A new draft agenda was published yesterday from the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District which added an agenda item “Super Majority Vote”
The past two meetings have involved some discussion about a proposal to require a “super majority vote” before considering a request from a developer outside the district to provide service outside the district. The “super majority” proposal would require four votes instead of three.
No proposal was attached to the board packet but one of the board members published this information yesterday:
a. Initiate fee study based off of 10-year capital improvement plan
11. Legal Matters (Dylan Woods, Title 32 Attorney for the District)
12. Executive Session (pursuant to 24-6-402(4)(b) and/or 24-6-402(4)(e), CRS for purposes of receiving legal advice regarding
a. Solterra litigation
b. Big Sky litigation
13. New Business – Notifications for Next Board Meeting
14. Adjourn
Proposal For Tuesday’s meeting agenda. This would be an addition to the agenda – Proposed By-Laws modification. Changes (i.e. additional language) from the current by-laws are highlighted in red.
I move to modify the District’s By-laws Section 8 Conduct of Business to now read:
b. Vote Requirements. Any action of the Board shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of the Directors present and voting. Any action of the Board which shall have the effect of establishing, increasing, or expanding extra-territorial service shall require the affirmative vote of no less than two-thirds of the Directors then comprising the Board. Any action to terminate, amend or in any manner emasculate the foregoing requirements with regards to the provisions of extra-territorial service(s) in any form shall necessitate authorization by a vote of not less than two-thirds of the members then comprising the Board. When special or emergency circumstances affecting the affairs of District and the health and safety of District residents so dictate, then those Directors available at the time may undertake whatever action is considered necessary and may so instruct District’s employees. A voice vote may also be taken via telephone or electronically through online means over the internet. All emergency actions shall be approved at the next Board meeting by a vote of the quorum.”
- during the Big Sky debates,
- the termination of the Big Sky IGA and
- more recently in the recall election and thereafter.
- First, adopt a resolution informing all the folks outside the District who may want to do business with Green Mountain what its policy is regarding extraterritorial service.
-
- Simple Resolution stating that
-
-
- Green Mountain must obtain an amendment to the Service Plan to allow a specific exception to the legal boundary limit (i.e for another “Solterra”)
-
-
-
- There must be a public hearing by Green Mountain first on whether or not to seek an amendment to the Service Plan
-
- Second, amend the Rules and Regulations (which appear to have been written by a developer oriented board and their counsel).
-
- Consider this entry in the Rules and Regulations:
3.1 Description of the District. The District is a quasi-municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Colorado that was organized with the authority to provide certain services to Developers, Owners and Customers within the Service Area of the District. The Colorado District derives its power from the Special District Act, Sections 32-1-101 et seq Revised Statutes, as the same may be amended from time to time.
- There is zero mention in the Rules and Regulations to the actual Service Plan. The Service Plan doesn’t say that the district was organized to provide services to developers.
“The present purpose of the District is to provide a complete waterworks distribution system for the District and the inhabitants thereof“. (Service Plan 1951)
- The Rules and Regulations quoted above (3.1) do however limit the services to providing services “within the service area of the District”.
- And the Service Area is defined in section 1.38 as the “legal boundary within which the District provides service”:
“1.38 Service Area. Shall mean the legal boundary within which the District provides Service.” (Rules and Regulations Section 1.38)
- These provisions in the Service Plan and Rules and Regulations clearly limit service to inside the boundary, not outside the boundary.
- And the only way to provide service outside the boundary is through an amendment to that legal limit – an amendment to the Service Plan – to allow service outside the boundary.
The problem is that the Rules and Regulations (apparently written by a developer oriented board and attorney) ignore the Service Plan and simply suggest the board by itself, with no public hearing, can provide service outside the legal boundary.
- Here is section 5.4 “Extraterritorial Service”:
5.4 Extraterritorial Service. The District shall have no obligation to provide Service outside its boundaries. Service within the District is governed by the Master Meter Contract between the District and Denver Water and by the Special Connectors Agreement between the District and Metro. Boundary changes are subject to approval by Denver Water and Metro. No Service shall be provided to property outside of the District except by a written agreement of the District, and then only to the extent permitted by contract with Denver Water or Metro, as applicable. Any such written agreement with the District will establish fees, rates or charges for furnishing Service, which fees, rates or charges shall be not less than the fees, rates or charges for furnishing Service to in-District property and may be more. Any System extensions necessary to Service property outside of the District shall comply with the provisions of these Rules and Regulations.
- The Service Plan is the governing document.
- The Board has to follow the Service Plan
- Or Amend the Service Plan and follow the amendment.
- This board-made Rule and Regulation says the board can ignore the Service Plan and just provide service outside the legal boundary by saying so in a meeting with an agreement.
- Without an amendment to the service plan.
- Without a public hearing
- Not clear when this Rule was written but I suspect around the time that Adam Paul and the then developer oriented board and counsel decided to provide service outside the district to Solterra
- with no public hearing
- with no effort to get permission by amending the legal boundary limit in the Service Plan
So, in summary,
- the Rules and Regulations appear to put a priority on serving developers, not residents
- the Rules and Regulations make no mention of the Service Plan
- the Rules and Regulations acknowledge the “legal boundary limit” of service – limited to inside the boundary
- but at the same time say the board can ignore the Service Plan and say the board can provide service outside the boundary whenever they want to.
- Without a public hearing
- Without amending the Service Plan to specifically state the limited exception to the “legal boundary limit”.
- Allowing a board can provide service anywhere in the State just because a developer asks them to do it.
Government at all levels is limited government. Limited by things called constitutions and, in this case, limited by the document that created the district – the Service Plan.
And pursuant to Title 32 every Service Plan has to have at least two things.
- What kind of district (library, fire, metro or water and sanitation).
- What and where – what is the limited legal boundaries where that service may be provided.
It’s limited government for a reason.
So, let the Green Mountain folks know what you think about providing service outside the district.
The proposal on the table is to require a two thirds majority.
It might also help to
- pass a simple resolution requiring an amendment to the Service Plan,
- Requiring a public hearing on whether or not to apply for an amendment and, of course
- amending the Rules and Regulations to recognize the limits of this government.
What do you think?
John Henderson