Study Session
February 16, 2026
Transcript
Describer:
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District Work Session
7404 Yorkshire Drive, Castle Pines, CO 80108
Monday, February 16, 2026 at 5:30 PM MST to Monday, February 16, 2026 at 6:30 PM MST
Agenda
I. Call Work Session to order
A. Roll call & disclosure of potential conflicts
II. Finance Items
A. Review monthly claims for payments made from January 14, 2026 to February 11, 2026
Presenter: Molly Janzen
III. Legal Items
A. Review January 19, 2026 Work Session Meeting Minutes
B. Review January 26, 2026 Board Meeting Minutes
C. Review CPNMD Service Plan Second Amendment
D. Review Standard Contract Form
E. JAM Ranch Rezoning Application Response
IV. District Manager Items
A. Gittlein Farm Lease
B. Review Draft Douglas County 2050 Water Plan
V. Adjourn
Board President Jason Blankaert:
All right. Thank you. So. Yeah. All right. Good evening, and welcome to the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District work session for February 2026. Today is February 16th at approximately 5:30 p.m.. And we will begin with the roll call.
Board Member Director Leah Enquist:
Leah. Here. Present. No conflicts.
Board Member Director James Mulvey:
Jim. Present. No conflicts.
Board Member Director Tera Radloff:
Tera. Present. No conflicts.
Board Member Director Jana Krell:
Jana. Present. No conflict.
Jason:
I'm Jason, and I'm present.
No conflicts. We'll go ahead and move on to item number two, finance items, and we'll review the monthly claims for payments made from January 14th to February 11th, 2026 with Molly Janzen. Good evening Molly.
District Manager Nathan Travis:
I'm gonna cut Molly off. I got I got my weeks messed up, so I wanted to introduce to the board Rene Santini.
He is our incoming deputy district manager.
All Board Member speak:
Hi, Renee. Hi Renee. Welcome. Thanks for coming.
Nathan:
At least get one face introduction before we move to virtual for a few months. But Renee worked with CH2M Hill, Jacobs after that, a couple of the smaller firms following that. A lot of experience in the area. Got an impressive resume. So, welcome to the Board.
Tera:
And you're a resident. I saw you walking and I’m like who are you walking in?
Leah:
Rene, where do you live?
Deputy District Manager Rene Santini:
So I am off of Whitby Court. So if you go to Yorkshire, Claire and then it's the first left.
Jana:
You're on Yorkshire?
Rene:
On Whitby Court. But I mean. Just off of Yorkshire.
Jana:
And you walked here?
All Speak:
Yeah. So that's. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, so I saw. Yeah.
Rene:
I timed it. It's like four minutes.
Jana:
A four minute walk?
Rene:
Yeah. Depends on the light. Which I think it's going to like bite me when he's earlier than I am. I’m like, it was traffic.
I have no excuse to be late.
Jana:
And where were you most recently. Where were you working before this?
Rene:
So it was an engineering firm called Respec. They it's a 500 person firm. The main office in Colorado is in Colorado Springs. But they have an office in Loveland. And that the company's based out of South Dakota.
Jason:
Yes.
Welcome. Thanks for the introduction, Nathan.
Nathan:
Yeah. And now we’ll let Molly go. You can hang or go or whatever you want to do.
Rene:
I’ll check out.
Nathan:
Not a problem. Thank you. Sir. Thank you.
James:
And nice to meet you.
Describer:
On screen. Packet Page 3
TO: Board of Directors – Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
FROM: Eric Harris, Elevated Clarity (EC)
DATE: February 16, 2026
RE: Work Session Report – February 2026
Claims Submitted for Review
District Finance is submitting $1,895,968.59 in Payment Claims for review at the work session, consisting of
$1,754,169.08 in checks and $141,799.51 in electronic payments.
Report Format
The formats of the reports for this meeting containing Payment Claims information have been simplified as follows:
-The Payment Claims Presented for Review report is now one page (in prior months this report was two pages).
The electronic payment detail formerly appearing on the second page of the report is now included on the main
summary page with an item number identifier to allow for easier reference to specific transactions.
-For the Check Detail Report, rather than utilizing a system-generated report that was difficult to follow and
contained extraneous information, an export of the payments made was used as the basis for the report.
Molly describes.
Molly:
Okay. The claims submitted for review. Your packet total $1,895,968.59. I did want to point out.
And it's also explained in the memo that we we took a look at the service reports and I think I mentioned last time one of our goals for this year is to streamline and get more to the point, more meaningful information so we consolidated, the summary page.
It used to be two pages. Made it one because there was enough room time to include all the detail of the electronic payments.
Describer:
On screen. Packet Page 4
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
Payment Claims
For the Period January 14, 2025 - February 11, 2026
PRESENTED FOR REVIEW
CHECKS - 29524 through 29566 (Refer to Check Detail Report)
Voucher Checks $1,753,937.63
One-Time Checks (Customer Refunds) $231.45
TOTAL CHECKS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW $1,754,169.08
Total Payments Presented for Review $1,895,968.59
Molly Describers
Molly:
And then, so you can see that all of that information appears on that one page.
Describer:
On screen. Packet Page 5
Check Detail Report
January 14, 2026 - February 11, 2026
Molly:
And then the check information is just the actual invoices for vendors, a description of the item, and the dollar amounts.
We also included item numbers. So if you have questions, it's easier for everybody to point to exactly what you're asking questions about on this page. And then we also did a pivot table of totals by vendor. Just thinking that might be helpful information as well. So we did strip off the overlay of the financial controls matrix as well.
We were using that to make sure that the financial controls policy encompassed all of the different types of transactions, and felt comfortable that. We can put those transactions into those different buckets for the approval. So we didn't think that was necessary or every time we present claims. So I'd be open to any questions you might have about either actual payments or the format reports.
Tera:
Well, I love the formats of the reports that it is, and a lot simpler. Just process wise. Remind me then, because I agree that watching all those controls, it seemed like they were working. Is that something that happens automatically within the payment or what's within the the payment system? Or is, how does the process work for the controls?
Molly:
For the controls?
So there are only certain types of items that Nathan would have to, go to the board to get approval ahead of time. And no matter what, you're going to see every single claim, every time for the period that we're talking about. But it really is now that you have the policy, it's up to us and Nathan to look at the policy and understand ... how we need to approach it.
Tera:
So how would it be visible if, say, there was something that needed approval and it didn't get approved before it came? How would that be? How would that show up?
Molly:
So if so, if there was something. Let me pull up the policy because that will help me.
Tera:
Just turned right around how it would work.
Nathan:
Yeah, it would be. So we wouldn't process the payment on it if it fell within sight of that policy. And we didn't have board approval. Theoretically, we shouldn't even really have an invoice.
Jason:
Leah you're not live.
Tera:
So the accounting is all about checks and balances.
And if we how would the board be aware if something came through that didn't have approval? How would we be made aware of since we're not carrying forward all the paperwork?
Molly:
So I guess I have a couple thoughts on that. The and I'm looking at the policy right now. Expenses and obligations over $50,000 district manager shall obtain prior approval.
So if if you were to see something over $50,000 on here and you didn't remember getting, you know, having that approval or doing that approval, we can talk about it. What are your thoughts?
Leah:
But Tera are you worried about if it's under that threshold?
Tera:
Because. No. If he's supposed to get something approved, right? Right before we had the big paperwork and we saw where all of the checkmarks are, and I'm.
I'm okay with that. I don't really need that. I'm just asking for education purposes. So unless it's part of an approved project. But if there was a $50,000 thing that came through. How would we know that it wasn't approved? If that were the case.
Molly:
It would you the board would be the ones who would have approved it. So if you didn't see any information on that particular transaction, you could say, I don't remember seeing that right.
What's difficult, I think, too, is the policy talks about controls in the aggregate. And the way I understand that is if we have a vendor that we pay every month, that each month is less than that. But over the course of a year, it's 120,000, then that would be something that would be had been contracted. So that's what's difficult to about analyzing it every single month.
Is the policy really is for other than just the specific claims that you're looking at each time. I'm just kind of rambling here.
Jason:
Tera I do understand too like you're saying, there's a lot of transactions over $50,000 here. How do we know that each one of us has a contract associated with it, and that we've already agreed to it?
Molly:
Yeah, I think.
Nathan:
Well, and then because a lot we do have the, you know, expenses that clear that mark with specific vendors in aggregate like well emergency pipe repair. Right. Those are going to be there's a notification requirement for emergencies. Then they fall under the necessary repair and maintenance of those don't require approval. And we did kind of semi track that, at least with.
That sheet. That's a that's a good question.
Tera:
Okay. More to come. Just.
Molly
Yeah. And I'm just kind of brainstorming here. But it could be something that because we do have a lot of vendors that we pay every month. Just having some kind of reference that okay, we have a contract on file contract on file. It was, you know, just something to help us see if something pops out that doesn't make sense.
Jason:
Yeah. That'd be a good check to have.
Molly:
Yeah. That would be helpful for all of us.
So we'll look, we'll talk more about it. Come up with something. Yeah.
Tera:
Because I do like the simplest showing, but there's no way unless we're going to talk about every, like, from 34 on down, every expense, over 50,000. Obviously Semocor. That makes sense to me. We probably pay that every month. Bartle Wells, that's our water.
