Solterra: Fossil Ridge Districts 1, 2 and 3 History, Operation and Issues

Transcription

1 Solterra: Fossil Ridge Districts 1, 2 and 3 History, Operation and Issues 1

2 The following paper is an effort to mine information out of the numerous documents about Fossil Ridge Districts 1, 2 and 3 and present it in a digestible form. Folks who read through the documents will likely find information I have missed and all are encouraged to continue this effort to learn as much as we can about what moves and shakes our community. This is a beginning, not an end. I encourage everyone to look at the original documents and share additional information or insight regarding the issues. There is still much to learn and understand. There are many many more documents than presented here and there is additional information in the complete documents which are excerpted here. All are encouraged to review the other documents and the complete documents only a small portion of which are presented in this paper. I have also added some of my personal observations about the data. They are mine alone. I know others, including at least a couple resident directors, do not agree with my work. That is a good thing and I have invited them to publicly debate the issues. Hopefully, through genuine discussion of the facts and issues, a clear set of choices will emerge. Finally, while I am an attorney, I am not offering any legal analysis or opinions. While I have a lifetime of experience in applying critical thinking to identifying issues and solving problems, honestly the real source of my education and training applicable here is my two year fellowship ( ) with the Citizens Research Council of Michigan, a conservative private think tank ("taxpayer watch dog group") which researched and analyzed state and local finances in Detroit and Michigan. It was there that I learned the magic of budgets and forensic accounting. And some have asked "why is he doing this". I guess the short answer is that I have been "doing this" for over 40 years ever since I worked to change the dress code in high school. There is no financial reward - if anything it takes very valuable time away from family and job. I have no business to develop through this effort and I may make as many enemies as friends. But as one of our group said, "It's just wrong". And when it is wrong, and we can make it right, then its time to act. (Updated April 1, 2017) 2

3 Solterra: Fossil Ridge Districts 1, 2 and 3 History, Operation and Issues Special Districts are small governments based upon a defined physical boundary, a defined purpose and residents - voters - who decide how to raise money for their District and how to spend that money. Here is a link to a John Oliver piece that describes special districts - it is a little over the top but it accurately makes the point about how they operate as "ghost governments". Hopefully the following lifts some of the fog related to our "ghost government" - Fossil Ridge Districts 1, 2 and 3. I. Solterra and Greentree District Solterra first appears in the Greentree Special District documents as the primary source of funding for all the infrastructure (roads, water and sewer) for a large geographic area, including what is now Solterra and everything between Solterra and the Dinosaur Ridge area. In other words the developers of this large area planned all along to have us, the Solterra residents, pay their development costs. Keep in mind that the life-blood of development in these areas is water and sewer. Without it, no development can occur and the value of the investment remains low. Once water and sewer become available, the development potential increases - and so does the value of the land and the return on investment to the developer. Solterra was originally intended to provide the majority of tax funds to build the infrastructure for this entire area. As we will see, even though the Fossil Ridge Districts were soon separated and created independent of Greentree, the Fossil Ridge District 1 is now building out those same projects and we will be paying for that infrastructure with our taxes. We will be paying for infrastructure outside of the District for the benefit of the developers, not the Fossil Ridge District Residents. The Consolidated Service Plan for the Greentree Districts dated 2007 contains a map at page 24 that shows the geographic boundaries of the original district, including all of Solterra. Page 23 contains a list of the land owners, including the Solterra developer, Carma. (Attachment A) At the time, the Solterra developer, Mr. Brenner, was one of four people on the Board of Directors for Greentree. (Page 1 of Greentree Budget 2009). (Attachment B) 3

