible story. It makes me so happy when a citizen steps up. I believe Mr. Forstall is a member of, or past member of our assistant academy because we talked there and he got the ball rolling and it was a long time. And unfortunately, but fortunately, government takes a long time to work. And so here we are today. And I'm very very proud to It is here today and very proud of that citizen and that team's work with that I would entertain a motion on this resolution and move to approve resolution number 26-0 5 9 as part of the regular agenda Have a motion to have a second second a motion from Miss Wilkes in the second for mr. Hendricks Hendricks. How do you vote? Yes Barrington. Yes Wilkes Yes, Franzen. Yes, I'd have to yes and that passes unanimously Thank you very much Next up, ordinances. Item 6, ordinance number 1.675 on second reading. A bill for an ordinance asserting the town of Parker's home rule authority to regulate zoning, including the regulation of residential development with which authority supersedes and preempts House Bill 26-1001. What a pleasure it is to read that.

Sir, it is your floor. good evening mayor and council um tonight we have ordinance number uh 1.675 in in short this the new law that was approved in on march 25th 2026 would require that local governments create an administrative process or an administrative review process for residential developments that are on qualifying property. Qualifying properties are defined in the bill as properties that are five acres or less and are owned by specified nonprofit and institutional organizations. Under the bill, qualifying residential development may be approved without rezoning public hearings or review by decision-making bodies. From a city standpoint, I think that makes it very complicated. In the town of Parker, we have approved annexation agreements, we have zoning, we have PDs that have kind of given an expectation to our residents as to what they can expect on these properties, and that would really change some of that. So the background on this ordinance, it asserts that the provisions of this law conflict with the town's constitutional home rule authority, and that it would require administrative approval of residential development on qualifying properties, regardless of what our master plan says, likely resulting in development that's inconsistent with the community's approved long-range vision. The town maintains that zoning is a matter of local concern and is protected under our Home Rule authority. And again, we believe that the approved annexation and other development agreements that we've entered into represent contractual obligations that shouldn't be impaired by the subsequent state legislation. So this proposed ordinance would, again, reaffirm the town's constitutional home rule authority over land use and zoning decisions, declare zoning and land use a matter of local concern, affirm that the town will continue to enforce our land development ordinance, declare that House Bill 26-1001 conflicts with the town's authority to regulate land use and zoning, find that application of House Bill 26-1001 would impair existing development-related agreements, and state the town's position that such impairment is inconsistent with the contract clauses of the U.S. and Colorado constitutions. And with that, staff recommends that town council approve this ordinance. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Osh. Laura, we'll start with you, please. Questions for staff.

Is it Brian? It's Brian. Okay. This is a very well-crafted memo, executive summary I have in front of me. Did you draft this with your team?

I think most of the credit goes to Bryce and the attorney's office on that ordinance.

Okay. Thank you very much.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you, Laura. Eric, please. Questions for Mr. Osham.

No questions.

Thank you, Mr. Dyack, sir.

I won't pause that long. No questions. Ms. Wilkes, please.

The only question I have is with the whatever it's called with them. Hang on. Their thing they're telling us. I don't have the number in front of me. With that, they're saying that we would have to get rid of all of our zoning requirements that we have. So anybody could build anything anywhere.

So on qualifying properties, so properties that are owned by school districts and certain non-profit entities that are five acres or less, they would be able to build housing developments. They couldn't be regulated or they couldn't be denied based on height. So anything up to, I think it's three stories, you couldn't regulate the density, you could not regulate additional design standards that you wouldn't apply anywhere else in your community for the same product. So it does, You know, like I said, we had this expectation when we adopted the plan developments or annexation agreements, and that understanding now goes away. And these projects would have to be approved administratively. So our staff would approve these based on those set standards, the very minimal standards that come with it now.

Perfect. Thank you.

Ms. Barrington, please.

And I guess just to clarify, this ordinance doesn't prohibit affordable or attainable housing. or on a qualifying property. It just requires that the proposals go through our normal land use review. And again, Denver's trying to make one size fits all. But we're not saying that we don't want affordable or attainable housing.

