Just haven’t been very motivated to work on this site lately — it seems a waste of time, as the district seems to be controlled by…oh never mind. The only reason I brought the site back up was to meet a friend’s request.
Anyhow, the only real point of interest lately seems to be the service delivery plan modification.
Here’s a copy of the letter I sent to the El Paso County Board of Commissioners (click on the document for a larger view).
You think you pay a lot now? Just wait.
Read it, if you’d like — not that I think it will do much good. If the residents don’t get involved, don’t be surprised as your bills go up by $86.36/per month over the coming years – by the district’s own calculations – or you get hit with a mill levy of 57.41 mills.
No, I’m not exaggerating — go read the service delivery plan and see for yourself. Those figures are straight out of the SPD modification — and that’s the MINIMUM; if the district’s growth plans aren’t met, you’ll be paying even more.
Oh, that’s in addition to the projected 2% annual increase.
Update 21 Nov 2011
I’ve been asked if I can provide some of the documentation I refer to in my letter.
- The budget information you can get from the district website
- Sterling Ranch commit letter
- Letter from the district counsel at the time (the Lawyer®) acknowledging the double-billing
- Finding of water insufficiency for Bentgrass
Update 16 Dec 2011
The El Paso county Board of County Commissioners voted on the Service Delivery Plan amendment yesterday…
…and it was soundly defeated, 3-1; I’m told it would have been defeated 4-1 had one of the commissioners not left early.
For more details, you can go here (thanks, Lee); the official minutes and recording of the meeting will be posted here.
Perhaps now the district will listen to its residents, instead of developersoutside interests.
I’m not holding my breath, though.
Thank you for posting this letter, I am glad to see you back online.
Your letter clearly points out the deficiencies and inadequacies that this district currently runs on. The election promises broken by all candidates are proof that it was hyperbole.
One of the only actions left is to go to the December 15 BOCC meeting and hope that certain board members vote to do the right thing.
My concern is that this district at the behest of a convincing developer decided to change the service plan.
As has been stated this board relies solely on the discretion of its manager and his representation of facts he gets from his contacts.
That’s fine in a good economy and we can afford to take these punches but even Rocky got knocked out in Rocky III.
Unlike the Rocky movie this district thinks were a punching bag and as you so aptly put it they only do things when they are put to the test by a court and even then they still refuse to listen or follow orders.
The only good news is that the only people to blame for this mess are the people in power and at no time did anybody not in power ever have the ability to stop this even though they tried.
The lunacy of this only boggles the mind. The total amount of funds expended just in this one endeavor is more than 200,000.00.
What must be taken into account is all the funds they took (general fund) from the people in filing 11 and never reimbursed.
It seems almost surreal to be living in a time where people think that even after a judge gives his decision that they’re going to pick it apart to a point where they feel they have a right to continue doing what they’re doing.
If this is their idea of helping the children then God help these kids. I’m assuming some and not all of the residents that voted for these people didn’t realize that the board was gonna take them down.
When those bills go up another 25 or 30 bucks a month this summer because of the new rate increase, you will see more people moving out of here, more shutoffs, and more late fees charged.
I have unconfirmed reports that the district as a quota set in order to meet the budget requirements for late fees. Mind you this is unconfirmed but it makes sense.
So as I’ve stated before-you voted for the following; increased rates, no voice, higher fees, more shutoffs, no input, unchecked management, personal attacks, vendettas, abuse of authority, and lower home values.
Now, what was it the candidates said they were trying to do during the election?
As printed in the New Falcon Herald earlier this year the bills can reach $228 a month.
How many of your neighbors are gonna have to watch their water get shutoff and maybe move out because they simply just can’t afford it anymore.
Oh I’m sorry I forgot that the district employees got another raise this year so they will be able to afford the new rate increases.
Welcome back! Great letter.
I am happy you are back as well and I hope your site remains up. I attended the BOCC meeting today and spoke out against the service plan again (I was at the October meeting as well). Although I did my own research for my comments, I always found your site (and especially your citations and proofs) to have rational and compelling arguments and was disheartened to find it shut down over the summer.
Today (Dec 15, 2011), the WHMD board finally offered at the BOCC meeting to remove the covenant enforcement provisions in an attempt to save the service plan from complete dismissal. But the BOCC saw through the tactic and dismissed the entire plan anyway based on public comments, public provided documentation, and so many reasonable arguments against many of the plan’s provisions.
Most notable, the Commissioners clearly stated the WHMD board had squandered the public’s trust and must work to restore the resident’s faith in their activities as well as to parcel out the service plan functions so that some things can be approved and others discarded.
The WHMD has a limited amount of time to respond to this sudden turn of events so that the do not have to spend money on resubmitting the plan to the county. As we are so close to the holidays, I do not expect they can suddenly change their decision at the last board meeting to forego the December board meeting, but I expect they will have to meet ASAP to plan a path forward. So be on the lookout for a meeting notice.
I look forward to someday meeting you in person. In the meantime, please know that I value this site and your opinion because even if I might disagree, I know that your view is reasoned and relies on facts that can be verified.
You can add this to my original comment if you like.
Here’s of the day’s deliberations.
Lee
Lee,
Thanks for the info! I tried to open up the live feed of the meeting yesterday, but their server seemed to be down. It’s good news the BOCC has some common sense, and are sensitive to the impact of the Mil Levy as well as covenants. I think “squandered” is a great word for what is going on.
Dave
In the current civil rights federal court case, Pace (plantiff) v. WHMD, et al. (defendants), defendants moved for a summary judgment and the judge just said there were too many discovery disputes to not have a hearing on it (with date TBD).