4 The Consolidated Service Plan for the Greentree Districts dated 2007 contains a list of projects to be paid for through the Greentree District, including improvements to McIntyre, Yale and W. Alameda - improvements that are now being built with Solterra funds ("advances" by the developer, reimbursed with bonds issued by the Districts and the bond debt paid by resident property taxes) (Pages 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30) (Attachment C) The Greentree Plan also identifies the Solterra residents, once they bought the homes and moved in, as the primary source of funds to pay for all these improvements. (Page 41) The Greentree Plan estimated that the amount of available funds from Solterra residents would be in excess of $645,000,000 over a 30 year period. (Attachment D) In other words, in deciding how much money they could spend to build the improvements for this large area, including Dinosaur Ridge, they planned on us, the Solterra residents, being able to pay that amount in tax revenue ($645,000,000) over 30 years to fund all the infrastructure for this large geographic area. Solterra residents were identified by the developers as the source of funds, the bank, for these regional construction projects, outside the District boundaries. In one interesting example, the Greentree Budget for 2009 reported that three parties made a loan to Greentree to pay the cost of building the C-470 Interchange. (The "Three Dinos" are now Greentree and trying to develop the land surrounding the C-470 Interchange). One of those three parties making the loans was Carma, the Solterra developer. The Town of Lakewood loaned $3 million. Jefferson County loaned $6 million. Carma loaned $10.5 million. The loans were received for the construction of the C-470 Interchange. (Pages 11 and 12 Greentree Budget 2009) (Attachment E) Regarding the Solterra developer's loan of $10.5 million to build the interchange - where did the money come from and who is paying it back. Is that part of the Solterra developer's "advance" payments that we are reimbursing through the bond issues and our property tax payments which pay the bond debt. II. Fossil Ridge District In 2006, the Fossil Ridge Districts were created. It is not clear yet why the developers decided to shrink the Greentree Districts and create the Fossil Ridge District - perhaps because the Solterra developer did not want to share control over his future residents' tax revenue - our property taxes. 4

5 A. Authorization to Tax Residents up to $970,000,000 The Fossil Ridge Finance Plan dated 2006 included a vote by the 3 Boards of Directors for the 3 Fossil Ridge Districts (at that time, all employees of the developer) to authorize up to $970,000,000 in tax revenue from the future Solterra residents. This tax revenue would reimburse the developer for any advance payments he made to build out Solterra before the residents began to buy houses and pay taxes to the Districts. Here is the content from a page in the 2006 document: Authorization from 2006 Election Prior to Bond Issuance Water Facilities $60,000,000 Street Facilities 60,000,000 Traffic/Safety Protection Facilities 60,000,000 Sanitary Sewer Facilities 60,000,000 Parks and Recreation Facilities 60,000,000 Mosquito Control 60,000,000 Security Facilities 60,000,000 Public Transportation 60,000,000 Fire Protection 60,000,000 Television Relay and Translation 60,000,000 Refunding 120,000,000 O&M Expenses 10,000,000 IGA Debt 120,000,000 Private Party Agreements 120,000,000 TOTAL $970,000,000 (Excerpt from Meeting Packet, December 7, 2016 Board of Directors Meeting p. 134) This document was referenced in the December 7, 2016, Boards of Directors meeting packet and expressly identified as the authority for the Board's decision to approve a brand new $14.9 million bond issue - which they did. B. Current Limitations on Taxes - $704,650,000 Debt Authorization $91,000,000 Self Imposed Revenue Debt Limit Note 4 to the 2015 Audit of the Fossil Ridge District 1, (Page 19) states that the "remaining" pool of funds is $704,650,000 and the current limit imposed by the Fossil Ridge Service Plan is $91,000,000. (It is not clear how the $970,000,000 shrunk to $704,650,000.): 5

6 Debt Authorization As of December 31, 2015, the District had remaining voted debt authorization of approximately $704,650,000. The District has not budgeted to issue new debt during Per the District s Service Plan, the District, in combination with Districts No. 2 and No. 3, cannot issue more than $91 million in revenue debt, of which $70 million of such authorization may be allocated to general obligation debt. (Audit, Fossil Ridge District note 4 page 19) The limit of $91 million can be increased with an amendment to the Service Plan by the Boards of Directors. As it currently stands, then, the Boards of Directors have given themselves, as our representatives, authority to raise $91,000,000 in taxes from us. The total current limit from the 2006 authorization is $704,650,000. C. Districts 1, 2 and 3 There are three Fossil Ridge Districts - 1, 2 and 3. Each are separate governmental entities with separate boards, budgets, audits and financial statements. 1. Maps There are several maps of the districts. The Fossil Ridge Districts Service Plan dated 2006 at page 55 contains the first map of the districts. (Attachment F). Attachment G is the most recent map filed with the State of Colorado. As the maps show, Districts 2 and 3 are the large areas covering 99.9% of the Solterra development, including where all the residents live. Districts 2 and 3 cover close to 400 acres. District 1 started out at 10 square feet and is now about 1 acre in size. District 1 has moved from one location to another, but no one has ever lived in District 1 - it has always been vacant land. It is very tiny on the most recent map, but it is there. 2. Purposes Assigned to Each District When the three District were created in 2006, the Boards of Directors for each of the three districts got together to decide how to assign responsibilities between the districts. That was easy because the directors on each of the three Boards for each of the three districts were the same people - and employees of the developer. They decided that Districts 2 and 3 - where the new residents would buy homes and live - would be the financing districts. Those two districts would raise all the money in taxes and fees. They also decided that District 1 - the developer - would be the spending district. The Board of Directors for District 1 would decide how all the money raised in Districts 2 and 3 would be spent. This arrangement was spelled out in the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) 6

