What’s up with the water?

Water Conservancy Districts in Park County

What are they? How are they funded? What checks and balances are there? Who is in charge? What mechanism is there to assure they operate in the taxpayers’ best interests? How is 599 Rosalie affected by any of this?

Table of Contents

1. The Law
2. Park County Water Conservation Districts and Authority and Financial Reporting
3. The Saga of 548 Front Street
4. Dave Wissel and GEGE Development Consulting
5. 599 Rosalie – A Community Jewel
6. Conclusions

“Shouldn’t we be more engaged in trying to understand why, year after year, decade after decade, the same faces keep showing up as board members of those entities? Have they become the fiefdoms of a select few? Have they become autonomous, accountable only in the context of the complexities that have created them?“

1. The Law

In Colorado, any entity that includes water or water conservancy in its title is ipso facto presumed to be pure as the driven snow that creates all that water. Park County is no exception. And there’s no doubt most folks involved in these water-centric entities have no agenda other than nurturing and preserving the county’s water resources. Indeed, it is a religion for those dedicated to the nitty gritty of water conservation science. Still, how many of us know what they do? How they’re funded? Who controls them? What checks and balances exist to ensure they operate in the best interests of the property taxpayers who fund them?

Water and irrigation law is codified here: Colorado Revised Statute Title 37, a 790-page document. 224 pages into that legislation under Article 45 is legislation specific to Conservancy Districts. The Article provides the District Court of whichever district the water entity is established in or partially within with oversight jurisdiction. 37-45-115 sets out the organization for the board of directors. It reads, in part: “Such board shall adopt a seal and shall keep in a visual text format that may be transmitted electronically a record of all of its proceedings, minutes of all meetings, certificates, contracts, bonds given by employees, and all corporate acts, which shall be open to inspection of all owners of property in the district as well as to all other interested parties. (3) Each member of the board shall receive as compensation for the member’s service such sum as shall be ordered by the court, not in excess of two thousand four hundred dollars per annum, payable monthly, and necessary traveling expenses actually expended while engaged in the performance of the member’s duties.”

The county’s mill levy is where water conservancy districts nurture themselves, sucking at the public trough. Your property tax dollars are the primary funding source for these entities. But, unless you’re inclined to dig deep into the machinations of these entities, spending hours searching here and there for data, you are probably oblivious to how they operate. Or indeed to their very existence.

One thing for sure, though, is if you’re an attorney and specialize in water issues, you’re making big bucks from these water conservation districts. Your billing hours are assured from here to eternity.

2. Park County Water Conservation Districts and Authority and Financial Reporting

Park County has two water conservation districts: the Center of Colorado Water Conservancy District (CCWCD)–its website is defunct–and the Upper South Platte Water Conservancy District (USPWCD). Both take a piece of the property tax pie. In 2007, the parent water district entities, CCWCD and USPWCD, formed a child entity, a joint venture called the Headwater Authority of the South Platte (HASP). As its website explains: HASP “…operates a water rights enterprise through which it will make augmentation water available for sale to customers throughout the Districts’ service areas. HASP has two programs – a current water sales program and the Blanket Augmentation Plan. HASP can meet your water needs by selling or leasing water.”

HASP is an authority created under CRS Title 29, Section 29-1-204.2     

CCWCD, USPWCD, HASP, and other water conservancy district budget information can be obtained via Colorado’s Department of Local Affairs. However, budget detail for each entity does not drill down to specific unique expenditures.       

The Upper South Platte Water Conservancy District (USPWCD) was formed in 1955 under the Colorado Water Conservancy Act of 1937 and Colorado Revised Statutes.

     

The USPWCD website currently provides meeting minutes up to 2022. Nothing from 2023. Nor does it offer any budget transparency. Its Finances link provides only a narrative about “Generally Accepted Accounting Principals for Government entities should be followed.”  Interestingly, the CCWCD website has disappeared. However, some pages are available via apps that capture defunct websites. No financial data is provided on those pages, though meeting minutes are. I am told the disappearance of the CCWCD website was due to a contractor’s or volunteer’s failure to renew the site’s domain. The HASP website provides budget information for 2022 and no meeting minutes.

