HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-2025 Special Study Session NotesSPECIAL STUDY SESSION NOTES CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO Hybrid - Virtual Meeting
February 10, 2025 This meeting was conducted both as a virtual meeting and hybrid, where some members of the Council or City staff were physically present at the Municipal building, and some members of the public attended in person as well. A quorum of members of Council were present in Council Chambers for this session.
The Mayor explained the virtual/hybrid meeting format, how citizens will have the opportunity to be heard, and the procedures and policies to be followed.
1. Call to Order
Mayor Starker called the Special Study Session to order at 8:04 p.m., following a
Regular Meeting of City Council.
2. Attendance
Council Members present: Jenny Snell, Rachel Hultin, Janeece Hoppe, Amanda
Weaver, Korey Stites, Dan Larson, Leah Dozeman and Scott Ohm.
Absent: None.
Also present: City Manager Patrick Goff, Deputy City Manager Allison Scheck, City
Attorney Jerry Dahl: Senior Deputy City Clerk Margy Greer, and other staff and
interested residents.
3. Public’s Right to Speak
None.
4. Legacy Metropolitan District Nos 1-12 Service Plan
City Manager Patrick Goff introduced this item to City Council.
Issue: The City received a draft Service Plan for the Legacy Metropolitan District Nos. 1-
12 (collectively, the “Districts”) on January 27, 2025, for approximately 100 acres of
property comprised of the former Lutheran Medical Center campus (the “Property”). The
purpose of the Districts will be to provide all or a portion of public improvements for the
benefit of the residents and taxpayers located within the boundaries of the Districts. Cost
of public improvements is estimated at $99 million. The Service Plan would allow for a
maximum debt of $110 million and a maximum debt mill levy of 67 mills for up to 40 years.
The proposed Service Plan describes and sets forth those powers and authorities the
Districts shall have as allowed by Colorado law. The exercise of such powers, however,
will at all times be governed by and subject to the terms of an IGA between the City and
the Districts. State law allows local governments to exert significant control over the
organization and operation of special districts. The service plan approval process is the
key to exercising that control.
Goff introduced Megan Murphy from White Bear Ankele Tanaka & Waldron, who
prepared the service plan. Murphy gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the service
plan which included information stating that Lutheran Legacy Campus’ request for
Council’s approval of the service plan; district boundaries, Districts No. 1-6 which
encompass the proposed phases of the project; District No. 7-12 are being held in reserve
for further expansion; the vicinity map, the IGA between the Districts and the City of Wheat
Ridge, the purpose of metropolitan districts, the debit issuance, cost of public
improvements, maximum debt mill levy and the debit mill levy imposition term. She
explained the disclosure of districts to future residents of the plan area and the benefits
to the city of approving the service plan.
Goff stated that there was a requirement to send notification of the proposed plan to the
residents of the plan area as well as surrounding property owners. He asked the plan
provider to send out another letter clarifying to those residents outside of the plan area
that the letter is for notification purposes only and they do not need to take action.
Council Comments
Council Member Weaver asked for clarification on Districts No. 5 and 6. Murphy stated
that they are existing medical buildings which plan to stay on the property. Murphy stated
it is not known at this time how much they will participate in the underlying infrastructure.
Council Member Larson stated that the documents show the mill levy at 67 for the special
district and the county assessor has it at 87.6 mil for the existing property. He asked for
an explanation of the difference. Murphy showed the Financial Terms of the Service Plan
from the PowerPoint presentation explaining the adjusted mill levy.
Council Member Dozeman asked if it was usual for the property owner to ask for the
creation of the special districts rather than the developer. Goff stated that they usually
want to get these items in place as soon as possible, so the developer can move forward.
He stated that one developer will oversee and eventually sell off parcels to other
developers.
Council Member Hoppe stated it was the home builders’ responsibility to inform new
home buyers that there is a metro district involved. She asked if there a specific requirement that the City could add so that home buyers are aware of the special district when they purchase. Murphy stated that one city requires that the notice be printed on a different color paper and conspicuously posted in the sales trailers. A new state law
requires that the seller must show the calculation of the taxes of a new home to the
buyer who must sign off on it as part of their seller/buyer agreement. Goff stated that we could add some information on the disclosure portion of the service plan agreement. Mayor Starker asked how the voting rights of the districts is allocated. Murphy
explained that metro districts are required to have elections every two years. In order to vote in the metro district, you must be registered to vote in the State of Colorado, live within the boundary of their own property within the boundary of the district (as an
individual, not a company). Each property owner has one vote. Votes are not based on
how much property is owned by one person. Council Member Hultin asked what happens if someone does not pay what is owed to the metro district. Murphy explained that the money is collected through the county’s
property tax bill. 1.5% collection fee is paid for the County Treasurer to collect these
taxes. The County has the authority to foreclose after a certain period of time. The metro district does not directly collect the taxes. Council Member Dozeman asked if a metro district is dissolved, does the City have to
pick up the maintenance cost for snow removal, etc. City Attorney Jerry Dahl stated
that this is a private financial arrangement, and it is private property. There is no obligation by the City. Murphy stated that the city must approve the dissolution plan, or the plan will go to district court.
Consensus was reached to bring the service plans agreement to City Council on
February 24, 2025, for a public hearing. 5. Staff Report(s)
None.
6. Elected Officials’ Report(s)
None.
7. Adjournment
With no further business to come before Council, Mayor Starker adjourned the meeting
at 8:40 p.m.
_________________________________
Margy Greer, Senior Deputy City Clerk
_________________________________
Korey Stites, Mayor Pro Tem