7 agreed to by the developers employees with themselves in 2006 A description of the arrangement is contained in the Fossil Ridge Service Plan dated 2007 at page 13 (numbered page 9) (Attachment F, p. 9) When you look at the map consider the relationship between the two large funding districts and the one small consuming spending district. The economic model is familiar - feudalism in western Europe. The difference here is that the residents, through their elected representatives to the Boards of Directors, control the decisions on how to tax themselves in each of Districts 2 and 3. The residents also control, through their elected representatives to the Boards of Directors, what agreements they will reach with District 1 and whether or not to change those agreements. Currently, however, the majority of the directors on each of the Boards are non-resident employees of the developer. In other words, Districts 2 and 3, with their separately elected Boards of Directors, will decide how much to raise in taxes for their residents. Each Board of Directors will also decide whether to pay any of those amounts to District 1, and if so, how much. Each Board of Directors will also decide whether to keep or change the current agreements with District 1. And these decisions should be made by directors who are residents, not non-resident employees of the developer. 3. Boards of Directors Fossil Ridge District 1, 2 and 3 The Rules and Regulations for the Metro Districts (Fossil Ridge) describe on page 8 and 9 (numbered page 5 and 6), paragraph the Board of Directors for each of the separate districts. (Attachment H) Simply put, the Boards are up to 5 people, elected from the qualified voters, which includes residents and property owners, within the boundaries of each District. This same provision was part of the disclosure to purchasers of the District's bonds in 2009 by the District's attorney regarding elections of the directors and recall of the directors: Under the present election laws of the State, a person may be an elector of the District by registering to vote in the State and by either owning property within the District or being under contract to purchase property with an obligation to pay taxes on such property, being the spouse of such a property owner, or residing within the boundaries of the District. The members of the Board of the District are elected in nonpartisan elections by those registered electors of the District. Board members who have held office for at least six months are subject to recall, and a recall election may be held upon the petition of three hundred electors or forty percent of the qualified electors of the District, whichever is less. (Bond Disclosure 2009 page 29, numbered page 21) 7

8 As you can see from the list of directors for each board (Attachment I), all the directors for District 1 are employees of the developer and three of them - the same three - form the majority of directors for each of Districts 2 and 3. The most current list is page 1 of the March 15, 2017 meeting packet for the Boards of Directors. The developer employee directors are not residents and do not pay taxes in Districts 2 or 3. They live outside the area. As set forth in the 2015 Audit of the Fossil Ridge District 1, page 21 (numbered page 17) Note 9: Related Party All of the Board of Directors are employees, owners or are otherwise associated with the Developer and may have conflicts of interest in dealing with the District. Management believes that all potential conflicts, if any, have been disclosed to the Board. (Audit Fossil Ridge District 1, 2015 page 21 - numbered 17) The same disclosure in the audits for Districts 2 and 3 states that "a majority" of the directors are employees of the developer and may have conflicts of interest with the district - which means us, the residents of Districts 2 and 3. It is interesting to note that these conflicts of interest are not disclosed to the residents - they are disclosed to the Board. So that the directors have told each other they have a conflict of interest with us. But they did not tell the residents that they have a conflict of interest with us - except, for example, in note 4 of the Audit on page 10. (Attachment J, P. 10) This fact plays out in the Boards of Directors meetings at the time when the attorney for the Boards makes a statement, repeated in the minutes, that the Directors have made their legal disclosures. But during the meeting, they still keep the disclosures to themselves and do not tell the residents at the meeting that they are disclosing to each other that they have a conflict of interest with the residents. An example is found at page 3 of the March 15, 2017, meeting packet for the Boards of Directors meeting which is the first page of the minutes for the December 7, 2016 meeting. (Attachment K) 8

