TRIVIEW METROPOLITAN DISTRICT

Attendance 

The regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Triview Metropolitan District was called and held as shown above in accordance with the applicable statutes of the State of Colorado.  The following Directors, having confirmed their continued qualification to serve on the Board were in attendance:

Steve Cox 

Robert Eskridge 

Robert Fisher 

Julie Glenn 

Steve Remington 

Also present were Ron Simpson, Acting District Manager, Triview Metropolitan District, Dale Hill, District Administrator, Steve Sheffield, District Operations Manager; Pete Susemihl, Susemihl, McDermott & Cowan, P.C.; Will Kroger, Nolte Engineering; Cathy Green, Monument Town Manager; Mike Hussey, Nolte; Joe Martin, past Board Member; Mark Veenendaal, past Board Member; Craig and Beryl Glass, residents; Stan Keninger and Jim DiBiase, Fairfield Inn and John Heiser, OCN.

Call to Order & Quorum

President Robert Eskridge noted that a quorum of the Board was present and that the Directors had confirmed their continuing qualification to serve, and therefore called the regular meeting of the Board of Directors of the Triview Metropolitan District to order at 5:06 pm.  

Notice & Posting 

It was noted that the Meeting was properly noticed and posted. 

Recognition of Past Board Members 

Executive

Session 

Approval of Minutes

President Robert Eskridge recognized Mark Veenendaal for his service on the Board of Directors from October of 2007 to May of 2008 by giving his time and efforts for the betterment of the District and presented him with a commemorative plaque.  

Mr. Eskridge then called on Joe Martin to recognize his service to the District by being on the Board from October of 2004 to May of 2008 and providing guidance for a substantial amount of time.  He was also presented with a commemorative plaque acknowledging his contribution.  

Mr. Simpson noted that there will be an Executive Session that was not included on the Agenda. 

The minutes of the May 27, 2008 Meetings were considered.  Steve Remington pointed out that the Board had recognized the contribution and service of the previous Board Members at the last Meeting.  Upon a motion by Steve Remington and a second by Steve Cox, the Minutes were unanimously approved.  

Public Comment 

Landscape Plan for  

Misty Creek 

Town of Monument  

Draft M.O.U. 

Administrator’s 

Report 

Mr. Glass is a resident of Academy View, a member of the HOA and its past President.  The HOA wants to express concerns on the inadequate level of maintenance of the parks, open space and landscape areas within Academy view and the need to replace street signs.   The Glasses have lived in Triview for 3 ½ years and has had previous meetings with Mr. Simpson and Larry Bishop on some of these matters.  He stated he has found Triview to be very responsive but it is the ongoing maintenance that is the problem.  There needs to be a solution to the under-watering and replacement issues.

The first question involves responsibility for the maintenance.  Steve Sheffield, Triview’s Operation Manager responded by pointed out that the irrigation is being handled by Triview through a maintenance contract.  The irrigation well has gone down which hurt the situation.  Some of the issues involve J2 Development and met with little success.  The approved plan has not been followed.  Mr. Glass says that the watering and maintenance is cyclical and not adequate.  Mr. Sheffield said that he would follow through with on the matters raised and try to correct the situation.  Mr. Eskridge and Mrs. Glenn expressed concern about the trees along Lyons Tail.  Mr. Sheffield stated that we replace as many trees as we can allocate to that area each year.  

Mr. Glass requested that Triview deal with the Developer and get things corrected.  Mr. Simpson said that there are some irrigation lines that have not been installed as they should have been; however, the responsibility will lie with Triview as it is not productive to keep passing the buck.  Mr. Simpson requested that it would be helpful if the HOA would prioritize the issues and we will estimate the costs for each.  If it will help, Mr. Simpson and Mr. Sheffield will be glad to meet with the HOA and produce an action program.  Mr. Eskridge agreed that Triview will have to figure out how to resolve these issues.  Mr. Sheffield pointed out that on the fencing, J2 has installed what they were required to and the rest is on the homeowners.  The matter of the vacant lots is something Triview can not enforce.  Mrs. Glenn pointed that the Town can enforce weed control.  Ms. Green stated that the Town now has a code enforcement program and that issue can be addressed accordingly.  The area within the PMJM is being addressed with the developer and the Federal Agencies.  

