Now or Never

The following was origanally posted on the blog, City of Castle Pines North - Treasurer

Now or Never - 5/25 Meeting Recap

The work session began at 6 p.m. with an overview of a badly needed communications plan for the City. That being said, it will not be easy to communicate the City out of the bad feeling that was generated later in the evening. Perhaps if there had been communication with the community prior to actions taken there would not have been such anger displayed. Now, it is what it is.

Next up was a review of the Metro District's water plan by recently retired District Manager Jim McGrady. Jim has been hired by the City to write a report on the now fading notion of integration between the City and the District. One audience member asked if it was true that potable water would be stored in Rueter Hess Reservoir. McGrady replied that every drop of water stored in Rueter Hess will be treated or pre-treated before being stored in the reservoir. He explained water the District owns that will come from the interconnect pipeline from Highlands Ranch is high quality water that goes through conventional treatment. Water the District owns that will come from agriculture north of Barr Lake is low quality water that must be at least pre-treated, and may have to pass through more rigorous and more expensive reverse osmosis treatment. McGrady said efforts will be made to use as much of the high quality potable water as possible for use by the community before storing it in Reuter Hess. McGrady also mentioned water from the Wise Partnership between Denver Water, Aurora, and S. Metro Water Supply Authority may also come into play, once those discussions are completed and agreements can be inked. (I'd like to add that Rueter Hess is the first reservoir on the Front Range to pass muster with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Due to its considerable size, it took twenty-three years to permit this facility. The regulations for use of the facility are exacting, and there will be further discussion as the facility comes on line in 2012.)

The actual council meeting began at 7, and consisted of a long review of components of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) juggernaut, with a very long and detailed response by the URA consultant to letters from Douglas County government and Dan Danser, attornery for the Happy Canyon HOA. This included fantasies about what the economy may bring to the area twenty-five and forty-fve years from now. The discussion did make the case that the effort does comply with current state law (which will be changed on Tuesday, at which time this practice is illegal). The City attorney said Courts will not review this legislative decision of the Council unless there is bad faith or fraud. The consultant pointed out there are 79 parcels that may be impacted by the action, and opined that at least four of eleven items of blight are in evidence somewhere within the boundaries of the proposal.

Public comment was not just negative. It was angry.

a) The URA was not adequately explained to the people of the community. This was mentioned by many speakers. I believe that is gospel truth, no doubt about it.

b) Speakers said there was not adequate notice of the meeting. It is true the council schedules meetings I know nothing about, and I've known when they were meeting, but not where. However, I think it has been easy to understand Council was going to pass this URA measure on May 25th for a at least a month.

c) Citizens said there was a rush to judgement to pass the measure before a law just passed by the legislature outlawed the practice. Oh sure, I believe that is withoug doubt also true.

d) About the URA, a real estate broker said said, "We don't want box stores. We want something nice." (Sadly, box stores are likely the only thing that will make sense for the large commercial area west of I-25 at Castle Pines Parkway.)

e) The fire departments in the area sent their attorney to ask for a written agreement to lessen the impact of the URA on their revenues and operations. These agreements will be addressed at the next council meeting.

f) A resident spoke to how zoning efforts are inconsistent and the URA blights areas due to the desire for private development.

g) The County government sent its representative to state its opposition to the greenfield development contemplated by the URA, stating there were inadequate and inaccurate estimates of impacts to the County and other stakeholders.

h) The President of the Happy Canyon HOA read a letter from their attorney. It sounded to me like they are setting a foundation for possible litigation.

i) Another resident opined that Wal*Mart is not a community benefit. She said, "We don't want to be Highlands Ranch."

j) It a fit of honestly, one resident said simply, "I don't feel I know enough to talk about the plan." He went on to point out that a twenty-five year plan will impact a lot of citizens, and so the process of consideration should be more deliberative. He said, "Let's not start a Civil War".

k) The Library district opined that the URA will deprive the library district of needed resources to operate a library in Castle Pines North.

l) Resident Scott Landley was the most steamed about the entire matter. He pointed out that neither the URA consultant nor the City's attorney know the answers to questions being raised. He pointed out that nowhere in the literature does it say how this move will help homeowners. (Later in the evening, Mayor Huff, who courageously and quite rightly voted no on the matter, gave the only cogent explanation of how the URA could in fact help homeowners. Of course that help is years and years and years away. Our grandkids will know if this is a good move.)

m) One citizen asked if the taxes that were going to be called fees would be like the taxes that are called fees at Park Meadows Mall.

