d. Trade secrets, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-72-204(3)(a)(IV), including privileged information and confidential commercial, financial, geological or geophysical data furnished by or obtained from any person. See Griffin v. S.W. Devanney & Co., 775 P.2d 555 (Colo. 1989); International Bhd. of Elec. Workers Local 68 v. Denver Metro. Major League Baseball Stadium Dist., 880 P.2d 160 (Colo. App. 1994); Zubeck v. El Paso Cty. Retirement Plan, 961 P.2d 597 (Colo. App. 1998) (only information obtained by private parties is subject to this exemption).
Update 2-5-2018
Woodmen Hills denies the “Willdan study” and cites the reason under this statue and we responded in kind as we said the board is not transparent and I am going to the people of El Paso County to show them Josh, Anthony, Jina, Walter, and Ronnie are not transparent.
Hello race fans,
We have this denial of rights to inspect records by the ORD department and Lisa Peterson.
See attached and the citing of the law.
As I anticipated we were going to get denied and as such the denial is incorrect, as such we have attached a case is clear for “studies”.
Colorado Springs V White for legals review.
Woodmen Hills posted part of the study in a newsletter for the community to review then denies the rest of the studies for inspection or a copy of.
As I have learned a “Vaughn Index” with supporting affidavit of any documents of the study as “privileged” needs to be provided.
Your client used a broad stroking assessment of the statue, the law is clear. You need to be very specific in your denial and her we show no specificity not generalization
of the law. This is not how CORA works, you must cite the specific reason for denial as such the petitioner will able to cite in his request for relief to the district court.
As such Lisa Peterson failed to site which part of the law she is applying as shown, she cited the entire rule not the “specific” reason which is required as courts
The law requires you to cite it in detail the specific reason for the denial.
Now I remit this document back to legal for a detailed legal review for the specific law (reason) not the entire statue.
Request a copy of the “Vaughn index”.
As shown the document was posted in a newsletter as such it was posted for pubic review.
The burden of proof rests on the entity that denied the inspection and as of now have not provided the requestor with the detailed reason for denial.
What we know is this, the board posted the “park n rec” study without the boards approval and acceptance online then Cory said it was no big deal.
Now we have a study that was partially posted in a “news letter” as shown and accepted by the board then implanted by the board as shown in the fees.
This is how your board is treating you, to be blunt like shit. We paid for the study and then they tell us to piss off in a manor of speaking. Is this the type of “transparency” and openness, and full disclosure that property owners have a right to expect ?
As a candidate for the board I can tell you not in wheelhouse. If this study is the reason for our rates and charges, you a right to know where the rates come from. As shown the board as posted said in a nice way to take a hike and piss on “transparency” as shown.
These are faces that said NO to studies that dictate your rates and monthly bill after it was completed and accepted.
Update 2-3-2018
Woodmen Hills responds to our CORA with a certified letter from the USPS! We will pickup the “large envelope” at the Peyton Post office and post its contents right here. That is what transparency is. Are you as excited as we are? We know the studies exist so this should be fun and who knows maybe you will see what WHMD is up to, LOL.
Preface, the studies done for WHMD by Willdan are critical in several ways but until we get them from the custodian of records we will not post banter. We can tell residents this much, they are key to why the district did what it did. We have proof we just want verification so this is the reason for the request as others keep saying that we only have 1/2 the story, well whose fault is that? We asked for the files to get the Woodmen Hills side but they keep denying as proven in past posts, why?
January 29, 2018 at 11:40 am
Delivered, Left with Individual
PEYTON, CO 80831
This is the date that Woodmen Hills signed for the package containing the CORA for the studies requests.
Hello everyone, this is exposed and we are told by our friendly neighborhood postal service that Woodmen Hills signed for a parcel from Exposed for CORA.
Since we here are sick and tired Ted Bendelow and Abby Kirkbride’s actions we will persevere. As I said Abby would be better suited to wait tables and Ted, well we are waiting for him to show up to the next board meeting where we will have words with Ted!
We are obtaining information for our next post for lawyers who get paid hundreds of dollars of your money by this rogue board to carryout it diabolical plan to take more of your money.
We here are sure this the district is hiding files, records, and documents to “protect” itself and Abby and Ted know unless we haul them into court they are laughing all the way to the bank. The board is just spitting in your face then using “governmental immunity” to get away with it. Here is the CORA Exposed did for the second time. The same CORA went unanswered in September 2017 by Lisa Peterson who gets paid to tell Exposed to ………..
