OCN

Volunteers reporting on community issues in Monument, Palmer Lake, and the surrounding Tri-Lakes area

OCN > 2506 > Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, May 5, 8, 22, and 29 – Revised Buc-ee’s annexation eligibility petition approved

Palmer Lake Board of Trustees, May 5, 8, 22, and 29 – Revised Buc-ee’s annexation eligibility petition approved

By James Howald and Jackie Burhans

In May, the Palmer Lake Board of Trustees (PLBOT) took up a second, revised petition to annex a 24-acre plot of land south of County Line Road and west of I-25, which is the proposed site of a 74,000-square-foot Buc-ee’s travel center. The site is about 1.8 miles east of the current town boundary. The board held a workshop to review studies addressing the impact of the proposed travel center on the town’s finances, water infrastructure and traffic. The board held a special meeting on May 29 that included a public hearing on the second annexation petition and a vote on a resolution regarding eligibility for annexation.

Studies of finances, water, and traffic presented

On May 5, the PLBOT held a nearly five-hour special meeting to review three independent reports, all funded by Buc-ee’s. All board members attended, along with the town administrator, attorney, police chief, fire chief, and more than 50 residents, The reports analyzed the revenue, water, and traffic impacts if Buc-ee’s moves forward. Board members and attendees asked questions after the presentations. Based on feedback from this meeting, the fiscal report was updated on May 21. Find all three final reports at bit.ly/buc-ees-reports.

Senior Principal Dan Guimond presented Economic & Planning Systems’ (EPS) fiscal impact report. He outlined EPS’s analysis of the proposal, its timing, and estimated general fund revenue and expenses over several years.

Revenues from taxable retail sales are projected at $31.8 million in 2027, generating about $995,000 in sales taxes at current rates. However, municipalities often negotiate a 1.1% sales tax incentive with Buc-ee’s, potentially reducing revenue by $326,000. Gas sales are excluded, as those taxes go to the state. EPS estimates the one-time use tax during 18 months of construction to be $379,500. Property taxes are expected to rise significantly post-construction, reaching $400,000 in 2027, to be collected in 2028.

Expenses fall into three categories: town operating costs, capital costs for town departments that may or may not be reimbursed, and development-related capital costs that the developer covers. Guimond outlined operating and capital cost estimates for Palmer Lake Police, Fire, and Public Works. Operating costs would rise by $1 million, plus $5.9 million in one-time capital expenses.

Buc-ee’s is expected to spend $10.52 million on transportation upgrades, including improvements to I-25 and County Line Road, interchange ramps, signals, and turn lanes. Costs to extend the town’s water infrastructure would be $5.5 million and may be shared.

Guimond addressed board questions submitted by email. He said the sales tax incentive was discretionary and negotiable. EPS could not use data from Johnstown Buc-ee’s as it lacked full-year data, and there was no public data to review. The board asked why Buc-ee’s would cover only 25% of water upgrades. Guimond cited a GMS water report estimating Buc-ee’s annual usage at 1.19 million gallons per year, compared to total town consumption. Fire Department staffing estimates, he said, came from the Fire Chief John Vincent.

Havenar questioned why the report showed the town covering costs the developer should pay, calling some expenses inflated and revenue estimates conservative. She emphasized that development typically funds itself, per the Palmer Lake Master Plan.

Other board members asked about general fund expenditures, Fire Department estimates, and whether increases accounted for annexing properties along County Line Road. Public comments covered assumptions, actual costs, Buc-ee’s financial responsibility, and whether Monument Fire Department could continue servicing the property. Guimond said the report outlined assumptions and distinguished between pre-existing needs and Buc-ee’s impact. He noted EPS estimated costs, but did not address financing.

GMS Inc., an engineering firm that has advised Palmer Lake regarding water infrastructure, presented the second report. Senior Engineer and Project Manager Mark Morton summarized findings on Buc-ee’s increased water demands and necessary improvements. He said the report also accounts for long-term population growth and existing deficiencies. GMS listed $10.4 million in needed improvements including a waterline extension costing $5.6 million and facility upgrades for $4.8 million.

The board questioned recycling gray water vs. reclaiming water, the number and locations of wells, xeriscaping, and whether Buc-ee’s could proceed without annexing into Palmer Lake. In the public question portion, Rachel Zancanella, Division 2 engineer for the Colorado Division of Water Resources (DOWR), offered to meet and review Palmer Lake’s water portfolio and rights.

