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

COLORADO REVISED STATUTES

*** 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) ***

TITLE 30. GOVERNMENT - COUNTY 

COUNTY POWERS AND FUNCTIONS 

ARTICLE 20. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 

PART 4. SEWER AND WATER SYSTEMS

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

 

Newsletters

Here are the latest Newsletters published by SSUA. Please download these PDFs and share!

Word of mouth information is very important. Not everyone knows about the illegal fee they are paying and did NOT vote on. Let people know we are fighting for our rights and there is something they can do!

 

May 14, 2014 

February 5, 2014

December 4, 2013

November 13, 2013

September 4, 2013

July 16, 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

Still No Vote yet More Taxes

I believe it is fair and reasonable to question the integrity of any elected official who misuses and abuses their power to take money from its citizens without first asking permission.

In a few short days, 27,500 property owners in Adams County will get hit with round two of the controversial storm water tax.  A burdensome tax the citizens were denied the opportunity to vote on.  Only this time, it will bill separate from our property taxes, so be prepared to write Uncle Sam Adams yet another check from your hard earned savings or social security income.

Let us not forget, many of our neighbors and local businesses already struggle to make ends meet, provide food for their families, make mortgage payments, pay down debt, and the list goes on.  Taking additional money from our pockets and extracting over $2 million annually from our local economy is bad policy.  

Our two commissioners in favor of continuing this illegal tax (Eva Henry and Chaz Tedesco) must ask themselves, are we willing to file liens on properties and evict citizens who simply cannot afford this additional tax?

Obviously the answer is yes, and from the meetings I’ve attended, they act as if they are looking forward to it.

Fortunately, a group of concerned citizens has formed a grassroots organization and we are desperately fighting to defend everyone’s constitutional rights.  We are looking forward to our day in court.  Our trial has been set for August.

Will you please visit our website, educate yourself regarding these illegal taxes, sign up for our newsletter and help defend our citizen rights.  

A government too powerful and willing to take our money without first asking permission, is a government who lacks regards for its citizens.

Stan Martin

Task Force Urges $2.1M Refund

Panel pans stormwater fee
TASK FORCE ALSO URGES ADAMS COUNTY TO REFUND $2.1M

By Yesenia Robles
The Denver Post

After six months of debate, a citizens task force urged Adams County commissioners to discontinue a controversial stormwater fee and pay back the $2.1 million in fees already collected.

The recommendations were presented by staff to the commissioners during Monday's public hearing — almost two months past the Oct. 1 deadline commissioners had first set for the guidelines.

It's unclear when the board will take action.

"We do not know what the next steps will be nor what will happen with the program in the future," said Andrea Berg, the county's stormwater program manager.

The task force, which has about 20 members, has been meeting on the matter since May and has been divided. Its five recommendations were drafted Sept. 25 and presented Monday.

Some task force members have criticized the stormwater fee over billing errors, called it a tax and asked commissioners to take the issue to voters instead.

One recommendation — put there by mistake, according to member Thom Stanfield — contradicts the other guidelines by stating the stormwater utility should continue in a minimized capacity.

Commissioner Eva Henry said she hopes to implement some recommendations next month.

The fee, which is based on estimates of how much rain runs off of a property, started Jan. 1 for residents and businesses in unincorporated Adams. It was estimated at an average of $62.64 per year for a single-family home, but some reported bills as high as $900.

Funds collected were meant to pay for water quality and flood- mitigation systems, but projects are now on hold. The fee was capped in April when the task force was created after numerous complaints and threats of litigation. A lawsuit was eventually filed in August and is pending.

Adams County Lawsuit !!!!!!UPDATE!!!!!!!!