Mr. Simpson responded to the matter of the signs and posts are Triview’s responsibility and a change in the size is being considered as possible remedy.  The lights at the entrance were not, as far as we know, part of the approved plan.  Mr. Simpson suggested that the HOA and District sit down and go through each item, prioritize the effort, produce cost estimates and develop an action plan for this area.  Mr. Glass thanked the Board and Mr. Eskridge thanked Mr. Glass for bringing this to the Boards’ attention.

Mr. Simpson introduced Mike Hussey, Landscape Architect with Nolte & Associates.  Mr. Hussey presented the previous plan and described what was included at that time.  A preliminary plan was produced in 1999 and described the elements that were included at that time.  Extensive channel treatment to maintain the flow in a lined channel and keep as much of the pond as dry as possible.  There was a half basketball court with perimeter tree plantings.  Some of the trees survived, but most did not.  In the northwest corner of the site a seating area was proposed.  This included benches with and without backs, trash receptacles’ and picnic tables.  There was a sidewalk and paving treatments.  

One alternative was to sod and the other to seed including erosion control mats. A product that was called “stay-turf” was also examined that was a hybrid product.  There were 44 trees of various varieties shown and an irrigation system to be installed.  There is some drip irrigation was installed on the periphery and various segments are working and some not.  In 1999 dollars, the sod alternative had a $126,000 estimate and the seed was at $96,000.  In today’s dollars, it is probably at least 50% more.  Mr. Hussey responded to a question that this equates to between $130,000 and $200,000 and asked for comments from the Board.

Mr. Simpson responded to Mrs. Glenn saying the concern relative to Baptist Road was to ensure the pond still functioned for detention and drained appropriately.  Mr. Hussey pointed out the two inlets.  Mr. Simpson said that the theory is that it is a detention pond that could fill and slowly release to the drainage on Baptist Road.  The purpose needs to be respected in whatever is done with the site.  Previously, the half-court caused concern about noise and lighting.  Except for the channels and the purpose of detention, nothing in the previous plan has to be retained.  Responding to Mr. Fisher, Mr. Simpson said there will be trash pickup after a significant storm event.  Mrs. Glenn said that the neighborhood has waited a long time for this to be completed.  Mr. Martin said that people living next to the area had concern about the time of use of the half-court and any lighting there.  He said he liked the idea of the half-court but would like to see an option without the half-court.  He inquired as to elevating the court area to create an island and try to get more neighborhood input.  Mr. Martin raised the prospect of a pavilion and Mrs. Glenn said we need something for the older children and Mr. Martin said it should be a substantial backboard and rim.  Mr. Fisher asked if there are local examples of this type of facility.  Mr. Hussey said he would look for examples.

Mr. Susemihl responded that governmental entities are liable only for those thing the Legislature says they are and drainage facilities are not one of those items.  There are liability limitations of $150,000 per person and $600,000 per incident.  Mr. Martin asked about signage that warns of potential flooding and Mr. Susemihl said it does not generally help.  He does not think that a half-court increases your liability.  Mr. Simpson said there are ponds where we would not encourage use of any kind because of the depth and side slopes.  This is one of the more useable ones.  

Mr. Hussey offered to examine raising the court area.  Then there was a discussion on seeding versus sodding the pond.  Mr. Fisher raised the matter of the type of grass to be used with some of the new varieties available such as “Blue Threm” and Scotts 436 and it was agreed to research the possibilities.  Mr. Veenendaal asked about the channel and could something other than concrete be used.  Mr. Hussey stated that a small activity/exercise trail could be developed or more of an off-trail bike ramp course.   Mr. Simpson requested that if anyone has any ideas, email them to the District and we will forward them on to Mr. Hussey.

