Tag Archives: elbert

Independence Service Plans Hearing Part II

Elbert CountyAfter Kate Base’s article above a few days ago, questions have arisen on what do we need to write Judge Spear?  My best answer is to write from the heart!

We all understand this “Independence” project is a big thing.  Where do you/we start?  Independence’s population will be double Elizabeth (1,358 2010 Census) and four times larger than Kiowa (723 2010 Census).  Big things have big problems.

But here’s a few items of note:

You may wish to write a letter to the Honorable Judge Spear that there is no mention whatsoever of the restriction on exporting county water in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement (The Independence SIA).  We were all told at the September Public Hearings the restriction on “exporting water” language would be in there, but it was completely omitted.

And here’s why I believe it was omitted:  Developer Tim P. Craft and water attorney Dianne Miller don’t want the “no export water” language integrated into the SIA like we were promised because:

“The board of county commissioners or any purchaser of any lot, lots, tract, or tracts of land subject to a plat restriction which is the security portion of a subdivision improvements agreement shall have the authority to bring an action in any district court to compel the enforcement of any subdivision improvements agreement on the sale, conveyance, or transfer of any such lot, lots, tract, or tracts of land or of any other provision of this part 1.”

If our county commissioners really had Elbert County citizens best interests in mind, the export water clauses would absolutely be in the SIA protecting the new homeowners of Independence.  Commissioner Grant Thayer’s public remark “buyer beware” to prospective Independence homeowners rings loud and clear now.  Why our county commissioners do not want the “no export water” language in the SIA is beyond me (use your imagination).  Why would the BOCC give up their power to challenge any water export defects in court?  I thought Elbert County citizens came first?  Why don’t they want the “no export water” language there?  Especially after they said it would be there, but now say it’s in the Special District Service Plans?  If it’s not there, it can’t be enforced, right?  Commissioner Richardson calls the SIA an “offsite” document.  That’s laughable.

Colorado Law at Justia

PWSD Singing Hills Multi-Million Gallon Drinking Water Tank
click to enlarge

Another point could be made in the final Independence Water & Sanitation Service Plan, Section X.  Section X should be without a doubt a “material modification” that would require Public Hearing and BOCC approval.  As it is written, nothing at all stops them from connecting a pipeline to other districts.  Two districts come to mind, and both are across the Delbert Road Extension Road just a few feet away in Douglas County.  One; Hilltop Metropolitan District owned by 303 Investments, and two; Rueter-Hess Reservoir Singing Hills Water Storage Tank owned by the Parker Water & Sanitation District.  (The multi-million gallon drinking water tank land off Singing Hills was seized from the Elkins with Parker Water & Sanitation District’s power of eminent domain years ago).  No BOCC approval is required to connect pipeline, no public hearings, no asking, no nothing.   There’s not even a time frame requirement for notice to the BOCC after the fact.  Here’s Section X:


No intergovernmental agreements are proposed at this time; however, the District anticipates that intergovernmental agreements may be required in the future. The District shall provide the County Board of County Commissioners with notice of all intergovernmental agreements entered into by and between the District and other local governments.”


Remember, Special Districts such as Hilltop, Parker Water & Sanitation (and others) are considered “quasi-governmental” entities.

Say it isn’t so Joe!

Another point may be that ALL SIX Special Districts should contain the strong “no export water” language we were promised at the Public Hearing.  While the Independence Water & Sanitation District Final contains some weak export language, the other 5 including the Overlay District contain barely a mention.  A single half-assed line.  Not acceptable as duties, districts, etc. can be assigned, shifted, transferred, etc. between themselves.  What is restrictive in one district can be reassigned to a less restrictive district.  There is no guarantee a district won’t sell its water to another district that can sell outside the Independence borders and circumvent the spirit of the agreement.  Does anybody remember the attempted 2011 Elbert County Water Heist involving the same water attorney?

1,000 plus Elbert County Citizens Gather

You may wish to write about having a raw sewer reclamation facility approved by commissioners and planners that have no idea of a project that’s never, ever been done before in any residential development in Colorado.  Why are us Elbert County citizens the guinea pigs here?

