The" LUV" Bill

Click Here to Download The "LUV" Bill (DRAFT)

SSUA supports a new bill to allow UN-incorporated Colorado voters the right to place initiatives on ballots for voting!  

Did you know that voters in all un-incorporated areas of Colorado do not have the right to place issues / initiatives on local ballots for voting? That is correct. Constitutional provisions concerning initiatives were adopted in 1910 at a time when county governments did not exercise significant legislative functions, if at all. The result of these outdated laws is unfair and discriminatory to those voters at the county level and leaves us powerless to county commissioners poor policy making.  The commissioners decide whether we can vote on a myriad of issues that affect our community from Stormwater taxes to Pot Shops. Usually our “vote” is not called upon and we are left to deal with “we know what is best for you” decisions. Whether you are for or against these and other issues the point is you should have the RIGHT to vote on them!
Well “The Times They Are a- Changin” and so should the laws. SSUA refers to this new bill as the “LUV” bill (Let Us Vote). The beauty of this bill is it will change the language of current statutes to allow county level electors to place both countywide and un-incorporated (local) initiatives on the ballot.  
Reference Comments Section Of Proposed Bill:
“The Colorado courts have recognized that the power of initiative “is a fundamental right at the very core of the republican form of government.” McKee v City of Louisville, 200 Colo. 525; 616 P.2d 969(1980). Initiative is the power of the people to propose bills and laws and to enact or reject them at the polls, independent of legislative authority, which is an important prerogative dating back to the French charte constitutionelle. Presently, counties and their taxing sub districts enact significant numerous measures, rules, regulation and ordinances and not having the power of initiative with respect to counties is an unfair and unreasonable discrimination against the county electorate. The power of initiative will promote responsiveness of county officials to the wishes of the county electorate and provide the county electorate impacted by such measures, rules, regulations or ordinances an important remedy.”
As mentioned in our mission statement SSUA will “Support, represent and advocate on behalf of those individuals whose voting rights have been ignored…” We will continue to fight using many approaches including legislative action. It is time to get our power back!
Call to Action:
Currently this bill is at the Office of Legislative Legal Services for review to make sure the bill conforms to the legal style of the Colorado statutes so the bill may change from the original draft (read here) and updated versions will always be available at Representative JoAnn Windholz will sponsor the bill but we need additional legislator support statewide.  Ask your legislators throughout Colorado to support this bill through co-sponsorship and or a vote. Share your ideas with us and lets work together so our voices can finally be heard!


Voters Do Not have rights in un-AdCo

Did you know?

Did you know that electors (voters) of unincorporated county area throughout Colorado DO NOT have the right to place an initiative on the ballot? Only County Commissioners can place 'countywide' questions or initiatives on the ballot. The State Statute needs to be amended to allow County Commissioners to ask specific questions or initiatives affecting only those who live in unincorporated areas. Many years ago when Colorado State Statutes and Constitution were formed it did not include provisions for electors (voters) at the county level to place initiatives on the ballot.

This may explain why Commissioner Chaz Tedesco and Commissioner Eva Henry ignored our pleas to place the Stormwater Tax on the ballot for a vote. They knew we did not have the power to place it on the ballot ourselves! In fact this lack of voting power crosses many lines and issues. Those of us in unincorporated county areas are at the mercy of the commissioners to place important issues on the ballet for our voice to be heard.
How has this worked for us so far…

Both commissioners VOTED FOR the Stormwater tax. Refused to repeal it.

Adams County Commissioners

(Ref: Dellinger v. Board Of County Commissioners For County Of Teller No. 99CA0403)

Rain Capture Permit

Did you know?
Collecting Rain Water Is Legal!

There is a law which make it legal to collect rainwater that flows from your roof in Colorado. Yes you can get a reduction from your Stormwater Bill through Adams County Stormwater Department.

  • Owners with wells on property.
  • A permit is needed from the state.

