Metropolitan District Homeowners’ Rights Task Force

Comments/Considerations On The Task Force's Interim Report

• Share Truth in Leasing Disclosures on Facebook Share Truth in Leasing Disclosures on Twitter Share Truth in Leasing Disclosures on Linkedin Email Truth in Leasing Disclosures link

  Truth in Leasing Disclosures

  by Friend of justice, almost 2 years ago
  In the first Task Force meeting, Brian Matise, suggested a practical methodology to disclosure the actual cost of purchasing a home in a Metropolitan District. Consider requiring Truth in Leasing type disclosures Plus a supplemental disclosure actual remaining principal, interest and bond interest rate to maturity.

  
  When approving MDs #1 and #2, Counties require the bonds be limited to 40 years, usually between 5 to 10 years in development, then final payout the next 30 years. When on builds a home in a MD with deed restrictions of 40 years, you just built your stick built home on leased land... Continue reading

  In the first Task Force meeting, Brian Matise, suggested a practical methodology to disclosure the actual cost of purchasing a home in a Metropolitan District. Consider requiring Truth in Leasing type disclosures Plus a supplemental disclosure actual remaining principal, interest and bond interest rate to maturity.

  
  When approving MDs #1 and #2, Counties require the bonds be limited to 40 years, usually between 5 to 10 years in development, then final payout the next 30 years. When on builds a home in a MD with deed restrictions of 40 years, you just built your stick built home on leased land and Truth in Leasing disclosure should accompany all subsequent resales. This methodology already exists in Truth in Lending Act.
  
  The Golden Rule of Finance, he who has the Gold makes the rules. Nothing could be more true in MD#2 financing and Refunding transactions. In addition, the industry has significant input in bond investment disclosures. While these disclosure are meaningful to sophisticated bond investors, the disclosures ( - & -) are deceptive for the common mortgage debtor and for unsuspecting, new community MD Directors.

  
  

  
  

  
  
• Share Metro District and Real Estate fraud on Facebook Share Metro District and Real Estate fraud on Twitter Share Metro District and Real Estate fraud on Linkedin Email Metro District and Real Estate fraud link

  Metro District and Real Estate fraud

  by Kyle.c.moore, almost 2 years ago

  I’m reaching out hoping you can advise me through a tough situation. I joined the Northridge Estates Metro district board in Greeley, CO, and I’ve found myself on a developer controlled board that is trying to de commit on its contractual obligations and force hundreds of thousands of dollars in incomplete work onto the homeowners of this community through new fees and taxes. They are also trying to force the resident board members into taking action that violates our agreements with the city of Greeley and that violates the Colorado special district act. Further, they have already taken actions that... Continue reading

  I’m reaching out hoping you can advise me through a tough situation. I joined the Northridge Estates Metro district board in Greeley, CO, and I’ve found myself on a developer controlled board that is trying to de commit on its contractual obligations and force hundreds of thousands of dollars in incomplete work onto the homeowners of this community through new fees and taxes. They are also trying to force the resident board members into taking action that violates our agreements with the city of Greeley and that violates the Colorado special district act. Further, they have already taken actions that violate our Service Plan and contracts with the city.

  I appreciate any help you can provide and look forward to hearing from you.
• Share Colorado’s Attorney General recently provided MD#2 property owners an avenue to reduce MD#2 bond liability on Facebook Share Colorado’s Attorney General recently provided MD#2 property owners an avenue to reduce MD#2 bond liability on Twitter Share Colorado’s Attorney General recently provided MD#2 property owners an avenue to reduce MD#2 bond liability on Linkedin Email Colorado’s Attorney General recently provided MD#2 property owners an avenue to reduce MD#2 bond liability link

  Colorado’s Attorney General recently provided MD#2 property owners an avenue to reduce MD#2 bond liability

  by Liam in Broomfield, almost 2 years ago

  The Colorado AG’s office opened a fraud, waste and abuse website which consolidates reports of wrongdoing by MD board members and other affiliates not acting in the best interest of Metropolitan District property owners. In submitting a report to this website, One should focus on the the categories involving Ponzi Schemes (IGAs not involving cities or counties and Junior bond debt issues, and Refunding agreements) and Securities Fraud (Carry back, self serving debt to related parties and Junior bond debt) which create future liabilities of MD#2 property owners. Most of this information is list on public domains, DORA Local Affairs... Continue reading

  The Colorado AG’s office opened a fraud, waste and abuse website which consolidates reports of wrongdoing by MD board members and other affiliates not acting in the best interest of Metropolitan District property owners. In submitting a report to this website, One should focus on the the categories involving Ponzi Schemes (IGAs not involving cities or counties and Junior bond debt issues, and Refunding agreements) and Securities Fraud (Carry back, self serving debt to related parties and Junior bond debt) which create future liabilities of MD#2 property owners. Most of this information is list on public domains, DORA Local Affairs and Electronic Municipal Market Access(EMMA) or Emma.MSRB.org.