9 4. Fossil Ridge Districts 1, 2 and 3 Budgets Budgets are wonderful documents and tell many stories. They are planning documents but they are also disclosure and accountability documents showing plainly how money is raised and how money is spent. Some budgets, financial statements and audits provide less details and some provide more details, depending upon the commitment to transparency and accountability. Here is a disclaimer from the 2015 Audit: Other Matters Management has omitted the management's discussion and analysis that accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America require to be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such missing information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. Our opinions on the basic financial statements are not affected by this missing information. (Audit of Fossil Ridge District , page 4, numbered page II) Here is a similar disclaimer from the District's accountant in a separate document - the financial statements which were part of the March 15, 2017 meeting packet: Management has elected to omit the Statement of Net Position, Statement of Activities, Management Discussion and Analysis and all of the disclosures required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. If the omitted disclosures were included in the financial statements, they might influence the user's conclusions about the District's financial position and results of operations. Accordingly, the financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such matters. (Excerpt, Accountant's Compilation Report February 22, 2017 introducing the year end 2016 financial statements for each district) Page 62 of the March 15, 2017 Boards of Directors meeting packet. Based on these disclaimers, the developer decided not to be as transparent as the general accounting principles require. The developer has decided to withhold information from us about the Districts revenue collection and spending. But the budgets and financial statements still tell part of the story. The rest we will have to obtain from the developer and his attorney. Once the directors are all residents. The most recent budgets and financial statements for Fossil Ridge Districts 1, 2 and 3 are part of the meeting packet for the March 15, 2017, Boards of Directors meeting. (Attachment L, pages 53-56, 59-60, 63-65) 9

10 The budget/financial statement as of December 31, 2016 for the three districts begins on page 53 of the March 15, 2017 meeting packet. The statements are arranged in sequential order beginning with District 1 and continuing through 2 and 3. Here are a few highlights: (A.) 14.9 Million Bond Issued December 7, 2016 On page 65 of the March 15, 2017, meeting packet it shows that bonds were issued and sold, voted on by the Boards on December 7, 2016, in the amount of $14.9 million. After expenses were paid to process the bond issue, the balance of $12.7 million received from the proceeds of selling bonds to investors was transferred from District 3 to District 1. On page 55 of the meeting packet, the statement shows that the $12.7 million from the sale of bonds was received as revenue by District 1 from District 3. Then District 1 paid out the $12.7 million as an expenditure directly to the developer. Keep in mind, District 1 is also the developer. So, in other words, the developer issued bonds through the Board of Directors for District 3 (the developer has the majority of district seats but the resident directors also voted for the $14.9 bond issue) and those bonds were sold. The net income to District 3 of $12.7 million was then transferred by the Directors of District 3 to District 1, about an acre in size where no one lives, where the directors are all developer employees. Then District 1 paid the net proceeds from the bond issue - $12.7 million - directly to the developer. The payment to the developer was authorized by the 2006 Intergovernmental Agreement between the Districts (the directors were all the same people and employees of the developer). The 2006 Service Plan for the Districts established that any advances paid by the developer for capital expenditures would be reimbursed by the bonds. The bond debt is in turn paid off by the residents' property taxes. (B.) 70+ Million in Advances by the Developer - No Accountability The budget also tells us - a little - about these advances and where the money goes. At page 55 of the meeting packet for March 15, 2017, the financial statement for the District 1 Capital Project Fund shows that the developer paid an advance of $5.7 million to District 1 (himself). This $5.7 million "advance" shows up as revenue to District 1. Then the developer (through his directors who are all employees) spends (in expenditures) $5.9 million dollars (including revenue from developer fees) as "capital expenditures". And that is were the path ends. There is no detail for, no information for, no accountability for how the capital expenditure funds are spent. (Attachment L p. 55) 10