Click Here to download instructions and permit.

Motion For Summary Judgement

Download "Final Order" From Judge Warner - February 9, 2015

Download Motion For Summary Judgement - December 19, 2014

Download "Response" Motion For Summary Judgement - January 9, 2015

Download "Final Response" Motion For Summary Judgement - January 23, 2015

Our law firm Polsinelli, has submitted a ‘Motion For Summary Judgment” to the courts on December 19, 2014. Now that depositions have been completed and motion responses have been submitted the final motion is now before District Court Judge Mark Douglas Warner.  We are hoping for a speedy and just decision from the courts.


Adams County stormwater fee program under question again



By Yesenia Robles
The Denver Post
Yesenia Robles: 303-954-1372, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or

Adams County's treasurer and one of its commissioners are asking for an investigation into the county's stormwater program, which started last year, after finding that it again may be riddled with errors.

Commissioner Erik Hansen said he was made aware Tuesday that the county sent delinquency notices to more than 12,000 Adams County home and business owners who haven't paid stormwater fees, but that some may have incorrect account numbers and information on them.

"The problem is we're still not getting it right," Hansen said.

County spokesman Jim Siedlecki said officials are reviewing the delinquency notices after hearing from some residents who had been billed inaccurately.

"We're talking about a few at this point," Siedlecki said, "but they're being very thorough."

He said it may take a couple of weeks to determine the problem's cause and scope.

The program — charging residents and businesses in unincorporated Adams County — has been riddled with controversy and problems since it took effect in January 2013.

Bills sent out last year in the first few months of the fee had a 34 percent error rate. The county paid about $100,000 to correct the errors.

A lawsuit against the county over the fee is still pending in court.

Stan Martin, the leader of the organization who filed the lawsuit, said they are hoping a judge can make a ruling on the case without going to trial, sometime before the end of this year.

According to the letter to the county's internal auditor, signed by Hansen and treasurer Brigitte Grimm, the release of the 2013 annual financial report criticizing the stormwater program also contributed to their request for an audit.

"We are concerned that the cost of fixing repeated problems is greater than the revenue generated by the utility," the letter states. "We are also concerned that there is a pattern of missteps that have resulted in a serious erosion of the public trust."

Siedlecki said their act "does not reflect a consensus opinion of Adams County government officials."

He also added that the work done by the county's internal auditor is typically first approved by the board of county commissioners.

Grimm on Tuesday added she has decided not to place any delinquent accounts on a tax lien.

"I made that decision last year based on all the inaccuracies, because we continued to find errors," Grimm said. "Well, that's happening again this year."


Will Adams County Take Mary’s Home?

Mary is a long time unincorporated Adams County resident living in the Welby area.

Mary is desperate and scared.  After numerous messages and failed attempts to receive answers from the County, Mary frantically searches the web and googles ‘storm water invoice’.

This is where I come into the picture.  Mary comes across our website and contacts me.  I have placed my name and personal cell number on this site.  Why? Because it’s important for me to listen to Mary’s story.

Upon opening her mail last Friday, Mary was surprised to find a ‘Delinquent Fee Invoice’ from the County in the amount of $79.85 with a Due Date: (stamped in bold letters) Immediately.

In a panicked voice, Mary tells me she never remembers receiving any bill from the County and is quick to point out she always tries to stay current with her bills if money allots.

I tell Mary I have not yet seen these delinquency invoices, but let her know I most likely have the same invoice sitting in my mailbox.  Because unlike Mary, I have known about this storm water tax, but refuse to pay until an Adams County Judge tells me otherwise.  I explain to Mary, I’m not against the County spending money on storm water projects.  I am however, wholeheartedly against the County taking my hard earned money without first asking my permission.

Mary is frightened due to the invoice stating in bold letters: All bills not paid by the due date shall be considered delinquent and shall become a lien upon the real property that is subject to the storm water fee and shall be collected in the same manner as delinquent property taxes pursuant to C.R.S. 30-20-420.