  
  These informed reports will allow the AG’s office to coordinate investigations with the FBI and the DOJ, which investigates civil fraud incidents adversely impacting Federal Related, and Insured Home Mortgages.

  
  The Colorado legislature could fund this project be imposing additional $30.00 fees for every report the MD is required to upload to Department of Local Affairs and assess each Lew firm a $100.00 penalty for each written Director Conflict of Interest statement NOT collected.

  
  

  
  
• Share Subliminal Opinions! What is working well? The Status Quo! on Facebook Share Subliminal Opinions! What is working well? The Status Quo! on Twitter Share Subliminal Opinions! What is working well? The Status Quo! on Linkedin Email Subliminal Opinions! What is working well? The Status Quo! link

  Subliminal Opinions! What is working well? The Status Quo!

  by Liam in Broomfield, almost 2 years ago

   Representative Parenti and other co-sponsors of HB23-1105.

  You are aware how the conservative voices in the legislature fought to defeat this bill. Once the conservatives realized their efforts were in vain, they fought to LIMIT the scope of the Report of the Committee’s investigations, and then required presenters NOT to express any personal opinions of their findings of fact, except for these subliminal opinions by the pro HOA and Metropolitan District beneficiaries (Attorney firms, “Of Counsel” Attorneys, Bond producers and Community Developers).

  I recall, every “YouTube” presentation ending with, What is working well? The unanimous response from beneficiaries, the... Continue reading

   Representative Parenti and other co-sponsors of HB23-1105.

  You are aware how the conservative voices in the legislature fought to defeat this bill. Once the conservatives realized their efforts were in vain, they fought to LIMIT the scope of the Report of the Committee’s investigations, and then required presenters NOT to express any personal opinions of their findings of fact, except for these subliminal opinions by the pro HOA and Metropolitan District beneficiaries (Attorney firms, “Of Counsel” Attorneys, Bond producers and Community Developers).

  I recall, every “YouTube” presentation ending with, What is working well? The unanimous response from beneficiaries, the current laws in effect. How balanced was this process. What is working well for less than a dozen Attorney firms (my calculations, BWAT&W along with McGeady-Becher, benefit from 22 to 25% of the existing 2500+ Metropolitan Districts), under two dozen “Of Counsel” Attorneys and two dozen or so Community Developers; is not working well for over 1,200,000+ property owners and over 2,000,000 Colorado voters.

  Otherwise, this legislation and these hearings would not be required!

  I ask you and your co-sponsor keep the faith, keep the pressure on fellow legislators to fully reform HOA and Metropolitan District abuses, and rely on the Minority Reports from each Committee findings, especially the recommendations from Mr. Brian Matise and Ms. Natasha O’Flaherty.

  Good luck on your re-election campaign.

  
  

  
  

  
  
• Share In response to Commissioner O’Dorisio’s Request for funding to understand MD#2 transactions on Facebook Share In response to Commissioner O’Dorisio’s Request for funding to understand MD#2 transactions on Twitter Share In response to Commissioner O’Dorisio’s Request for funding to understand MD#2 transactions on Linkedin Email In response to Commissioner O’Dorisio’s Request for funding to understand MD#2 transactions link

  In response to Commissioner O’Dorisio’s Request for funding to understand MD#2 transactions

  by Liam in Broomfield, about 2 years ago

  May I suggest the Adams County Commissioners come for a drive along to Representative Parenti’s District and visit Arapaho Ridge and Blue Heron subdivisions, then cross the District’s boundary and head south to Indian Peaks subdivision. I believe, you will find these communities have several commonalities, wonderful place to raise families, they all were approved by the Boulder County Commissioner without allowing Metropolitan District financing (meaning the community developers were at risk for the completion and the success of their business decisions were based on providing quality workmanship and not covering up bad business decisions onto future property owners and... Continue reading

  May I suggest the Adams County Commissioners come for a drive along to Representative Parenti’s District and visit Arapaho Ridge and Blue Heron subdivisions, then cross the District’s boundary and head south to Indian Peaks subdivision. I believe, you will find these communities have several commonalities, wonderful place to raise families, they all were approved by the Boulder County Commissioner without allowing Metropolitan District financing (meaning the community developers were at risk for the completion and the success of their business decisions were based on providing quality workmanship and not covering up bad business decisions onto future property owners and tax payers without any accountability). These projects were either started and completed in the 1990s or early 2000s, their respective Cities own the parks, clubhouse and pools, and the homeowners are not a burden to the city's finances. Since there are NO MD#2 debt, the commissioners do not have to grovel for funds to hire a consultant to understand the tax structures and MD#2 bond payment consequences on existing subdivisions. Additionally, these homeowners are more likely willing to approve future public financing bond projects, since these homeowners were treated fairly (not subject to multiple deed restrictions) when their homes were purchased.