Describer:
On screen. Packet page 6
Check Detail Report - Totals by Vendor
January 14, 2026 - February 11, 2026
Item # Vendor name Sum of Amount
1 Flash Fire Protection Inc. $70.00
2 Col. Dept of Public Health & Environment $200.00
3 Utility Notification Ctr - CO $230.24
4 Customer Refund $231.45
5 Streamline $329.00
6 DTC Print Brokers $510.00
7 COMCAST $642.92
8 Comcast Business $810.50
9 Investigations Law Group $980.00
10 Well Augmentation Subdistrict $1,300.00
11 ENLIVE tv Services LLC $1,880.00
12 Hamre Rodriguez Ostrander & Prescott, P.C. $1,920.40
13 Utilo LLC $1,950.00
14 Castle Pines Connection $2,350.00
15 Principle Electric $3,500.00
16 Mountain Peak Controls $3,870.00
17 Employers Council $3,995.00
18 Dominion Water and Sanitation District $4,330.31
19 VIP Video Productions $4,500.00
20 Seter, Vander Wall & Mielke, P.C. $5,117.50
21 Jehn Water Consultants Inc. $8,526.06
22 Sigler Communications Inc. $9,155.00
23 Triton Wireless $11,520.00
24 Core & Main LP $12,616.00
25 Security Central Inc. $14,116.04
26 Elevated Clarity LLC $15,761.25
27 Distribution System Resources dba DSR $20,337.33
28 Backflow Secure; Management Secure LLC $21,000.00
29 Emergency Pipe Repairs & Excavation LLC $23,295.30
30 Fischer Enterprises BD Inc $24,096.30
31 USA Blue Book $25,982.95
32 Level Engineering and Inspection $42,825.66
33 Highlands Ranch Water $45,395.34
34 Semocor Inc $50,198.81
35 Bartle Wells Associates $52,755.00
36 Groundwater Mgmt. Subdistrict $55,352.04
37 Plum Creek Water Reclamation Authority $62,374.16
38 Layne Christensen Company $144,800.00
39 Chatfield Reservoir Mitigation Company Inc $152,912.00
40 Kennedy Jenks Consultants Inc $163,594.88
41 Myers & Sons Construction LLC $318,813.60
42 T Lowell Construction Inc $440,024.04
Grand Total $1,754,169.08
Tera:
Groundwater management subdistrict. Maybe that's on the one before.
Jana:
Would it make sense to add another column here. And that column would say what contract it was. So for me I'm not going to remember like Myers and Sons versus T Lowell. I don't know the difference between 41 and 42 like what they're working on. Would it make sense to have a column saying what contract they were or what project they were on?
Leah:
I was even thinking linking to it if there is a way to do that.
Jana:
So you would hover over it and it would be you could click what contract it was a part of. Just clearly there's a difference between 41 and 42 that I don't think anybody at the board knows which one's which, so.
Molly:
And this is just totals by vendor.
The first page that lists each invoice gives you descriptions of over 50.
Describer:
On screen. Packet page 5
Check Detail Report
January 14, 2026 - February 11, 2026
Item # Vendor name Invoice number Invoice description Amount Paid by
1 Backflow Secure; Management Secure LLC 878 Backflow Services Program-January $9,000.00 Check #29524
2 Backflow Secure; Management Secure LLC 874 Backflow Soft Repairs-2025 $12,000.00 Check #29524
3 Bartle Wells Associates 559D-1003 Rate Study-BWA Job #559D- October & November $52,755.00 Check #29565
4 Castle Pines Connection 15455 Full Page Ad $2,350.00 Check #29525
5 Chatfield Reservoir Mitigation Company Inc 2026-06 2025-2026 Member Assessment $152,912.00 Check #29526
And it continues....
Jana:
Yeah, because those are pay apps I assume like construction pay apps. And so they fit under an umbrella of a bigger PO. Only you guys don't do POs. What is it? Contract.
I don't think we have to have the answer. I think we just need to think about what's a way for the board to kind of get their information, whether it's a live link or another column.
Tera:
Because the page before that does show you right the aggregate of 50. So if I go and they look at the, the groundwater one it's actually three.
Things and I guess the project is 2026 assessment or I'm assuming that was in the budget. I don't know. I was just trying to figure it out again, I don't really need all of that additional data that we have. I'm just trying to understand, you know, from my role, I know we have a policy. How am I going to know that nothing is falling out of that policy?
Right, right. That I don't know how to catch it right. Unless we have to talk about every $50,000 invoice every time, which I will, I will let you guys figure that out.
James:
I mean, this is I mean, it looks like it's all Excel based, but you sound like you had a another program that you guys actually use.
Molly:
This this is just an export from the financial system from the data into Excel.
James:
Yeah. I mean, the only thing I was thinking maybe more along the lines of the link. But you could just do a lookup table for something we have contracts for. Basically if you know, you run the lookup table and it doesn't go back to a contract and it would highlight read or something, you can conditionally format or something.
Something simple like that that you don't have to keep updating it would automatically do it for you. Yeah. Be a bit of work the first time.
Molly:
Right. Just to set it up.
James:
Yeah. But, most of the contracts are static vendors. I think, except for a handful of new ones.
Molly
Right. Which would be easy once we get it established to just add them as they come up.
James:
So because the only ones you want to catch are the ones, that fall out, that are outside the contractual, you know, Norm, right?
Molly:
Like that would be helpful to us to I think, so.
Nathan:
Yeah we can build something like that.
James:
You know might be 50 or 60 names you got to put in the table. Yeah. Right.
Nathan:
But yeah.
And then it's, it's relatively easy to maintain after that.
James:
Yeah it might be 5 to 10 things you know tweak every year going forward. Yeah. Anyway, just an idea.
Tera:
Good idea. Well I mean like you said it helps you guys. It helps us. Right.
Jason:
Great. Great. Any other questions regarding this item? No. Hearing none. We'll go ahead and, close out the finance items and we'll move on to legal items. Is, Paul with us tonight?
Nathan:
He is. Paul?
Describer:
On screen. Packet page 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
FROM: Seter, Vander Wall & Mielke, P.C., Paul Polito, Esq. and Kim J. Seter, Esq.
DATE: February 13, 2026
RE: Legal Status Report for the February 16, 2026 Board Meeting
MATTERS REQUIRING BOARD ACTION
MATTER: SERVICE PLAN AMENDMENT
Status: The intergovernmental agreements with the City of Castle Pines require CPNMD to amend its Service Plan to eliminate Park and Recreation and Stormwater services. Counsel has drafted and circulated the Second Amendment for review. The draft specifically removes the District's authority to provide, own, or maintain parks, trails, open space, and stormwater systems to reflect the property transfers to the City of Castle Pines. Additionally, it establishes a maximum operations mill levy cap of 7 mills, as required in the IGA regarding Park and Recreation services.
Action: Consider and provide comments or suggested edits regarding the Second Amendment.
MATTER: STANDARD INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT TEMPLATE
Status: Counsel has drafted a new, comprehensive Master Services Agreement (MSA) template for the District's use with independent contractors. This updated form is designed to streamline the engagement of on-call and recurring vendors by establishing robust legal protections, including TABOR compliance, governmental immunity, and independent contractor acknowledgments, which will govern the entire relationship. Specific projects and compensation can now be authorized efficiently through a standardized "Task Order" process without renegotiating the base contract.
Action: Consider the draft MSA for approval at the board’s February 23, 2026 meeting.
Legal Counsel Paul Polito, Esq.:
How was. How was this sounding? Better. There we go. Okay. Can everybody hear me? Yes, yes. Okay. Perfect. Great. All right. Very good. Well, good evening, everyone. I guess I'm getting a little bit of a jumpstart on on the zoom meetings. On page seven of the packet. Yes. The legal status report. I'll be discussing the service plan amendment and the standard independent contractor agreement template today during the meeting.
But if anybody has any questions about any other items in the legal status report, happy to answer them at this time.
Tera:
So, Paul. Thank you. I do like how you reorganized this a little bit to put, organize where you the items that require our action, the ones that are in progress.
And I think I saw it later on in the packet, but when we were talking about Jam Ranch rezoning, it says the district formally requested that the county require recorded consumer protection notice to protect the district from future bailout requests. As the developments finite water supply diminishes. So thank you for that. And I did read that down in there.
So I appreciate you thinking about that.
Paul:
Absolutely. And that was that was a team effort. Between me, Nathan and Austin, we all got together and and put our collective heads together and formed the response that I think, properly addressed all the concerns that the district would have, you know, for this sort of development. The district enacted a renewable water resolution for this exact sort of situation.
Because you aren't going to find a water supply. So we figured that was an appropriate response. I hope you're all happy with it. I was prepared to to discuss it a little bit later, during the meeting tonight as well. So happy to answer any questions a little bit later on to is anybody has any.
But, I'm glad you're happy with that Tera. I appreciate that. Does anybody else have any other questions about the legal status report before we move on to the minutes?
Jason:
Go ahead. Paul.
Paul:
Okay.
Describer:
On screen. Packet page 11
CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
WORK SESSION MINUTES
January 19, 2026 – 5:30 p.m.
HELD: Monday, January 19, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. at 7404 Yorkshire Drive,
Castle Pines, CO 80108.
ATTENDEES: Directors Jason Blanckaert, Tera Radloff, Jana Krell, and Leah
Enquist were present. Director Mulvey was absent (excused). Also
present were: Eric Harris, Elevated Clarity; Nathan Travis, District
Manager; Paul Polito, Seter, Vander Wall & Mielke, P.C. (via Zoom);
and Logan Smith, First Rate Fence & Access Control.