Mary tells me she simply does not have the necessary funds to pay this bill until she gets paid again around the middle of September.  She goes on to explain how she has lived in her small 2 bedroom home and has always paid her property taxes.

Obviously, like most of us, Mary is on a tight budget, is trying to keep a roof over her head, feed her family, clothe her children and is desperately trying to make ends meet.  If that’s not enough, Mary now has to worry Adams County is coming to take her home.

This is why I continue to fight!  Because someone needs to stand up and protect Mary from a bullying government who acts as if they are looking forward to taking her property.

As many of you know from previous editorials, I joined other concerned citizens and became president of a non-profit organization, Stop Stormwater Utility Association, in an attempt to protect our constitutional rights and protect citizens like Mary, citizens who simply cannot afford these burdensome taxes.  I’m also lead plaintiff on a lawsuit fighting this unjust unconstitutional tax.

Our lawsuit continues through the court system and we hope to have a ruling by the end of the year.

Lets not forget, Mary wasn’t given a choice!  The county thrust the storm water tax upon her and every unincorporated property owner without the respect of asking for our vote.  Now the County threatens to take her property!  All this while the County sits on $151,461,850 in reserve funds.

If you live in one of Adams County’s 9 cities, don’t think you are immune to this tax.  Commissioner Eva Henry recently stated in a Denver Post article, she would like to see the Storm Water fee expanded to the municipalities. 

Does the County really need an additional $79.85 from Mary?  Do they really need to bully her and threaten to take her property?

Surely we have commissioners who can prioritize a $408 million budget without the need to take $79.85 from Mary and possibly her home.


Stan Martin
Brighton Resident
President; Stop Stormwater Utility Association

Idaho Supreme Court - It Is A Tax!

Idaho Supreme Court ruled stormwater Lewiston illegally collected stormwater fees

Published: Feb 9, 2012 at 12:08 PM PDT

LEWISTON, ID - The Idaho Supreme Court ruled Lewiston illegally collected stormwater fees between 2009 and 2010.

The city plans to refund property owners their money. The question is how and when.

The Idaho Supreme court ruled the stormwater fee was instead a tax. As such, the city did not have the legal authority to levy the tax. Only the state legislature could do that.

The city spent the nearly $1.2 million collected to comply with the federal clean water act. The ruling did not force the city to return the money. However, Lewiston officials say they will.

"The council has reached a consensus, at least at this point, that they want to provide citizens with an opportunity to decide if they want a refund of the stormwater fees they paid, or if they want to forego that refund," said Jim Bennett, City Manager of Lewiston.

Many don't seem to have a problem with that approach. What seems to be the sticking point is asking citizens what they want to do before the city even cuts their checks.

"People should not have to ask for their money back," said Jim Kluss," former Lewiston councilor. "I believe it should just come automatically, and if somebody wants to contribute back to the city that's up to them."

Some are okay with the city's approach.

"I think in the sake of saving the city's administration time, I think they should go ahead and offer the alternative and let the residents make their choice," said Rick Tierney, a Lewiston resident.

Seven of eight who responded directly to the question on our Facebook page say they do want their money back. One person we ran into on the street was a little more charitable.

"I would probably donate it to the city," said Abbie Acuff, a Lewiston resident. "$54 in two years, I can afford do that."

Jim Kluss worries about the precedent set.

"If we continue to bring about ways to fund projects that are later determined to be illegal, the action we're taking now by making people ask for their money back creates a situation where down the road it will be much easier for councils to pass questionable fees, and I believe we need to stop it right now," said Kluss.

The council appears split four to three on whether to issue the refund checks before residents actually decide. The majority prefers to send out the literature first asking property owners to choose before any checks are cut. The decision should be made at the next council meeting on February 27th.