Lawsuit Update:

  • THE CITIZENS WILL GET OUR DAY IN COURT!
  • Our lawsuit continues to move forward.  By no means are we backing away from this legal challenge and we believe the misguided decisions from our elected officials has only strengthened our case.
  • Our trial date has been set for August 4th, 2014.
  • The lawsuit is now in the ‘discovery phase’.  Our attorneys have up until 7 weeks before the trial date to request discovery information and the county must respond to all discovery requests.
  • Once discovery info is collected, our attorneys will conduct several focused depositions leading into the trial.
  • This is a long, slow and tedious process and we are grateful for your patience as we continue moving forward protecting our constitutional rights.

 

Read Entire Complaint - Click Here

Boulder Road Fee Coming Our Way

Don’t let transportation ‘fee’ take us for a ride

 

 
By Angelique Espinosa and Elisabeth Patterson April 26, 2013

Angelique Espinosa and Elisabeth Patterson

The city of Boulder has launched a yearlong planning process for an update to its Transportation Master Plan, and simultaneously has been exploring the idea of a transportation maintenance fee. At first blush, the two have as much in common as grapes and gravel.

At a recent city council study session, however, staff linked the two because of a dearth of funding, at both the state and federal levels, and a concern that it will not be able to fund the “transportation vision” outlined in the master plan.

The city frames the funding problem by positing that the current sales-tax funding model erodes the system, impedes progress and diminishes buying power, resulting in a $3.2 million shortfall for transportation operations and maintenance. Enter the transportation maintenance fee as a proposed solution.

The fee, which would be charged as part of customers’ water and sewer utility bills, would be based on land use and vehicle trip generation based on data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The data is intended to approximate the burden that different properties impose on city streets.

But what is this fee exactly? What problems might it solve? And, what will it cost?

Is the TMF really a fee, or is it a tax? We would define a fee as a charge for use of a service or amenity, the amount of which is related to the cost of providing that service or amenity. A tax, on the other hand, while it may be applied to a particular good or service, is collected to raise general purpose revenue.

Taxes go into the general fund, and the city government can spend tax revenue on anything it wants. Some argue that without addressing the prioritization of how the city manages its budget overall, taxpayers have no assurance that revenue generated would go to needed road repair and maintenance.

We strongly support multimodal transportation as integral to the Transportation Master Plan and as an important asset in attracting and retaining employers and talent. However, we are concerned that the mundane basic safety expenses like asphalt repair may take a backseat to alternative-mode goodies such as universal Eco Passes and lighting for bike paths.

One problem a TMF solves for the city is TABOR, or Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights. By identifying this revenue stream as a fee, rather than a tax, the city could sidestep a vote of the people and could adjust the fee should costs increase.

At a study session in April, council members indicated that if they do opt for a fee, they would ask for an advisory vote on the initial amount, but we are left wondering what safeguards are in place for any future adjustments.

So, what will it cost? The city’s summary, maxing out at $6 monthly for the all-inclusive package, seems like a steal. What’s missing from their one-page summary is the cost for Boulder’s businesses, federal labs, BVSD and CU. This cost was disclosed in the city’s extensive community outreach to impacted organizations, including the Boulder Chamber, and we can tell you – it’s a big bite.

Rates for commercial and industrial properties would be considerably higher than those for residential properties. Based on the city’s proposed options, which range from $2.5 million to $5.6 million yearly, commercial and retail users would pay the highest rate, $16,000 to $20,480 annually, and warehouses the lowest, $525 to $672 annually. The federal labs would be charged $27,681 to $58,255, CU $70,536 to $158,000 and BVSD $93,599 to $209,662 per year.

If revenue must be raised for transportation purposes, we strongly recommend that the city put the question forward as a tax, subject to a vote of the people, with clear ballot language stating how the tax revenue will be spent. If passed, we ask for a regular and clear accounting on the measure and a restrained fiscal approach to managing the general fund overall, in accordance with the city’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Revenue. That way, no one gets taken for a ride.

Angelique Espinoza is the public affairs manager, and Elisabeth Patterson is a public affairs associate for the Boulder Chamber. They can be reached at 303-938-2077 or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .
http://www.bcbr.com/article/20130426/EDITION0806/130429928&source=RSS

Michigan Wins Lawsuit - It is a TAX!

