FAQ

September 9th, 2008 dan Posted in Issues |

Frequently Asked Questions


  • Who is InformFirestone?

    InformFirestone is a group of Firestone residents working with other Firestone residents to raise awareness of matters important to the future of Firestone, to provide a location for information on matters of major importance to the citizens of Firestone, and to educate the Town’s voters and potential voters about their rights and privileges in all matters pertaining to the Town.

    ^ Top


  • Why did we start the petitions?

    InformFirestone started the petition drive in an attempt to bring the decision of the Union Annexations to a vote of the people. These annexations represent a potential turning point for the Town of Firestone and deserve careful and deliberate consideration before moving forward. It was the opinion of InformFirestone, and of those who signed the petitions, that not all of the details had been fully examined.

    ^ Top


  • Who is LifeBridge?

    The full name is LifeBridge Christian Church. The church is a Christian fundamentalist evangelical church of approximately 3,000 members presently located west of Highway 287/Main Street on State Highway 66 in Longmont. It owns approximately 100 acres in this location. The church has expressed its intent to grow its membership to 20,000.

    It has purchased land in Weld County south of Union Reservoir and north of State Highway 119 to establish a ministry community, according to senior minister Rick Rusaw. This community goes by the name of Union.

    LifeBridge Church in conjunction with its development arm Corporation for Christian Community Corporation (4C) seeks to develop this 348-acre property into a community with residential and commercial areas surrounding a central religious area of approximately 86 acres.

    Senior Minister Rick Rusaw and certain LifeBridge’s elders and members are also real estate developers and businessmen who have purchased the bulk of the land in the area of the Union project. Church elders and members own Firelight Park and Concepts Direct. Property adjacent to Concepts Direct is also owned by LifeBridge Church. Property currently owned by Wal-Mart south of SH 119 was previously owned by a church member who still owns substantial acreage adjacent to this property.

    Rick Rusaw was hired by First Christian Church in the early 1990s. His leadership substantially changed the original church eventually leading to a name change to LifeBridge Christian Church. First Christian Church had a nearly 100 year history in Longmont.

    ^ Top


  • What are the important issues for this election?

    Signed agreements - as of this writing, there are still no signed agreements between the Town of Firestone and 4C, the development arm of LifeBridge Christian Church. Without signed documents, no information concerning potential costs and revenues to the town can be considered valid. 4C and Firestone need to produce a workable annexation agreement and Public Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement (PIRA) before we can proceed with this annexation.

    Water - as time progresses and the Town of Firestone grows, along with our neighboring communities on the Front Range, water will become more and more of a scarce commodity. Steps are already being taken to plan for water shortages for this area in the near future. LifeBridge/4C has offered ‘cash in lieu’, or money in the place of, the water that every developer needs to bring to the community before annexation. In these uncertain times, ‘cash in lieu’ is not good enough. LifeBridge/4C needs to have the water and dedicate it to Firestone before we can consider going forward with this project.

    Services - during the hearings to annex Union into Firestone, both the Police Chief of the Town of Firestone and the Fire Chief of the Frederick-Firestone Fire District made verbal commitments to provide coverage for the newly annexed Union development. While we respect the opinions of both these men and their sense of duty, it is simply not good enough for the Town to have verbal ‘okays’ on these items. It is imperative to have written documentation of where the police and fire coverage will come from, if it will impact the services of the existing residents covered by these two services, and what taxation impacts it might have for taxpayers.

    Taxation - without written and signed agreements of any kind, it is difficult to know the true taxation implications of the development. Will a Metropolitan Special District (MSD) be formed? Will this result in higher taxes in the Union development than in the rest of Firestone? What implications might this have for future tax issues that impact the Town as a whole? What buildings and businesses may or may not be tax-exempt? If Church buildings are built within the next 2 years, but nothing else built for 10, does that mean Firestone will be providing services to those buildings for 8 years with no incoming tax revenues to offset those services?

    ^ Top


  • What is a Public Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement (PIRA)?

