Taxation without representation?

The structure in Sterling Ranch involves multiple players: the development company that oversees construction; the Metro Districts that (in name only) serve as local government; the Community Authority Board (CAB), which coordinates actions among all the Metro Districts and uses all the tax money from them; and Dominion Water and Sanitation District.

Currently, only a few of the seven Metro Districts have elected representatives from among their residents. And only a minority of directors on the CAB are Sterling Ranch residents. The CAB made an agreement with the Metro Districts back before they had community representation to take all the tax money from them and make all the decisions about how to use that money. So residents have not had a say about how much debt is taken on that they will be on the hook to repay. Taxation without representation, anyone?

The same names arise repeatedly among these entities. Harold and Diane Smethills are the cofounders of Sterling Ranch. Their son, Brock Smethills, currently is president of the Sterling Ranch Development Company. Harold and Diane are among the unelected, nonresident directors of the CAB. Harold and Brock both sit on the board of directors for Dominion Water, whose service area is exclusively in Sterling Ranch.

Considering that the same family was able to start a development company, create Metro Districts that would be subordinate to a CAB that they and their appointed co-board members control indefinitely, make legal agreements between all those entities, take out loans as one entity and have another entity plan to repay them (essentially to themselves) with interest, and also enter into an agreement with a water company they helped found and run and whose fees they control—this seems like a really great deal for that family. For the residents of Sterling Ranch, though, not so much.

We do not have the right to impactful dissent from any plans the CAB puts in place. When they take on debt we will have to repay, we have no say. When they tell us what a great deal our water is because it's cheaper than having Starbucks coffee run through our pipes, we have no say (even though it's much more expensive than water in Highlands Ranch, right next door). When they announce fee increases, we have no say.

When they set rules for the community, we have no say. If the CAB's rule is that patio lights must be shut off by 10 p.m. (which seems like overreach, for people who don't live here to dictate when and how residents can use their own property), they get to hire people who will take photos of the back of someone's property to prove that those folks are in violation (talk about an invasion of privacy!). When they require low, see-through fences and simultaneously encourage residents to place trampolines in a spot where they can't be seen from other properties, they do not listen to how obviously absurd and contradictory those rules are. When they setup requirements that residents may not put up holiday décor until 30days prior to the relevant holiday and can fine us for doing so, but then they decorate outdoor public spaces with Christmas items prior to Thanksgiving, we residents don't get to fine them. If a majority of residents want to allow permanent “jellyfish” lighting but unelected members of the CAB think it looks tacky, then we have no say.

When CAB folks fail to live up to their end of things, we have no recourse. When they advertise future amenities (always with an asterisk), and then fail to provide them, we have no recourse—even folks who paid a premium for land next to said future amenities. When they install (presumably more expensive) lampposts with the capacity to play emergency alerts, then they don't put any plans in place for someone to take charge of such alerts, and tornado warnings come along without any neighborhood alerts, we have no recourse. When they leave tall weeds in common areas, we have no recourse, though they could fine residents for similar violations.

If I were on the task force, I would advocate to make sure residents had meaningful representation in determining the debt taken on in their name, the taxes levied on them, and the rules set for their community, much earlier in the process than “at buildout.” I'd also seriously question how ethical it is for a single group to speak for the development company, the metro districts before they have resident representation, the board that coordinates the metro districts, and utility companies that future residents will use. They might have “disclosed” conflicts of interest at meetings that no residents attended because not a single home had been built yet—and that seems like a farce.

Thanks for considering the voices of your fellow citizens.