n) Another citizen opined the rush to judgement was about including the ag lands. She pointed out the first meeting on this matter was held after a bill was introduced in the legislature to outlaw the practice. She pointed out notice was posted to approve the matter five days before the Urban Renewal Authority was even created.

o) A resident read a letter into the record from the former City Councilmembers in support of the matter. It said that even if you don't trust elected officials, they should still govern.

p) A Metro District board member opined that development will occur without special considerations. He said the discussion did not speak to the importance of open space and parks. He said the area was rural in nature, and asked that they please not put high rise buildings on the land. He asked why weren't impacts to the Metro District listed in the analysis of the URA. (Mayor Huff later mentioned that the Metro District attorney was included in discussions, and felt impacts to the District were minimal.) He said, "We don't want high growth/high density development".

q) The Metro District President asked Council to vote no on this measure. He pointed out that if you vote yes without the trust of citizens, you'll live to regret it.

r) A resident read language from Resolution 1046 Part 4, section (B) indicating that with a yes vote the Council was declaring Castle Pines North to have a shortage of safe and adequate housing now existing in the City, and worse. (This finding is of course less than laughable. One Councilmember opined not to take the word "blight" too seriously. It's just a word they have to use.)

s) The former President of the Master Association pointed out the deadlines imposed by the legislature were only about the ag areas, as the rest of CPN could develop a URA at any time, even in the wake of the state law that goes into effect next Tuesday. She said the only property with "defective title" is The Canyons. She said there have not been adequate stakeholder meetings with citizens.

t) The attorney for The Canyons then said they were for it. HOA negotiations will continue, regardless of the URA vote.

(This last comment by the attorney is important. If the contract between The Canyons and the Happy Canyon and Pinery HOAs can be renegotiated to accommodate the commerical zoning for The Canyons recently approved by the City of Castle Pines North, the annexation agreement includes a provision whereby the city receives an additional payment from The Canyons of around $750,000. The matter regarding renegotiation of the contract is now in arbitration, but talks are reported to not be making much progress. I see this as an opportunity for the HOA to negotiate renewable water and wastewater from The Canyons, while the HOA does not want urban sprawl. Regardless of what I believe, it's none of my business. Those two parties should be allowed to work out their relationship amongst themeselves. With last night's approval of the URA, there is the perception that the City could condemn the property covered by the URA, thereby setting aside the contract that was negotiated by The Canyons and the HOAs. In that event the zoning would happen and the City would get the money from the developer. This was not greatly discussed as part of the URA conversation, as best I know. In 2004, state representative Mike May got a bill passed that greatly reduces the power of eminent domain (condemnation) by URAs. That's all I know. I guess we'll find out the rest soon enough.)

The Council then voted 5 to 1 to declare the City of Castle Pines north blighted and approve the URA. In casting the dissenting vote, Mayor Jeff Huff pointed out that while there were some merits to the notion, the State legislature was quite clear on intent in this matter. He also expressed reservation about applying the URA to the ag lands. He knew why he was voting no. I'll offer the following specualtion on the yes votes, based upon what I saw. It appeared to me that one of the yes votes knew why they were voting yes. They could be right. I don't understand the matter, and I don't know what the future is. Maybe they are exactly correct. I don't know. It appeared to me one vote thought they understood the matter, but their questions revealed they did not truly get it. One vote was almost a no, because this matter just dusted up since they came to sit on council, and it was likely too much to absorb in too short a time - for anyone. It was like they wanted to abstain. But when you sit on Council you have two choices - Yes or No. They went with Yes. It appeared to me there were two yes votes because of ideology as opposed to specific knowledge of the issue. The matter should have been deferred until there was more discussion and more understanding. Because the state law goes into effect on Tuesday, last night was now or never.

The agreements with the fire departments and others came up next on the agenda, but due to the lateness of the hour that matter was deferred to the next meeting.

They were getting ready to consider the contract to hire the HOA management firm to do our financial accounting when 10:30 struck. I had to depart to pick up my daughter from a last day of high school party. It was a fascinating four and one-half hour lesson in micro government.

Power Politics in Castle Pines North

After the demotion of the CPN City Treasurer, which was extensively reported on in the last edition of the Castle Pines Connection, recent inquiries have revealed that the City owes over $1,500,000 to various entities, most of it in contractual obligations to consulting firms and lawyers.