CONFLICTS: None.
QUORUM: Present.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER: The Work Session was called to order at 5:45 p.m.
ON BOARD NAVIGATION
District Manager Nathan Travis provided an overview of the new OnBoard platform. He demonstrated basic navigation, accessing the meeting agenda and packet, and using the Zoom integration for remote participation. He highlighted the platform's annotation features, noting that personal notes are not public records unless shared. Mr. Travis confirmed that future meeting invitations and RSVPs will be sent directly through OnBoard and noted that the platform will eliminate the need for printing physical meeting packets.
FINANCE
Review: Monthly Claims for Payments Made from November 14, 2025 to January
13, 2026
Finance Director Eric Harris reviewed the monthly disbursements totaling $2,665,662.73. Mr. Harris highlighted several significant and capital expenses, including a payment of $138,047.68 to CGRS for pay applications related to the lift station project. He noted a payment to the City of Castle Pines for $518,786.09 for pay applications related to the Monarch project. Additionally, a payment of $125,755.00 was made to the Colorado
Special Districts Pool for the 2026 insurance premium, which was higher than budgeted. Mr. Harris also highlighted a payment of $405,455.39 to T Lowell Construction for lift station scope A. Director Krell asked clarifying questions regarding the payments to the Colorado Special Districts Pool and the City of Castle Pines, which Mr. Harris addressed.
Paul:
Okay. So the minutes should be on page. And. Yes, page 11 of the packet. starts the work session. Minutes. You all obviously do not have to approve. Well, you're not allowed to approve these minutes tonight. But if you have any comments on either the the work session minutes or on the regular meeting minutes, happy to hear them and address them before the next meeting.
Jason:
Thank you. I think we can move on.
Describer:
On screen. Packet page 18
February 14, 1984Re: Castle Pines North
Metropolitan DistrictJob No. 83-174-403
Castle Pines Land Company
482 Happy Canyon RoadCastle Rock, Colorado 80104
Attn: Mr. Jack A. Vickers, III
Dear Jack:Enclosed herewith is the Service Plan for the proposed Castle Pines North Metropolitan District. This plan details the purposes of the
District and illustrates the needs to form the District separate from a
other existing entities. Also shown is the projected phasing of
construction along with the estimated costs for this construction. In
Section VI, Hanifen, Imhoff, Investment Bankers, has proposed a financi
plan which shows the financial viability of the proposed District.
This plan is being submitted to Douglas County for review and
approval. have any questions on the plan, please feel free toIf you should
contact this office at your convenience.
Sincerely,
John P. Cotten, P. E.
Donald N. Taranto, P. E.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
TARANTO, STANTON & TAGGE
Consulting Engineers
748 Whalers Way • Building D • Fort Collins, CO 80525
(303) 226-0557 • Metro Denver Number (303) 595-9103
Paul:
Okay. Okay, so that brings us to the service plan amendment. So we've we've provided the board. me and Nathan have provided the board with the service plan, which starts on page 18. It's. We just provided it for reference. only because we are also providing our Second amendment, to the service plan, which we plan on submitting to Douglas County.
Describer:
On screen. Packet page 147
SECOND AMENDMENT TO SERVICE PLAN FOR
CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO
Prepared by:
Seter Vander Wall & Mielke, P.C.
7400 E Orchard Rd, Suite 3300
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
I. INTRODUCTION
The Service Plan for Castle Pines North Metropolitan District (the "District") was approved by the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners (the "Board") in February 1984 (the "Service Plan"). A Service Plan Modification was subsequently approved in April 1994 (the "First Amendment").
The Board of Directors of the District is requesting that the County approve this Second Amendment to the Service Plan (the "Second Amendment") to incorporate the requirements of (i) that certain Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Operation, Maintenance and Transfer of Recreation Properties between the District and the City of Castle Pines (the "Parks IGA") and (ii) that certain Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Transfer of Stormwater System and Necessary Property Rights between the District and the City of Castle Pines (the "Stormwater IGA"). Specifically, this Second Amendment removes the District's authority to provide parks and stormwater services and modifies the District's mill levy authority, subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein. The City obtained the required voter authorization in the November ______ election, satisfying the conditions for the transfer of authority.
Paul:
And that starts on page 147 of the packet. This is the this is a draft of the, Second Amendment that we would be submitting to Douglas County for approval. Again, the reason for the submittal of this amendment to the service plan is just to reflect the decrease in the services, that were agreed to within two separate intergovernmental agreements, with the city of Castle Pines, one being the the parks IGA which transferred all of the the Parks and Rec properties.
Which conveyance is almost complete, which has necessitated the service plan amendment. The second IGA being the, IGA which transferred the stormwater facilities as well. Both of those intergovernmental agreements required an amendment, to the district service plan, reflecting that decrease in services. That's what you're looking at right now. There is one highlighted section on there.
I did confirm that, the city did receive voter authorization on November 7th, 2023. So that will be updated. And I believe it is reflected in the, petition as well. So this very simply, replaces the First Amendment that was that was done. So there was originally a service plan, enacted for this district. There was a First Amendment done in, I want to say, 1994, which decreased the level of some services.
We are now amending that First Amendment, and further decreasing the level of services that the district provides. So that's all that this is really meant, to capture. You may have heard me talking about an amended and restated service plan for a little bit. And and as I was thinking through this, the original thought was an amended and restated plan where, it would be, the entire service plan would be would be redrafted.
As I was going through this, I realized that that was an absolutely unnecessary amount of cost and time to the district. The cost of doing this probably would have been ten x or more if we had done a restated. And there is no legal difference between the two. So, it just didn't make sense to me to do that.
Describer:
On screen. Packet page 150
PETITION FOR APPROVAL OF
SECOND AMENDMENT TO SERVICE PLAN FOR
CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
DOUGLAS COUNTY, COLORADO
WHEREAS, the Service Plan for the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District (the
"District") was approved by the Board of County Commissioners for Douglas County, Colorado on April 9, 1984, and formally amended in April 1994 (together and as amended, the "Service Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the District was organized by an Order and Decree of the District Court, Douglas County, Colorado on June 11, 1984; and
WHEREAS, the District is currently authorized to own, operate, and maintain parks and open space and a stormwater system in accordance with the Service Plan; and
WHEREAS, the District and the City of Castle Pines (the "City") entered into that certain Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Operation, Maintenance and Transfer of Recreation Properties, dated March 31, 2023 (the "Parks IGA"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Parks IGA, the District and the City agreed to transfer all responsibility for the ownership and maintenance of the parks, open space, trails, and associated improvements to the City, and to amend the Service Plan to remove the District’s authority to provide such services and permanently cap the District’s operations mill levy at 7 mills, contingent upon the City obtaining City Voter Authorization; and
WHEREAS, the City obtained the required City Voter Authorization in the November 7, 2023 election, thereby satisfying the contingency for the transfer of authority; and
WHEREAS, the District and the City entered into that certain Intergovernmental Agreement Regarding Transfer of Stormwater System and Necessary Property Rights, dated June 29, 2022 (the "Stormwater IGA"); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Stormwater IGA, the District conveyed and the City assumed ownership of the existing stormwater system and responsibility for its ongoing operation and maintenance, and the District agreed to amend its Service Plan to remove its authority to provide, own, or maintain a stormwater system and associated properties; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the District has prepared a Second Amendment to the Service Plan (the "Second Amendment") to formally remove the District's authority to provide parks and stormwater services and to cap the operations mill levy at 7 mills; and
WHEREAS, the Second Amendment substantially complies with the Special District Act, Sections 32-1-101, et seq., C.R.S., and local applicable law, and the Board of County Commissioners for Douglas County has the authority to approve the requested Second Amendment in accordance with Section 32-1-207(2), C.R.S.;
Paul:
So that's what this does. on page 150 of the packet is the petition, the draft petition that I plan on submitting to Douglas County. Essentially, the process is, I will seek a resolution from you all at the next meeting, to submit this petition to the county. This petition will be submitted along with the Second Amendment.
And the, will request the county have a hearing, to confirm or to, to approve, rather, the Second Amendment to the service plan. So I know I was was a lot. I'll pause here if anybody has any questions about the amendment or the process.
Tera:
The only question I have is some clarity on why this still falls underneath the, Douglas County. Since we are wholly contained within our service boundary.
Nathan:
The previous board, when we signed the stormwater IGA, that was something that was discussed because we're wholly contained in the city. For whatever reason, the previous board didn't want to grant that authority to the city of Castle Pines.
They wanted it to remain with Douglas County. Paul and I discussed that as well, since the IGA specifically tells us to go file this with the county. That's what we're doing. It would be a relatively simple change, I'm sure if we asked the city, you know, if they wanted to take over the service plan, we'd have to do a quick amendment to the IGA, to allow that.
And then we could just file the service plan through approval for approval with the city if we wanted to. But the current IGA requires Douglas county.
Tera:
So, Parker's survey of service plans, also approved by the county?
Nathan:
I believe so, yeah. Okay. They're also not only contained, but ....
Paul:
And then. And it makes a great question to.
Tera
So then it probably makes sense to remain at the county?? So it's consistent.
Paul:
That's right. So the way and I'm sorry if I'm, if I'm cutting you off at all here I know the delay doesn't help. But the way that so the law on this issue would states that if you are wholly contained within the city, you absolutely have that option to have the service plan approved by the city.