You may wish to write about where does the other 15% of raw waste from 3,000 plus people go?  By Craft’s best estimates in his application, if 85% of the well water is somehow reclaimed “twice” as he says, where does the other 15% go?  There’s no natural creek, runoff, nothing in their plat.  Does it just magically disappear?  What about precautions for storm runoff?  We occasionally get feet of snow, inches of hard rain, where does it go?  Pots and pans, or runoff through our existing neighborhoods and take the overflow from the shitholes with it?  There are no discharge exit routes whatsoever.

It is entirely possible you did not agree with the Board of County Commissioners decision to run public hearings for the SIX Independence Special District Service Plans AND the Independence 920 PUD Application together on September 5, 6th and 7th.  Public comment was only allowed for a few hours on September 5th.  These were huge programs (more than the population of Elizabeth and Kiowa combined) that needed extended time for our right to public comment and to demand answers to our questions.  Deciding to run them concurrently took away much needed discussion time from both of them separately.  Who gave the Elbert County BOCC the power to circumvent the process?

Why were several letters that were supposed to be public record not recorded?  Why were a few finally put on the County Website just hours before hearing?  Why were letters from Independence supporters like the Walton Group who own the 320 acres next to Independence only posted to the Website hours before the hearing, and not available when they were submitted much earlier, months earlier, in MAY?  It is possible somebody didn’t want them seen until it was too late?

Speaking of Serenity Pointe owners and neighbors to Independence, the Walton Group – how does their Manager of Real Estate Acquisition & Disposition know to send a letter of support for Independence and its TWO schools, when the plat only shows one middle school?  Again, that letter not posted until hours before the public dog and pony show, but written in May.  You can’t ask for an answer if you don’t know the question to ask, right?

Walton Group Independence Letter

It strikes me as odd that I have several emails from the commissioners stating they did not know anything about the Walton Group, nor that they owned the 320 acre parcel next to Independence.  Nor did they know 415+ Asian investors have invested more than $10,000,000.00 in the 320 acres called Walton’s Serenity Pointe next door?  How can that possibly be because if they read that letter like they said “they read everything”, if they read that single letter of support they could not have known Walton Group was a neighbor?  In fact, I was told by Commissioner Willcox, and I quote, “At no time were we interested in the neighboring property or was it discussed”.  How is that possible?  How can you make such a large decision, effecting more people than your largest two cities combined, and say you “weren’t interested” in what or who’s next door?  And how do the commissioners not know about neighbors to Independence, when the Elbert BOCC approved a resolution in 2009 naming Serenity Pointe as a neighbor to the former Bandera?  Back when current County Commissioner Grant Thayer was the Elbert County Planning Commission Chairman.  He worked on this project back then!

Elbert County BOCC Resolution 09-14

“4.) The current site layout shows residential clusters abutting the property boundaries on the north, west, and east. To avoid potential conflicts between agricultural uses and the smaller lots (1/2 acre), the buffer area along these property boundaries should be increased. This will require shifting some of the perimeter lots toward the interior to create additional buffer area, eliminating the perimeter lots, or re-locating them elsewhere on the property. Serenity Point is a proposed development adjacent to and immediately north of Bandera. The lot configuration being proposed along Bandera’s north boundary may be appropriate, provided the open space and road connections are coordinated between the two proposed developments”.

And yet, none of them knew anything. Uh huh.

And why does Commissioner Richardson call us folks opposed to this development “the 1%”?  Did somebody poll 25,000 Elbert County citizens and find 24,750 approve of Independence?  Personally, I think it’s just another show of arrogance against the Elbert County citizenry that wish to protect our water and western way of life.

These are a few questions for Judge Spear who is reviewing the SIX Service Plans.  Some questions are for the Court that is reviewing the entire Independence project approvals and all its documents.

Whatever you write the Judge, just be honest and do the best you can.  Something our elected officials should be doing for us, don’t you think?

Hopefully the good Judge is fair in his review of the Service Plans (and everything that is lacking in them).  Our way of life, our water is important to all of us.  Start writing!