A resident raised concerns about depleting aquifers, long-term sustainability, and rising pumping costs. Morton expressed interest in further discussions with DOWR and emphasized the need for renewable water from non-tributary sources. Morton clarified that Buc-ee’s would connect to Monument Sanitation District for wastewater, not Palmer Lake Sanitation District.

Traffic Engineer Max Rusch of Stolfus & Associates presented the final report. He noted that Buc-ee’s conducted its own traffic study, which the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) would review for the I-25 interchange. Stolfus analyzed traffic at the I-25 ramps, the Beacon Lite Road and County Line Road intersection, and the Spruce Mountain Road and County Line intersection near town, finding little impact at the Spruce Mountain Road intersection.

Rusch said Stolfus conducted its own traffic counts and trip-generation analysis to assess Buc-ee’s proposed improvements. To account for summer peak volumes, Stolfus adjusted its traffic counts. Key findings showed that I-25 would function more efficiently with Buc-ee’s upgrades, full access should be allowed in and out of the church at Beacon Lite Road, and Buc-ee’s may need to modify its middle access left turn to accommodate queueing.

Rusch addressed board-submitted questions on residential driveways along Beacon Lite and left turns onto County Line. He said Stolfus did not anticipate egress issues and noted a dedicated through lane for left turns. While Stolfus did not conduct a formal safety study, Rusch did not expect Buc-ee’s to impact I-25 operations. The firm did not examine Beacon Lite and Highway 105, as it does not anticipate significant southbound traffic from Buc-ee’s. Attendees then asked about the traffic study used, count dates, seasonal adjustments, and whether Stolfus accounted for future development which it did not.

Readers can find links to the agenda, packet, and meeting videos at bit.ly/250505-plbot-special.

Public hearing on annexation petition

On May 29, the board held a special meeting that included opening remarks from Town Attorney Scott Krob and a public hearing that began with a presentation from Nina Ruiz of Vertex Consulting Services, who represented the annexation petitioner Monument Ridge West LLC. The meeting included public comments and ended with a vote on Resolution 46-2025, which confirmed annexation eligibility.

The meeting was held in the Palmer Lake Town Hall. In anticipation of a large turnout, the hall was reconfigured, moving the trustees up to the area in front of the fireplace and adding extra seating for up to 120 attendees. A large-screen TV with a livestream of the meeting was installed on the patio of the Town Hall for those who could not be seated. At least 30 people listened from outside the hall, trying to stay dry as light rain fell. Some of them complained to the board that they had trouble hearing the livestream.

Above: Buc-ee’s annexation eligibility hearing in Palmer Lake Town Hall, May 29. Photo by Jackie Burhans.

Attorney addresses litigation

In his remarks preceding the public hearing, Krob addressed litigation filed by Integrity Matters (IM), a local nonprofit watchdog group. Krob argued board meetings had met the requirement of the state’s “sunshine laws,” which simply require meetings to be announced 24 hours before they are held. Krob said a temporary restraining order requested by IM requiring the special meeting to be moved to a larger venue had been denied by the court, which also denied a second motion from IM which claimed the meeting was in fact a closed meeting because everyone could not be seated. Krob said the court agreed the special meeting was an open meeting and everyone who wanted to be heard would be heard.

Krob addressed other concerns about the annexation process that had been raised by the community. He said the town was required to have a three-mile plan in place before the final decision to annex, not before the annexation eligibility hearing. He explained the second annexation petition before the board at the special meeting sought to annex the entire width of County Line Road, not just the southern half, which means the necessary contiguity can be achieved with three annexations instead of six. He stressed the special meeting was only to address the question of eligibility, and other issues would be addressed during a later meeting at which the final decision about whether to annex would be made. He reviewed the state statutes governing eligibility for annexation.

Petitioner’s presentation

Following Krob’s remarks, Mayor Glant Havenar opened the public hearing and Ruiz discussed the legal requirements that must be met for eligibility. Ruiz said the petition met the requirements of C.R.S 31-12-104, specifically:

  • There is one-sixth contiguity between the town and the property to be annexed.
  • There was no intent to use the land, which is vacant, for agricultural purposes.
  • It was practical for the town to extend water service to the property on the same basis those services were provided to other citizens.
  • The property was within the three-mile limit.

