Parker board swears in members despite election challenge

BY HALEY LENA HLENA@COLORADOCOMMUNITYMEDIA.COM

e May 11 Parker Water and Sanitation DIstrict board meeting was packed with business as incumbents Merlin Klotz and Bill Wasserman and newcomer Robert Kennah took their oath to o ce and long-standing board member Dale Reiman was recognized for his years of service. e evening began with public comment as Kory Nelson announced that he is challenging the recent Board of Directors election citing the district failed to ensure all eligible voters received a ballot with su cient time to evaluate the candidates and mail in their ballots by May 2.

“You need to give the voters of Lincoln Creek Village a fair chance to vote,” said Nelson. “Without taking this voluntary correct of action, there’s no decision this board can make that will have any legal or moral authority.”

Nelson then asked the present board members to make a motion to conduct a voluntary correct of action and allow the residents who did not receive mail-in ballots to have the same amount of time to properly vote.

“Don’t let Parker be the place where elections don’t matter and people are disenfranchised,” said nary results — supported Nelson and included that it has come to their attention that there were more voters than those of the Lincoln Creek Village that did not receive a mail-in ballot.

Among the district leadership team updates, the district’s general counsel and HPWC Law Attorney Je erson H. Parker explained to the board what happened to cause the Lincoln Creek Village area to not get ballots.

In 2004, there was a petition for inclusion. According to Parker, the board votes on the inclusion, there is a legal description provided by the owner of the property which is usually reviewed by the district and a petition is then submitted to the district court for an inclusion order. e inclusion order is issued once the statutory requirements are met. en Parker Water provides a copy to the county to make sure the county has its records updated to re ect the property to be included in the Parker Water District.

Parker noted this parcel of property which they were talking about has not been subject to Parker Water’s taxes since 2004.

What Parker believes caused the county records to not show the roughly 10-acre parcel of property to be included was a space in the legal description concerning parcel A and B.

When showing the board the map of the property, parcel A is the majority of the property as parcel B is a little sliver that runs atop parcel A, which is described in the legal description.

“I want to be clear to everybody that this was not anything that we’ve done intentionally,” said Parker. “ is was just something that was overlooked.”