11 The developer has "advanced" himself over $70 million in this manner and the developer has sold bonds in the amount of $29 million to reimburse these advance payments. The developer will want to sell more in bonds to reimburse the balance of his advances - there is at least another $40 million to go in future bond revenue to repay these advances. And remember, the developer can go up to $91 million and amend the service plan to go even higher. Again - here is the important part - the bonds issued by the Districts to repay these developer advances are debt to the residents. We pay the bond debt (principal and interest) with our property taxes. Note that the bond debt will be more than twice the amount of the actual bond because it will include interest on that amount over 30 years. See page 18 of the 2015 Audit regarding the 2010 bond - the principal was $8+ million and the interest was $10+ million. (Attachment M) The total debt payment from the residents on an $8 million bond is actually $18+ million. Therefore the cost to us for each "advance" by the developer is twice the amount of the "advance" So what do these "advances" pay for. Really hard to say. We do not know anything beyond "capital expenditures". That is the only information provided to the Directors when they vote on the budget and vote to issue the bonds, including most recently the vote by all the Directors to approve the $14.9 million bond on December 7, Does "capital expenditures" include only payments for construction expenses. What exactly are those expenses. The developer is the general contractor. Does he pay himself a bonus as part of the capital expenditures; does he keep the capital expenditures for each project separate; does capital expenditures include a business related vacation or business related expenditures for improvements to his home. We hope not but there is no way to know - no accountability - no transparency - for spending over $70 million. $70 million that will be repaid though bonds. $70 million bond debt to be paid by our property taxes - which, including interest, will actually be more than $140 million. (C.) One Example of "Capital Expenditure" - Road, Water and Sewer Outside the Physical Boundary of the Districts to Benefit the Developer, Not the Residents We do have one current example of how the "capital expenditures" are being spent. The developer is spending at least $11 million of his advances, which will be reimbursed by resident reimbursed bond issues, to make improvements, including water and sewer, outside of the District 1, 2 and 3 boundaries on W. Alameda and McIntyre. 11

12 We have our water and sewer. The benefit for these new improvements outside the District boundaries on W. Alameda and McIntyre is not for the residents of Solterra - it is for the benefit of the developer. He is interested in providing water and sewer to his next projects outside of the District. Remember that these capital expenditures were part of the Greentree planned infrastructure construction which covered the geographic area from Bear Creek Road to Dinosaur Ridge in They have been planning to use our tax dollars to pay for this infrastructure for a long time - and now that we are all moved in and paying taxes they can spend our money to build and expand their development. The statutes for Special Districts do make exceptions and allow Districts to spend money on improvements outside the District boundaries. However, those exceptions occur only when the residents decide to make an exception and the residents approve the expenditure of funds. Residents would make that decision based upon whether or not the "capital expenditures" were a benefit to the residents. In this case the "capital expenditures" do not benefit Solterra residents. They benefit the developer. This is an example of that "disclosed" conflict of interest. The directors voted to approve these capital expenditures. At the March 15, 2017, meeting the directors, including the resident directors, also voted to approve additional expenditures to cover change orders (i.e."we underestimated the cost of x and need more money" or "the scope of work was changed and will cost more money"). This is money that could be spent on "capital expenditures" that actually benefit the residents - like a second pool or the acquisition of additional open space. Before the directors vote to issue a bond, and tax the residents to pay the bond principle and interest, the developer should be required to show us what the advances we are reimbursing actually went to pay for - the details - the budget - and make the invoices available to an independent auditor if necessary. It may be that the Directors will decide that the advances were not proper expenses and will reduce the amount of the reimbursement, and the amount of the bonds and the amount of the taxes. (D.) TABOR - The Directors in 2006 Decided It Did Not Apply to Them TABOR, the Colorado Taxpayer Bill of Rights - a part of the Colorado Constitution - establishes limits on taxing and spending. Those limits apply to Special Districts like the Fossil Ridge Districts. 12