Fairness“, what a concept – especially around Elbert County government.


Independence Service Plans Hearing Part I

November 28, 2017

Folks have been asking if they can still provide comment to the Judge who conducted the Independence Service Plans hearing on Oct 5, 2017.  I contacted the court clerk today who confirmed that the hearing is still open.  The Judge said on Oct 5 that he would hold the hearing open until the formal complaint that was filed ran its course.

So, yes, the clerk said additional comments could be submitted and would be included in the case files.  You must mail your comments or drop them off with the clerk at the court in Kiowa.  They will not accept the documents via email of fax.  You must reference the court case number:  202017CV30061-66, inclusive.

Mail to: Combined Courts of Elbert County
751 Ute Avenue, PO Box 232
Kiowa, CO 80117
ATTN: The Honorable Judge Michael Spear


Drop it off at 751 Ute Avenue (this is the court attached to the Sheriff’s Office in Kiowa).  Keep in mind the comments should pertain to the Independence Special Districts Service Plans and the county’s handling of those applications.  That was the topic of the hearing.

Kate Base




Who’s Kidding Who Here? Part II

Elbert County TrustThat didn’t take long.

I received a reply from a Elbert County Commissioner of an email I sent concurrently with writing Part I, “Who’s Kidding Who Here“.  My email touched upon the same points in my post.  In his rebuttal the Commissioner states that the Independence “SIA governs OFFSITE improvements” and that the language denying Craft and his cronies is in “The Service Plan for the Water and Sanitation District contain the language restricting water export..”

So I went and found one of the Service Plans approved on September 7th, 2017.  It had all I needed to see – I don’t need to see any of the other 5 Special Districts – I already know what they say.  All I needed to see was in the finalized Independence Overlay Special District Service Plan.  I compared it to the original same Service Plan filed in June, 2017 – well before the public hearing.

Finalized (pdf) Independence Overlay District Service Plan.

And this was my exact reply to the notion that the Independence SIA governs offsite improvements:

Absolutely laughable that as important as water is to this community, you believe placing a single line on the bottom of a Service Plan is going to stop water from leaving this county?  And more specifically leaving the Independence “project”?

“The District shall not export water outside of Elbert County, with the exception for provisions of any emergency services.”

Are you kidding me?

You approved six districts that are allowed to merge, regroup, consolidate, transfer, etc. and you approved this service plan language:

“The District will be authorized to provide for the acquisition, construction, installation, operation and maintenance of the Improvements (as defined in §32-1-1006(1)(c), C.R.S., as amended, and for the ongoing maintenance of the Improvements, within and without the boundaries of the District, as described in Exhibit F. The District may accept appropriate, purchase, lease or otherwise acquire any water or water rights, either potable or non-potable, for use within or without the Development area.”

Because of your language, all a waterburgler has to do is paper transfer water to another one of their Districts, and/or a District with no boundaries, and/or a District without restrictions, and that District can sell anywhere it wishes.  A brilliant idea since everybody is looking to buy Elbert County water!  And you know it.

After with what this county went through with the same water attorney and other special districts prior, the document preventing the transfer/sale/export of our water should have been 20 pages deep to prevent just a theft.

Good grief!

And that SIA is specific to the Independence project.  It is not some kind of OFFSITE document as you call it.  It is EXACTLY as the headline name says it is: “SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND RESTRICTION ON CONVEYANCE RELATED TO THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF INDEPENDENCE“.

It is the exact place the export language (all 20 pages of it, not one half-assed line) should be placed, as well as within the special district documents.  Even the districts and their functions are specifically spelled out in it (page 3, number 3).

That Independence “project” (and it’s SIA) is a transferable document SEPARATE of Special Districts.  It can be sold to a buyer (such as Walton), assigned to another developer, or annexed by others.  I am sure the developer/investors plead their case so that language would not be included in it.  You stated it would be in the SIA (where it should be), and you let us down, again. 

I cannot see how you are protecting the citizens of Elbert County with actions like these.