You're correct. We're not saying that at all. It just would have to follow the same process that a market rate project would have to follow.

And if we did allow this, how could this affect traffic, schools, emergency services?

It's hard to quantify. They'd still go through our typical review process. So if they require a traffic impact study or traffic analysis, we'd have to do those at the same time. That portion of the process wouldn't change. The biggest change would be the approvals wouldn't come to you all. They would be approved by staff. So it would be meeting the bare minimum of those requirements and we would be required to approve them.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Hendrickson. No questions, thank you.

Just a couple for me and maybe piggybacking off of Ms. Barrington. So this essentially creates a use by right on parcels that are owned by these seven descriptors. And so essentially those seven descriptors, they own a lot that is smaller than five acres. Let's say a neighborhood school that never got built. THEN THAT SCHOOL PROPERTY IN THE MIDST OF SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES COULD BE 200 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AT THREE STORIES REGARDLESS OF PARKING NEEDS BECAUSE OUR STATE DECIDED WE DON'T NEED PARKING RESTRICTIONS ANYMORE EITHER. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT?

Essentially essentially it would say that those projects are allowed with very limited again You couldn't you couldn't refuse based on the height and I think it's three stories You'd have to approve you couldn't regulate the density basically which could if you have a you know five acre I can't I'm not gonna do the math on right on the spot but you can get a lot of units on five acres and and the biggest part of this or one of the bigger parts of this is that administrative approval

So essentially, am I correct here that essentially with the state law now, House Bill 26-1001, we no longer, the citizens no longer get to have a public hearing on that property next door. It simply goes through as long as it matches our very limited now design standards as per this law, it gets approved. There's no citizen ability to speak up and no representatives of the citizens get a voice on that. Correct. And then lastly, and maybe this is a question for our legal team, but of those seven descriptors that are allowed, what forbids a developer partnering with one of those seven descriptors or forming their own not-for-profit to develop any said properties? Is there anything in this law that stops the creation of housing not-for-profits to take over a property from a school?

The law doesn't specifically state that, but I think it would be very difficult for them to become a school district. I mean, I suppose the school district could sign a development agreement with a developer and have them do all of that. But there's nothing in the law that says that they couldn't do that. Like, it doesn't say that the school district itself or the housing authority itself is the only one that can do it. So there's really no restraint on that.

Exactly. OK. Thank you very much. Any further questions for staff, council? Seeing none, we will go ahead and open public comment at 7.49. Any member of the public wishing to address this council, please make yourself known. Please come forward, state your name and address for the record, sir.

Good evening, council. My name is Bob Davis. I live over at 11334 Haswell Drive, about a mile and a half from here. First time going to your meeting. Was not expecting to speak tonight. I just have a general question. I don't know if someone wants to bring this topic up or not. My question would be, not knowing for certain, when you have a House bill, does state law supersede an ordinance? Obviously, the question is, at what point does someone go in and say, well, state law says I can do this. You have an ordinance. I disagree. I'm initiating litigation. Now you're looking at some issues. Maybe even the state itself, the attorney general, decides to initiate litigation. So my overarching question, without knowing the amount of detail that everyone here knows, is I agree with all this. But does an ordinance have any teeth to overrule the state law?

That was it. Thank you. Council? I'd be happy to speak to it.

Without giving all legal defense strategy away, I would say that it would come down to what a court would interpret it as whether or not this is a matter of just strict local concern and this is the state overstepping or if they would find it to be mixed concern and then we'd be preempted. So I do believe that an ordinance does have teeth if it's a matter of local concern.

Yeah, and I would add to that that specifically Article 20 of the state constitution describes us as a home rule, or we are a home rule municipality, and we have the ability, as was stated during Mr. Rishon's presentation, to govern zoning. That right is given in our constitution regardless of what the state says. And so I believe that we have a case, for lack of a better word. No further questions any I'm sorry any other members of the public wishing to address this council for this specific item Seeing none. We will close public comment at 7 51 and go back for deliberation.