    A Public Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement (PIRA) is a legal document that describes the infrastructure improvements to be made to facilitate the project/development and the financial responsibilities of each party to the agreement. It is project specific.

    In this case the PIRA is a legal agreement between the Town of Firestone and LifeBridge/4C. It is expected to contain agreements to establish one or more special improvement districts. It is also expected to grant permission for 4C to establish one or more Metropolitan Special Districts for the purpose of financing the project.

    Once completed, it is expected to be non-appealable by either party.

    ^ Top


  • What are the water concerns?

    Firestone meets its water needs by owning shares in Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) project of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District, and this water is stored in Carter Lake.

    When Firestone engineer Dave Lindsay was asked by the Times-Call if Firestone had enough water, he said, “No.” So where will it come from?

    First the developer, LifeBridge/4C, must dedicate the water rights associated with its property to the Town of Firestone. As proposed by 4C, this would be accomplished in increments associated with final development plans for each platting.

    Communities, including Firestone, require developers to provide sufficient raw water for their project. But what if there’s not enough raw surface and groundwater for the project?

    Firestone then requires that the developer meet 75% of the water needs by actual CBT water conveyed to the town by the developer. The developer may supply the remaining 25% by a cash payment. Therefore, 4C will be required to purchase sufficient shares of CBT water to meet 75% of the project’s needs and the balance may be cash-in-lieu-of.

    All of this is dependent upon there being enough water. Formulas are of no use if the water isn’t there. Colorado communities are in competition for available water. The greater the growth, the greater the need and demand for water.

    It cannot be known if there will be sufficient water available to meet the future needs of the project as conceived. The project’s completion is variously attributed to be between 10 and 40 years, depending on the analytical results desired.

    Area communities have been counting on the Northern Integrated Supply Project (NISP) to help meet future water needs. This is by no means certain. NISP is only in the primary stages of planning, and has yet to undergo full federal study and environmental impact studies. If the primary planning stages are any indication, this project also will run up against strong opposition from environmental groups. Anyone who remembers the Two Forks project for Denver Water knows that opposition from environmental groups coupled with plodding federal bureaucracy can hold up water projects for years, and even kill them.

    If water for the project as designed is unavailable, the project will have to be scaled back. Should this happen, the financial profitability to Firestone is further called into question. Fewer tax-generating businesses and residences reduce the tax base on which all other services depend. As the tax base shrinks for any number of reasons, it is likely to leave the Town of Firestone subsidizing the balance of the project. In addition, water as a commodity will likely increase in cost over time, probably well above the rate of inflation. That will further impact the financial feasibility of this and other developments.

    There is more. Water rights are essentially parcel-specific. 4C is proposing that if there are water rights for property that is not developed that Firestone will have first chance at purchasing those water rights. But there is a catch, they would have to at least match the price of any other offer 4C might receive for the water. Future competition for scarce water will increase the price of future water rights.

    Scientists and analysts at all levels of government expect water shortages to dominate Colorado’s future. The Union project transfers all the risks to the Town of Firestone and other special districts. Firestone should not accept these risks.

    Sources: Proposed annexation agreement from LifeBridge/4C

    “Water: Weighty issue for Union development,” Times-Call, 7/13/08

    ^ Top


  • Why does LifeBridge/4C want to develop in Firestone instead of unincorporated Weld County?

    It’s all about water.

    LifeBridge/4C’s Union property, absent annexation to a municipality, is located in unincorporated Weld County. This property is serviced by two distinct water districts-Left Hand Water District and Longs Peak Water District.

    The covered territory for each water district is determined by statute. As a developer, 4C is not permitted to negotiate away these statutory boundaries.

    Providing water for the entire project if developed in the county requires that 4C effectively subdivide the water services between the two districts. If 4C must use both water districts the cost for providing water to the project will be millions of dollars higher than if the water is provided through a municipality.

