Ms. Hageman asked how much did Brookfield actually spend to build the infrastructure for Solterra.
As Mr. Daubenmire politely explained, Brookfield won’t tell us. I sat next to their attorney three years ago during Mayor Paul’s “mediation” to try to persuade us to drop the recall. I asked her what the $29 million we are repaying (with interest total: $64 million – over 2 million each year . . . For the next 40 years) went to pay for. She said, in a room full of people, they are still trying to figure that out.
Here are my notes from that “mediation” where Brookfield’s attorney told us they didn’t know what the money was spent on.
http://solterracommunity.org/index.php/2017/06/24/recall-what-i-learned-from-meeting-with-the-mayors-group/
The real first question though is, what did they spend the cost of the lots for. I have represented developers. I developed 80 acres. The developer incorporates the cost of the land and the cost of infrastructure into the cost of the lot.
In Solterra, we paid anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 for our lots.
What did we pay for the land.
What did we pay for the infrastructure.
Our 20 mill tax levy for the Mt. Carbon bankruptcy paid for the land.
Brookfield told Lakewood when they applied for the special district in 2006 that the cost of infrastructure (including profit) would be about $34 million. Divide that by the number of lots and that is about $30,000 per lot.
$50,000 or $100,000 minus $30,000 leaves a difference of $20,000 or $70,000 per lot ADDITIONAL profit.
So, the first question is, what happened to the money we paid Brookfield for our lots. It should have paid for the infrastructure. So why do they need to charge us an additional $29 million plus $31 million in profit and interest. And then add to these numbers more than twice the amount for additional interest – interest to the bond investors.
They didn’t give the lots away free.
We know they spent some of the money from lot fees on the C-470 Alameda interchange from the Green Tree (Three Dinos) documents. What did they spend the rest on.
Money that should have been spent on our infrastructure.
And keep in mind, why did they need a special district in the first place. They didn’t. The only purpose for the special district is to fund infrastructure.
For example, developers have been building lots of houses in Longmont the past 50 years without special districts. Because until last year, Longmont prohibited special districts for residential construction. Don’t need them. And guess what, the cost of the same houses is cheaper. And without the huge tax debt.
And in our case, Brookfield already had the money for infrastructure. They did not need to get the money from the residents. They already had it. And the cost for infrastructure is usually paid through the cost of the lot.
They didn’t give the lots away free.
We already paid them for the infrastructure with the cost of the lots even before they put us into debt for $29 million.
But lets get back to the immediate issue. The point right now is, our right to vote. We don’t get to the question of whether or not we owe them any money until we get back our right to vote.
Ms. Neill’s questions skip an important point. The reason they took away our right to vote and the reason to get it back is so the residents can decide whether or not to go into bond debt to pay Brookfield additional profits. Our decision. Not theirs.
The point missed in Ms. Neil’s question is, Brookfield gets its day in court the same way Lakewood, jeffco and the State do. Brookfield can take as much time and spend as much money as they want to in order to persuade us that we owe them another $31 million. The burden is on them to prove we owe the money, not on us to prove we don’t.
A public election is their day in court.
They have the data. They can prove to us with documents subject to review what happened to the money we paid for the lots. They can prove to us why they spent some of that money on the C-470 Interchange. They can prove to us what they spent on infrastructure. They can prove to us what their profit margin is, as a government entity.
And if we find their evidence is credible, we can decide to pay them more money. If we don’t, then we don’t pay them more money.
That is their day in court. They chose to use special districts. They took away our right to vote. That was not done by accident. They did it on purpose. So we would not be able to challenge them and hold them accountable. They took the risk that we would not wake up, hold them accountable and decide their evidence was not credible.
These are big boys. Billion dollars big boys. They knew what they were doing. They risked we would not wake up before they imposed another $31 million in debt.
During the “mediation” where Mayor Paul and Brookfield tried to persuade us to drop the recall, the second lawyer for Brookfield told us why they would not have their employees leave the board voluntarily.
It is the same reason why they stole our right to vote on future debt.
He said: “we don’t trust the residents to make the ‘right’ decision.”
Brookfield knew what was best for us – still do – completely max out our ability to fund future debt with another $31 million plus interest in taxes for the next 45 years. To pay Brookfield unaccounted for and unearned massive profits. I can just hear the joy in everyone’s voices in anticipation of this oh so generous gift from Brookfield.
So, lets get back our right to vote. And Brookfield can take as long as they want and spend as much money as they want to prove we owe them another nickel.
My guess is that we will find out they owe us, and not just a nickel.
And, as a legal matter. The documents Brookfield relies upon to say we owe them money is an agreement. An agreement between District 1 to pay all the debts of the developer. And an agreement between Districts 2 and 3 to pay District 1.
Problem is, the agreements are unenforceable. Single party contracts. The same person signed as both the developer and the district. Same signature. Conflict of interest. Invalid.
Here they are:
The same person who signed the agreements for both the district and the developer has a conflict of interest. I can’t agree with myself that you owe me $100. Unenforceable.
I raised this question twice with two separate groups of special district attorneys during the annual special district association conference this Fall. To see what they would say. They conceded “it was a potential problem”.
The board is aware of this “problem”. The agreements they are defending aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.
Yet, the board would rather pay $31 million than challenge Brookfield’s unfounded claim for another $31 million and challenge the legal basis for the claim.
Because the board is afraid of Brookfield.
It is time to take our right to vote back. Then Brookfield can persuade the residents we owe them $31 million. And then the residents can decide. That is the way it works for the state, jeffco and lakewood. It is time the same constitutional right that applies to them, applies to us.
John Henderson