You you simply ask the city through a petition or through a resolution, I believe, to do it. But like Nathan said, we agreed in the IGA, to have this approved through the county, which is also an option, under the statute. If we were to if we were to submit to the city, we would we would submit our service plan to the city from that point on.
But we're still under the jurisdiction of the county. When you haven't asked the city to to take over the review of this. So, it's it's legally in bounds and it complies with the IGAs.
Tera:
Yeah. Like I said, to me, it makes sense to leave it as is, since that's where Parker is. I mean, if it were trying to if it was all trying to be one city wide thing, but it doesn't make any sense to have the city approve the service plan for here and not for there.
Thank you.
Paul:
Absolutely. Does anybody else have any questions on the service plan, second amendment? before I move on to the Independent Contractor Services agreement.
Jason:
I think you can move on.
Describer:
On screen. Packet page 152
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT
This INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT, including any and all exhibits
attached hereto (the “Agreement”), is entered into as of the _____ day of __________________, 2026, by and between CASTLE PINES NORTH METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado (the “District”), and _________________________, a _____________________ (the “Contractor”). The District and the Contractor are referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
RECITALS
WHEREAS, the District was organized pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of §§ 32-1-101, et seq., C.R.S. for the purpose of constructing, financing, operating and maintaining certain public facilities and improvements for itself, its taxpayers, residents and users; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to § 32-1-1001(1)(d)(I), C.R.S., the District is empowered to enterinto contracts and agreements affecting the affairs of the District; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to § 32-1-1001(1)(i), C.R.S., the District is empowered to appoint, hire and retain agents, employees, engineers and attorneys; and
WHEREAS, the District desires to engage the Contractor to perform certain services as are needed by the District to serve the property within and/or without its boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the Contractor has represented that it has the professional experience, skill and resources to perform the services, as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and stipulations set forth herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows:
Paul:
Okay. Very good. That brings us to page 152 of the packets. And this is the independent contractor agreement form that I've been promising for a little bit.
This, puts together a lot of protective terms for the district, to simply enter into this contract for every sort of independent contractor that the district wants to engage with. It provides the flexibility for the independent contractor to provide their own agreement as well, because many times, especially with water and sanitation districts, there are a lot of technical terms.
There's a lot of things that just won't be captured by this agreement. So it's flexible enough to incorporate the terms from any independent contractor agreement. while making sure that in the event of a conflict, the terms within this contract will always control, which are friendly to the district and contemplates, situations that that local governments entail, like the constantly, you know, the indemnification issue that constantly comes up.
Leah:
That's what I was going to ask about. Would would Steve find anything in this contract?
Paul:
I think our most engaged resident would be very happy. With this agreement. It does, it does provide. There is an indemnification paragraph that the contractor indemnifies the district. There's no indemnification paragraph providing that the district shall indemnify any contractor, which, as you all are, I'm sure very well aware at this point, is illegal under Colorado law.
Or at least unconstitutional. Can't do it probably. So yes, there are a, a number of, friendly terms here. The goal is to do this for every independent contractor agreement. It won't necessarily be applied to capital projects, albeit a different thing, but, the but this will capture the operations of the district. Now, I sent this to Nathan and Eric late last week, so we haven't had a chance to to quite discuss it yet.
It may change a little bit by the time our next meeting comes around on Monday. I'll obviously, you know, ..... sort of changes I make, you know, come out of our discussion, but I, I have vetted this agreement, through partners in my firm. I've compared it with a number of other ones that I found. I think it's very protective of the district and very happy with it.
But that being said, nothing's perfect. If anybody has any questions or comments. happy to address them at this time.
Describer:
On screen. Packet page 153
4. REPAIRS/CLAIMS. The Contractor shall notify the District immediately of any and all damage caused by the Contractor to District property and that of third parties. The Contractor will promptly repair or, at the District’s option, reimburse the District for the repair of any damage to property caused by the Contractor or its employees, agents or equipment. In addition, the Contractor shall promptly notify the District of all potential claims of which it becomes aware. The Contractor further agrees to take all reasonable steps to preserve all physical evidence and information which may be relevant to the circumstances surrounding a potential claim, while maintaining public safety, and to grant to the District the opportunity to review and inspect such evidence, including the scene of any damage or accidents. The Contractor shall be responsible for initiating, maintaining, and supervising all safety precautions and programs in connection with the Services and shall provide all reasonable protection to prevent damage or injury to persons and property, including any material and equipment related to the Services, whether in storage on or off site, under the care, custody, or control of the Contractor or any of its subcontractors.
James:
Only because it happened and it's fresh in my mind. Contractor further agrees to take all reasonable steps to preserve all physical evidence and information which may be relevant to the circumstances surrounding a potential claim. When and if something like that happens. What is I mean, beyond these couple sentences, what does that mean to you as far as what's required of them and how to how they maintain that or preserve that to your satisfaction?
Paul:
And just to make sure I can answer this correctly. What which paragraph are you looking at?
James:
That was, 4 repairs and claims.
Paul:
Okay. And the question is, how do I interpret this?
James:
Well, yeah, I mean, what what does that mean to you? And, you know, I, I can read the words on the page as well, but you know that a lot of times that means something different to an attorney. So I'm wondering,
Paul:
oh, yeah, I can I can go through my thoughts as, as, as I'm reading this.
So notify the district immediately of any and all damage caused by the contrary district property. That probably speaks for itself. The contractor property repair or at the district's option, reimburse the district for the repair of any damage to property. So at that point, the district has a choice. If the if the contractor makes an error causes any damage to the property, the district then has the option.
To either be reimbursed for that damage or to have the contractor properly repair that damage. In addition, contractor shall promptly notify district, about potential claims of which it becomes aware. Now, to me, that is quite broad. Potential claims. If there if there is any sort of damage that that could be a potential claim that it it requires the contractor, to notify the district.
So that's a broad, requirement on the contractor for a contractor further agrees to take all reasonable steps to preserve all physical evidence and information which may be relevant to circumstances surrounding a potential claim while maintaining public safety. To grant the district opportunity to review such evidence. Okay. So, you know, to me, this so this an actual requirement is take the take the well shaft failure for example.
Right. If if it isn't adverse to public safety to keep the damaged well shaft. Which I can't imagine how it would. Then you have to keep the damage workshop for either the district or some third party to inspect. In case the district ever wants to take advantage of a manufacturer's warranty or, God forbid, go to district court.
It grants the district the opportunity to do that. If the contractor there were to not keep that that cracked well shaft the damaged well shaft. That's a breach of contract under this. And then you could seek damages under it. So to me, well, in my opinion, this this would have taken care of that situate. Well, the situation was resolved anyway.
But this addresses that sort of situation. Right. Like in a well shaft failure. Or you're looking at a crack, you have to preserve that evidence. And if you don't, then there's a breach of contract. To me it's a it's a broad requirement. You have to preserve all physical evidence and information which may be relevant to the circumstances surrounding a potential claim.
So to me, that's very broad. And if you don't preserve that, that's that's a breach of contract. Okay. Yeah. So does that answer the question, Director Mulvey?
James:
Well, in a sense, yeah. I mean, I think it all depends on the individuals you're dealing with and the circumstances. What happened with the well shaft failure. I felt that the contractor was pretty stand up guy.
And, you know, he notified us, and we took pictures and things like that. But in in the sense where, you know, you brought it up, would you have to pull the well shafts and, you know, lay them on the ground and, you know, preserve them for x period of time? I mean, I'm just looking for some reasonableness there.
I'm not you know, some of these things could be simple and easy, and some of them like that, I think can get very complicated. If somebody, you know, didn't understand this requirement or, you know, maliciously, maliciously, maliciously complied with it, so to speak. You know,
Paul:
Well, I mean, but but there is a certain safety valve for that, right?
Okay. Because we have to maintain public safety while you're preserving all evidence and to address the one, you know, do you do you take the pipe out and lay it on the ground? You preserve the evidence. So whatever form that takes, you don't have to necessarily. You have to keep it in the same condition that it was when you found it.
James:
I guess what I'm saying is, is I don't necessarily need to, to make this any, any more complicated, but what I'm, what I'm thinking is, or if we have a failure like that, that's something that Nathan should probably call you about immediately if it's significant like that, so that you could guide that process. That's all I was really looking for, for a response, not to make it, not to make it any worse or any more onerous.
I just think that, you know, as a policy, there should be something big like that happens. Nathan picks up the phone and calls in and say, look, this, you know, this thing happened. What do you think we should do kind of thing? And it's literally as simple as that. And you guide that process a little bit. That's all.
Paul:
Absolutely and completely agreed.
Said and yeah, and having an agreement like this allow it's a stronger conversation for me to have if something like this were to ever happen. Because these are terms that I can point to. This is this is what you agreed to. We want to please preserve all of the evidence. Let's agree in a manner in which you do it.
Or, you know, whatever form takes. But absolutely agreed on that one. And if anything like that were to happen, I would, I would expect and I think Nathan expects me to be, deeply involved in that process.
James:
Okay. Yeah. That's all I was really looking for is when do you get involved and when do you get notified?
And if you guys got a way to do that. I think we're I'm good with it. Okay.
We'll happy to address that. Does anybody have any other questions about this agreement?
Jason:
I don't think so. We can move on. Thank you.