In an effort to obtain desperately needed funds, the City recently requested jurisdiction over the local water provider, the CPN Metro District. The District is funded by your tax dollars. The City’s plan would divert tax revenues needed for water to other municipal uses and transfer management of our local parks to a multinational corporation.

A July 14 letter from the mayor to the District requested the “incremental integration of services and functions of the District within the City.” Much like a python eats a pig, the City plans to swallow the District whole and digest it bit by bit.

In evaluating the City’s ability to wisely manage the operations and revenues of the District, consider the following:

• Until June, the City was paying $160,629 per month for city management services from CH2M Hill. This amount was recently reduced to $79,124 per month. Taxpayers can applaud the cost reductions, but city expenditures were irrationally high from the outset and spending continues to exceed revenue.

• As reported in June issue of The Castle Pines Connection, City Council "stripped the city treasurer of virtually all power" and appointed a deputy treasurer citing “a lack of confidence in financial disclosure and transparency.”

• Four former members of the CPN Master Association, now city officials, authorized a loan of $200,000 from the public funds of the Master Homeowners Association. Those same individuals now resist paying the balance of the money back despite earlier public promises to do so.

• The City has enacted 12 ordinances which require the payment of a fee or tax. This occurred after campaign promises of “no new property taxes for any CPN resident.”

I have confidence that the CPN Metro District can responsibly manage water resources, provide renewable water for the future, and manage our parks and open space. Until the City lives up to its promise of transparency in government and demonstrates some measure of fiscal responsibility, I cannot advocate the transfer of millions of dollars of tax revenues from the District to the City.

CPN Debate Heats Up

My previous post, "When is a Tax Increase Not a Tax Increase?...Only in Castle Pines North" has generated a number of comments. One particularly pertinent exchange is reprinted here.

Anonymous said...
Too bad your interpretation does not agree with the Colorado Supreme Court, which is clear that Questions 2D and 2E are NOT tax increases. Doug Bruce tried to convince the Court of your interpretation and was told by that he was legally off base and wrong. After that he went on to kick reporters!

Jeffrey Huff said...
The Colorado Supreme Court has never rendered an opinion on 2D or 2E. The 2006 case you refer to, "Bruce v. Colorado Springs," dealt with a different set of facts. The court attempted to resolve whether a “tax extension” is a “tax increase” in the context of TABOR.

In that case the court found that the issue did not "substantively change the existing sales and use tax OR ITS PROPOSED USE OF THE REVENUE." While the extension lengthened the time period of the tax, it directed the tax revenue to the SAME EXPENDITURES approved by the voters in the original ballot proposal.

The dissenting opinion of Justice Coats noted, "I believe the plain and ordinary meaning of the term “tax increase,” in context, must include the “extension of an expiring tax,” and that the clear intent of TABOR is not only to require voter approval for such an extension but also to PROVIDE THE VOTERS SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO MAKE A RATIONAL CHOICE."

The tax measure proposed here in CPN anticipates a new tax levied by the City with a corresponding offset from an expiring tax from the Metro District. The ballot question in Colorado Springs clearly noted that the issue involved a "tax extension" while the CPN ballot language does not. I believe the Colorado Supreme Court could reach an entirtely different conclusion under these circumstances.

Anonymous said...
The logic you use to say this is a tax increase bases itself on whether there is a continuation of a tax. Sure seems like an extension to me. BTW dissenting opinions are not law. The majority of the court said that questions like 2D ad 2E are NOT tax increases. That is the law of the land. Is that not binding on this group?

Jeffrey Huff said...
Yes, dissenting opinions are not law. But they are the basis for measuring the commitment of a court's opinion to a particular view. The dissenting opinion may rise to majority status with the election of new judges or the application of the same principles to a new set of facts.

The majority of the Court in the Colorado Springs case ruled on the facts of that case alone. Certainly, you can argue that the same rational should be applied here in CPN. However, 2D and 2E present an entirely different set of facts and courts may interpret the constitutional requirements differently.

Finally, the law of the land applies to all who live under its jurisdiction. I write for myself and my readers, not a group. My opinions are mine alone, not those of any organization, PAC, or government entity. Ronald Reagan said, "Don't be afraid to see what you see." Citizens of CPN should heed his advice.

When is a Tax Increase Not a Tax Increase?...Only in Castle Pines North

The posting by Lisa Crockett on the CPN website and reprinted in Castle Pines Connection, "City Asks Voters to Consider Re-worded Ballot Questions," emphatically states seven times that the CPN ballot issues will result in "no increase in property taxes!"

