Left Hand Valley Courier - All Local, All The Time

Burgundy Park clarification

 

October 26, 2017



*Editor’s note:

Last week’s article concerning the Public Improvement District ballot measure in the Burgundy Park subdivision included some information that was not completely clear. The source quoted in the article notified the Courier of these discrepancies and offered the following Letter to the Editor to clarify what Burgundy Park residents are voting on next month. 

The article’s wording is a bit unclear about the PID and state statutes,  here is a more clear statement: Colorado state statutes do in fact define what a PID is, how it is created, how it is managed, etc.  Part of this is that once formed, a PID is entirely controlled by the County Commissioners and thus homeowners within the PID must trust that the Commissioners will manage the PID well.  

Early-on in this process we (Burgundy Park) had a misunderstanding that if homeowners became dissatisfied with how the PID is managed we could go to the State for help – this is untrue,  our only recourse would be to ask the County Commissioners to address our concerns or file a lawsuit against the PID as provided for in the state statutes. 

The article incorrectly states that the PID, if passed, will result in a levy of 16.597 mils paid by all registered voters residing within the district.   

The corrected statement should be: The PID if passed will result in a levy of 16.597 mils paid by all homeowners through their property tax bills

 Correction to some numbers:   The initial reconstruction work is estimated to be $540,000,  the county will contribute 30% of this as an incentive and the balance (estimated to be about $383,600) will be loaned to the PID by the county.   

The ballot measure states that the loan is not to exceed $460,320 because it contains some safety margin relative to the cost estimates.

Initial reconstruction of the roads will begin within two years,  as early as 2018 but no later than sometime in 2019.

 The article incorrectly states what happened relative to the concern about County Commissioners changing the language of the petition.

Here’s the correct information:   The County Commissioners during the petition hearing August 15, 2017 were thinking to pass a resolution where portions of the resolution language and intent did not match the language and intent in the petition signed by the voters. 

This is one of the gray areas in the PID process – there is no statutory requirement binding the Commissioners to the specific petition language.  

Representatives for Burgundy Park homeowners present at that hearing asked the Commissioners to revise the resolution language and intent to match the petition,  and after lengthy discussion the Commissioners agreed.  

In the end the Burgundy Park representatives were appreciative and felt the results of the hearing were acceptable.

-Lance Carlson

Niwot

 

Reader Comments
(0)

 
 

Powered by ROAR Online Publication Software from Lions Light Corporation
© Copyright 2019

Rendered 03/27/2020 18:11