Describer:
On screen. Packet page 153
February 11, 2026
Matt Jakubowski
Chief Planner
Department of Community Development
Douglas County
VIA EMAIL: mjakubow@douglas.co.us
Re: Referral Response for Project File No. ZR2025-015 (Jam Ranch Rezone)
Dear Mr. Jakubowski:
Please accept this letter as the formal referral response of the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District ("CPNMD" or the "District") regarding the application for the Jam Ranch Rezoning (File # ZR2025-015).
As an affected landowner and the established water and sanitation service provider immediately adjacent to the subject property, CPNMD has significant concerns regarding the applicant’s proposal to form a new, single-purpose metropolitan district reliant exclusively on non-renewable groundwater and septic systems. While we understand the property owner's right to develop, the current proposal contradicts the regional goals of the Douglas County Comprehensive Master Plan and poses long-term risks to future homeowners and surrounding water resources.
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners consider the following objections and comments:
Inconsistency with Regional Goals for Renewable Water
The applicant’s proposal relies entirely on non-renewable groundwater from the Denver Basin aquifers. The applicant previously approached CPNMD for inclusion but was informally denied service because they were unable to meet the District’s renewable water dedication requirements. The District passed a resolution in March 2025 amending its rules and regulations, specifically requiring that all property seeking to include into CPNMD provide a water report that demonstrates ownership of, and a legal right to convey, renewable water to serve all of the proposed inclusion property. The applicant never submitted a report to the District demonstrating sufficient ownership of, or right to convey, renewable water.
Paul:
All right. Very good. I believe that brings us to our response. Okay. And this is on page 172 of the packet. This is the referral response that, Director Randolph myself were just talking about a moment ago.
Who we received some information, from the county planning department. specifically Department of Community Development within Douglas County for, a rezoning application that was received, by them for, for the, for Jam Ranch. So this is something we've talked about a little bit. In the past, they originally requested inclusion, into the district.
District had recently enacted its renewable water resolution requiring that if, somebody wanted to include within the district that you would need to present a water plan that shows that, you can provide 100% sourced renewable water. They were not able to do that since there water rights are based in the Denver Basin. Right. The Denver Basin aquifers.
Describer:
On screen. Packet page 154
Matt Jakubowski
Re: Referral Response for Project File No. ZR2025-015 (Jam Ranch Rezone)
February 11, 2026
Page 2 of 3
Under Section 2502 of the County’s zoning criteria, the Planning Commission and Board shall consider whether the application it in compliance with the requirements of the Douglas County Comprehensive Master Plan. By forming a new district specifically to bypass these renewable standards, the applicant is undermining the Douglas County Comprehensive Master Plan (CMP)
and the 2050 Water Plan, both of which prioritize the transition to renewable water sources. Granting this rezoning without strict conditions encourages development that exacerbates the depletion of the finite aquifers our community relies on for drought redundancy.
Section 7 of the CMP recognizes that “[t]he Denver Basin alone (a non-renewable resource) cannot sustain the population's water needs long-term.” Goal 7-1 of the CMP mandates that the County “[p]rolong the life of water resources.” Indeed, the CMP plainly states that by “reducing dependence on Denver Basin aquifers through the use of renewable water supplies, County water providers can extend groundwater resources to meet the population’s water needs.” (Pg. 7-2, CMP). Moreover, the stated intent of the County’s Water Supply Overlay District is to "restrict the dependence on nonrenewable water sources."
This project creates a permanent new demand on the dwindling Lower Dawson and Denver aquifers with no renewable offset, violating the spirit and letter of the County’s comprehensive plan. Approving a new subdivision that relies 100% on non-renewable groundwater, without any renewable component, directly contradicts the goals of the CMP, which the County is mandated
to consider under Section 2502 of the County’s zoning criteria.
Request for Consumer Protection Disclosure
CPNMD anticipates that as the finite water supply in the Denver Basin dwindles, future residents of Jam Ranch may eventually petition CPNMD or the County for a "bailout" connection for water and sewer service. To protect future buyers and existing District constituents, we request
that the County require a recorded notice in the chain of title for every lot sold within this subdivision.
This notice must explicitly state: the property does not have a renewable water source; the water supply is finite and diminishing; and the homeowner is solely responsible for the long-term viability of their water access.
Insufficient Water Demand Estimates
The application utilizes the County’s presumptive water demand standard of 1.0 acre-foot/year per residence. However, this standard may be ill-suited for the proposed 2.5-acre Estate Residential lots where no strict limitations on irrigated landscaping have been proposed.
For context, CPNMD sees average usage of approximately 0.39 AF/year per Single Family Equivalent (SFE) on significantly smaller lots. Without enforceable restrictions on high-water- use landscaping, 2.5-acre lots could easily exceed the 1.0 AF assumption, accelerating the depletion of the aquifer. We request that the County either enforce strict landscape limitations or require a higher water dedication standard commensurate with the lot size.
Paul:
Thus, it seems that their solution to the problem was a, is, application for a rezoning request with the county and, Jam Ranch is seeking to, form their own special district. It will be a very small special district. It's to serve, 3o. It's 32 homes. Give or take, that's off the top of my head.
Yep. So, nevertheless, They would be drawing from a finite supply of water that that I, you know, I think this district is rightly sensitive to. And so we have, we've drafted this referral response. The county did request a response from the district. We've highlighted a number of areas in which, we don't think that the application for rezoning, meets the county's comprehensive plan and thus it doesn't meet, certain zoning requirements.
We have requested consumer protection disclosure. When me, Nathan and our water attorney, Austin, were meeting about this last week. This was Austin's idea. You know, it's even if the county does approve, this this special district and then the rezoning, we think it's fair, at least that that the property records contain some sort of language, that the property does not have a renewable water source, that the water supply is finite, diminishing, or that the homeowner is solely responsible for the long term viability of their water access.
This language is to hopefully prevent some sort of bailout in the future where if, if and or when, the development were to run out of the of the water supply in the Denver basin. The likely next step is to connect to the district's resources, which, you know, again, there is a reason that the district nine in the first place, because they couldn't source, their water from renewable water.
So this is meant to capture, all of that. I hope you're happy with it? We'll obviously keep you all informed as this, as this goes forward, you know, as the project goes forward. And we'll let you know what happens here. Does anybody have any any comments or questions? about the referral response?
Tera:
No, I like it.
I just I'm curious. I know that we are partner to the South Council Pines Village or if they have a new name, whatever their district is, is also they sought to include there. They also said the same thing. No, you don't have renewable water to bring. I'm curious if, they also chose to put something like this in there and then if, if any of the district managers are planning on going to the planning and zoning meeting, when it gets on their agenda.
Nathan:
So Castle Pines Village Water, I think, is what they're rebranding to, did submit a similar letter that's included. It's not in the packet, but it is an on board. under supplementary materials. So that's there for the board. since we didn't drafted, I didn't want to, include it in the packet.I went and talked to their district manager, they took a slightly different approach, but I think overall, it's it's a pretty comprehensive picture.
I have an email out to find out when this is coming before the planning commission. They're pretty sparse in terms of their agendas and what's going to be happening when their information posted. So I will attend is if I'm able to, their meetings. At least one of their meetings is in direct conflict with our board meeting.
I don't know if that's when the commissioners look at it or we just the planning commission's, committee looks at it. But if we can't be in attendance, I will.
Tera:
Yeah. Just because that's where most of the vetting really happens. By the time it makes it to the county commissioner agenda, it's a done deal. And so if we can get, in front of it, and maybe now that we have, an assistant district manager, we can divide and conquer or something.
Nathan:
But yeah, my guess is that it's probably going to be I don't know how quickly that goes. If it goes anytime in March, that'll be before we've got, Rene on board. Hopefully we can. Okay, I can confirm. Thank you.
Jason:
Did they scrap the, retail part of this project?
Nathan:
Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So it's 32 houses on two and a half acre sites.
Yeah. And I think a lot of our concern, especially around the, potentially ultimately having to take them over. And that's something that we've already seen in Douglas County a couple times. The one that most recently think of is that Castle Rock was effectively forced to take over Belmont Ranch. And, and then they, you know, had another division or, development pop up in the middle of their city limits that they ultimately ended up allowing just to make sure that they were part of the process to prevent that in the future.
We are already surrounded by a bunch of smaller districts, Beverly Hills, is one of them. I would imagine that we're going to be required to provide them water service at some point. You know, Happy Canyon's another one. So, really trying to to stay in front of that to set expectations. The chances of us stopping this are slim to none.
But I think it's important to still make sure our voices are heard.
Leah:
That was going to be my question. what what are their options then?
Nathan:
Outside of that would be to get service from another district, which would perimeter free council of the village or us. And none of us wanted to serve them for various reasons. Ours was largely the nonrenewable water part of it.
Leah:
What if we all said no?
Nathan:
We did all say no. And so that's why they're forming their own district. Oh, okay. Gotcha. Yeah, yeah, yeah.
James:
That was like one of my first questions. Like when they brought it up, I guess literally where there, there are lots are directly adjacent to the village's water treatment stuff and facility so.
Nathan:
Yeah, I can pull up map here,
Leah:
But if they're if they're forming their own district, then where do they get their water from?
Describer:
On screen. A map of Jam Ranch estimate of water resources.
Nathan:
From themselves. So they didn't have some limited groundwater rights that they're relying on. So they're going to and that was one of the things in their in their proposal, which is they had a very, very like almost built inside of Microsoft Paint outline of their water system. Yeah. They had a couple wells. They're looking at source point chlorination.
