The Jefferson County Planning Commission voted unanimously Thursday to recommend denial of the Observatory Metropolitan District service plan (case 24‑104434SV), which would have created a metropolitan district to finance public infrastructure for a commercial development near U.S. Highway 40 by Evergreen Parkway.

Why the commission denied the plan: Commissioners said the applicant did not provide sufficient, verifiable detail tying project-level engineering and market analysis to the large financing request. Commissioners specifically pointed to statutory criteria that must be met for service-plan approval — in particular, that the area to be included in the district has or will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis, and that creating the district is in the best interest of the area to be served. After public comment and an executive session to consult the county attorney on statutory standards, the commission concluded those two elements were not adequately demonstrated.

Applicant proposal and financial outline: The applicant proposed a commercial project on roughly 9.2 acres (the applicant stated it is negotiating acquisition of adjacent CDOT right‑of‑way strips) that would include about 77,000 square feet of commercial gross leasable area and a 120‑room hotel. The applicant’s preliminary engineer estimated roughly $28 million of public improvements; the service plan proposed a maximum bond authorization of $35 million, a maximum aggregate mill levy cap of 40 mills (30 mills for debt service plus up to 10 mills for operations and maintenance), and additional proposed fees of a 3% sales public‑improvement fee (PIF) and a 6% lodging PIF. The applicant’s financial advisor told commissioners the plan parameters are intended as maximums and that early issuance could be refunded later at lower rates once the project is built out.

Public comment and technical concerns: Dozens of neighbors and nearby property representatives testified. Concerns included internally inconsistent financial assumptions, the absence of a coordinated plat or substantive site-development plan tied to the cost estimate, reliance on dated cost data (2023), and examples cited by neighbors showing the proposed district would be small by acreage but seeking comparatively large debt authorization. Several commenters argued the development could be built and maintained without a metropolitan district — using private financing, property sales, or existing county mechanisms — and questioned whether the project represents a public purpose sufficient to justify the proposed district powers and taxes.

Applicant response and staff note: Applicant representatives said the district is needed to build the infrastructure required for the uses the owner prefers (hotel and higher‑end commercial), that potential tenants are aware of proposed taxes/PIFs, and that dedicated utilities would be conveyed to existing service districts (for example, West Jeff County Metropolitan District would provide water and sewer service after the district builds infrastructure). County staff presented statutory review criteria and noted most statutory "shall" standards have written evidence in the record, but that some county policy guidance prefers coordinated submittal of plats or site plans with service plans; the applicant had not submitted a plat and had a preliminary rather than final engineering cost estimate.

Commission deliberations and executive session: Commissioners asked detailed questions about the scope of eligible public improvements, how bond proceeds would be restricted to public (not private) uses, the justification for a potential parking garage and underground cistern, the geographic acreage reported in the plan (the applicant said acquisition of CDOT right‑of‑way would expand acreage), and whether a smaller scope could meet needs without imposing the proposed maximum debt and tax structure. The commission recessed into an executive session to consult county counsel on the statutory standards for service‑plan approval. After returning, Commissioners concluded the record did not give sufficient assurance that the district met the statutory tests for repayment capacity and best interest of the area.

Outcome and next steps: Commissioner Messner moved to recommend denial, with Commissioner Spencer seconding; the motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners, which will hold a public hearing (staff mentioned a September Board schedule). If the Board or the applicant later chooses to proceed, the applicant may return with a revised plan including updated engineering, a coordinated plat/site plan, clearer market underwriting, and narrower funding parameters.

Quote: "The financial assumptions are without basis, internally contradictory, and inexplicably disproportionate. This application to form and fund a proposed metro district should be denied," public commenter Katherine Mauz told the commission. Applicant representative Jack Buchanan said: "We do have a plan for pretty much every pad... The metro district is needed to fund the improvements to make this project viable." Reid Clark (planning manager) reminded commissioners that the state statute requires evidence that the district can discharge indebtedness on a reasonable basis, and staff provided the statutory review framework used for evaluation.

Context: The proposed district sought powers common to commercial metropolitan districts, including road, drainage, utility and landscape infrastructure, and a newer statutory business‑recruitment power; commissioners stressed that bond proceeds must be demonstrably limited to public improvements and that more detailed tying of costs to an approvable site plan would be required for future consideration.