Again, the State of Colorado, Department of Local Affairs, provides financial data on all these entities via web access. Or here for Colorado Property Tax Entities.

3. The Saga of 548 Front Street

Consider the scenario. A Park County water conservancy district’s board decides they need almost 5,000 square feet for their once-a-month board meetings and other administrative functions. Maybe a desk, a phone, file cabinets, and a conference table. Yes, the space is significantly larger than most families’ homes in Park County. They spent $655,000 to buy a property from the entity they’ve presumably rented space for years.

Let’s say the rent on the space was $2,000 a month. Even that’s steep for those once-a-month meetings, conference tables, and file cabinets. But let’s say that’s the rate. $24,000 a year. How many years could that water district rent at the $ 2,000-a-month rate for $655,000? Let’s see. 655,000 divided by 24,000 equals 27.29 years. 

The above scenario is a fact, not fiction.

4. Dave Wissel and GEGE Development Consulting

“One might wonder if sitting on all three boards constitutes a conflict of interest.”

Dave Wissel is Park County’s District 3 Commissioner. He was also the elected Park County Assessor for 38 years. He’s also been on the HASP (Headwaters Authority of the South Platte) board since 2007 and the Upper South Platte Water Conservancy District (USPWCD) since 1985. As stated above, HASP was formed jointly by USPWCD and the Center of Colorado Water Conservancy District. Wissel is currently shown as Chairman of HASP and President of the USPWC. His wife, Lillian, is shown as the USPWC Secretary, and his long-time associate, Brian Woodyard, is a Director on the USPWCD board.

(In 1998 it’s alleged, Wissel, as Assessor, reclassified his and Brian Woodyard’s property as agricultural. The Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Property Taxation, disagreed with his reclassification.)

Wissel says he has volunteered his time for all of those years. The latest budget filing for USPWCD shows $18,000 for proposed 2023 “Directors Expenses.” (The actual state filing is here.) There are five members of the board and a district secretary.

CRS 37-45-115 states, in part, “…(3) Each member of the board shall receive as compensation for the member’s service such sum as shall be ordered by the court, not in excess of two thousand four hundred dollars per annum, payable monthly, and necessary traveling expenses actually expended while engaged in the performance of the member’s duties.”

Though the USPWCD budget filing does not use the plural Directors’, it’s reasonable to assume that’s what is meant. If so, compensation should not be more than $12,000 annually, not $18,000. If the district secretary is considered a board member, it should be no more than $14,400 annually. Also, there are entries on the budget filing for “Contract Services” at $45,000, “Special Activities (Dues and Meetings)” at $10,000, and “Office Space Rent, Services, and Utilities at $10,800. Although USPWCD filing with the state notes a PO Box as their address, for what property are they paying rent and utilities? Specifically, what contracts are they funding? Why do Directors’ Expenses appear to be over the statutory amount?           

Water concerns are fodder for the BOCC relative to its Land and Water Trust Fund Board and the two noted water-specific entities. Since, at times, the BOCC is at odds with one or the other water entities, one might believe sitting on all three boards constitutes a conflict of interest.   

Dave’s wife, Lillian Wissel, captured the trade name GEGE Development Consulting in 2000. (It’s alleged GEGE stands for Great Ex-Government Employee). Dave Wissel officially filed to reserve the name and organize the corporation in March 2010. It appears he provided the periodic reports to the Secretary of State until a change was made to the registered agent in 2013 when Lillian took over that responsibility.

So what would development consulting consist of in Park County? Land and water, maybe?

In 2006, County Assessor Dave Wissel, acting, he said, as a private party, represented GEGE Development Consulting on behalf of his wife and Allen Drilling and Excavating relative to a concrete batch plant in Fairplay. Questions arose about what appeared to be a conflict of interest. (Interestingly, as I’ve noted, GEGE Development Consulting was not organized as a corporation in Colorado until March 2010. Just a mom-and-pop business until then?)

At that time, in 2006, Lillian Wissel was a member of the Park County Republican Executive Board and was serving as an interim Commissioner due to the death of Commissioner James Gardner. (She again served as an interim Commissioner in 2008, when another elected District 3 Commissioner died.) Dave said he was representing GEGE Development Consulting for his wife, Lillian. She had recused herself from the conditional use permit hearings before the Commission.