Mr. Simpson introduced Ms. Cathy Green, the Town Manager, to assist in discussing the draft Memorandum of Understanding between the Town and the District.  Ms. Green said that seven months ago the discussion started about the Town taking over everything operationally and administratively except the debt.  To do that, we need to change some of the agreements and work under a Memorandum of Understanding.  We had an attorney draw up a draft of what that might look like.  To call it a MOU is probably not as correct as to call it a list of things to do and addressed.  Realizing that there are new Board Members, we need to review the effort.  From the Town’s perspective, we are not proposing a take-over action.  The Town hears a lot of the complaints and the Town wants to make sure Triview gets the best service it can possible receive.  We think we can get rid of expenses and a lot of duplication like plan review.  There should be safe guards installed to ensure that every dime you get now remain in Triview.  This is not about getting Triview revenue and spending it outside the Triview area.  Triview needs to let the Town know if this is something it wants to do because it is going to be somewhat expensive to establish with legal work required.  We do not want to start down the path of delving into details if conceptually this is something Triview does not want to do.

Mr. Simpson stated that Triview revenues go first to debt and then goes to operations of Triview.  There are a lot of details that can be worked out, but is this what Triview thinks it should do.  This should be done through a perpetual IGA.  The point is there is an economy of scale because the Town has more personnel and equipment and capabilities.  The program can not be started and stopped once people are hired and equipment purchased. Triview was established to keep the debt with Triview.  If this was a situation without Triview, the Town would be doing everything anyway.  Mr. Simpson said he was more in favor of this occurring and the Town taking over than not.  It is a tax-saving issue to get the best bang for the buck.  Mr. Eskridge said he thinks the economy of scale should be good for both entities and we need to ensure we can handle differences as we proceed.  

Mr. Susemihl said we need to clearly delineate who is going to do what.  The IGA has to be amended.  Usually when have governmental entities involved it becomes a political issue.  If you want dispute resolution you do it through binding arbitration so you do not end up in court.  There are ways to do that.  I do not think it will be a problem if you take the time to clearly delineate the responsibilities.  Triview has to do an audit, have a budget with a hearing and the Town can do everything and may have to add someone to do billing.  The Town can have the audit completed; file election results and the other reporting requirements.  Ms. Green stated that Triview can deal directly with the Town instead of having to deal with contractors and subcontractors.  Mr. Susemihl added that Triview will eliminate the need for a manager, counsel and other costs that could save the District up to $500,000 a year.  Certain things may need mutual agreement, such as capital expenditures relating to the District.  

Mr. Fisher stated that staff was going to sit down and go through the numbers and put together a program that no one has seen yet.  Mrs. Glenn pointed out that there was suppose to be a “committee” to do that with certain people from each entity involved.  Ms. Green responded that we did sit down and spell out contracts and expenditures.  Mr. Fisher said that various numbers have been floated around and some of the costs were higher than anticipated.  There was some discussion on changing the revenue sharing to help pay off the loan and help payoff debt.  The problem is that there is a draft MOU without any numbers.  Ms. Green said that this is more of a feasibility analysis and we have to make sure we can do what is intended.  

Mr. Fisher said the draft seems to put all of the decisions with the Town and that is not what was anticipated.  Ms. Green said that this program would eliminate a lot of the operational decision the Triview Board makes and we are not trying to hide that fact.  Once the debt is paid off, the Town has to run all of it and has to know what is involved.  The Town Board has some residents of Triview.  Your responsibilities as a Board would probably be reduced to preparing a budget and completing an audit every year.  You are handing over the responsibilities to the Town.  Mr. Susemihl concurred that all that really needs to be done is to meet once a year and adopt a budget.  Mr. Fisher said he expected to see the benefits of doing this and all that has appeared is the draft MOU.  Without the supporting information, the MOU does not make sense.  Mrs. Glenn agreed and said we need to see numbers.  Mr. Simpson said we did go through what Triview is spending as it in the budget on a line-item basis. He was not sure how the Town can provide a feasibility analysis on everything.  Ms. Green stated that it can be accomplished.  It is not a decision that needs to be made tonight.  We had asked the attorney to give us the steps we had to do and it came out in the form of an MOU but it really is a list of steps that need to be completed.  What the Town is looking for is to have this discussion and for Triview to determine what it wants.  The park you discussed will be the responsibility of the Town and you will be giving up this level of detail and decision-making.  In return, you will be saving quite a bit of money that will help solve several problems.  Mrs. Glenn said that is the reason for looking at this, to get things done that are not being done now.  Ms. Green said that she believes the Town can give Triview better service for less costs because you are not paying contractor profit.  This allows paying off the debt a little bit quicker.  The Town is not an outside entity coming in and trying to take you over.  You are the Town and this process will occur eventually.  