  In short, the future successes of your communities depend on approving new home construction exempt from Metropolitan District #2 financing. The time for action is now, not to continue tolerating former bad practices of community developers as the NEXT step in kicking the can down the road.

  
  

  
  
• Share Aurora Metro Taxing Districts and SARIA on Facebook Share Aurora Metro Taxing Districts and SARIA on Twitter Share Aurora Metro Taxing Districts and SARIA on Linkedin Email Aurora Metro Taxing Districts and SARIA link

  Aurora Metro Taxing Districts and SARIA

  by Trina1, about 2 years ago

  Sent to CO Attorney General's Office

  Dear Mr. Riester: I sent you an email on 4/10/2024. I would like to receive a reply from you that you have received this information and read it. Taxpayers need your help and that of AG Weiser. Metro Districts need to be reformed now. I am living in a home we purchased in 2014. To be clear, we moved from a home in Aurora to a home in Aurora and used a realtor. It was never disclosed by our realtor that we were in a Metro taxing district or about the taxing structure. There... Continue reading

  Sent to CO Attorney General's Office

  Dear Mr. Riester: I sent you an email on 4/10/2024. I would like to receive a reply from you that you have received this information and read it. Taxpayers need your help and that of AG Weiser. Metro Districts need to be reformed now. I am living in a home we purchased in 2014. To be clear, we moved from a home in Aurora to a home in Aurora and used a realtor. It was never disclosed by our realtor that we were in a Metro taxing district or about the taxing structure. There is also SARIA which resides under the City of Aurora. It takes MILS from communities such as Blackstone, directs them back to the City who then uses that money to build roads and new communities outside of our Metro district. It only benefits home builders and the city. In addition, our Metro district attorney (Waldron) sits on the board of SARIA which I believe to be a conflict of interest. I am not totally sure, but believe he was on the board with the builders at the time of opting in. The builder, Lennar, opted Blackstone into SARIA in 2017. We were never informed of this information neither verbally or in writing. Neither did the City of Aurora ever disclose this information to us. It's called failure to disclose, is illegal and may require legal action. This community started construction in 2004, entered into SARIA in 2017 at which time it paid a small 1 MIL plus levy which I believe was offset by use tax returned to Blackstone. We are now in year 20 of buildout and the levy has ballooned to 6.245. I discovered this when our taxes surged by 31% this year. I looked at the district budget and was shocked. There is also an inflation factor that can/will be applied for another 20 years on those 6 mills used to build out roadways and new neighborhoods, not benefitting Blackstone. Interestingly, on the budget there was a shift from the general ops budget down, so SARIA MLS could be increased. We already pay 3.75% to the City, 10% on our house. My house payment went of 31% or $221/month. Most of this is being directed to SARIA. We feel like this is a very bitter pill to swallow. We are not moving. This is a lifestyle choice. I would appreciate a meeting with you, Rep. Hamrick and AG Weiser. This reform needs to take place now as it's going to mushroom out of control with no benefit to the taxpayers, only builders and attorneys. There is now one year ahead of us and we need to take action now. Who is looking out for the taxpayers of our State? I appreciate your time and look forward to hearing from you. Best, Kathy Ryan Morgan 720 391-9220
• Share Home Sale Disclosure on Facebook Share Home Sale Disclosure on Twitter Share Home Sale Disclosure on Linkedin Email Home Sale Disclosure link

  Home Sale Disclosure

  by CO HOA Homeowner Advocate, about 2 years ago
  In the April 22, 2024 Metro District Task Force meeting, the issue of a homeowner "disclosure" was discussed. One task force member suggested a conceptual one-page disclosure with a side by side, i.e., HOA and Metro District disclosure. Excellent idea.

  
  

  The way to accomplish that is require such a disclosure at the point of home sale purchase. (The fact that there was a Metro District bill some time ago requiring some disclosure for Metro Districts, but only on a go-forward basis, doesn't care for existing Metro District homeowners, nor does any Metro District annual meeting care for the idea of... Continue reading

  In the April 22, 2024 Metro District Task Force meeting, the issue of a homeowner "disclosure" was discussed. One task force member suggested a conceptual one-page disclosure with a side by side, i.e., HOA and Metro District disclosure. Excellent idea.