Former Councilor Jim Kluss did want to point out that while homeowners are due about $54 back, he said businesses are owed much more. He said some paid over a $1000 in stormwater fees.


Rain Tax Expanded To Public Roadways

Adams County Rain Tax Expanded To Public Roadways



Despite major public pushback over a forced rain tax on residents in unincorporated Adams County, commissioners took it one step further last Tuesday, and are now taxing property owners for rain that falls on public roads.

Property owners pay a specific mill levy tax to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District that fund county storm water projects. Owners pay property taxes to the county’s general fund that help pay for storm water projects.  Many owners pay another mill levy tax through their special district to fund these projects.

Add in the new rain tax and property owners are now paying multiple taxes for the same service, yet most unincorporated residents receive absolutely no benefit from this service. 

The rain tax was originally designed to provide additional revenue for storm drainage projects, calculated and billed based on a properties square footage of impervious material (rooftop, concrete driveway, asphalt parking lot, etc). The county claims the more impervious material on a property, the more storm water runoff resulting in an increased burden and cost to their system.

If a property owner designs and builds a drainage system on their property completely eliminating all runoff from entering Adams County storm water system, shouldn’t that owner be entitled to an exemption from paying the rain tax?  After all, they spent their own money eliminating any burden to the county’s system.

     The county disagrees! They are now taxing that owner for rain that falls on public roads

In 2007, under the direction of then Public Works Director Lee Assay (who went to prison for the Quality Paving scandal), the county spent nearly $1 million consulting with an environmental company AMEC. AMEC advised the county on a scheme to extract an additional $5.1 million annually from taxpayers. Meeting minutes revealed AMEC recommended the county hide the fees on the tax bills so people would not notice it.

Ruth Kedzior, assistant county administrator told that not establishing a stormwater utility or imposing the fees needed to run it would put the county in violation of the federal Clean Water Act, exposing the county to fines into the six figures. The EPA’s Clean Water Act is a federal water regulation in place to keep chemicals collected in rainwater from polluting the water table. This, in fact, is false; stormwater runoff from rural areas is not part of the regulation. 

The county showed a presentation to their advisory committee claiming the general fund was insufficient to cover the cost of their stormwater projects. Citizens reviewed the Consolidated Annual Financial Report (CAFR) and discovered over $151 million in reserve funds, which has amassed an incredible $34 million in interest over the past seven years. 

After residents held one of the largest demonstrations in Adams County history, commissioners responded by imposing a “no speech zone” in front of our brand new, multi-million-dollar taxpayer-funded government center, in an attempt to silence and intimidate them. When the Colorado ACLU threatened to sue, the restrictions were revoked.

Citizens filed a lawsuit attempting to protect our constitutional right to vote, citing the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) amendment, which states: governments cannot levy or raise taxes without voter approval.

In January, citizens received their second annual rain tax bill, but this time, it’s on an invoice (in lieu of hiding it on tax statements) along with a threat that owners will have liens placed on their property for non-payment.

The county has spent an additional $65,000 in tax dollars consulting with yet another out-of-state company, Raftels to devise yet another scheme bringing public roadways into the stormwater mix, claiming public roadways make up 40 percent of the total impervious area in the service area.

On June 22, the county announced their intent to tax property owners a minimum 40 percent of their rain tax bill regardless if they place no burden on the county’s stormwater system. Property owners must now pay an additional tax for the rain that falls on the public roadways. 

This is absurd. The county has gone from taxing us for rain that falls on our roofs, to taxing us for rain that falls on our public roads.

Where will this road end?

NEW! Discovery Request To Defendants

Read Entire Discovery Request - Click Here

Discovery Request


Estes Park Trip $21,449 - With Your Tax Dollar!

 Today I am writing to you because I am beyond upset to learn our precious tax  
dollars have been spent on a trip to Estes Park which included 20 county  
employees and 1 out of state, no-bid vendor. This 3 day 2 night "retreat"  
cost the taxpayers $21,449.70.