The article attempts to portray the new tax measures as simply technical corrections. Voters should be aware that ballot questions 2D and 2E potentially extend current taxes beyond their current expiration. As such, residents will spend more tax dollars in the future to fund city services. That, my friends is a new and additional tax and the first line of the Ballot Question tells you so.


A copy of the article follows. I have added my comments and corrections in red.

City Asks Voters to Reconsider Re-worded Ballot Question
by Lisa Crockett

When residents of Castle Pines North (CPN) voted last November to incorporate, they also overwhelmingly (68% for, 32% against) passed three tax questions – one sales tax and two property taxes. Each of the property tax questions on the ballot last year simply transferred existing taxes to the new city. As a result, CPN became a city and there was no increase in property tax. The 2007 ballot questions did not simply transfer existing taxes. Ballot Question 2E was devised to allow the City to implement a new permanent property tax if the CPN Metro District would lower their mill levy under the notion that the CPN Metro District had excess revenues in their operating budget.

Now, the City of CPN is asking voters to approve a change to correct some technical issues in the original ballot question from November 2007. According to the city, the re-wording of Question 2E from last year will not increase taxes to CPN homeowners. City officials say it involves two technical corrections to the previous tax question related to the transfer of up to 19 mills from the CPN Metro District to the city. The first “technical issue” arose when City officials discovered no revenue could be transferred from the District’s operating mill levy without impairing the bonding capacity of the District. The other “technical issue” was that the Election Commission mandated that any integration of the mill levies leave the community’s renewable water efforts intact. The Commission decided to limit use of the transferred money to water and sanitation services.

“As the new city has come to life, elected city officials have worked to implement the tax questions under the Colorado taxation system,” said CPN Treasurer Doug Gilbert. “Through the implementation process, several issues with the wording of Question 2E – which appeared on the last election’s ballot – as passed by the voters have come to light. As originally approved, Question 2E allows transfer of up to 19 mills from the CPN Metro District operating fund to the city to be used only for water and sanitation.” The limitation on water and sanitation was a safeguard implemented by the Election Commission to prevent the City from redirecting tax revenues intended for renewable water to general city services.

The original text of Question 2E was drafted by the CPN Election Commission in 2007 with the help of attorneys for the incorporation effort.

During the past few months, representatives of the city and the two Metro Districts (CPN Metro District and the Hidden Pointe Metro District) have been in discussions regarding the mechanics of sharing all or part of the 19 mills that was part of the original ballot Question 2E from 2007. According to Gilbert, sharing of funds between the city and the Metro District would allow for lower cost of government through integrated public services with no increase in property taxes. The City’s proposed budget for 2009 includes $2,479,000 of new taxes and $465,000 in fees, most of which go to pay for consultants and attorneys. The City plans to fund these new expenditures with the existing sales tax and a new 9.5 mill property tax that permanently extends our property tax rate in the future.

“Through the better understanding provided by the collaboration of the city and the Metro Districts, it has become apparent that the original Question 2E from last year was too narrowly written,” said Gilbert. It may be too narrow for the City Treasurer, but for citizens concerned about runaway taxation and future water supplies, Question 2E held future city officials accountable.

The CPN Metro District does not want to transfer mills that would reduce its operating fund to the city, but suggested the possibility of transferring some of the 24 mills from its debt repayment program without impacting its ability to meet all of its current debt obligations. According to Gilbert, the CPN Metro District has asked for more flexibility in how the transfer mechanism was structured. Gilbert says all of the safeguards of the original ballot question Question 2E remain. “It is simply a discussion of how best to structure revenue-sharing,” Gilbert said. However, the Metro District has serious concerns about this approach. See the September 22 letter from Metro District attorney John Hayes to City Attorney Smith. The letter is posted at http://www.cpnhomeowners.blogspot.com/ Without the City’s revenue-sharing initiative, residents could expect a lower tax rate to come into effect when the first of the District’s bonds are paid off in 2013.

“This is a critical issue to our community, and the District Board is looking at it carefully before taking any position,” said CPN Metro District Board President Bill Santos. “Ever since the CPN bankruptcy, [which occurred in the early 1980s], the Metro District has worked diligently to develop strong financials and reduce long-term debt. We have to balance the importance of helping to fund city operations with the importance of creating a renewable water solution. Working with the city to fund operations only makes sense, in my mind, if it can be done in a way that does not impact our ability to finance our water solution, which is a fundamental responsibility of the Metro District.”

According to Gilbert, the Metro District and other city interests should work together, not against each other.

