Two of the numbered taxing districts that sit beneath Monument’s subdivisions held mail-ballot elections on their own dissolution, with ballots due at 7 p.m. on Sept. 1. Triview Metropolitan District No. 2 covers Promontory Pointe; No. 4 covers Sanctuary Pointe. Both were formed by Classic Homes to finance roads, both are governed by the same five-member board, and both asked the El Paso County District Court to wind them down to a caretaker whose only job is collecting the property tax that repays their bonds. The canvass boards for both districts meet on Thursday, Sept. 10. Results were not available at publication.
What was on the ballot
The two districts are among the four Triview districts created between 1985 and 2007 to build and pay for the streets and utilities of northern Monument. Triview Metropolitan District — District No. 1 — operates the water, sewer, roads and parks. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 exist, in the words of their audits, “to provide the funding and tax base” for particular developments. No. 2 was organized in late 2006 to finance Ranch Pointe Road and contributions to Higby Road and Jackson Creek Parkway; No. 4 was organized in November 2007 to finance Sanctuary Rim Drive and the same two arterials. The roads were built and handed to other governments. What remains is the debt.
No. 2 owes $1.43 million on general-obligation refunding bonds issued in 2017, due through December 2047. No. 4 owes the full $5 million of limited-tax bonds it sold in 2018 at 5.75 percent; the first principal payment of $75,000 falls due this December, and the last in 2048. Neither district owns property, employs anyone or delivers a service. Each spends between $38,000 and $68,000 a year on accounting, audits, insurance, legal counsel, a website and, this year in No. 2’s case, a $20,000 budget line for the election itself.
| No. 2 (Promontory Pointe) | No. 4 (Sanctuary Pointe) | |
|---|---|---|
| Organized | Late 2006 | November 2007 |
| Built | Ranch Pointe Road; share of Higby Road and Jackson Creek Parkway | Sanctuary Rim Drive; share of Higby Road and Jackson Creek Parkway |
| Bonds outstanding (end of 2025) | $1,430,000 · Series 2017 refunding · 2.625–4.35% | $5,000,000 · Series 2018 limited-tax · 5.75% |
| Final bond payment | Dec. 1, 2047 | Dec. 1, 2048 |
| Earliest early redemption at par | Dec. 1, 2027 | Dec. 1, 2026 |
| 2026 debt service | $90,897 | $362,500 |
| 2026 mill levy | 8.5 (2.0 general + 6.5 debt) | 6.5 (0.5 general + 6.0 debt) |
| 2026 assessed value | $13.0 million | $37.1 million |
| Cash on hand (end of 2025, estimated) | $464,611 | $1,238,236 |
| Directors | Lenz, Stimple, Loidolt, Moreland, Richardson | Lenz, Stimple, Loidolt, Moreland, Richardson |
The boards voted to begin dissolution last fall — No. 2 on Nov. 6, 2025, No. 4 on Dec. 8 — and No. 2 filed its petition in the district court in May under the case number of its 2006 organization, 2006CV003705. Colorado’s Special District Act does not allow a district with outstanding bonds to dissolve by board vote alone. The court must first find that the plan “adequately provides for the payment” of the bonds, then order an election; a majority of the electors who vote decides it (C.R.S. 32-1-704 and 32-1-707).
A two-page notice mailed to residents of each subdivision explained the choice. A yes vote dissolves the district and leaves “a small caretaker board” in place “only to certify the annual debt mill levy and make sure bond payments are made on time until the bonds are fully repaid.” A no vote leaves everything as it is. Ballots went out on Aug. 11.
What changes for a homeowner
The debt levy does not go away under either outcome. Under the plan filed with the court, at least one director stays in office — the petition calls this person the “Responsible Party” — to certify the mill levy each December, pass the tax receipts to the bond trustee and meet the district’s disclosure obligations to bondholders. Vacancies on the caretaker board are filled by the court, not by voters; the statute says the remaining directors “shall not be subject to election.” CliftonLarsonAllen, the accounting firm that manages No. 2, would bill the shell $8,000 a year if bondholders require audited statements and $3,500 if they do not, rising 3 percent annually, all paid from the levy.
The savings are the overhead. No. 2 projects that non-debt spending falls from $68,000 budgeted this year to about $20,000 in 2027; No. 4 projects a drop from $38,000 to about $25,000. On the tax bill, the two districts told their voters different things. No. 2’s notice says “lower costs means lower mill levy — and a smaller property tax bill,” and projects its levy falling from 8.5 mills to 6.5 in 2027 — roughly $90 a year on the $750,000 Promontory Pointe example the Independent used in July. No. 4’s notice says lower costs “can lead to” a lower levy, and its own projection shows 6.5 mills in both 2026 and 2027, unchanged.