ACLU says our rights where violated!

As you know our organization was recently targeted directly by Eva Henry (Commissioner District 1) in the Denver Post on Tues. May 28th.  She stated "it's the storm water group, they were basically disrupting people trying to go in for other business.  The last time they had a large group, it got to the point where it was too much".  

As you know from a result of our last hearing / rally on April 29th, the two commissioners (Eva Henry and Chaz Tedesco) adopted a resolution on May 20th limiting our constitutional right to 'free speech'.  This caught the attention of the Colorado ACLU and David Lane (civil rights attorney).   Both of these firms contacted our organization and we recently held several meetings with them.  A lawsuit was pending to be filed against the county this next week on behalf of our organization and all of you.

A huge THANK YOU to a lot of you, as well as the ACLU, who stood up in this attempt to intimidate our group to silence us and get us to go away.  We WILL NOT go away and we WILL NOT quit fighting until our constitutional right to vote on the storm water fee is granted to us.

As a result of people fighting back on this "free speech" issue, the commissioners realized the citizens of Adams County, and specifically our group, will not be intimidated.  They will be rescinding the free speech resolution in it's entirety at Mondays BoCC meeting at 9:30am.

Our organization, as well as the president of the Colorado ACLU (Mark Silverstein), will be attended the meeting.  Mark spoke directly to the commissioners and letting them know this unacceptable behavior of targeting a specific group of individuals, misleading the press into believing our group was disruptive and taking away our constitutional right to free speech is wrong, is in direct violation of the law and it will not be accepted.  Our organization will be speaking and asking for a public apology.

Please let the commissioners know there is a way this can all go away, and that is LETTING US VOTE!

Thank you,

Stop Stormwater Utility Association

Stormwater Utility Fee Sparks Controversy

A Storm Is Brewing In Adams County

New stormwater utility fee has sparked controversy

May 10, 2013 |by Jen Raiffie

The citizens of unincorporated Adams County face a new Stormwater Utility charge that the county has dubbed a “fee.”.

The decision by the former Adams County Commission to institute a stormwater utility and then bill residents for the privilege is a hugely unpopular move among the approximately 27,000 residents of unincorporated Adams County who had little-to-no notification that this was coming. Most residents only discovered it when they received their annual property tax bills, with some of the charges as high as $10,000.00.

It is hard to find a single person among them who will claim they will receive a single benefit from the “fee.” Residents argue that the fee amounts to a new tax which must go to a vote of the people, under Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) passed by voters in 1992. This state constitutional amendment requires voter-approval of new taxes. However, the Stormwater Utility was never put to a vote of the people. The county claims the utility is a fee, not a tax, and thus not subject to a vote. Here lies the legal dispute.

Both newly elected commissioners, Eva Henry and Chaz Tedesco, intend to uphold the fee, despite their campaign rhetoric which would leave one to think otherwise. One local resident, a Teamsters Union representative, sent Henry and Tedesco a letter warning that if they continued to support assessing the “fee” then the union would actively campaign against each, despite the union’s previous support for both.

Gene Sears of the Brighton Blade put it best, referring to Henry and Tedesco who both accepted campaign funds from their predecessors and members of the notorious “Adams Family:”

Despite platforms of openness and reform, the Adam’s Family is alive and well, huddled in their secluded mansion south of Brighton. We may have traded Uncle Fester and Mama for Wednesday and Pugsley, but the modus operandi is the same old, same old: bait and switch, ethics be damned.

The non-partisan group, Stop Stormwater Utility Association (SSUA), is organized and gaining wide-spread support. They are circulating flyers and petitions, and have retained legal counsel who, just last week, submitted a 3-page open records request to the county. They have even hired a public relations firm to help inform others. They claim the tactic of using a “fee” to bypass the vote of the people is not new and not isolated to the Stormwater Utility or Adams County. The group recently stormed two Board of County Commissioner (BOCC) meetings, filling over-flow rooms during normal working hours.