“The future of CPN is not only an issue of renewable water.” said Gilbert. “Instead, the city must achieve a viable economy through the tools of a new city and renewable water. If renewable water were enough, Sheridan, Colorado, would be a prime example of a robust economy. Despite having renewable water, a place like Sheridan suffers a blighted economy because of lack of economic development. We must achieve both goals through integration of the city and Metro District services and finances.”

In order to correct the original language of last year’s ballot question 2E, the City Council has referred two tax questions for the November 2008 ballot. The first question, 2D, is a correction to last year’s ballot question and would allow the city to take over a mill levy equal to any reduction in mill levy by the CPN Metro District to be used for general purposes. It is not an increase in property taxes. The new ballot questions are not “corrections.” They are newly proposed laws that expand the powers and funding sources of the City far beyond what was passed in 2007.

The second question on the November 2008 ballot, 2E, would allow the city to collect, retain and spend those property taxes (mill levy) that would be relinquished by the Metro District, and various other taxes such as park fees, water tap fees, facility fees, service charges, inspection charges, administrative charges and grants, etc. This question also is not an increase in property taxes. Evidently, it is not a tax if you call it a fee or a charge. Ballot proponents like the CPN Master Association, city officials and writer Lisa Crockett must feel that if you say “it is not an increase in property taxes” enough times, some people will begin to believe it.

According to city officials, the language of the questions was developed with the input and agreement of the city and the CPN Metro District, as well as bond financing attorneys. “The language changes are seen as very important to allow integrated public services and to ensure that renewable water funds are available,” said Mayor Maureen Shul.

City officials say these ballot questions will NOT increase property taxes (mill levys.) The maximum mill levy remains the same, as does the requirement that the CPN Metro District first reduce its mill assessment before the City can assess the equivalent or lesser amount of mills. The amount of the mill levy does not change, but the time over which it is implemented is extended indefinitely. If residents vote to extend a tax that would otherwise expire, they will spend more dollars on taxes. That is a tax increase!

“The wording of the new questions clearly indicates that there is absolutely no increase in the tax rate,” said Shul. The mayor chooses to focus on the tax rate. She knows quite well that if voters understand that there an increase in tax duration, they may choose to vote against 2D and 2E.

CPN Discusses Ballot Questions

On Sunday, the "CPN Homeowners for a Solid Foundation" hosted a citizen meeting for citizens to hear a presentation on upcoming community ballot questions. The presentation covered the Castle Pines North renewable water challenges, how the ballot questions will impact the ability of the community to fund sustainable water supplies, and other tax implications of the CPN ballot issues.

For complete coverage of the story, click here.

Castle Pines North to Host Candidate Forum

The City of Castle Pines North will host a Candidate Forum on Tuesday, October 7, at 7 p.m. at the CPN Community Center, 7404 Yorkshire Drive. Participating in the forum are U.S. Congressional candidate Mike Coffman, State Senate candidate Mark Sheffel, Colorado House candidate Carole Murray and County Commissioner candidates Steve Boand and Jill Repella.

Castle Pines North: A New Website and a New Blog

The City of Castle Pines North announced it's new website to residents via email today. The site promoted a series of "planned financial forums" that will feature a review of the City’s 2008 budget, a presentation of the 2009 budget and an opportunity for citizens to ask questions.

Alternatively, a local citizen organization, CPN Homeowners for a Solid Foundation, launched it's blog yesterday. Citing proposed higher taxes and a reallocation of funds away from water projects, the blog urges taxpayers to "vote no" on City sponsored ballot initiatives.

Links to each site can be found below.

http://www.cpngov.com

http://cpnhomeowners.blogspot.com/

American Academy and DC School District to Present Opposing Views

Tonight, CPN City Council will hold a public hearing on the rezoning application for the proposed Lagae Development in Castle Pines North. A dispute has arisen between the Douglas County School District and the proponents of the American Academy charter school who hope to build on the site. The District and the Lagae developer, who is donating land to American Academy, disagree over how much money and land the developer will "dedicate" to the school district for the impact of the new homes he is proposing.

