On April 11, Brian Matise, an attorney with Burg Simpson Eldredge Hersh & Jardine, P.C., filed a complaint on behalf of 30 residents of 4-Way Ranch Metropolitan District 1 against the district itself, the five board members and 4-Way Ranch Joint Venture LLC. The board members include Peter Martz, Robert Elliott, Deborah Elliott, W. Tracy Lee and Linda Johnson-Conne.Matise said the complaint is basically a legal proceeding that challenges the actions taken by the 4-Way board at their March 14 meeting, when they voted on the following: to exclude an undeveloped portion of the 4-Way Ranch property, commonly known as Waterbury, from District 1; and then include that same property as part of 4-Way Ranch Metropolitan District 2; along with conveying the services provided by District 1 to District 2.As of the March 14 meeting, the board for District 1 is also the board for District 2.District 2 was created in 2005 but did not include the 321 acres known as Waterbury at the time, Matise said. Currently, the proposed exclusion of Waterbury from District 1 means that any development and associated revenue like tap fees or operation and maintenance taxes will not go to District 1, he said.ìThe developers of this area, including all of the board members, have various and complicated dealings with each other so when this property (Waterbury) was transferred to the other district (District 2), it gave the board the ability to control everything, and (it) also prevents District 1 from being able to financially survive,î Matise said.The complaint asserts that both the exclusion and the transfer of services constitutes a material change to the 4-Way Ranch financial plan, which is also part of the service plan ó and any material changes to the service plan must be approved by the El Paso County Board of County Commissioners, Matise said.Colin Mielke, attorney with Seter & Wander Wall, P.C., represents 4-Way Ranch Metro District 1 and the individual defendants in the complaint. He said he filed a motion April 23 to dismiss the complaint. Because the litigation is ongoing, Mielke said he was not able to further comment at this time.ìWe just want to restore the status quo before this board decision,î Matise said. ìWe want to restore District 1 to the condition it was in and contemplated under the service plan.î