Wayne Ordakowski”

And so it it goes.  A fight to maintain our western way of life.  A fight to protect our Elbert County water.  A fight against corruption.  A fight to protect our home values, and a fight to establish everything that is rightfully ours.

Elbert County citizens deserve better than this.  Way better.

If you wish to help in this fight, let your voice be heard.  Get involved!  If you can’t get involved, consider supporting the Stop Over Development Elbert County (SOD) educational cause with a donation.  The SOD has an active judicial review filing against the county that we need financial assistance with – attorneys are not cheap.

Thank-you for your time and consideration.

Wayne Ordakowski, a concerned Elbert County Citizen

Who’s Kidding Who Here? Part I

Elbert CountyWe all heard it.  Several times.

At public hearings over three evenings before their approval vote (3-0) on September 7th, 2017 – we heard our Elbert County Commissioners promise that several “negotiated” changes would be made to the 920 home “Independence” application.  Over two hundred concerned citizens heard our BOCC say the county attorney and developer would work on the language for changes that needed to be made to the Independence subdivision improvement agreement (SIA) over the coming hours and days.  Our Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved the application that night with the understanding the “discussed” details would be worked out in the SIA.  Elbert County Citizens were left trusting our commissioners, county attorney, a developer in new cowboy boots and a special district “water” attorney to get this done satisfactorily and all “above board”.  Exactly why and how an application was approved before it was completed is beyond me, but I guess in our county government we shall trust.

And it turns out most of what they said would be haggled out in the SIA is in the final SIAMost.  From my notes they mentioned curbs and roadwork along the new Delbert Road Extension.  That’s in there.  They mentioned that same road would have to be completed before the 371th home permit would be issued.  That’s in there.  Chip seal of CR 158 to CR 13 at the builders expense, check, it’s in there.  Many of the so-called “negotiated” commissioner demands are in the document.  Language clear, concise, and issues addressed.

Elbert County Independence SIA (tif)

Elbert County Independence SIA (pdf)

It’s pretty much all there EXCEPT the biggest and most important item of all.  After a short break on the second night of public hearings, we all heard Tim P. Craft and Dianne Miller agree to NOT export any water outside the borders of Independence without a public hearing and BOCC approval.  This was by far the most important issue facing all of Elbert County.  We’ve seen attempted water theft around here before, and it was clear they both reluctantly agreed that NO water would leave the borders of Independence without a public hearing AND BOCC approval.

From elbertcountynews.net:

“You have to understand the psychology of our community,” Thayer said to Miller and Craft. “There is great fear that we’ll be merged with another metro district or export water.

“If you want to step outside the metro district, if you want to do it without coming to us first, I’m afraid — I’m not afraid — I’m pretty sure you’ll have trouble,” Thayer said as the room erupted with applause.

After consulting with his legal team during a recess at the second meeting, Craft made the concession to meet the request of the commissioners.

“By placing borders around the metro districts, they can’t do anything with any of their metro districts’ infrastructure outside of their borders without a notice to public hearing and approval by the BOCC,” Thayer later said.

But there’s NOT A SINGLE MENTION of that agreement in all of the final SIA.  None.  The Independence Special Districts are all mentioned by name.  The other issues are addressed.  But there’s not a single word about what we feared most.  Zip, Zero, Nada.

And to top it all off, if our leaders eventually do tell us that this agreement indeed somehow, somewhere does exist, if there’s some kind of agreement in place in some special district document, some initialed map overlay, some other paperwork they can wave around and say, “here it is right here”, well, that doesn’t matter.  It doesn’t matter one bit because here’s why:

Page 11, section 30.  It is very clear.  Crystal clear.  And this line will hold up in court every day, all day (click to enlarge):

Independence SIA

So basically, if it’s not in the SIA, it doesn’t exist.  It’s not “herein”, capisce?

This is like that chick Lucy that pulls the ball away from Charlie Brown right when he goes to kick it.

And we fall for it every time.

Crooked is, as crooked does.

Wayne Ordakowski, a concerned Elbert County citizen.

UPDATED Read Part II of “Who’s Kidding Who Here”, rebuttal from a County Commissioner