| No. 2 2026 | No. 2 2027 proj. | No. 4 2026 | No. 4 2027 proj. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total mill levy | 8.5 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 6.5 |
| General | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Debt service | 6.5 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 |
| Non-debt spending | $68,000 | $19,618 | $38,000 | $24,977 |
| of which election | $20,000 | — | — | — |
| of which legal, insurance, management, website | $19,900 | — | $11,000 | — |
| Debt service (principal, interest, trustee) | $94,397 | $93,479 | $366,000 | $366,688 |
| Board | 5 elected | 1+ caretaker, court-appointed | 5 elected | 1+ caretaker, court-appointed |
Both districts carry cash well beyond a year’s debt service. No. 2 expected to end 2025 with about $465,000 on hand, $334,000 of it labeled “excess debt service revenue,” against annual payments of about $91,000. No. 4 expected about $1.24 million, including a $500,000 surplus fund and a $219,000 reserve required by its bonds, against payments of $362,500. Both bond series may be redeemed early at par — No. 4’s from this December, No. 2’s from December 2027. The notices to voters do not address whether the caretaker boards would use the reserves to retire bonds ahead of schedule.
Who is deciding, and who decides after
The five directors of both districts are the same people: George Lenz, Douglas Stimple, Joseph Loidolt, Loren Moreland and Jerald Richardson. The districts’ 2025 audits state that the directors “are officers, employees or associated with the developers and may have conflicts of interest in dealing with the District.” No. 4’s developers of record are McKinney Classic 3, LLC and Collin Elite 1, LLC; No. 2’s is MREC Classic Promontory, LLC. No. 4 lists its principal business office as Classic Homes, 2138 Flying Horse Club Drive in Colorado Springs, and No. 2 holds its meetings at the same address. Classic Homes’ Better Business Bureau profile lists Jerry Richardson as a vice president of the company.
None of the five faced a contested election in May 2025. Both districts canceled that election because no more candidates filed than there were seats, and declared the incumbents elected by acclamation — Loidolt and Richardson in No. 2; Stimple, Loidolt and Lenz in No. 4. Three No. 2 seats and two No. 4 seats were due on the May 2027 ballot. If dissolution passes, that ballot will not exist.
Triview’s district manager, Jim McGrady, told the Triview board on Aug. 20 that the two developer districts’ attorneys had advised them to dissolve because their construction work was long finished, and that Triview has already absorbed maintenance of the infrastructure they built, according to Our Community News. The item was not on that meeting’s agenda.
What happens next
The canvass boards for both districts meet at 11 a.m. on Thursday, Sept. 10, by video conference, to count and certify the results. The meeting is public. The Zoom link, meeting ID 165 416 6434 and passcode 725024 are posted on each district’s website with a call-in number, 833-568-8864. If a majority voted yes, the court enters an order of dissolution, which is recorded with the county clerk; the state has 35 days to challenge it. If a majority voted no, the districts continue as they are, and the May 2027 board election goes ahead.
The Independent will report the results when the canvass is complete.
Sources & further reading
The Independent’s own coverage: Not an HOA: The Government That Runs Much of Monument — the July explainer on Triview and its numbered sub-districts, including the 2026 mill levies and the $750,000 tax example used above.
District No. 2 (Promontory Pointe): Petition for Dissolution, May 2026 · Dissolution notice to residents · Notice of canvass board meeting · 2026 budget · 2025 audit · 2026 transparency notice · Notice of canceled May 2025 election
District No. 4 (Sanctuary Pointe): Dissolution notice to residents · Notice of canvass board meeting · Dec. 8, 2025 meeting notice and agenda · 2026 budget · 2025 audit · 2026 transparency notice · Notice of canceled May 2025 election
Law and other records: C.R.S. 32-1-704 · C.R.S. 32-1-707 · Triview Metropolitan District, Aug. 20 agenda · Classic Homes, BBB profile · Our Community News, “Joint transportation plan with Town of Monument reviewed,” Sept. 5, 2026 issue, pp. 11–12.
Methodology
Every figure in this article comes from the two districts’ own filings — 2026 budgets, 2025 audited financial statements, 2026 transparency notices, the notices mailed to voters and, for No. 2, the petition filed in district court — each read in full. Debt balances, mill levies, assessed values and fund balances are the districts’ year-end 2025 estimates as stated in the 2026 budgets adopted in December 2025; the audits confirm the bond balances. The projected 2027 figures are the districts’ own, labeled in their notices as “subject to actual Assessed Valuation and pending election to approve dissolution.” The $90 estimate applies the 2-mill difference in No. 2’s projection to the local-government assessed value of $46,240 that the Independent calculated for a $750,000 home in its July explainer; an individual bill will differ. The dates of the board resolutions come from Note 9 (No. 2) and Note 10 (No. 4) of the audits. No. 4’s court case number and the ballot question text were not among the documents posted by either district. McGrady’s remarks are as reported by Our Community News; the Independent did not attend the Aug. 20 Triview meeting. The Independent did not contact the districts, their counsel or Classic Homes for this article and will do so for the follow-up on the results.