Mr. Simpson said that this is a little different because we were saying debt is paid first and O&M gets the difference and now we are saying we are paying for O&M and what is left over goes to debt.  Mr. Fisher asked if there was any interest in a middle ground where Triview does more than meet once a year on debt.  Ms. Green said that you always have access to the Board of Trustees.  If Triview wanted some management in the process, that may acceptable.  It is the issue of the Town budgeting for personnel and equipment to operate as it needs to and Triview saying we do not want to do it this way and want to cut the budget accordingly.  The Town needs the authority to do what it needs to operate the way it needs to.  There could be quarterly meetings where you give input on parks or other systems.  Mr. Fisher said initially the thought was there is some way to mutually work together to save money rather than turn everything over to the Town.  Mr. Susemihl said you can meet as often as you want and provide input as elected officials.

Mr. Fisher said the draft MOU itself did not provide a program to get to where we thought we needed to be.  Mr. Eskridge asked what the Board’s opinion was on this.  The Board needs to see the cost benefit of this.  Mr. Susemihl stated that doing this will reduce processing costs and provide services, like code enforcement, that Triview can not do.   Mr. Fisher said our service level needs to improve but budget is a harsh reality.  There has to be something for the taxpayers in order to dissolve the potential the District has.  Responding to Mrs. Glenn, Ms. Green said she can bring the Town professionals to the next Meeting and go through how this will work and have a Special Meeting on it if need be.  The Board selected July 15 as a possible meeting date.  This meeting will be continued to that date at the Town Hall.  Ms. Green responded to Mr. Fisher that the Town is still considering the lease on the car.

Mrs. Hill reported that in the packet there is the statement of revenues and expenses through the end of April.  As of June we are starting to look better because in May we got Chase Bank and in June we got CSI’s office building and we got McDonalds.  With the Audit complete, there will be solid numbers on beginning balances.

This afternoon at 4 pm we received a request for payment on WTP”B” that is not on the Warrant Report for an additional $168,989.19 and a reduction of $3,975.  There are two resolutions on the checking account that need to be adopted with the new Board Members included on the account.  The final payment for the Audit and the landscaping for the flowers and half of the mulch are the two unusual invoices for the month.  It was moved by Steve Cox with exception of the payments on the WWTF and including the additional for WTP”B”, seconded by Julie Glenn and unanimously approved by the Board.  Mr. Simpson pointed out that Mr. Sheffield has been managing the construction of this facility from the outset.

District Engineer’s Report 

District Attorney’s Report 

District          1

Manager’s 

Report 

2 

                     3

Other Business 

Executive Session 

Additional  

Action 

Adjournment 

Mr. Koger from Nolte reported that WTPB the walls are almost complete, the filters are in and the piping is being installed.  The completion is still anticipated by the end of July.  We will come back in the fall and tie it in.  He stated that the WWTF is proceeding with the walls of the UV facility being formed and working on piping in the tanks.  

Mr. Susemihl reported that he had nothing to bring to the Board at this time.

Mr. Simpson reported on Fairfield Inn stating that originally in April of 2006 but did not start for about two years.  There have been several meetings on this matter including numerous individuals from both parties and recognized the two representatives in the audience from the Applicant.  The issue is that Triview’s Impact Fees are based upon Single Family Equivalents (SFEs) that do not relate well to Hotel/Motel uses.  Usually, this type of establishment is evaluated on a Fixture Unit basis relying upon the number of fixtures to service the use (lavatories, baths, sinks, etc).  This is an instance where the historic practice did not fit with the proposal.  We need to implement what is fair and accurate in terms of assessing the fees.  The Inn is a partially occupied private residential use that does not equate to standard commercial, office or industrial uses.  In order to resolve the matter.

