Above is the recording of the meeting yesterday by the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District.
The Board met for about 20 minutes in executive session with District Counsel to discuss the Solterra Litigation. Monday the Court granted a motion finding they were a necessary party to that case.
And met about another 20 minutes with their counsel for Big Sky. The Court held a status conference last week in the Big Sky case for the first time since the case was remanded on appeal.
At the conclusion, President Morgan expressed confidence in both counsel and the board members (Mr. Hooks was not present but included in her expression of confidence).
In response to the recent blog (below) stating the status of knowledge regarding board member positions on providing service outside the district boundary, Mr. Garner expressed annoyance and referred the public to his prior statements on Next Door, other materials and invited any member of the public (preferably limited to members of the district) to contact him directly to have that conversation. He did state his position is to “win” the litigation.
Big Sky, Cardel, Brookfield and Solterra and a New Green Mountain Settlement Majority?
To be clear, the blog did not suggest privileged communications be disclosed or “telling opposition counsel” the board’s strategy considerations. That is why executive sessions are not public.
But those communications are very different from expressing a position on extraterritorial service. So, if you’re interested in Mr. Garner’s position, he explained they can be found in previous next door statements and if you talk to him directly.
Stay tuned. Every effort will be made to report on the actions taken in court on both cases with reference to the actual documents filed. And undoubtedly the Board will also be vigilant in keeping the public up to date on the progress of both cases.
And if a decision is considered to settle the cases and provide service outside the district in an effort to save money or make money, hopefully the residents will have an opportunity to express their positions on the matter before any final decisions are made.
During the debates about this issue in 2018 and 2019 some folks argued that the District can make a ton of money – millions and millions of dollars by providing service to all of Rooney Valley.
“Make the developer’s pay dearly” for the sanitation service they are not otherwise entitled to (since its outside the district)
But of course thats not how it works. In the metro district world, it’s the residents, who have absolutely no clue what amount of debt they are buying into, it’s the residents who pay. Not the developers. The residents.
Solterra is a perfect example. What a mess the previous (2008) Green Mountain board and the developer made of providing sewer outside the district pursuant to an IGA.
- Currently two lawsuits involving Brookfield and Solterra and now Brookfield, Solterra and Green Mountain
- The Big Sky case and 4 years of litigation
- Solterra residents paying a significant premium 25% more in fees than Green Mountain residents
- Solterra residents owning their pipes and equipment which means they have to pay, not Green Mountain, for replacement, maintenance and repair. In addition to the higher fees.
This idea that the developer and board came up with in 2008 for providing service outside the district boundary through an IGA “to make lots of money” for the developer and the district – all came at a significant cost to residents inside and outside the district.
And it’s really bad public policy.
Public policy is not defined by making money.
Public policy is not a profit making enterprise.
That is developer-speak. For them it is about making a profit – which is fine that’s how private business is supposed to work.
But making public policy is about what is in the best interest of the people, not special monied interests. The people.
And that concern becomes particularly acute when dealing with precious limited resources and public utilities. Saving money is important, of course. But making a profit, at the expense of residents, from the sale of public utilities is not.
And taking advantage of unsuspecting residents is not.
They are paying the profit, not developers.
To be crystal clear. Rooney Valley will be developed one way or another. Hopefully those in charge of making those decisions have a vision beyond car lots for this special place. But it will be developed.
The only question is how. And when it comes to public utilities like sewer that should be a public policy question, not a make as much money (“a sucker resident is born every day”) profit question.
And publicly elected boards have a duty to those who they represent to make good public policy by providing service to their residents. Not selling service to non-residents at a significant profit for the district and the developers.
Of course the most important part of all of this is, thinking about it and participating in the decision making process. I may be the only one who cares enough to spend time talking about it and no one may share my opinions on the matter. But at least you had a chance to think about it and participate. And thats a “win”.
John Henderson