I toured the new multimillion dollar Adams County government building and discovered  
the building has several newly furnished, comfortable, video and audio  
equipped conference rooms. Two conference rooms accommodate 48 people each  
and can be opened to accommodate 96 people. These conference rooms are FREE  
for the county to use. Instead of using the government building  for the  
"leadership" meeting the county once again went to Estes Park for what they  
referenced as a "retreat" and thousands of taxpayers dollars were spent on  
what I reference as a "mini-vacation". I say once again because the county  
made the same trip to Estes Park last year (2013) as well.

The "retreat" includes lake view rooms at $116 per night and expensive food  
including dinners for $36 per person.

The vendor that was invited is Novak Consulting. They are from another state  
and this is a no bid contract. I questioned Mr. Leoplold and brought up my  
concerns to the commissioners at a BOCC meeting on why we again are hiring an  
out of state company with no bids taken. It is my opinion that we should be  
hiring people within our own state. I refuted their position of the "one of a  
kind" service they offered. There are plenty of consulting firms here in  
Colorado. We paid this company $11,305.00 to participate in the "leadership retreat" in  
Estes Park.

Transparency? The county's favorite word. There was none concerning this  
trip. No mention of the trip by the media, no mention to the citizens, no  
mention on the Adams County website.

As you know the county government has threatened to place liens on our  
private property and send our homes to auction of we do not pay the  
"Stormwater fee". As you know Commissioner Henry publicly stated "WE NEED  
THE MONEY!" referring to the fee's and the county government "NEED" for  
additional money.
But the county government has plenty of money for trips to Estes Park and  
justifies them under the cloak of official business? I am not buying it.

People are struggling and our local government should not be wasting our hard earned money!

BRAVO to Treasurer Bridgett Grimm who opted NOT to attend.

Kathryn Lawrence
Resident of Unincorporated Adams County

PS - I have have all supporting documentation.

Statute 30-20-420

Colorado Revised Statute 30-20-420 (2013):

  • By no means are we attempting to provide legal advice, but we would like to give our interpretation of this statute.
  • Attached is a link providing the verbiage of this statute.
  • It is unfortunate the county is referencing this statute in an attempt to threaten and intimidate us.  Similar to how they told us the storm water utility was required by the EPA and they had no choice but to impose a tax on us without our vote.
  • This statute was written for “sewer and water systems”.  Water systems meaning the drinking water that comes into your house, not the God given water that is falling on our properties of which we have absolutely no control over.
  • This statute actually limits the power of government from shutting off your water or refusing the use of your sewer system.  These are “services” by definition.  Yes, sometimes citizens go through difficult financial times and cannot pay their water and sewer bills for a certain amount of time.  This statute keeps a bullying government from shutting off those services ultimately making things worse.
  • We will let a judge decide if we are receiving any kind of “service” for our fee.
  • Fees by definition are paid “voluntarily”.



Statute the county is threatening the citizens with. This statute was cited on the Stormwater bill for 2014.

C.R.S. 30-20-420  (Copy w/ Cite)

Pages: 1

C.R.S. 30-20-420


*** This document reflects changes current through all laws passed at the First Regular Session

of the Sixty-Ninth General Assembly of the State of Colorado (2013) ***





C.R.S. 30-20-420 (2013)

30-20-420. Failure to pay rates and charges - lien

In the event any user of the system neglects, fails, or refuses to pay the rates, fees, tolls, and charges fixed by the board of county commissioners for the connection with and use of the system, said user shall not be disconnected from said system or refused the use of said system unless the user is outside the boundaries of the county, but the rates, fees, tolls, and charges due therefor may be certified by the county clerk and recorder to the board of county commissioners of the county in which said delinquent user's property is located and shall become a lien upon the real property so served by said system and collected in the manner as though they were part of the taxes.

HISTORY: Source: L. 71: p. 365, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 36-29-20


Additional information