Mr. Hendricks You know, this is pretty straightforward for me, too. This is all about Keeping local control locally. We know what's best for our own community and I'm in support of this Thank you.

Mr. Hendricks was Barrington, please

Yeah, I mean, and obviously I support the goal of creating more attainable housing, but I don't believe the goal should be achieved by stripping our home rule communities of our zoning and the authority. So that's where I am.

Thank you, Ms. Barrington. Ms. Wilkes, please.

Yeah, you know, we've worked really hard to come up with our LDOs and our zoning and our building requirements and everything else that we do to protect the the character and the integrity of our town. And when you get a blanket policy that might be coming with the best intentions, I'm gonna give the benefit of the doubt, coming with the best intentions to try to consider what's best, They just don't know. They don't know. And that's not just Parker. That's every municipality, I fully believe, knows how to run their municipality the best and knows what's best for their town or their city or their village. And so I am in full support of saying, hey, we've got this. We haven't had any issues. I think we're doing a pretty good job. And if we want your advice, we'll go ask for it, essentially. So I'm in support.

Thank you, Ms. Wilkes. Mr. Dyck, please.

Yeah, I mean, just to kind of continue this tsunami here of home rule discussion, you know, I think the local elected people have been charged with the citizens of placemaking, of, you know, having, creating that space, which... out of the master plan gives us the direction as to what to do in addition to citizen engagement and various other things along the way. But the state has been very respectful until recently where they've tried to, you know, the term overreach comes to mind. and try to tell us what to do even though it's our charge. And I think we understand what their reasoning is. It just doesn't work for us. And sometimes these state thoughts of zoning for density and to do certain things of benefit in their eyes for the entire state, it just doesn't apply. We're 85% built out. Some of us have been here for decades. You know, we certainly engage the citizens. It's never you're doing a great job wholeheartedly. There's always challenges, but we're doing the best we can with what we have in existing zoning and property rights. Everything else and you know to me we understand that That's what we signed up for as elected officials, but you know honestly The state has usually been been in partners, and it just seems in this situation or these circumstances That's not the case. Thank you.

Thanks.

Mr. Franzen, please So to piggyback on a lot of this you know Parker is a home rule municipality You know, that gives us the authority to protect and preserve local control. Zoning is a matter of local control. You know, I believe this bill, while potentially well-intentioned, it creates a special class of property owner that then supersedes everybody else's property ownership. You know, this concept of right by use because, you know, Provide some sort of different service than everybody else shouldn't give you The ability to do something different than everybody else is expected to do in our town. So You know, I am in support of this ordinance For those reasons.