So not even like a treatment plan. Just a couple of is if they're going to inject flooring and then put it to a tank and send it out to their customers.
For geographic reference...
Leah:
Would there be a risk that there isn't enough water, or is that part of the due diligence that they have to do?
Nathan:
Ultimately, as part of the due diligence they have to do?
And that's the Denver aquifer that they're proposing using. And I it's not non tributary water, which means that, that those upper aquifers are still to some degree affected by a rainfall rainwater. And so they are required to do an augmentation plan which they currently don't have. So there's a few issues, that we can hopefully get some traction on.
We may at least get some concessions. But we'll just have to see.
Tera:
Right. Because I saw that you have asked to have it based on current well levels, which are like, you know, we have a well that's not running well. Highlands Ranch water has wells that they aren't able to draw from. So that to be in there and, they should have to do current.
But, you know, generally, any development concerns me because as development happens, they come in with something that seems really reasonable. It's like, oh, it's only gonna be 32 houses. But then by the time they, actually start developing, it's easily twice that.
Describer:
On screen. An AIMS map of CPNMD illustrating the region where the Jam Ranch will be located.
Nathan:
Yeah, densities creep. So these this, these lots right here, I apologize. You can kind of see, under my cursor there.
Sorry, that, these are the properties owned by Jack Vickers, and this is Castle Pines Town Center filing one, two, and I think three. Those are going to happen. I got different agreements with the village to get those put in. And so it's really this property, a little bit to the south is kind of an odd shape, but it follows around this area.
Excuse me. Yeah. So it does. This is, these houses, right here. These are all actively, physically in the village. So they're going to be directly abutting to the village.
Jason:
Okay, that looks risky.
Leah:
Just thinking of, like, future. Oh, like when homeowners on that site.
Nathan:
So I will keep you guys updated.
Paul:
Thanks. Yeah we will. And that concludes legal.
Jason:
Thank you Paul. Appreciate it. We'll go ahead and close out item number three then. And we will open up item number four district manager items with Gittlein Farm Lease.
Nathan:
I have no idea how to pronounce that your your guess is, good as mine. This is, just we've done these leases for a couple of years now.
Describer:
On screen. Packer Page 175.
FARM LEASE
THIS LEASE is made and entered into on this day of __________, 2026, effective as of January 31, 2026, by and between Castle Pines North Metropolitan District, a Colorado special district (“Lessor”), and Timothy C. Gittlein, d.b.a. Gittlein Farms (“Lessee”) the addresses of each appearing in Paragraph 19 below.
RECITALS
A. Lessor owns following described premises situated in the County of Weld and State of Colorado, to wit:
Lot B, Recorded Exemption No. 1309-19-4 RE4864, recorded January 7, 2007, at Reception No. 3598393 of the records of the Weld County Clerk & Recorder, such parcel being a portion of the E1/2 SE1/4, Sec. 19, Township 2 North, Range 66 West, 6th P.M., Weld County, Colorado, consisting of approximately 57.8 acres, subject to the easements for oil and gas development purposes discussed in more detail in Paragraph 7 below, and subject to the rights of other owners or lessees of oil and gas interests relating to the lands described above;
together with all improvements, if any, on the same, including but not limited to one irrigation well augmented by a contract between the Central Colorado Water Conservancy District and Lessor, such half share referred to hereinafter as the “Water Rights.” The above-described lands, improvements and Water Rights are collectively referred to hereinafter as the “Premises.”
B. Lessor desires to maintain the Premises as an irrigated farm for the 2026 irrigation season and perhaps longer.
C. Lessee desires to continue to operate the Premises as an irrigated farm for the 2026 irrigation season and thereafter, and raise non-irrigated crops during the non-irrigation seasons.
D. Therefore, Lessor desires to lease the Premises to Lessee, and Lessee desires to lease the Premises from Lessor. Lessor and Lessee agree as follow:
Nathan:
These are for the dirt that we own. Well, dirt and mineral rights that we owned that previously had our water rights associated with them. This is for the same for the same farm operation. They've changed their names to whatever. But it's been the same Andrews lease. We don't really make a lot of money off of this.
It it helps us break even. So, one of the things that Tera even briefly pointed out was, were those I can't remember what they're called the packet, but they're the augmentation contracts. There were three of them. That total to slightly over $50,000. Those are the water augmentation contracts that we own through, the Colorado Water Conservancy District.
The farm leased us two things and effectively pays for our cost. Covers those costs on those contracts that we have. And then it also takes care of land maintenance. So if we didn't have somebody actively using it, there's a lot of, primarily weed control regulations that can be a pain to deal with, especially from down here.
Something we'll probably need to look at again in the fall is what we ultimately want to do with this. These are the contracts that we can sell. They do have a monetary value for all of them. We're looking probably around $1.5 million. But that's a very slow process over a couple of years. You can kind of flip if we put them all up for sale or, like, flood the market and then drive around price down.
And so selling those augmentation contracts, when the next logical step of that would be seeing what we can get for the dirt, which probably isn't going to be much other than just get us out from under having that responsibility. But until then, Farm Lease. It's also dependent. It's in place already. But the continued availability of this farm is also contingent on them being able to get the water that we sold, to either Aurora or Brighton or whatever mechanism.
Jason:
All right. Any questions? Let's move on to the, reviewing the draft of Douglas County 2050 water plant.
Describer:
On screen. Packer Page 187.
Date: January 6, 2025 at 3:00 p.m.
To: Douglas County Board of County Commissioners
Through: Douglas J. DeBord, County Manager
From: Kati Carter, AICP, Assistant Director of Planning Resources
CC: Lauren Pulver, Planning Supervisor
Subject: Draft 2050 Douglas County Water Plan and Next Steps
SUMMARY
On December 31, 2025, staff received the attached draft 2050 Douglas County Water Plan (Water Plan). The intent of Forsgren Associates, Inc (Forsgren) is for this to be a working draft, developed prior to public outreach initiatives, such as focus groups, and to be workshopped by the Water Commission. Input from these groups will further refine the policy recommendations included in Chapter 10 of the draft to take into account local context and applicability to Douglas County.
At the January 26 meeting, the Water Commission will begin reviewing and commenting on the draft Water Plan during an initial 2-hour workshop.
NEXT STEPS
In the first quarter of 2026, Forsgren will begin public outreach to be incorporated into the Water Plan. The first public outreach initiative will be through targeted focus groups with groundwater well users, water providers, and developers and economic development organizations. Focus groups will help to fill information gaps in the draft plan and refine policy recommendations.
In Spring 2026, a public engagement webpage will be launched to inform County residents and stakeholders of the draft Water Plan and allow for public comment. Following this, Forsgren will work with the Board of County Commissioners (Board), County staff, and the Water Commission to host a public Open House to provide an overview of the draft Water Plan and gather feedback to be incorporated into the final Water Plan.
Staff will provide updates to the Board during this process, with the intent for the Board to adopt the Water Plan at a future public hearing in 2026.
Nathan:
This is a large and monstrous document. So this was put together by the, Bucks County Board of Commissioners. It's still, you know, obviously, it's draft form. I've read through it a couple times. It doesn't really seem to have a lot of teeth in it.
I've asked our water attorney to look at it. Just to see if there's any poison pills or anything that we need to look at. I've also, something I'm going to be discussing with other district managers when I come across them. But really, it has kind of a general summary of available water supplies. I think one thing to pay attention to is it is not entirely clear about how accessible groundwater is to the communities that need it.
So the Arapaho Aquifer especially, it shows a pretty large difference between what is presumed to be available and what has already been allotted. And then keeping in mind that that, you know, covers a lot of different areas that a lot of different areas, a lot of different water rights that we probably can't get to haven't been perfected for municipal use.
That was really the only, like, kind of stand out difference that I saw my first couple passes through it. But, you know, read through it if you if you have the time or inclination. We are mentioned in it 17 times if you want, if you do a document search. And that's really just the information that we provided.
You know, what our water sources are, what our use cases are how much we use per acre foot. Projected growth, stuff like that. Same thing that every utility provided for it.
Jason:
Any questions on it?
Jana:
I feel like I have so many questions, but where do you see this? I mean, this is the draft. What changes do you see being made in this interim between draft and final?
Nathan:
I don't know, my guess would be it's probably largely going to be districts just making minor corrections to their water supply numbers.
Jana:
The bulk of the documents is not going to change.
Nathan:
Yeah. And then also the question I don't have the answer to coming out of this is kind of the therefore what? So they've got this whole document put together. What does it actually mean? It's
Jana:
I think that's where my questions are. What is the goal of it?
Leah:
Right there with you?
Jana:
And but but I think you summarized that by saying you you don't even have your head wrapped around that.
Nathan:
So, yeah, I mean, the commissioners don't or the Douglas County Water Commission doesn't have any kind of like, decision or legislative authority. The commissioners have started running, had people present their projects to the Water Commission before they bring it to the commissioners. That's nothing that's impacted us at all to date. But yeah, it's the there therefore what is kind of a big question mark.
And hopefully we can get some clarity on that over time as, as we move forward. Even the way the data was collected was kind of confusing, even for our water attorneys. And our water rights management.
Leah:
I was going to ask Nathan. I mean, I'm trying to remember how long the water Commission has been around now, but I would say, like, they're not new at this point.