On August 22, Douglas County Schools Chief Operating Officer, Steven Herzog sent a letter to Mayor Maureen Shul of CPN objecting to the City's staff report recommending approval of the rezoning application for the Lagae development. The application provided in part for the developer to dedicate land for the construction of the American Academy charter school. The text of Herzog's letter can be read here:
http://www.americanacademyk8.org/aastaffhome/BOD/downloads/LettertoCPNMayor8-22-08.pdf

In addition, the School District distributed it's position through a memo to parents of Buffalo Ridge and Timber Trail elementary schools. The memo can be found here:
http://www.americanacademyk8.org/aastaffhome/BOD/downloads/LettertoCPNFamilies8-26-08.pdf

Representatives of the American Academy refute what they feel are inaccuracies in the District's communications to the public. They prepared a point by point response to the District's concerns which can be reviewed here:
http://www.americanacademyk8.org/aastaffhome/BOD/downloads/LettertoCPNFamilies8-26-08AAResponse.pdf

The District's stated concerns focus on the issue of overcrowding in the public schools. For me, the District's attempt to link the approval of the Lagae rezoning and the American Academy School to overcrowding in the District's existing facilities is unpersuasive. The DCSD Board has decided to place a $395 million bond and $17 million override measure on the November 4, 2008 ballot. The Board is asking Douglas County voters to approve a fixed 4 mil tax increase to provide much needed funding. Successful passage of this bond issue will help alleviate overcrowding in the public schools, not lobbying our representatives to deny private development.

For the reader who is interested in additional information, the City of Castle Pines North will be holding a hearing on the issue at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 27 at the Castle Pines North Community Center.

City Opposes T-Mobile Cell Site

A cell tower proposed for the corner of Monarch and Daniels Gate was recently denied by the City of Castle Pines North. "The site was designed to provide vastly improved coverage to the residents and Emergency 911 needs of T-Mobile subscribers in northern Castle Pines North," said Matt Butler, Senior Project Manager for T-Mobile.

The City Attorney, relying on a 20-year old document known as the Castle Pines North Development Guide, stated in a letter to City Planner, Sam Bishop that "a cell tower is not a permitted use in the Open Space under the Castle Pines North Development Guide." The City Attorney's letter went on to explain that "facilities of a public utility" are distinct from "utilities services and facilities."

Castle Pines North Metropolitan District Manager, Jim McGrady explained the proposal at the District's monthly meeting on Monday. The cell tower, disguised as a street light, was to have been installed in the right-of-way with underground cabling to a nearby well site. T-Mobile was prepared to substantially improve the well site by adding landscaping, a stone veneer wall and paving the entry to the site. Now it appears these improvements will have to wait, along with the improved phone service.

The City Attorney's narrow reading of the Development Guide may have cost the community an opportunity to improve it's notoriously poor cell phone coverage. Instead of relying on legal nuances in outdated documents, this community would be better served by public officials who found ways to get things accomplished.

Castle Pines North at Important Crossroads (Again)

The City of Castle Pines North will face several key hurdles in the coming weeks. The newly incorporated city has been scrambling to fill a $2 million revenue shortfall. On July 21, City officials suddenly found that anticipated revenues would not be available to the City from the existing mill levy assessed by the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District. Those revenues had been previously pledged to lending institutions by the District in order to secure water storage in the Reuter-Hess Reservoir.

According to CPN Metro District manager, Jim McGrady, transferring the District's mill levy to the City would leave the District too constrained for bonding capacity.

Since then, the City has been discussing alternative financing plans with the District's financial manager and board members. Under consideration is a proposal to have the CPNMD reduce the mill levy currently used by the District to pay down debt. The City would then assess a similar tax to fund it's own operations. This approach would appease City officials who were elected on a "no new taxes" platform. However, it would postpone the defeasance of Metro District bonds. These bonds were scheduled to be retired beginning in 2013, resulting in a lower tax rate to the citizens of CPN. The tax would be picked up by the City and assessed "in perpetuity" to fund City operations. Under this plan, lower taxes for CPN seem a remote possibility.

On July 29, City officials and consultants from CH2M Hill met with members of the CPN Metro District and the Hidden Pointe Metro District, both of which operate within the boundaries of the City. Board members from both Metro Districts questioned representatives from CH2M Hill and the City Treasurer, Doug Gilbert on the accuracy of figures presented in the feasibility study used to promote the incorporation effort. Many board members were skeptical of the consultant's answers, and some viewed the City's efforts to capture Metro District revenues as detrimental to the pursuit of renewable water.

CPNMD board members may soon vote on whether or not to reduce the District's mill levy to allow the City to move forward with it's own tax assessment. In any event, voters can expect to see one or more ballot questions proposed by the City to secure tax revenues to fund City operations. City officials will be faced with the prospect of floating another tax measure with little funds in the coffer to promote it.