On Wissel’s watch, the land in question had been rezoned from agriculture to mining in 2005. The Upper South Platte Water Conservation District, Wissel’s milieu, approved Allen’s lease of 1.65 acre-feet water per year for gravel washing and dust mitigation. He was also a member, if not the chairman of the Land and Water Trust Fund Board at the time. And Lillian’s business, GEGE Development Consulting, advocated for the project when it was approved in 2006. It’s assumed GEGE Development Consulting was paid for their advocacy.

Opposition to the concrete batch plant was fierce. Concerns centered on it becoming a blight on the area, increased traffic, dust, groundwater contamination, noise, and a safety hazard. Nevertheless, the plan for the concrete batch plant was approved.

Wissel defended the apparent conflict of interest raised by his active participation in this saga as nonsense. “Anyone can have their opinion. Under Colorado law and my own personal ethics, there is no conflict of interest. …Where has the Constitution changed?” Wissel asked when addressing the opposition to the batch plant. “This is a property right.”

Wissel’s best defense is always a robust, albeit slightly bullying, offense. It is often sprinkled with references to property rights and, of course, the Constitution.

Now comes evidence that GEGE Development Consulting is, as of March 2023, a contractor to the USPWCD. March 3, 2023, USPWCD agenda contains this item: “d. Consideration of a contract revision – GEGE Development Consulting LLC.” Not a consideration for a contract with GEGE but a contract revision.

Again, GEGE Development Consulting LLC is a creation of the Wissels, both Dave and Lillian. Dave is currently shown as the President of USPWCD, and Lillian as the Secretary.

Conflict of interest? Even the appearance of a conflict of interest by public officials denudes the people’s confidence in them. And that shouldn’t have to be explained to public officials. 

The question must be asked. If GEGE is currently contracting with the USPWCD, for how many years have they been doing so? For how many years has GEGE collected fees as contractors from the organization for which they are, respectively, the President and Secretary?

And what about the enterprise adjunct of the CCWCD and USPWCD, HASP? Wissel is chairman of the HASP board. Would complete transparency of HASP financials show expenditures to GEGE?

Undoubtedly, many folks involved in these water-centric entities have no agenda other than nurturing and preserving the county’s water resources. They are generally volunteers with not only a love for the land but the water as well. It’s axiomatic, though, that attorneys hired by these groups reap the financial benefits of representing these entities. Do others, though, reap unintended benefits?

The question, though, is to what extent are these water-centric entities accountable to the property taxpayers of Park County? Do the complexities of their machinations and water law preclude the average person from even looking into what they’re doing with tax dollars? And, finally, what constitutes a conflict of interest for those involved in these entities? For example, should a Park County commissioner also be a water district’s president and the enterprise entity’s chairman? Additionally, should that same commissioner be making decisions regarding expenditures of the county’s Land and Water Trust Fund, an entity whose interests do not necessarily dovetail with the interests of both water districts?

5. 599 Rosalie

Current events highlight how the devil gets into the details of these matters. The sale of 72 acres of undeveloped land at 599 Rosalie Road is a case in point.

Bailey area citizens and taxpayers are urging the Park County Board of Commissioners (BOCC) to consider using Land and Water Trust Fund (LWTF) monies to purchase 72 acres of pristine property within the Bailey community near Burland. The property is owned by the Platte Canyon School District and was recently declared surplus, enabling it to be sold. Less than a mile off 285, it is located at 599 Rosalie Road, a left turn onto Rosalie Road from 285. 

The 2022 Platte Canyon School District bond issue failed at the polls. Thus, the district must seek funds elsewhere to begin its master plan to consolidate district schools.

Many residents on the Bailey side of the county desire to maintain the land for park and recreation purposes and wildlife conservation. The sale of the land to a developer would significantly increase density in the area and further challenge water resources.

The 2022 assessed value of the property is $483,480. A recent appraisal of the property was $875,000. Therefore, speculation is the value of the property on the commercial market would exceed $1 million. Only after the School District has undergone an appraisal of the property and the county has conducted its own appraisal (if it actually does) will the current market value be known. The basis for discussion and perhaps negotiation between the county and the school district may be provided after those appraisals are completed.   