Commissioner Tedesco refuses to acknowledge the group other than as “a small number of trouble makers and bullies.” Commissioner Henry has spearheaded BOCC policy changes to restrict public comment and increase the cost of open records requests under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). Henry even went so far as to ridicule Commissioner Hansen’s motion last week to repeal the fee as nothing more than a ploy to help his bid for re-election. The motion failed 2-1 on a party-line vote.

Adams County originally assessed unincorporated residents $5.1 million annually via the utility to pay for stormwater-related projects. Last year’s Consolidated Annual Financial Report (CAFR) shows nearly $152 million in unrestricted funds available to meet the County’s ongoing obligations to citizens. Adams County Commissioners and officials have been unresponsive to our inquiries on these hard numbers which is earning millions in interest alone. The new CAFR is due out in May and is expected to have an even larger balance.

ppt1

The county’s Stormwater Utility presentation in May of 2012 (referring to 2011 data) painted a picture of financial doom and gloom, and specifically indicated that there was “nearly $8 million reduction in interest earnings.” The 2011 CAFR shows that General Fund interest earnings increased by $111,472, and that interest expense decreased between 2010 & 2011. It also said that property tax revenue did decrease by $773,247 in 2011 (unverified), but the County increased spending in Conservation of Natural Resources by a whopping 69% from 2010 to 2011 which came out to somewhere above $4 million dollars.

Feeling the pressure, the BOCC did recently pass two resolutions (a temporary fee cap and the formation of another citizen’s task force). Both resolutions were posted online the Saturday before Easter, and then voted on via the consent agenda, without even being read into the record, on the Monday morning that followed Easter Sunday, thus allowing virtually no time for public review. This does not seem to be an earnest attempt to engage the public with more open and transparent communications.

Opponents of the tax are concerned that the new task force will be hand-picked and stacked by the BOCC, and that they, too, will be lied to and ignored. Citizens are simply tired of the county throwing good money after bad, and it seems the SSUA is drawing a line in the sand.

The new temporary rate cap is based on the average stormwater fees currently being charged, including the original over-billed erroneous rates which the county has now spent over $100,000 to remedy. How can the commissioners accurately and fairly come up with an average, when approximately 35-50% of the accounts being used to calculate it are inaccurate, according to their own admission?

The county previously had a Stormwater Advisory Committee (SWAC) whose members have gone on record saying that they were ignored and lied to by the county and their no-bid / sole source contractor, AMEC – an environmental consulting firm.  AMEC provided inaccurate and misleading information to county staff, the commissioners, the SWAC, and taxpayers when they said the county would be fined a $10,000 per day per violation for non-compliance of the EPA’ MS4 permit.

It should be noted that AMEC also helped the EPA to author the “Guide To Municipal Stormwater Funding,” which instructs municipalities on how to convince taxpayers to “go with the flow” on Stormwater Utility programs.  SSUA is now circulating a copy of the recent Virginal Court ruling against the EPA (which the EPA refused to challenge) that discredits the county’s main justification behind their Stormwater Utility program.

SSUA issued a media release in response to the resolutions and stated the resolutions are a “temporary” appeasement to quiet the crowd. Once citizens disengage, the commissioners will have free reign to elevate the fee structure back to pre-determined levels or higher.

Adams County has information on their website in support of the county’s position. SSUA has a website and has also produced an FAQ  of their findings.

The video below details SSUA’s latest astonishing research. For example, residents are already being assessed a mill levy to the Urban Drainage and Flood Control district to fund the same projects. The video also reveals SWAC meeting minutes (page 3) where AMEC recommended the county hide the fees on the tax bills so people would not notice it.

This whole effort stinks so bad that the stormwater may quickly turn into raw sewage for the county, especially if it heads to court.

Additional information