Douglas County commissioners remand Sundown Oaks metropolitan district service plan back to planning commission

The Douglas County Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously Sept. 9 to remand the Sundown Oaks Metropolitan District service plan to the Planning Commission for additional review.

The item concerns a proposed metropolitan district to finance and operate public improvements for a 37‑lot residential project in the Franktown rural community. The board’s remand followed staff presentations, testimony from the applicant and a strong record of public opposition reported to county staff and commissioners.

The service plan before the board would create a new Sundown Oaks Metropolitan District under Colorado Revised Statute Title 32 to finance public improvements for the site north of State Highway 86 and east of Highway 83. DJ Beckwith, Principal Planner with Douglas County Planning Services, told the board the Planning Commission voted 6–2 on Aug. 4 to recommend denial of the originally submitted plan, citing concerns about financial viability, consistency with the Comprehensive Master Plan and whether a metro district is in the best interest of the area to be served.

“At a public meeting on 08/04/2025, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the service plan by a vote of 6 to 2,” DJ Beckwith said during the staff presentation.

Applicant representative Nicole Paykoff told the board the service plan had been revised after the Planning Commission hearing and that the proposal’s maximum debt authorization had been reduced from $9,000,000 to $6,000,000. “We lowered that cost to reflect that in reality, if interest rates would decrease and home values increase, there's a possibility that the district could issue up to $6,000,000 in debt,” Paykoff said.

Under the version of the plan presented Sept. 9, the district would cover roughly 173 acres and is tied to an approved preliminary plan that anticipates 37 single‑family homes (17 on 2‑acre lots and 20 on 5‑acre lots) and an estimated population of 111 residents at buildout. The applicant’s materials project an average home value of about $2,200,000. The service plan as presented limits combined mill levies from the district to a maximum of 70 mills (a 50‑mill debt levy and up to a 20‑mill operations and maintenance levy), with a debt service mill levy term identified for 40 years and a maximum debt authorization of $6,000,000 in the revised plan.

Paykoff and the financial consultant on the application described the financing approach as a way to spread costs for required public improvements — including a Highway 86 turn lane — using tax‑exempt debt available to metropolitan districts. The applicant’s submission includes a financial plan prepared by RBC Capital Markets and an independent market study; county consultants (identified in the staff report) reviewed those materials and described them as “reasonable” given the stated assumptions. The applicant told the board estimated bond issuance, if bonds were sold after home construction, could be about $3,600,000 under the current assumptions.

Staff summarized referral comments and public opposition. Referral responses included requests for technical clarifications from County Engineering (which prompted edits so storm sewer and street improvements would be subject to county approval), and comment letters from local homeowner associations and civic groups raising concerns about traffic, groundwater impacts in the Upper Dawson Aquifer, and the potential use of eminent domain by a service district. Staff also reported receipt of a petition with over 700 signatures opposing formation of the district.

On water, the applicant’s presentation included figures used in its submittal: a project demand of 40.1 acre‑feet and available water supplies listed as 52.3 acre‑feet in the Upper Dawson Aquifer plus an additional 219.4 acre‑feet identified in other named aquifers. Staff told the board the county had already determined water rights sufficient to serve the project; the record includes the applicant’s water‑demand and availability figures.

Commissioner Cherry moved to remand the application to the Planning Commission so that the commission could review the revised plan; the Chair seconded the motion. The board discussed scheduling constraints raised by the applicant, who said a final decision by the end of the month would be required to meet an intended November election schedule. County staff said the Planning Commission’s next available hearing is Sept. 22 and the Board’s last regular hearing in September is Sept. 23, which the applicant indicated would meet the election deadline if remand occurred immediately.

The motion to remand carried unanimously. The staff record lists the county’s criteria for approval under Colorado Revised Statute Title 32 and Douglas County’s special district review guidelines; staff noted that questions raised at the Planning Commission had been addressed in part by revisions but recommended the commission’s renewed review given the commission’s prior 6–2 denial.

Next steps: the board’s remand sends the revised service plan back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. Staff and the applicant indicated timelines that could allow the Planning Commission hearing on Sept. 22 and a Board hearing on Sept. 23 in time to meet the applicant’s stated November election filing need.

Notes: All quotes and figures above are drawn from the Sept. 9, 2025 hearing record and the applicant’s and staff’s oral presentations to the Douglas County Board of County Commissioners.