The BOCC has directed the County Manager, Tom Eisenman, to contact the school district and commence the county’s property appraisal. However, it is unknown if Mr. Eisenman has undertaken those tasks.

The property sale will most likely be conducted by sealed bids if an intergovernmental agreement between the county and school district is not achieved. Consequently, developers or other interested parties, including the county, may provide proposals. Generally, the highest bidder will be declared the “winner,” and the property will be sold to them.

Several issues must be resolved if the county wins the bid or reaches an intergovernmental agreement to transfer the property from the school district to the county for its fair market value. Unfortunately, as Commissioner Amy Mitchell pointed out at a recent BOCC meeting, Park County does not have the resources to maintain and manage the property. Therefore, interested parties in the community must propose a method for doing that—trash, toilets, management of activities, etc. A 501(c)(3) would most likely be the mechanism for attaining that. Additionally, if a 501(c)(3) is established, it could apply for conservation monies from the county and other grants to fund its activities. BOERA, the Bailey Outdoor Education and Recreation Area 501(c)(3) would most likely be a contender to manage the property. It had done so for many years under a written agreement with the school district.

If a private individual altruistically wishes to purchase the property with the intent that it remains a public space, they would necessarily have to provide their own liability insurance. The cost of that insurance would be very high and probably prohibitive. Additionally, the private individual would have to arrange to maintain and manage the space for public use. Finally, a private individual applying for a conservation easement for the property would encounter additional costs.

Now enters Commissioner Dave Wissel.

“In 2018, the fund was amended which allowed money to go toward ‘recreation’ activities. This is not an appropriate use of funding.” – Dave Wissel

The Land and Water Trust Fund was established via a 1997 ballot question. A 1% sales tax was approved to fund it.

The 1997 language addressed only water-centric uses. It was renewed for 10 years in 2006 and again in 2018.

The 2018 ballot question, however, had two parts: the language of the original 1997 question and an additional question, as above, that expanded the use of the funds for the preservation, protection, acquisition, leasing, improvement, and maintenance of open space and wildlife, and outdoor recreation resources. Both ballot questions passed handily.

Why were two ballot questions presented to the voters in 2018? Did Dave Wissel, the county assessor, and a Land and Water Trust Fund Board member, want it that way? Indeed, it was he who recommended there be two ballot questions. It’s alleged he believed the second ballot question would not pass?

But it did.   

One of District 3 Commissioner Dave Wissel’s campaign promises is to ignore the 2018 vote of the people, which permitted the use of LWTF monies for outdoor recreation resources. Is this an attempt to not only assure the LWTF refuses to recommend funds for the purchase of the 599 Rosalie property but also to reconstitute the LWTF Board to his liking? Will Wissel use his power as a commissioner to assure those things happen? Will 599 Rosalie become the arena where Wissel exerts his newfound power, ignoring the wishes of a large contingent of the Bailey community? Indeed, is it his plan to consolidate his power as sovereign over the LWTF Board, as well as CCWCD, USPWCD, and HASP?

Conclusions

How fine is the conflict of interest line drawn? When does the question have to be asked? Does the question have to be asked when it comes to the county’s water conservation district boards and related authority, board of county commissioners, and family members or long-time associates of any of those board members? The question: Are the best interests of the taxpayers of Park County being served by these incestuous relationships? And who is ultimately being enriched by these relationships? And who suffers?

Water law is complex. Very few folks in the county understand or even want to understand those complexities. Instead, they pay their property taxes, giving little attention to mill levy assessments for water districts. If it has water in the title, it can’t be bad. Right? But, should we be more diligent in attempting to understand the workings of those water conservancy entities in our county? Shouldn’t we be more engaged in trying to understand why, year after year, decade after decade, the same faces keep showing up as board members of those entities? Have they become the fiefdoms of a select few? Have they become autonomous, accountable only in the context of the complexities that have created them?

Thanks should be forthcoming from all of us for those who tirelessly devote their time and effort to our precious water resources. Scrutiny, though, should follow from all of us to ensure water-centric entities in the county are operating in the best interests of the county’s taxpayers.

Complete transparency is required. Otherwise, questions will remain.