Woodmenhills Exposed 
Let me see…
1) The study was conducted by Wildan to determine the Base Fee.
2) The Board of Directors used it as part of the deliberative process.
3) The Board of Directors utilized the information to determine the Base Fees.
4) The District cited the Base Fee and the Wildan Study in its communication to the property owners and rate payers.
5) The District has a Final Copy of the document that should be available to “All Rate Payers” within the District upon request.
I’m confused. How does this work again? Another Mystery of Life exercised by the District (much like that infamous Park & Recreation Study). Oh cmonn!!! I forgot, this is a CLASSIFIED DOCUMENT that covers specific PRIVATE and PRIVALEDGED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION.
It’s not too difficult…Just how many homes receive the services? Where is the arithmetic used to determine the Base Fee? Then again, it must be ‘NEW MATH” of which some people must have skipped class, or COMMON CORE in which many folks are TOO OLD!!!
LikeLike
“To the extent that the existing revenue stream was not sufficient to meet the annual revenue requirements of the system, a series of rate revenue increases were calculated to provide revenue sufficierrt to meet those needs.” (Source: Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Section 3 – Rate Study Development and Initial Results, 3.1 Revenue Sufficiency Analysis, 3.1.1 General Methodology, Page 8, July 14, 2015)
3.1.4 2015 Adopted Budget
“Staff provided Willdan with the 2015 Adopted Budget, and associated line-item detail, as the basis for the projection of financial performance for 2015. ln addition, staff provided a copy of the line-item projected expenses for 2O1-5 to be used as the basis for the projection of future budgetary line-items for the remainder of the forecast period.
Cost escalation factors were reviewed by staff and were used to project line-item costs beyond the 2015 budget. Those factors were applied based on line-item cost classifications.”
(Source: Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Section 3 – Rate Study Development and Initial Results, 3.1 Revenue Sufficiency Analysis, 3.1.4 Adopted Budget, Page 9, July 14, 2015)
“The District has both outstanding water and wastewater debt with an annual interest rate of 4o/o and an accruing interest rate of 4%which results in an overall effective rate of 8%. One of the reasons for the existing rate and other unfavorable terms is that the debt was issued and refunded at a time when the market for bonds was weaker than it is today. Because of the higher rate, the overall payoff of the bonds is more expensive than if the rates were lower. This ultimately costs District water and wastewater customers additional fees.” (Source: Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Section 3 – Rate Study Development and Initial Results, 3.1.6 Outstanding Debt, Page(s) 10-11, July 14, 2015)
DEBT SERVICING
“Another option that the District is actively exploring is the PFA alternative for the deb:t issuance. Under this alternative all revenues of the District (water, wastewater and parks and recreation) would be pledged to meet debt service and in turn annual debt service coverage.” (Source: Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Section 3 – Rate Study Development and Initial Results, 3.1.8.2 Combined Funds, Page 17, July 14, 2015)
3.3.3.2. Proposed District Customer Rate Structure
“As discussed in Section 3.3.2. District residential customers are assessed a flat monthly rate and
commercial customers are assessed a flow base rate assessed on a per 100 gallons basis. No changes are proposed to this rate structure. (Source: Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Section 3 – Rate Study Development and Initial Results, 3.3.3.2 , Page 21, July 14, 2015)
3.3.3 Proposed Rate Structure Changes
Through discussions with District staff it was determined that the existing water structure is effectively meeting the District’s goals and is consistent with AWWA rate making practices. As such, no changes are proposed to the current water rate structure. Similarly, Willdan did not identify any problems with the District’s existing wastewater rate structure, but did conduct a cost of service analysis to update the rates themselves to reflect the cost of providing different levels of service across customer classes. Through discussion with District staff it was determined that the existing wastewater structure is effectively meeting the goals of the District. However, the rates within the structure itself were updated to reflect the current cost of serving each customer class.