  
  

  The way to accomplish that is require such a disclosure at the point of home sale purchase. (The fact that there was a Metro District bill some time ago requiring some disclosure for Metro Districts, but only on a go-forward basis, doesn't care for existing Metro District homeowners, nor does any Metro District annual meeting care for the idea of there being a "disclosure.")

  If one meaningful change could come out of both of these task forces, it would be to require that home sale disclosure. It should be created with direct input by informed homeowners.
• Share Land in multiple Metro Districts on Facebook Share Land in multiple Metro Districts on Twitter Share Land in multiple Metro Districts on Linkedin Email Land in multiple Metro Districts link

  Land in multiple Metro Districts

  by Jhl, about 2 years ago

  Is it legal to have the same land/parcel in multiple metro districts?

  If it is, it should be noted on a periodic report (such as the annual report) the need for having the same land/parcel as part of multiple districts and the legal citation.

  Is it legal to have the same land/parcel in multiple metro districts?

  If it is, it should be noted on a periodic report (such as the annual report) the need for having the same land/parcel as part of multiple districts and the legal citation.
• Share Responsibility on Facebook Share Responsibility on Twitter Share Responsibility on Linkedin Email Responsibility link

  Responsibility

  by Jhl, about 2 years ago

  Due to the conflict of interest and billions of dollars in revenue, statewide Developer controlled Metropolitan Districts (such as Banning Lewis Ranch) require a greater degree of monitoring and oversight. Banning Lewis Ranch has been Developer controlled for almost 20 years.

  Municipalities currently have some authority and definitely responsibility for this oversight. Policy and Process Audits of Developer controlled Districts could be conducted every five years (see the City of Colorado Springs 2021 Report for an example of a policy and process audit https://coloradosprings.gov/document/21-18citymetropolitandistrictspolicyreview-final.pdf).

  According to that report, “Metro Districts were separate jurisdictions subject to State Statute.” Therefore the... Continue reading

  Due to the conflict of interest and billions of dollars in revenue, statewide Developer controlled Metropolitan Districts (such as Banning Lewis Ranch) require a greater degree of monitoring and oversight. Banning Lewis Ranch has been Developer controlled for almost 20 years.

  Municipalities currently have some authority and definitely responsibility for this oversight. Policy and Process Audits of Developer controlled Districts could be conducted every five years (see the City of Colorado Springs 2021 Report for an example of a policy and process audit https://coloradosprings.gov/document/21-18citymetropolitandistrictspolicyreview-final.pdf).

  According to that report, “Metro Districts were separate jurisdictions subject to State Statute.” Therefore the state of Colorado and the Municipalities must work together to eliminate future conflict of interest, decision making Developer Districts and to regulate current existing conflict of interest, decision making Developer Districts such as Banning Lewis Ranch.

  The results of these periodic audits of existing Developer Districts would then be reported to City Councils (or other governing body of the municipality) and to the district residents.
• Share Metro District Taskforce Testimony on Facebook Share Metro District Taskforce Testimony on Twitter Share Metro District Taskforce Testimony on Linkedin Email Metro District Taskforce Testimony link

  Metro District Taskforce Testimony

  by DJShulman, about 2 years ago
  I testified at the Feb 26 taskforce meeting about issues with the West Meadow Metro District that are unfortunately all too common. I stayed and listened to the discussion among the taskforce members. I was dismayed at comments by MaryAnn Marciano McGeady who did not seem to hear or respect testimony and vehemently rejected the suggestion of third party oversight. Part of the reason that we are having so many issues with Metro districts in Colorado is that developers violate the Special Districts act and service plans with impunity. Colorado has failed in oversight and regulation and failed to protect... Continue reading

  I testified at the Feb 26 taskforce meeting about issues with the West Meadow Metro District that are unfortunately all too common. I stayed and listened to the discussion among the taskforce members. I was dismayed at comments by MaryAnn Marciano McGeady who did not seem to hear or respect testimony and vehemently rejected the suggestion of third party oversight. Part of the reason that we are having so many issues with Metro districts in Colorado is that developers violate the Special Districts act and service plans with impunity. Colorado has failed in oversight and regulation and failed to protect homeowners from excessive taxation. Also, people in city and county governments that approve service plans often do not understand them and the implications. Not only do we need enforcement and we need education and guidance for municipalities and counties.