Trustee warns county to prepare mandatory 10-mill levy after judgment against BNC Metropolitan District No. 2

Adams County commissioners heard from an attorney for UNB Bank and a representative of BNC Metropolitan District No. 2 on a court judgment that could require the county to levy a judgment mill levy on residents of that metro district.

Catherine McDermott, an attorney with the law firm Davis, Graham and Stets representing UNB Bank (the trustee), told commissioners the dispute concerns bonds issued by BNC Metropolitan District No. 2 to finance public improvements. “The debt issued by the Metro District is in the form of bonds that is issued for public improvements like streets, sidewalks and parks, and the district pays it off over time with taxes,” McDermott said. She said a jury found the district breached its contract and a final money judgment was entered on Dec. 19; the court later permitted the trustee to begin enforcement. McDermott said the district had not made a single payment toward the judgment as of the study session.

McDermott said state law contains a non'discretionary mechanism to collect an unpaid judgment against a metro district: if the district fails to provide for payment, “the board of county commissioners shall implement” a judgment mill levy. She told the board the statute requires action if the district does not provide for payment; it does not presume wrongdoing, but it does obligate the county to levy up to 10 mills to collect the judgment. McDermott said the full judgment amount is approximately $377,000 and that a 10'mill levy is projected to raise about $130,000 for 2026.

Paul Ruffin, who said he represents BNC Metropolitan District No. 2, told the commissioners the district now intends to adopt the 10'mill levy for 2026 and had submitted a signed board resolution. McDermott and Ruffin said the last statutory step is certification to the county assessor, which must be completed by Dec. 15 to ensure the levy is included on next year's tax roll.

County staff told commissioners their legal obligation is limited: if the district does not certify a levy or otherwise provide for payment, the statute requires the county to levy the judgment mills. Staff noted the board has a Dec. 16 meeting, and that, if necessary, the commissioners could adopt the judgment mill levy at that meeting provided coordination with the assessor and enough lead time for the assessor to place it on the tax roll.

Commissioners asked why the matter was placed on a study session rather than handled through staff; McDermott said the parties sought public transparency so there would be no surprise if the county needed to take ministerial action later. Commissioners pressed for timing clarity so staff and the assessor could meet statutory deadlines. McDermott asked the district to confirm how early the district could submit certification so the county would not need to act; Ruffin said the district would try to certify before Dec. 15.

Staff said the county is not raising taxes for residents outside the district; any increased taxes would be the direct effect of the court judgment against the metro district and the judgment mill levy applied only to property in that district. No formal county action was taken at the study session; staff will report back as certification or other filings are received.

Ending: County staff and legal counsel said they will return to the board with updates if the district does not certify the levy and the county must implement the statute. Commissioners advised residents who have concerns to raise them with the metro district board and manager.