    If a dual system (raw water potable, plus gray water irrigation) is provided, the joint costs for both water districts has been determined to be approximately $21 million dollars, or an average per tap of $15,000 based on the project description provided to Longmont.

    If no dual system (raw water for both potable and irrigation) is provided, the joint costs for both water districts has been projected to be $30 million, or $23,000 per tap as above noted.

    The most economical water in the area that might have been available to the Union project was through annexation to the City of Longmont. The infrastructure costs for locating in Longmont were approximately $5 million.

    Therefore, the overall projection for the difference between Longmont water and Left Hand Water District and Longs Peaks Water Distract was $14 million to $23 million at build-out depending up whether the system was dual or non-dual. This is the primary reason that LifeBridge sought Longmont annexation.

    No comparable analysis is publicly available for the overall water costs (raw water, water taps and infrastructure) for the project if provided by the Town of Firestone. And there is no determination regarding the sufficiency of Firestone’s normal water tap fees to cover the water infrastructure needs of Union.

    Water infrastructure is a major part of the Public Infrastructure Reimbursement Agreement (PIRA). Prior to finalization of the PIRA, the details should be made available to the public so that the public concerns for financial sufficiency can be satisfied.

    Source: Internal staff analysis by the City of Longmont

    ^ Top


  • What is the history behind the Union project?

    LifeBridge Church purchased the Union property between 2001 and 2003. Immediately following the acquisition of the three parcels that constitute Union, LifeBridge approached Weld County to have the property rezoned from agricultural to mixed-use development.

    The project as originally conceived was significantly different from the project as now planned. Its religious component was more substantial and the residential component only included up to 175 dwelling units, compared to the present 1,200 to 1,600 units now planned.

    The rezoning effort triggered an outcry amongst residents in the surrounding communities of Meadowvale at Elms and The Farms at Meadowvale. The impact of the traffic on Meadowvale at Elms was potentially very serious and members of these communities even attempted to form the town of Freedom to block the development. The conflict in unincorporated Weld continued through 2005.

    After the Weld County rezoning, LifeBridge approached the City of Longmont in April 2006 to annex the Union development. The development was substantially changed from its original form. A Planned Unit Development was created and preliminary platting occurred. This is substantially the same plan now before the voters of Firestone.

    The community of Longmont sought unsuccessfully to convince the sitting council to reject the project on several grounds. The council approved the annexation on August 14.

    A grassroots group of citizens launched a referendum petition drive to require the council to either repeal the annexation or place the issue before the voters. Longmont citizens were required to gather slightly more that 4,000 signatures and turned in over 6,000. The council elected to place the issue on a special ballot for a vote on January 29, 2008.

    In the interim between the validation of the referendum and the election, a telephone poll was conducted (presumably by LifeBridge) to gage the sentiment of the community. Because of the results of that polling and the election of a council majority in November 2007 who opposed the Union annexation, LifeBridge/4C withdrew its annexation application in December 2007.

    During this same period LifeBridge/4C quietly explored the viability of the project in southwest Weld communities. The Town of Frederick rejected the project and the Town of Mead was not encouraging.

    The Town of Firestone under the leadership of Mayor Mike Simone was eager to annex the project. Bruce Nickerson, Planning Director for Firestone, began efforts to expand Firestone’s comprehensive planning area to accommodate the interrelated Firelight Park and Union developments. The Firelight Park flagpole annexation using SH 119 made the LifeBridge/Union annexation automatically eligible for annexation.

    This ignited a “border war” causing Longmont to annex open space it owned by using a portion of SH 119. Longmont took additional annexation actions of it’s own to prevent a flagpole annexation of the Union project using County Road 26.

    In response to this LifeBridge hurriedly submitted a Petition for Annexation using CR 26 as the flagpole. The Union eligibility for annexation was approved by the Simone Board as an emergency measure on March 27th.

    These annexation conflicts are currently before the Weld County District Court and Court of Appeal.

    On May 8 the Auer Board approved the serial annexations of Union and its Outline Development Plan.

    ^ Top


  • What is a Metropolitan Special District (MSD)?