Thank you Thank You, mr. Franz and miss Andrea miss have to please So this is a bigger issue really than just the town of Parker but the town of Parker Operates as a home rule municipality in Douglas County, Colorado in accordance with article 20 section 6 of the Colorado Constitution which governs municipalities that are home rule and And this status as home rule empowers our town to maintain local control over ordinances zoning and local taxes and it gives that authority to the town that it can supersede state law on issues of purely local concern and in our opinion the town has been operating incorporated since 1981. And we have been master planning our community since that time using local zoning authority and engaging agreements with developers that come to our town to build houses So this has been operating a very long time in our town and our town is a home rule municipality and has a town charter and so Maybe other towns may not take a stand like Parker has But we need to. We've been operating this way a very long time. And so sometimes we have to take a stand when we feel that the state has overreach on House Bill 26-001. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Hefta. I apologize, council. Bear with me here for just a minute. Obviously, on your behalf, I testified at the state capitol on this bill this year. I also testified last year when it was conveniently called Yigbee. when they included church properties in this piece and it was pushed down and maybe for fair housing issues and it came back excluding the churches. But again, in the very loosely described seven ownerships is not for profits and we know that it could still be included. SO I TESTIFIED IN PARKER'S BEHALF AGAINST THIS BILL. AND LAST YEAR FOR THIS BILL, MY CHURCH, AUGUSTANA LUTHERAN, OVER IN LEASDALE, TESTIFIED IN FAVOR OF THIS BILL. AND THEIR ARGUMENT WAS THAT THEY HAD A PARKING LOT THAT I KNOW VERY WELL, WAS NOT USED, IT WAS JUST SITTING THERE. AND THEY WANTED TO DEVELOP ON IT. AND SO THEY WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS IN DENVER AND THEY GOT IT DEVELOPED. BUT THEIR ISSUE WAS THAT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN FAST ENOUGH. And so they got a representative to work with other representatives to write a bill to make it happen faster. How do you make it happen faster? You take away this process right here. You just make it an administrative approval. And you take away the people's right to choose their community. And so that part really made me wake up as to what we're looking at here. At that time, at that hearing, I can't remember the name of the committee, but at that hearing, one of the sponsors, Mr. Harvey R. Mabry, said that this bill's goal is to cut through the red tape of municipal law. Red tape of municipal law. That's what we are to certain members of the state capitol. And again, that is law, as was stated, that we have created over 40 years. That we have made our community as to what we want over 40 years. And to him, it was red tape. I WENT BACK THIS YEAR AND TESTIFIED AGAIN AT THIS BILL. MR. MAYBURY DOUBLED DOWN. SAID THE EXACT SAME THING. AND I WAS SHOCKED. MAYOR JASON GRAY FROM CASTLE ROCK WAS NEXT TO ME. HE WAS SHOCKED. Mayor from Cherry Hills, Katie Brown, was there. She was shocked. And my point is that it may work, and it was stated again here, it may work for downtown Denver. It may work for downtown Fort Collins near the university where the other sponsor lives. But it doesn't work for La Junta, and it doesn't work for Hugo, and it doesn't work for Parker, and it doesn't work for Montrose. And so to sit in Denver and get the majority of folks to pass a bill that covers the whole state because in their... In their eyes, it is for the betterment of the state and not individual communities is what's very shocking to me. And I don't believe that that's representative government anymore. And so I testified against this on your behalf and on behalf of the citizens. I urge a no vote. I'm sorry. I urge a yes vote on this ordinance for you tonight. Also, for what you talked about, and I thank Mr. Franza for bringing it up, this creates a privileged class of property owners. Suddenly, these pieces of property that are owned by those organizations are worth more because they don't have to go through the red tape of what the citizens want in their community. Not only does it create a privileged class, but now it creates an unprivileged class of stagnant properties that won't turn over because they're going after the ones that are easier to develop. So somebody that paid a pretty penny for a piece of property because it could be developed into something that we had planned it for suddenly now has to sit there because there are other pieces that are more wanted or easier to develop on. So a very, very valid point by Mr. Franzen. And lastly, I'm going to talk about agreements. It was in our packet. ARTICLE 1, SECTION 10 OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SAYS NO STATE SHALL ENTER INTO ANY TREATY OR LAW IMPAIRING THE OBLIGATION OF CONTRACTS, OF WHICH WE KNOW WE HAVE MANY. WE HAVE CONTRACTS WITH OUR WATER DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE CONTRACTS WITH OUR FIRE DEPARTMENTS, WE HAVE CONTRACTS WITH MANY PEOPLE TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY RUN. THIS LAW EASILY IMPAIRS WITH THOSE CONTRACTS. AGAIN, I URGE A YES VOTE ON THIS. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ORDINANCE.

I MOVE TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 1.675 ON SECOND READING.

Second. I have a motion from Hefta and a second from Franzen. Mr. Hendricks? Yes. Ms. Barrington? Yes. Ms. Wilkes? Aye. Mr. Dyak? Yes. Mr. Franzen? Yes.

Ms. Hefta?

Yes. And that proudly passes unanimously. With no further business for this council, we are adjourned at 8.01 PM. Thank you, and good evening.