13 Except in our case. Back in 2006, the developer, through his employee Boards of Directors, decided that TABOR did not apply to them. Here is a statement in the Audit Report for 2015 that repeats what the developer said in 2006: The District s management believes it is in compliance with the provisions of TABOR. However, TABOR is complex and subject to interpretation. Many of the provisions, including the interpretation of how to calculate Fiscal Year Spending limits will require judicial interpretation. On November 7, 2006, a majority of the District s electors authorized the District to collect and spend or retain in a reserve all currently levied taxes and fees of the District without regard to any limitations under Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. (2015 Audit page 20-21) The disclosures made by the developer's attorney in the document that sold the bonds in 2009 provided the same statement about TABOR: As described above, the TABOR Amendment generally requires the Districts to obtain voter approval for the creation of multi-year debt. Voter approval was obtained for the Bonds and other obligations of the Districts at an election held on November 1, See "Financial Obligations - Voter Authorization" below. In addition, at that election, the voters authorized the Districts to collect, return and spend all taxes, fees and other revenues, income and payment received by the Districts in all future years without limitation by the revenue and spending limits set forth in the TABOR Amendment. (Bond Disclosure 2009 page 33, numbered page 25) Note that the voter approval described in this disclosure to investors buying the bonds is misleading. There were no residents in The developer owned the land and he and his employees voted to authorize up to $970,000,000 in tax revenue and voted to ignore the TABOR limitations. A new resident-only Board of Directors for Districts 2 and 3 can rescind their agreement with these decisions and actually follow TABOR - that is - comply with the law. (E.) Additional "Taxes" The Budget also shows additional taxes we pay in the form of fees. (1.) Property Tax (Not Additional) We pay a property tax (typically through an escrow to our mortgage). These property taxes are collected by Jefferson County which simply processes the payments and sends them directly to Districts 2 and 3. The directors for Districts 2 and 3 then vote to pay those tax revenues to District 1. District 1 uses those revenues to pay for the interest and principal on the bonds. 13

14 (2.) Homeowner's Fee (Additional) We also pay a "Homeowner's Fee" which is the Fossil Ridge District fee currently at $215 per quarter. Districts 2 and 3 voted in 2015 to cut out the middle man and allow Fossil Ridge District 1 to send the bill for those fees directly to the residents. So, even though no one lives in District 1 and the only Districts authorized to tax its residents are Districts 2 and 3, we receive a bill from District 1. The financial statement ending December 31, 2016, page 54 of the March 15, 2017 meeting packet shows the "Homeowner's Fee" revenue was $635,000. (Attachment L p. 54) (3.) Sewer Fees (Additional) We also pay three sewer fees and the revenue from the residents for sewer fees ending December 31, 2016 was $159,000 + $68,000 + $22,000. (Attachment L, Page 54 of the March 15, 2017 meeting packet) (4.) Amenity Fees Then there was the "amenity user fee" for using the Retreat and Pool which generated revenue of $55,000. (Attachment L, Page 54 of the March 15, 2017 meeting packet) (5.) Homeowner's Dues (Additional) Finally there is the Home Owner's Association dues, which are completely separate from the Fossil Ridge District. The HOA dues cover trash collection and design review expenses (policing folks from painting their houses purple or putting pink flamingos in the front yard). (F.) What the Homeowners Fees Pay For We know what the sewer fees and amenity fees and HOA dues pay for. The financial statement provides - a little - information about what the $635,000 in homeowners fees pays for - "accounting, audit, legal, insurance, office administration, property management, grounds, website, retreat ($300,000+), sewer and utility". (Attachment L, Page 54 of the March 15, 2017 meeting packet) All of these expenditures pay for the developer's administrative costs related to property he owns - like the pool and retreat - property which is not owned by the residents. So, we are paying the expenses for maintaining and improving property to which we do not hold the title. With respect to the Retreat and pool, for example, the cost of the land and buildings and construction improvements are probably part of the "advance" payments by the developer which we are reimbursing through the bonds and taxes to pay back the bonds. We do not know for sure because we do not 14

15 have access to any records related to the capital expenditure budget or financial statement. It appears then that we have probably reimbursed the developer for his "advance" to buy the land and build the pool and retreat (developer advance - issue bond - property taxes pay bond debt). And we are paying each year through our homeowner's fees for the maintenance and improvements of the pool and retreat. Yet, we do not have title to the properties. Title is held by District 1 which is the developer. And we compete with non-residents to use the facilities. Concluding Observation The goal here is to try to provide information about our Districts 2 and 3 to begin to educate ourselves about the Districts, their history, operation and issues. The best source of information is contained in the documents and we have attempted to reference the documents for each substantive fact. We have a wonderful community. Once we have a community of the residents, governed by the residents, for the residents we will be in a better position to more completely realize our full potential as a neighborhood. Hopefully the fog of this "ghost government" will lift and no longer obstruct our vision for our future together. John Henderson Solterra March 27,