register |  login
› GREEN VALLEY RANCH
Loading Ad
Visit Other Hubs:
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Tower
RECENT STORIES

Was it abuse of power or simple neglect?
Contributed by: Charles Spratt on 6/12/2008

Green Valley Ranch is a 4100 home Denver suburb adjacent to DIA. Recently the community had been featured in a national news story concerning the extremely high rate of abandoned and foreclosed properties and their impact upon property values and property sales within the community. Nearly every block has a home for sale or a house in foreclosure.

The GVR Metropolitan District is a developer creation under which the financial burden of building streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, street lights, drainage, parks and green belts was shifted from the profit seeking developer to the residents who purchase homes and businesses within the metropolitan district. The district issued bonds and the money received from these bonds was used for the improvements that allowed the developers to attract buyers. Unfortunately the buyers end up not only paying for their home but also paying higher property taxes to retire these bonds that provided the developer the amenities which the developers used to turn a profit.

The GVR Metropolitan District obtains most of its current revenue from property taxes and therefore is subject to the TABOR (taxpayer bill of rights) amendment to the Colorado Constitution. The amendment imposes restrictions upon ability to raise taxes and to spend money without first obtaining permission from the residents within the district. Several years ago the Board of Directors of the GVR Metropolitan District had an election to allow the district to use taxpayer money to build a community center and the voters rejected the proposal.

Recently the voters acted to change the Board of Directors of the GVR Metropolitan District and the new directors are now shaking their heads about the way things had been done in the past.

It is the usual procedure, with a tax supported governmental creation, that the Board of Directors runs the organization. If the board decides that something needs to be done, it passes a "resolution" that authorizes one, or more, named people to negotiate the solution, and then to return to the Board of Directors with the proposed agreement to get a vote from a majority of the Board to approve the proposed contract. On the GVR Metropolitan District Board, over at least the past two years, the minutes reveal that this procedure was rarely, if ever, followed

Apparently, shortly after the election defeat of the "community center" proposal, a small group of people started meeting to correct the "mistake" of the voters. This group contends that a "community center" is an essential addition to the community and would be a great benefit to the residents. This idea seems to persist despite the recent opening of a recreation center and the building of several new hotels with meeting facilities within the immediate area.

This "committee" has created a design for a community center that is apparently is to start construction soon at a several million dollars cost to the GVR Metropolitan District.

Is this a problem? Apparently it is. Because the "committee" has hired several (three or four architects), a couple contractors, and a construction manager without the minutes reflecting Board approval. The new Board doesn't know who is providing materials and services "thinking" they have a contract with the GVR Metropolitan District.

At a special meeting on June 11, 2008 former President, TJ Stone attempted to lay the responsibility at the feet of the district legal counsel, saying, "we had legal counsel at the meetings and he should have told us if we were doing it wrong".

Recently a $150,000 check was issued as a deposit on an agreement to purchase a building without Board approval and apparently there are between $4 million and $6 million in apparently non-approved agreements or purchase orders for construction of the "community center", a "maintenance building", vehicles, equipment, and the like that the minutes do not reveal have been approved by the Board of Directors.

The treasurer of the Board, Anthony Nobel, stated it would likely take him sixty days to understand the accounting records of the district and to determine just how much money the district has on deposit. He did note that there has been nearly $6 million decrease in the amount of assets of the district over the past two years. Balance sheets indicate assets in the range of $23 million dollars; but the current board believes that this is unrealistic as the Board does not have copies of some of the outstanding "agreements" under which architects are drawing, kitchen designers are designing, carpet sellers are selling, painters are painting, and building builders are building. TJ Stone, the former president, volunteered to help lead the way through the confusing accounting records.

It was a general consensus of opinion by the Board that they don't have even a good guess about the amount of money the District has that is not "earmarked" for some debt service, or allocated to some purchase order that is not revealed in the minutes.

At the special meeting one rumor being circulated is that the old board had sought a $2.3 million dollar loan from US Bank for construction of the "community center" and had been turned down because of the district's management of its finances. An attempt to confirm the rumor with the old board President was unsuccessful.

One solution proposed was to have the new Board of Directors simply state that "no contract exists that cannot be proven to have been approved by the Board of Directors in the minutes of the meetings of the organization".

Another member of the public proposed that the construction of the "community center" be stopped until the community has the opportunity to register its support or opposition to the construction by voting; and if the voters again reject the construction; that the Board of Directors vote to refund at least $4 million of the "surplus funds" to the taxpayers; the resident calculated such payment to be approximately $1,000 to every home and business owner. Such a proposal would most certainly doom the committee's hope of a "community center".


SUBMIT COMMENT

Rate the above story



Current Rating
Based on 2 user ratings.

Talk Back : submit comments to the story

*Note: you need to log-in to add a comment or rating.