(Source: Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Section 3 – Rate Study Development and Initial Results, Proposed District Customer Rate Structure Changes 3.3.3.2 , Page 21, July 14, 2015)
Proposed Water Rate Structure
Residential:
2016 – $16.72
2017 – $17.14
2018 – $17.56
2019 – $18.00
2020 – $18.45
2021 – $18.91
2022 – $19.39
2023 – $19.87
2024 – $20.37
2025 – $20.88
Proposed Water Leasing Fee
All District Customers:
2016 – $36.58
2017 – $37.50
2018 – $17.56
2019 – $18.00
2020 – $18.45
2021 – $18.91
2022 – $19.39
2023 – $19.87
2024 – $20.37
2025 – $20.88
Proposed Wastewater Rate Structure:
Residential:
2016 – $37.94
2017 – $38.89
2018 – $39.86
2019 – $40.86
2020 – $41.88
2021 – $42.93
2022 – $44.00
2023 – $45.10
2024 – $46.23
2025 – $47.38
(Source: Water and Wastewater Rate Study, Section 3 – Rate Study Development and Initial Results, Proposed District Customer Rate Structure Changes 3.3.5 , Page 25, July 14, 2015)
LikeLike
What is “INTERGENERATIONAL DEBT FINANCING?” That is the practice of ‘NEVER PAYING OFF DEBT” but using “NEW” debt to refinance and restructure the Old Debt with New Debt and changing the DEBT RESTRUCTURING. For example, you mortgage your home with a HELO “Home Equity Line of Credit” to Pay Off Credit Cards. You then obtain “NEW” Credit Cards to make “NEW” purchases at a lower credit rate. However, the TOTAL DEBT, while at a LOWER INTEREST RATE is still more debt.
For example, Woodmen Hills Metropolitan District pays off “OLD BOND DEBT.” Say the debt was at 8% interest. They expand the district boundaries or purchase new equipment at a cost of $2.0 million. They issue new debt at 5% and with a new balance of $2.0 million. The idea is that the TOTAL DEBT goes up and is PASSED ON TO FUTURE PROPERTY OWNERS moving into the district and receiving services. This explains why the District functions under a projected Water Rate Study guide that may or may not be entirely accurate as services change over time. Rate Study’s are merely projections, assumptions, and photographs of a financial situation at that particular point in time.
Here is an analogy…You go to a Financial Planner and pay say $7,000.00 for a financial plan. Your financial plan makes numerous assumptions: 1) That you will be gainfully employed, 2) That your income supposes a particular raise or cost of living increase will take place, and 3) Your investment portfolio will grow over time. You pay for your financial plan and as you leave the office you step off a curb and for some mysterious reason your back goes out. You require extended surgeries and you do not have Long Term Disability Insurance with your employer. As such, you are no longer available to work. Because it wasn’t work related you cannot receive Worker Compensation Assistance.
That said you have to apply for FMLA (Family Medical Leave) and you option for medical assistance is to file for COBRA (Comprehensive Omnibus Reconciliation Act) that moves you family coverage from employer assisted payments of $1250.00 per month to over $2500.00 per month. What happens? Just how effective is that FINANCIAL PLAN that you paid for now? Water Rate Studies and Reserve Studies are merely ‘SNAPSHOTS IN TIME” and as such are subject to change. Just look at your BASE FEE on your monthly utility bill. It’s different from what was once projected in the Water Rate Study. Why?
What did decisions did the District Board of Directors make that resulted in these changes? Did they take on further water obligations with other developments? If so, why isn’t the Water Rates for those OUTSIDE DISTRICT ENTITIES significantly higher than the IN DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL USERS? Are they being subsidized by the IN DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL USERS?
LikeLike
Riddle me this, If Green by definition is the “exclusive” consultant to Falcon Properties and Investments and they still have a dog in the fight, is Green still getting paid the fees he was contracted to receive from the “consulting fees” still drawing the fees?
If he is still the has exclusive rights to due to this contract does this mean the money that we are paying the Woodmen Hills Public Facilities in the form of “tap fees” for an estimated $375,000.00 in 2018, what is it for since the bonds were refinanced and they said the original “developers” are no longer part of Woodmen Hills financing?
Now as I understand and as stipulated by Lynne Bliss on her blog and recorded at meeting, The “tap fees” are to go to bonds not the PFA. Anyone care to call the FBI at this point.
The service plan says the “tap fees” are to go to paying down the debt and if the debt is not under the new Certificate of Participation and combined bonds why is the PFA getting any money at all?
If the money is for repayment for debt related to “infrastructure” then we have a problem.
If the FPI still has ownership of any undeveloped property (Falcon Villas) than is the “consultant” fee being paid by FPI to Green coming from that sale of property or the tap fees”?
Does this means by juxtaposition Woodmen Hills is paying Mr. Green?
For those who do not know what we are speaking of it is the “Courtyards” development we are speaking of.
To make this easy does Falcon Properties and Investments still own property in El Paso County for this development?
LikeLike
HELOC…Home Equity Line of Credit
LikeLike