Mr. Simpson recommended that Triview adopt a new section in the Standards that cover Hotel/Motel by employing a Fixture Unit basis.  Currently, our Standards allow either/or SFEs or Fixture Units.  The Applicant provided information from approximately 100 Fairfield Inns and an Engineer’s report on the fixtures required.  The report was reviewed by Nolte.  On an SFE basis a 4” tap would be required at $588,000 and on a Fixture Unit basis a 2” tap is sufficient $288,000.  Mr. Koger concurred with that the original 4” shown related to SFEs but the Fixture count equates to a 2” tap.  Mr. DiBiase, for the Applicant, stated that once the issue was raised, they went back to Fairfield Inn and asked their engineering staff to verify the calculations and requirements and they concurred with the count and the 2” size.  He added that they have to meet the requirements of their occupants or the project will not work.  Mr. Simpson added that if this proves to be incorrect, they will have to come back and pay for a larger meter and put in a larger line.  Responding to Mr. Fisher and Mrs. Glenn, Mr. Simpson said that the request is for the Board to adopt the policy that Fixture Unit basis will be applied to Hotel/Motel uses in our Standards.  Mr. Susemihl added that this clarifies the situation for future implementation.  If this standard is not adopted it seems to penalize Hotel/Motels.  It was moved by Robert Fisher, seconded by Julie Glenn and unanimously acted upon by the Board to the Water Standards basis for determining the tap size for Hotel/Motel uses to be based on a Fixture Unit count.  Mr. DiBiase expressed his appreciation of all the work Triview put into resolving this issue.

Mr. Simpson described a letter received from John Laing Homes concerning the sent them on March 15, 2007 from Triview containing the service agreement which included providing up to $2,000,000 in subordinate cash flow bonds.  They want to know how Triview plans to meet this commitment.

The other issue with this Project is that there is already a “rebate” on this property because of the Water Purchase Agreement with the previous owner. 

It amounts to $5,000 or 25% to Triview which equates to the Sanctuary agreement. Mr. Simpson proposes to respond to them that Triview can not issue any more debt and request they propose a solution.  He did talk about the possibility of them using TMD #2 as a source with a modified Service Plan to allow for water and sewer debt, if the Town agrees.  Mr. Susemihl pointed out the debt capacity may be an issue which will need a November election.

Mr. Simpson then referred the next matters to Mr. Sheffield. Mr. Sheffield reported that with the A-4 Vault in the mix, Redline came in the lowest with all three items included.  Kempton stated that they really did not have the time to deal with this now and that is why its bid is the highest.  Mr. Sheffield explained that the A-4 tie-in allows us to treat that well and resolve the iron staining issue.  Responding to Mr. Remington, Mr. Simpson said that Triview has used both Pate and Redline previously and Redline performed very well on their project.  Mr. Sheffield got a verbal commitment from Redline that the bid is the number.  He pointed out that all there firms received the same plans and specs to bid on.  Mr. Simpson said they are recommending accepting the Redline bid for all of the work.  It was moved by Steve Cox, seconded by Robert Fisher and unanimously acted upon by the Board to accept the Redline bid for the A-8 and A-4 tie-ins and the A-4 Vault.

Mr. Sheffield reported on the fact that the A-1 Well pump, motor and seal were replaced almost 13 months ago.  They were over nine years old and seven years is the life expectancy.  On Saturday morning the Well went out and AmWest, the installer, is pulling it now and a motor is on its way from Wyoming.  He feels sure Scott Martin of AmWest will work with us on getting it covered under the warranty.  If it is not, it will cost about $35,000.  Because of this difficulty, A-4 is being used for supply and we do not have irrigation water until this is resolved, hopefully by Friday.  Mr. Eskridge pointed out two areas where there is a problem in the irrigation lines.  Part of the problem with the irrigation system is that there are not maps that show the system.  

There was no Other Business and the Board took a five minute break before going into Executive Session.  

It was moved by Steve Remington, seconded by Steve Cox and unanimously acted upon to go into Executive Session under 24-6-402.4e:  Discussion of Matters Relative to Contract Negotiations at 7:14 pm.

The Board came out of Executive Session at 8:27 pm. It was moved by Steve Remington, seconded by Robert Fisher and unanimously acted upon by the Board to pay the current WWTF Invoice.

There being no further business to come before the Board and upon a motion duly made, seconded and unanimously carried, the Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 pm.

Submitted by: 

Ronald J. Simpson 

Acting District Manager