And I, I know we've kind of had the same. I've had the same questions every month. When you met with James Ecklund, who's on the commission, I think Roger too, who's local? I mean, did you get a sense from them, like what the goal of the Water Commission is? And, like, how can proactively work together?
Nathan:
Yeah. Aside from kind of like, high level, like, almost like PR sounding taglines.
Not much. It's to evaluate water usage in Douglas County and, you know, figure out how we're all going to have water up into 2050. There there's not even there's some like vague recommendations that there's not even any like real clear direction that says that they, you know, want to encourage,
But even kind of to the point what we were talking about earlier, they want to encourage or discourage small metro districts from popping up and encourage them joining larger utilities. They would be generally supportive of utility independent utilities joining together. Yeah, it's just not a lot of there's just not a lot of teeth in it. And it's kind of things that we've all already been doing and already know.
So, yeah,
James:
If you look at page 2 or 2, you got to encourage, support, encourage, promote, promote, support, encourage them to work with and develop and encourage.
Jana:
Did you put the whole thing for Jim?
James:
Sorry, I print the whole thing.
Jana:
That's 387 pages of paper.
Leah:
Nate, from your perspective, like what would having teeth look like?
Nathan:
It would require like, actual mandates.
Like, do you know how that water water use....
Leah:
Can they do that? No. So by nature, like, it sounds like as an entity, like they don't have any teeth.
Nathan:
It's. Yeah, to me, it feels largely performative.
James:
Who actually could do that.
Leah:
That was going to be my question.
James:
Who actually could do that. That was going to be my question. I mean, is that that's at the state level. Right? Is that still not really the right place for it.
Nathan:
So the county can control and set regulations inside of Douglas County for water. They can't really impact individual, metro districts. And to your point, yeah, it's at the state level.
So we we are and we are sub entities of the state of Colorado, not of Douglas County. So we report to the state. Sure.
Leah:
So the state could theoretically have mandates that govern how metro districts would act in certain counties.
Nathan:
Yeah. And then all of those happen at the Colorado Legislature.
James:
And does the state actually. I mean, I would assume so, but maybe it's a bad assumption, that we have all these counties with similar needs and issues on the Front Range that are forming these types of groups and making recommendations to the state, and the state will eventually take action before 2050.
Nathan:
Yeah, I mean, the state does have a comprehensive water plan. I can't remember when that was put in place. James Ecklund is spearheading that. It's been a while. Yeah. 2010, 2015. Yeah. It's water is being it's becoming increasingly prevalent at the state level also. A lot of the focus seems to be right now, largely on, like river compacts.
So there's the Platte River in Nebraska, discussions or lawsuit that's happening there in the Colorado River compact. There's a lot of those kind of like broader issues that the state's attention. They're also paying really, really close attention to and putting a lot of effort into, like wastewater treatment plant discharges are pretty hot right now. There's also a lot of things that the state's just for, like, falling behind on.
It's it's an unsettled environment, honestly.
Jana:
And how did they fund this document?
Nathan:
I honestly don't know.
Tera:
I was just curious. I was just thinking that myself because, like, a lot of money,
Jana:
I know. So even when I look at these cross-sections, where I think somebody's research, I don't know,
Tera:
I'm sure our tax dollars paid for it.
Nathan:
Yeah. The commissioners, did a lot of it.
Jana:
But how do they have tax dollars. I guess I just I don't follow them.
Tera:
Yeah. The county, probably the contractor would be my guess.
Jana:
The county tax dollars did go towards this. Okay. Yeah.
Nathan:
I mean, I can't imagine.
Tera:
I don't know that for a fact, but I suspect that's probably what it is. I mean, I think the county is the one that stood up the water commission.
James:
Yeah. It was like two years ago. I think.
Leah:
I mean, in general, I'm I'm really supportive of collaboration.
Jana:
Oh I love yeah. And I agree also
Leah:
I think that's great. But I would suspect like if there were a true water shortage that would be kind of every man for themselves. And those were kind of the scenarios that we talked through with, with James.
And so I'm just curious, like, is that the ultimate goal of the Water Commission like to be proactive in that? And I guess, like, do we know do other counties have water commissioners?
Nathan:
I don't know. I mean, there are other counties with water commissioners, but they are like actual legislative authority.
Leah:
Oh they do?
Paul:
Like the groundwater Commission.
Leah:
Yeah. How do they have legislative authority but ours don't?
Nathan:
It wasn't set up that way.
Leah:
But you could set it up that way.
Nathan:
I don't know.
Tera:
I don't think so at this point.
All Board Members Speak:
Is it just because.... I think it would require vote. You know, you can’t. I think you have to go through the state. Yeah. They set it up. They have to go through the state and.
Paul:
Okay. And to, to address, what teeth this this may have. Just to zoom out a little bit as to who regulates what. So so Douglas County. And by the way, I'm not a water attorney. I'm not pretending to be one. So if it gets too deep, I won't know. But, Douglas County controls land use. So.
Zoning building. The state of Colorado controls the actual water. Including the water courts, the division of water resources. And then, with the exception, of the Groundwater Commission. They regulate specific designated basins, mostly in the eastern plains. But if you're looking at the water plan itself, it may have a little bit of teeth when you tie it to zoning, changes.
So, you know, for example, as I was going through this, the zoning request, the zoning change request for Jam Ranch, you know, that was going through, the zoning, you know, the county zoning, requirements. It does tie, certain decisions on rezoning to a water plan or to a comprehensive plan. So it has a little bit of teeth in that you can tie zoning decisions to it.
But there's there's no clear line where I've seen, in any zoning or, you know, a rule where it states that you must comply with the water, where you must comply with the comprehensive plan. The the language of the zoning rules themselves is pretty flexible. And it gives, and it gives the county a good degree of flexibility in approving something or not.
So and on top of that, the comprehensive plan for the county already requires, you know, already has a lot of the same language, you know, guiding, people towards renewable water and preferring renewable water sources over finite. So I don't know how much it really changes. As far as the teeth. It has a little bit of teeth with the zoning, stuff, but, yeah, for the most part, the state's going to regulate this.
Tera:
It will be an interesting thing to see how that Jam Ranch, that rezoning request, proceeds, to see how much they believe in this plan. I agree.
Jana:
I have a question. Can you go to page 252? and I don't want to get you too far down in the weeds, but can you just really quickly so when I see, groundwater, I think.
Describer:
On screen. Packer Page 252.
2050 DOUGLAS COUNTY Water Plan
A pie chart of the Current Water Supply Types.
Listing: Designated Basin Groundwater 0%, Reuse Water 6%, Wholesale Water 11% Surface Water 31%, Alluvial Well Water 4%, and Denver Basin Groundwater 48%.
Jana:
Well, but yet I only see 4% well. So can you make that make sense for me?
Nathan:
Alluvial low water. So,
Jana:
I guess I don't know what the difference.
Nathan:
So. Yeah. So Denver Basin groundwater, is this big maroon piece of the pie. Those are the wells that we're in. So those are confined to aquifers.
Jana:
So we're not the 4% clear part of that 48.
Nathan:
Yeah okay. But all the wells, the vast majority of the wells as we're talking about them can find aquifer, Denver Basin groundwater. That's the big pie, okay. Or the big chunk of this pie, the 4% for the alluvial low water alluvial wells are wells that are under the direct influence of surface water. So those wells, when it rains, they produce more.
Jana:
So they get replenished.
Nathan:
Instantly. Yeah. And it's what we're really talking about is if you're looking at like a creek bed, you could drop a well in there. And so when, when a creeks running, it doesn't, like, necessarily fill the creek to have the groundwater catching up to that level, those alluvial wells can sit below that and grab the water that would basically fill into the sand in the gravel before it becomes visible.
Soils are alluvial.
Jana:
Soils are alluvial. And and then when we go to look at the reused water, that's where we're thinking, that's where Castle Rock did their cleaning their water. Like that's that plant. Is that what that 6% is? So that tour we took there.
Nathan:
Yeah. Reuse is the golf course.
Jana:
Oh I didn’t think it meant that. Yeah. For us. Yeah. Yeah.
James:
So I just think given to water supply for that's how we use our reuse water.
Nathan:
Oh okay. But its both. So reuse can be either reclaimed to reuse. Reuse can either be treated like we do put down on a golf course. I didn't know it necessarily encompassed non-potable. Yeah. Or it can be brought back into a treatment plant that can handle it. A surface water plant. So it's Castle Rock can run, reuse water through their plant like it's not, direct potable reuse, which is different from reuse.
Okay. There's some environmental buffers that need to be in place.
Jana:
And then, what is the majority of the surface water Chatfield?
Nathan:
And Douglas County. Chatfield. Yeah. Chatfield water has, one has taken directly off of. So any of those alluvial fans could, like I said, break that. Yeah. So yeah. Surface water.
Jana:
And then, I'm sorry, I'm asking so many questions.
Start once and and then on the full sail. Are we getting water? Is that from Denver or water? That's the wholesale.
Nathan:
Both treated water purchases. Okay.
Leah:
That's Highlands Ranch, right?
Nathan:
Highlands ranch isn't, wholesale provider because they're treating it's a wheeling agreement. They're treating our water, in consent...
Leah:
I think that's how they have it in this document.
Nathan:
Yeah. And, well, that's one of the those are the kind of little changes that we'll have to and see.....