She went on to address the requirements of C.R.S. 31-12-105, arguing:

  • The land to be annexed is under the ownership of a single person who has signed the annexation petition.
  • The land is not being annexed into two municipalities at the same time.
  • The annexation will not impact school district boundaries.
  • The annexation will not extend municipal boundaries by more than three miles.
  • An appropriate three-mile plan is in place.
  • Owners of adjacent land have been notified.
  • There are no additional requests to annex land along the path of the annexation.
  • The request seeks to annex both sides of County Line Road, even though it is not platted and this requirement does not apply.
  • Access is not denied by the annexation.
  • The owners have signed the annexation request.

Public comments

Havenar then opened the hearing to comments from the public. Many of the speakers raised issues outside the limits of eligibility, such as water availability, light pollution, loss of property value, and a potential increase in crime. Despite the efforts of Havenar and Trustees Kevin Dreher and Dennis Stern to limit remarks to eligibility, many speakers were determined to make their points, resulting in the speaker and the mayor or board member talking over each other. In two instances these exchanges became so heated that Havenar called five-minute recesses to allow tempers to cool. Most of the speakers were opposed to the travel center.

Marty Brodzik questioned the legality of the hearing, since necessary documents had not been prepared 25 days before it was held.

Linda Von Matre said the integrity of the annexation procedure was compromised, because some attendees of the hearing on Dec. 12 had been forced to stand outside the too-small venue in cold weather. She said she believed the outcome was predetermined and faulted Havenar for meeting with Buc-ee’s lobbyist Mark Waller when the rest of the board was not present.

Caitlin Quander, an attorney speaking on behalf of the Malone Family Foundation, which was instrumental in the creation of the Greenland Open Space just north of property, cited concerns with the ability to integrate the site into the town and with open space, wildlife, and dark skies. She said requirements to announce meetings had not been met and the resolution to declare the property eligible for annexation listed the owner of the property incorrectly. The Malone Family Foundation had spent more than $90 million on the open space, she said, and is prepared to do what is necessary to protect it.

Kat Gayle, chief legal counsel of Integrity Matters, argued the hearing needed to abide by open meetings laws and questioned whether a real “community of interest” could exist between the town and the travel center.

Darren Fike asked how the property could be eligible for annexation if the travel center would violate the town’s ordinances regarding light pollution.

Roy Martinez argued the notices to adjacent landowners were premature and therefore invalid.

Christie Beverly said the community of interest requirements, which are more stringent for “flagpole” annexations, were not met because the site could not be urbanized as the law requires due to the protected open space to the north and the residences to the south.

Todd Messenger, a lawyer representing the United Congregational Church, which owns land between the town and the property to be annexed, also questioned whether the community of interest requirements were met.

Trustee Amy Hutson asked Krob to clarify the concept of “community of interest.” Krob said there was confusion in the community on this point and that the term means there is a common interest between property to be annexed and the town, potentially in the areas of traffic or tax revenue, and it does not mean the annexation is in the best interest of the community. That is addressed in the next step of the annexation process, he said.

Krob addressed some of the points raised by the public comments. He explained the conservation easement affects the north side of the property and restricts commercial development within the easement. The applicant doesn’t intend to use that part of the property for commercial purposes, he said. He argued the proposed travel center meets the requirement for urbanization.

Ruiz said she agreed with Krob’s conclusions.

Approval by the board

Following the public hearing, the board voted on a version of Resolution 46-2025, which had been amended to show the correct name of the property owner. Trustees Shana Ball, Tim Caves, Dreher, Hutson, Stern, and Mayor Havenar voted in favor; Trustee Atis Jurka voted nay. With six votes, the resolution passed. The vote was met with boos and shouts from the crowd.

**********

The next regular board meetings are scheduled for June 12 and 26. See the town’s website at www.townofpalmerlake.com to confirm times and dates of board meetings and workshops. Meetings are typically held on the second and fourth Thursdays of the month at the Town Hall. Information: 719-481-2953.

James Howald can be reached at jameshowald@ocn.me. Jackie Burhans can be reached at jackieburhans@ocn.me.

Other Palmer Lake Board of Trustees articles

Reader Interactions

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.