You can review the order and get a pdf of it here.
Lee
I am SOOO grateful to the County Commissioners for voting according to the will of the people instead of the dictators on the Board.
As you should suspect I have gathered some information on the facts that I have given to the BOCC during my speech.
Why is this important? It’s been stated by both Kip Peterson (Cherokee’s old manager) and Larry (our ‘manager’) the figure was 6 Million dollars. Larry also stated at that meeting that there is an issue with the pipe (forced main) down the road.
This is significant for 2 reasons.
I investigated and I could not find any issue with the size of the forced main. Mind you I did call Cherokee and EPC to verify Larry’s statement. I am still researching this matter, I will have an answer by years end.
Then take into account the Bent Grass development which is owned by Randy Case. You may remember Randy; he was the developer who contributed several thousand dollars to the campaigns of several current board members who got elected in 2010. Larry stated the number and I didn’t catch it so you will need to listen to the recording for the correct number.
He also stated on record that Randy didn’t bring “water to the table” as the district has stated in the past is a must be done before WHMD will even consider speaking to those interested in developing in WH.
Mr. Case already has an IGA with WHMD…for YOU to pay for HIS water.
Some facts presented by me at the meeting on a chart:
Smoke and mirrors.
I was asked where the Summery Judgement came from and I found out it was the site Justia. Here is the link to click on to see the public records filed
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/colorado/codce/1:2010cv01081/119340/
Click on the copy and paste the link to the address bar and it will take you to the site
Thanks Lee
Just some public information you didn’t know,
I have a recording that is dated Feburary 10,2011 and Larry Bishop clearly tells me that “his” lawyer is Tiffanie D. Stasiak
of
Kutak Rock LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 3100
Denver, CO 80202-2626 US
Click here to be taken to the web site
http://www.kutakrock.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=dspSiteLst&cat=4
Here is a list of their area of practices.
Agribusiness
Banking
Compensation and Employee Benefits
Construction
Environmental
Federal Stimulus Package
Government Disputes and Compliance
Health Care
Insurance
Labor and Employment
National Coordinating Counsel
Public Finance
Real Estate
Records Management and Electronic Discovery
Securities
Technology and Emerging Companies
The area of expertise you need to focus on for the purpose of this report is “Labor and Employment”
This firm has extensive experience on “Employment Contracts” as well as the following
“pre-claim counseling and in investigation and defense of discrimination claims, fair employment practices”.
Lawyers in Kutak Rock LLP’s Employment Law Group have experience representing corporate clients in a wide range of employment and labor issues on both day-to-day advisory matters and in state and federal administrative and judicial proceedings (trial and appellate levels). Firm lawyers are experienced in drafting personnel policies and handbooks, preparing employment contracts, advising on terminations, discipline and promotions, creating severance packages, reviewing wage and hour compliance, assisting with unemployment and workers’ compensation claims and participating in union grievances. In addition, firm lawyers have expertise in pre-claim counseling and in investigation and defense of discrimination claims, fair employment practices, disability act and housing claims, litigation over employer/employee business relations, plant closing laws and general labor matters. The firm also offers clients expertise in employee benefit plans and other employment-related tax issues.
Litigators in the Employment Law Group are experienced in defending employers in litigation involving claims brought under state civil rights statutes, Title VII, the Employee Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Pay Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act and the National Labor Relations Act. In state courts and federal diversity matters, the firm represents clients against a myriad of state tort and contract law claims arising in the employment context, including, for example, claims for wrongful discharge (including breach of employee handbook provisions), breach of fiduciary duty, promissory estoppel, breach of covenants not to compete and breach of golden parachute plans. Firm lawyers have also represented management in arbitrations with labor unions over disciplinary matters, compensation issues, discrimination claims, contractor issues and changes in working conditions.
The firm’s Employment Law Group has represented several corporate employers on a national scale seeking to enforce employment contracts and covenants not to compete. The Group consistently has achieved positive results on behalf of its clients in this area through both negotiated settlements and trials.
A number of the firm’s litigators have experience handling claims arising under or relating to ERISA. Such claims are typically involved wherever a lawsuit relates to employee welfare benefit plans (including employer-sponsored insurance programs) or employee pension benefit plans. The firm’s litigators have handled cases involving ERISA preemption of state law claims arising out of insurance and pension disputes; ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims asserting that ERISA plan trustees have improperly handled pension plan assets or investments; claims asserting that ERISA plans were improperly funded; and claims asserting that ERISA benefits were improperly calculated or paid.
Expertise in Arbitration
In the past five years, Kutak Rock lawyers have been responsible for defending more than 400 securities industry arbitration proceedings and more than 1,000 “expedited” arbitrations under court-ordered procedures involving Prudential Securities, Inc. Some of the securities industry arbitrations have involved employer-employee disputes, including claims by the employee for breach of contract, discrimination and other prohibited employment practices. The securities arbitrations have been filed with the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) and the American Arbitration Association (AAA). Kutak Rock lawyers are very familiar with the Federal Arbitration Act, its state analogues and their application to emerging questions of arbitration law with the different rules of the various arbitration entities. Kutak Rock lawyers are also keenly aware of the significant differences, in substance and approach, between court litigation and arbitration and the techniques that must be applied in the latter.
In addition to the arbitrations described above, Kutak Rock lawyers have been involved in arbitrations concerning complex commercial and reinsurance disputes in front of the AAA and other entities. Lawyers of the firm have also served as arbitrators for the NASD, NYSE and AAA and have lectured and prepared and participated in presentations before those entities.
Again, this is Larry Bishop’s personal lawyer draw your own conclusion.