There’s a lot of news from Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District.
As you will recall, for 5 years the developers have been demanding, suing and manipulating every way they can think of to force the residents of Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District to bust the boundaries of their Service Plan and provide sewer to Rooney Valley which is outside the Green Mountain district.
And at every turn, the developers have lost.
- Green Mountain terminated the election night IGA jammed through the last meeting of the May 2018 board as they were being voted out of office.
- When the developers sued, the developers lost in the district court. The Court of Appeals sent it back for more facts. The new motion with more facts is due December 15.
- Brookfield demanded sewer service for additional units after their IGA (generated by Adam Paul in 2007) expired in January. They sued and lost. They are now demanding service anyway, as if there was no court decision saying “no”.
You have to give this group of developers “credit” (and recognize they have lots of money from resident metro district profits). Despite their losses, they just keep ignoring Green Mountain and the courts. Just demanding everyone do what they want them to do.
And as Dave Garner, one of the new board members (appointed) likes to remind everyone, there’s a new board majority running the show.
And they’re doing it their way.
Here are new developments:
1. Special Meetings with or without the President, Karen Morgan or Dave Wiechman
Two recent special meetings called by Mr. Garner and the new majority were scheduled at times when Ms. Morgan and Mr. Wiechman initially could not be available. Mr. Wiechman attended the first at the last minute. They were both present at the second but Karen by zoom and Wiechman had to leave early – it was election night. Both meetings were run by Mr. Garner as vice president.
Here are the tapes:
https://youtu.be/rWeJe_235ac?si=HohSPyk3r5vSF8oe
https://youtu.be/CwY7vPDGUQ0?si=bjRNNTSwaJwpx6fO
2. New Majority way of making decisions – orchestrating selection of new manager and deferring to Mr. Yost, former candidate and temporary engineer – outside public meetings.
Elected director Wendell was facilitating the selection of a new manager which evolved into Mr. Yost, the temporary engineer running the process.
And when Mr. Yost’s non-public plans conflicted with the President’s (Karen Morgans) public plans, the new majority sided with Mr. Yost. Here are the emails:
Dave Garner (vp) telling the other board members to send their initial selections to Mike Yost (temp engineer):
Yost indicating that if everyone picks the same top choice (who is also his strong recommendation for the position) of the current employees, then decision’s made – outside the public hearing process.
And, he likes the process where the elected representatives of the district can’t speak, but he can.
President Karen Morgan reminds everyone there is an important public (transparency) process that must be followed and to stop the end run around that process:
Yost responds “in all due respect, Karen”, paraphrasing: we’re doing it my way – with or without you.
And, even though the elected directors can’t talk about it outside the meetings, Mr. Yost has talked with (some of) them and he knows what’s important and “recommends” the elected board members “go into the meeting with the answers”.
And finally Mr. Yost is “pleading” with Karen to do it his way and to let him know if he’s “out of line”.
Of course, Karen already told him he was out of line and it didn’t seem to make any difference.
You see, Mr. Yost, the temporary engineer, has already decided who the new manager should be and is apparently supported by the new majority – all before interviews and actually considering other candidates:
And beginning at 19:20:18 – 19:22:08 here:
https://youtu.be/rWeJe_235ac?si=HIADC2TuSJaN_Fxrhttps://youtu.be/rWeJe_235ac?si=HIADC2TuSJaN_Fxr
Now, to be clear. The person Mr. Yost and the new majority support may very well be the best person to be the new manager.
But, there is a process – fair, open and public – to reaching these kinds of key decisions. Not cutting corners behind closed doors.
The new majority is doing it their way – this is apparently how they are making key decisions.
In the last meeting, November 14, Mr. Wiechman called the new majority on it and he met with a strong reaction:
Beginning at 1:27:57 – 2:01:42:
https://youtu.be/nr_rlAy7Fo4?si=SKcZNKl-dBMbknle
Mr. Garner announced that Mr. Yost resigned and left the building. (See 1:59:12 above).
But now it appears the new majority has “rehired” Mr. Yost, yet again, outside a public meeting.
So, if this is how the new majority is making key decisions, what can we expect with respect to other key decisions regarding extraterritorial service and the Big Sky and Brookfield litigation?
Here’s a sampling of “hints”:
- Mr. Garner received an email from Brookfield apparently asking for his help in getting extraterritorial service and after speaking with counsel Mr. Garner invited Brookfield to make a new proposal for extraterritorial service:
Beginning at 00:1:06 – 00:02:14:
https://youtu.be/nr_rlAy7Fo4?si=SKcZNKl-dBMbknle
- Here is Brookfield’s demand – (paraphrasing) “tell your staff to do their job. Our poor employees aren’t getting paid because you’re not doing what we tell you to do”:
Beginning at 00:06:20 – 00:10:18:
https://youtu.be/nr_rlAy7Fo4?si=SKcZNKl-dBMbknle
- The Board forfeited its right to a jury trial in Big Sky
- The Board forfeited its right to take depositions of people they chose, not people the plaintiff developers chose.
- Court filings indicate the Big Sky developers are hitting the board hard to settle and provide the developers with extraterritorial service just like Brookfield in Solterra (but adding that Big Sky would be the “master meter”, the new sanitation company for all of Rooney Valley, not just Big Sky).
Is the new majority favoring making lots and lots of money developer style and “sharing” in the developers’ profits on the new residents?
- despite Green Mountain’s residents’ opposition to extraterritorial service
- despite the baggage that goes with these IGA’s (i.e. Solterra issues).
- ignoring the process for obtaining authorization for extraterritorial service (public hearings to amend service plan and public interest in providing service outside the district)
- despite the costs of facilitating sewer service in RooneyValley – when the developers are all gone, who – ultimately – will be responsible.
- who will the residents turn to.
- who are they paying a significant premium to, for their sewer service and
- what are they getting in return for paying that significant premium.
- despite the additional facts supporting summary judgment in Green Mountain’s favor
Is it the mission of Green Mountain to make a profit – as much money as they can through significantly higher fees on residents outside the district – and provide less service to those residents outside the district.
Or is it the mission of Green Mountain to follow its own Service Plan (which can be amended through a public hearing process) and provide a public service to the residents of its district without trying to exact significant unearned profits from new residents outside the district.
This is an important public policy question that should be decided by the residents of the district. And the new majority may want to include their constituents in the discussion before the “new majority” becomes the “old board”.
It’s one thing to have open discussion of this important policy question. It’s another for the new majority to do it their way.
- Making decisions without public transparency in the process just as with selecting the new manager.
- And making the residents “the last to know” important litigation decisions affecting their rights, like forfeiting the right to a jury trial.
There are new dates for the Big Sky case:
Motion for Summary Judgment now due December 15. Final Briefs January 26 and try to settle by February 16.
In all likelihood, the Court will wait to see if Green Mountain gives up and agrees to provide Big Sky with extraterritorial service before deciding the new motion for summary judgment (with hopefully new facts).
And standby for Green Mountain’s response to Brookfield’s new demand for extraterritorial service even though the court said “no”.
Brookfield has appealed (of course they did – it’s only a business expense for this billion dollar company) so it will be easy for Green Mountain to say “let’s see if our win stays a win”.
But with the new majority and increased pressure to “take the money on the table”, and declare open season on extraterritorial service, who knows what they’ll do.
They may be waiting to hear from you.