< BACK | NEXT >
Showing 1-10 of 13 comments
Submitted By: Great Plains Dweller
posted on 6/20/2008 @ 9:00:21 PM
Rated Story
I do believe there is wording in there that says "Community Centers"
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Great Plains Dweller
posted on 6/20/2008 @ 8:59:57 PM
Rated Story
For those who can not read it says: THE SERVICES OF THE GVR METROPOLITAN DISTRICT The Service Plan of the District, which was approved by the City Council of the City and County of Denver, authorized the District to provide, among other services, design and construction of street improvements; sanitation sewer facilities, which upon completion were conveyed to the City and County of Denver; water system facilities, which upon completion were conveyed to the Denver Board of Water Commissioners; storm sewer and drainage facilities, which upon completion were conveyed to the City and County of Denver; and to provide park and recreation services and facilities, including the operation and maintenance of public open spaces, community centers and programs for community benefit, which properties and programs are owned and operated by the District.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Great Plains Dweller
posted on 6/20/2008 @ 8:59:33 PM
Rated Story
http://www.gvrmetrodistrict.org/GovernanceServices.aspx
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Great Plains Dweller
posted on 6/20/2008 @ 8:59:30 PM
Rated Story
So is what I am hearing is that the New Metro District has no idea what a service plan is, what it's used for, and the fact it's been filed with the state? Ms. Brown, I would suggest you read your own service plan!
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: EARLEEN BROWN
posted on 6/20/2008 @ 3:05:29 PM
(Not Rated)
The work correct takes on many perceptions. Approvals and resolutions should indeed be recorded in the minutes and hopefully the past Board has created and kept copies of those resolutions. I'm willing to help confirm the correct information.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: T.J Stone
posted on 6/20/2008 @ 6:31:38 AM
(Not Rated)
It certainly would be nice to be quoted corectly, Charles. The attorneys have been involved in every board meeting and provide legal advice on all actions of the board. My statement was a confirmation (and not blame) that the board uses legal advice and opinions which includes notifying us if they disagree with Board actions. And please read the June 20, 2007 board minutes before you state that the community center contracts were not approved! They were unanimously approved. And furthermore, the accounting records may be confusing to you, but they are perfectly clear to the auditors, accountants, reviewed by the board when decisions were made, etc. If you don't know how to read financial statement or don't understand them, please don't try to interpret what you don't understand.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: J D
posted on 6/13/2008 @ 12:54:34 PM
Rated Story
What is up with this guy?!? He comes to meetings and disrupts them, under the heading of "A Citizen Trying to get info!" What a crock of you know what! He lacks evidence and creditability... I have the feeling with him (And others) that there is a hidden agenda to force the Metro District to offer rebates to home owners, when the money can be used to make the community a better place to live.
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Great Plains Dweller
posted on 6/12/2008 @ 2:07:14 PM
Rated Story
And one other correction to Charles statement - The vote that was turned down by the voters was to INCREASE the mill levy's to fund the construction of the Community Center. No where in that ballot did it say "NOT TO BUILD ONE!" so if the Metro District has extra money, it's to their discretion to spend it in accordance to their Service Plan!
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Great Plains Dweller
posted on 6/12/2008 @ 2:05:02 PM
Rated Story
I do believe in this Metro District's Service Plan they are REQUIRED to provide Recreation services INCLUDING community centers! (Wow that word is even plural). So as you can see, the previous board was trying to fulfill this obligation to the public..
[Report as objectionable]
Submitted By: Great Plains Dweller
posted on 6/12/2008 @ 2:02:36 PM
Rated Story
Now in that service plan I would like to also turn EVERYONES attention to the statement "to provide park and recreation services and facilities, including the operation and maintenance of public open spaces, community centers and programs for community benefit, which properties and programs are owned and operated by the District."
[Report as objectionable]
Showing 1-10 of 13 comments
< BACK | NEXT >
CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION

Charles Spratt

Denver , CO

Charles Spratt has posted 15 stories and 7 comments since joining on 2/25/2008. Charles Spratt 's average story rating is 1.97.
SAVE AND SHARE THIS STORY
STORY RSS FEEDS
WANT TO WRITE FOR YOURHUB.COM?
Want to see the stories you write and the photos you shoot featured in the YourHub.com Thursday print section available all over the Front Range and with home subscriptions of the Rocky Mountain News and The Denver Post? All you have to do is register, then post a story or column, start a blog or tell everyone what events are happening in town. We will print the best stories, columns, event listings, photos and blog entries in our print sections.

ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

Loading Ad
ADVERTISEMENT
Loading Ad

This YourHub.com community is produced by The Denver Newspaper Agency
Web Development and Channel Analytics provided by Indigio

terms of use //  privacy policy
the staff //  advertise //  help & faq
buy photos