    Metropolitan Special Districts are governments within the local governing body (city, town, county). Developers are the force driving the usage of MSDs and these districts are sometimes referred to as “developer districts.” MSDs provide lower-cost financing for infrastructure for developers.

    MSDs are formed by five property owners who may have property conveyed for this purpose. These five vote to create the district, elect themselves board members, and approve debt and property taxes to repay the annual debt service. Future levies may take place without a vote of property owners within the district.

    The MSD issues general obligation bonds sold to investors to be repaid with interest. In the event of default, bond holders can compel a tax levy to satisfy obligations.

    LifeBridge/4C wants a rarer form of MSD that includes both residential and commercial properties. Most MSDs are one or the other, not both. 4C has admitted that the project is not viable if it is not permitted to form a mixed-use MSD. The higher mill levy for the commercial segments is needed to offset the lower mill levy of the residential components. These mill levies are in addition to the Weld County mill levies that already exist.

    A slumping economy and a degenerating real estate market increases the risk of increased mill levies. The speculative nature of developer districts increases the possibility of tax increases for Union property owners. If commercial developments fail to come to Union, the repayment burden falls to Union residents. LifeBridge/4C has no commercial commitments for Union.

    An MSD must be approved by the local governing body. In the case of Union, that is the Town of Firestone. The approving government must deny or reject the plan if the proposed MSD does not have, or will not have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The Colorado State Auditor has serious concerns about MSDs.

    The MSD anticipated by LifeBridge/4C will replace the typical Homeowners Association. Union property owners have equivalent HOA fees lumped in with property taxes and become tax deductible. This is unfair to the typical Firestone homeowner who is unable to deduct his HOA fees.

    A LifeBridge/4C developer MSD allows Union to provide amenities at lower costs than other Firestone developers, thus creating an unfair competitive advantage for 4C. Other Firestone developers must increase home prices to provide comparable amenities.

    ^ Top


  • What are vesting rights?

    LifeBridge/4C wants a guarantee that certain design, construction and financing and other arrangements will remained fixed for an extended period of time. The standard vesting period in Colorado statute is three years.

    Since Firestone officials have provided no information on 4C’s requests for vesting, the best information available is that requested of Longmont.

    4C requested a 10-15 year vesting period for the residential and commercial portions of the development.

    It requested a 30-50 years vesting period for the religious/civic portion of the development.The entitlements requested by 4C included but were not limited to:

    • Land uses
    • Densities and intensities of use
    • Building heights
    • Mix of uses for each planning area
    • Land use regulations
    • Other development standards

    4C, through their legal firm Otten Johnson, proposed that the Vesting Agreement would “supersede any conflicting zoning or development standards in the Code, as amended from time to time.” 4C specifically proposed that the vesting rights be exempt from any future growth management policies.

    4C specifically sought “locked-in” St. Vrain Valley School district requirements to prevent “a moratorium on development, a pacing requirement, additional land dedication or cash in lieu requirements.” In effect, 4C wants the school district to wave its school densities requirements if they would impede the project’s development.

    LifeBridge/4C seeks a great many entitlements not otherwise granted.

    Source: Memorandum from Munsey Ayers of the Otten Johnson law firm and attorney for LifeBridge/4C to Barbara Brunk, Dale Bruns, Martin Dickey on January 26, 2007.

    ^ Top


  • If I vote “yes” in this election, what does that mean?

    A “yes” vote means that you approve the annexation without signed legal documents that protect the Town of Firestone and its taxpayers. The annexation will proceed. A majority “yes” vote will signal to LifeBridge/4C that the Firestone community is eager to have the project and will enable 4C to press extremely hard to guarantee that the eventual signed documents will contain precisely what they want. Because negotiations are still ongoing and likely to not be done before the special election September 30th, a “yes” vote will weaken the town’s position in those negotiations.

    ^ Top


You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Comments are closed.

« Letter to the Editor - 9/9/08
Facts & Lies »