All board members speak:
Well, I'm kind of those like yeah there. And that's where it wasn't that specifically is one of the questions was kind of what kind of really good will we get. We made it for the group okay. Started the oh you did because
James:
I saw something like this like months ago. Like there was another version. I said, so
Nathan:
South Metro Water Supply Authority did one that was smaller and similar.
Leah:
Well, one thing I thought was interesting is at the top, like before they went into each district, like they said that there were a number of inconsistencies from the different water providers.
Jana:
Yeah. And a lot of that's in data like, is that what they're meaning?
Leah:
That's my like inconsistency in like the data they were using to populate this since I was like, okay, yeah.
Nathan:
You know, let's take something simple like groundwater levels in a well, like, how well does a district track, how have they been tracking it? What part of the aquifers are they in? You know, are they truly at the bottom of the aquifer, or are they just tracking feet above, like feet of water above a pump and tracking the relative loss?
Is it truly, like, saturated since they're tracking? So there's a lot of, means and methods that can come into play.
Tera:
And so they like normalized data, right?
Nathan:
Which is incredibly difficult to do completely. But yeah, okay. I will read it. Okay.
Jason:
Any other questions before we move on to our last topic.
Jana:
Oh will this do. We have to does this even come up next week?
Nathan:
I mean no, there's no action for us to take. You know, we will review it if there, you know, we'll, we'll submit back comments for like generally anything you like was incorrect.
Jana:
Okay. Cool. Thank you guys for this.
Leah:
And they do go into great detail.
Jason:
Thanks, Nathan. Now let's move on to
Jana:
Then. I'm sorry I asked this question
All Board Members Speak:
to these things.
So take this is interesting.
Describer:
On screen. Packer Page 252.
2 February 2026
Mr. Nathan Travis
District Manager
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
7404 Yorkshire Drive
Castle Pines, CO 80108
Subject:
Tank Rehabilitation Program
Proposal for engineering design services for treated water tanks
Castle Pines North Metropolitan District
Dear Mr. Travis:
Kennedy Jenks (KJ) performed a condition assessment of the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District's (District) treated water storage tanks known as South Tank #1 and South Tank #2 and provided recommendations for rehabilitation in 2024. The tanks are located south of the District's service area on the property of the Country Club of Castle Pines. KJ is pleased to present this scope of work for engineering design services for the rehabilitation of South Tanks #1 and #2
Project Understanding
KJ understands the following scope of work to design improvements to the District's treated water storage tank system.
South Tank #1: Design the repairs recommended in KJ's Tank Evaluation Report, dated June 17, 2024. Additionally, design replacement of the valve vault on the inlet/outlet pipe, abandonment of the 8-inch water main east of the manhole and add backup float switches for redundant level measurement. Provide bid-ready design documents. Construction will occur during the winter months to avoid impacts to the Country Club
South Tank #2: Design the repairs recommended in KJ's Tank Evaluation Report, dated June 17, 2024. Additionally, add backup float switches for redundant level measurement, and add solar power to reduce reliance on power from the Country Club. Provide bid-ready design documents. Construction will occur during the winter months to avoid impacts to the Country
Nathan:
All right. So this is a proposal that we'll bring back next week. This is, for what we're calling our tank rehabilitation program. Wanted to bring this out a little bit sooner, but we made some changes. So primarily we were originally looking at also including, preliminary design, for the, called the Serena potential Serena drive tank.
We peeled that out. We're going to put that kind of in its own product, in its own private project. Just so we can take more time and look, in necessity, alternative means and methods. And also just so we don't overwhelm ourselves on the projects we've got going. So in June of 2024, we did a comprehensive inspection of both our existing water tank.
So tank one and two, these are up by the driving range in the village. This document is really just the proposal to correct the findings, from those, from those inspections, there wasn't anything that was, pressing to the point that it was life or safety. So we kind of intentionally moved it so we could put it out.
We are looking at, doing another CMGC or CMR contract for this, similar to what we're doing with the filter project. A lot of that is driven by this is going to be a difficult project to really nail down the costs on. Once you get in and start doing things like concrete rehabilitation, we have, we know what they look like.
A couple of years ago, we didn't we did some chain testing. We didn't do actual destructive testing. So we really want to make sure we've got a contractor on board to kind of, like, set those processes, get those unit prices, help us with that design process. It's worked really, really well with filter Project for similar reasons. So we'll be looking to do something, similar with this project.
There is a new....
Jana:
Hey Nathan I’m going to stop you. I thought we did tank rehabilitation.
Nathan:
Water treatment plant. Tank Rehab. Different tanks. So those are the process tanks at the treatment plant.
Jana:
And so this is these are this relate to the Serena thing you were saying.
Nathan:
It doesn't. So there was there's a proposed potential proposed tank site on Serena out
Jana:
Proposed got it. Okay. So these are different tanks similar process.
Nathan:
Yeah. So existing tanks and we're really it's mostly like we have tank lining, concrete reinforcement. There's a vault we need to do some work. And, that's kind of like a valve overflow drain ball. The biggest challenge with these in terms of cost is really going to be, their location. That's probably the worth pulling this up again, really quick.
James:
But these are the ones right across from like the pool house and stuff up there. Yeah. And
Jana:
Which pool house?
James:
In the village. Oh.
You really don't see them. You can kind of walk right up to. And you'll see them just like a little manhole.
Tera:
Do we do that when we went on our tour? Yeah. Yep. Yeah. I yeah, yeah.
Describer:
On screen. A Castle Pines Metro District Map illustrating a parking lot and tennis courts. The South tank sit adjacent to this property.
Nathan:
So these are South tank one. Got it to the biggest headache with this is going to be this is where, this tanks, you know, 22ft deep from ground level. There's a vault that sits out here. It's really just a 20ft or 25ft deep manhole that is in pretty rough shape. So the bigger problem is we need to put a 25ft deep hole right next to the driving range in the middle of their car park, and off to the side of one of our tanks.
All Board Members Speak:
You're going to be in love with that during the during the off season. Yeah. Like no, that would be awesome.
Nathan:
Yeah. So that's one of the things we'll be coordinating. This will be like a in like a January start time. The the country club does know this is coming. They've known it's coming for, a couple of years now.
We recently met with them trying to work out another, freeze related agreement that we'll talk about soon, but, that was two weeks ago, and I let them know again. Hey, guys, just a reminder. We need to pay to dig a giant hole in your.
Jana:
How come I can't see it in the aerial of the existing one?
Nathan:
It is a the tank.
Jana:
No, no. The minute, the vault.
Nathan:
You can't it's it's literally a manhole cover.
So I don't know that we've got the resolution.
Jana:
How big is the vault then?
Nathan:
36in. Okay. Yeah.
james:
It's it's it's this bad shape. Can you just make a new one a few feet away and then redo the piping?
Nathan:
Either way, we're down. All the pipes are down there, too. So either way,
James:
I'm just throwing ideas out.
Nathan:
Yeah, it's this little.
james:
That's a. It's not too bad.
Jana:
I don't think that's not bad either. Actually.
James:
All that equipment driving across, it's going to break up all that stuff. That's what happened to like where they're doing pipes, down in the bottom screen.
Jana:
They're tearing out.
James:
Well, just because they drove over everything there. So. But in general, they were pretty they did a pretty good job about keeping it down to a minimum.
Jana:
Yep. And so and then so this said, looking at the dates of this, hit us with the big milestones. I saw April. So it was a quick moving. So that's,
Nathan:
Yeah, we that was I they they did change the date on the top of this. I need to have them go back and adjust the dates.
It's going to be pushed back a little bit. We were originally looking to bring this in January, but then we when we, I wanted to change the scope to kind of simplify it. It got pushed back a little bit. So I confidently could probably move all those back 30, 45 days.
Jana:
A month later. So then in May, get done, advertise and then award after that 60% design September.
Yep. Okay.
Nathan:
So I'll bring that back and, to me on Monday. I'm not going to put it on consent. It'll have its own agenda item. And then the, I can remember the developments, and, Kennedy Jenks engineer that put this proposal together. I'll be joining us via zoom to answer any other questions.
Jana:
And so we’ll be asked to, approve planning $430,000 roughly, for this work?
Nathan:
Yes. Just for the Kennedy Jenks?
Jana:
Yes. Portion of it. Yeah. Okay.
Nathan:
And then also included in the packet is the, for tonight, and I'll throw it in there again next week is the original, inspection reports for the things.
Jana:
And then can you remind me, do you guys do is this a lump sum or is it not to exceed?
I mean, how does it if if it doesn't take them $430K. Do we still paid them $430K?
Nathan:
I believe it's not to exceed. I'll double check them.
Jana:
So that's the way that because they're going to be submitting invoices with their hours and if they're efficient. Okay.
Nathan:
Yeah. And then also, Paul, I will touch base on how to fold this into our new,
Standard contract for me to put it in there is an addendum or something like that. If we want to make sure that we. Okay. Start using that process as expediently as possible.
Right. Any other questions on that? That's all we've got for the night. Otherwise.
James:
Yeah. Just make sure you leave a little chalkboard up there. Please leave your comments. Next to the cart path.
Nathan:
Please send all complaints to Josh Shackleford. Castle Pines.
Jana:
Am I supposed to remember who that is?
All Board Members Speak:
He's right. We got supposed to start the misinformation campaign right there.
Jason:
All right, we'll go ahead and close out the district managers section, and we'll move to item number five, which is adjourn the meeting. Thank you. Everyone. Thank you.