Suite Filed By Dave Wiechman

As you may recall the recent water board election (on May 6) turned on the issue of whether GMWSD should enter into a development agreement with the Texas developer who bought the 59-acre horseshoe property on the NW corner of the Denver Federal Center. The developer (whether he uses his real name, Lincoln Properties of Dallas or uses his Colorado shell company name Lakewood Land Partners) wants to build several 5-story apartment buildings for 2,150 rental units on the landfill where the Feds buried toxic chemicals for 85 years. 

 I and a majority of the Board wanted to take the time to ask more questions and ensure the  health and safety of both future residents and nearby neighbors. The water board President wants to give them a development agreement now and then have GMWSD watch over their development later.

That is the same approach I favored a decade ago when developers asked Lakewood City Council for a metro district (Big Sky) to develop Rooney Valley. I bought into their assurances that Lakewood would have oversight powers over the RV developments. I learned later the developer takes the attitude that once they get their service plan / metro district authorization they figure they are free to do whatever they want. 

Fooled me once, shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me. I now realize the in negotiations the people must require the developer to fulfill all his promises BEFORE we concede anything he wants. In order words, clean up the property FIRST or go your own way. GMWSD should not become another one of your lackeys.

In Tuesday's elections, I and the other incumbents received the majority of the votes and should be returned to office. However, the pro-developer faction has come up with a scheme to deny seating the fourth place winner - Randy Little. Instead they want to disenfranchise him from the Board and instead appoint someone who didn't even run.

Obviously, it's very long document but it's attached if you want to read it all.

Request for Prohibitory Injunction - Prevent Irreparable Harm & Preserve the Status Quo (pursuant to CRS§1-13.5-1501?)

 Introduction / Background -

 Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District (GMWSD) is a special district organized under Title 32 of the Colorado Revised Statutes.

 GMWSD is governed by a five-member Board of Directors (BOD) elected to a four-year term of office in biannual elections. The terms are staggered so that about half the BOD is up for election (or re-election) every two years. There are also vacancies created by board members resigning before their term has expired.

 In cases of director resignations, the remaining BOD members appoint someone to fill that seat until the next regularly scheduled election. In the case of GMWSD there were two resignations during the last term - Randy Little and Arthur Martinez.

 Two other directors, David Wiechman and Roger Wendell, were elected in 2022, completed their initial term, and have now been re-elected to a second term. A final BOD member (the current President) is in the final two years of two consecutive terms of office and was not involved in the recent election.

 The GMWSD is now entangled in a unique and significant issue that could affect the health and safety of the general public AND potentially affected the financial well-being of the district. Currently GMWSD includes 59 acres on the NW corner of the Denver Federal Center in west Lakewood. This currently vacant land was previously used during WWII by the federal government as a munitions manufacturing facility and disposal landfill for 85 years.

 During the period of federal government operation the site was a dumpsite for toxic chemicals. At one point the site was considered for Superfund designation. About ten years ago, the federal government did a partial cleanup by removing a layer of topsoil and replacing it with a one-foot layer of “clean” topsoil to create a “seal”. The Feds ruled the site was “safe” so long as the seal was not compromised.

 A couple years ago the federal government sold this contaminated property to a Texas developer who is proposing to build 2,150 apartment units on the former landfill. This has led to a political contest between interests (such as the City of Lakewood) that want to build more housing and citizens who are concerned disturbing the site would create a Love Canal-type environmental disaster.

 As a result there was a split on the GMWSD board between those who concluded that the developer has an inalienable right to develop this site and those who believe the site must be examined in greater detail to determine whether or not the developers’ intention to turn it into long-term, dense multi-family housing is feasible.

 The developer is arguing GMWSD has no choice in this matter, but is required to provide water and sewer services in order to facilitate construction of habitable buildings on the former landfill.  A majority of the BOD (three out of five seats) are seeking to table any action on the development request until an adequate environmental investigation and cleanup can occur, and specifying before allowing any destruction of the landfill’s ground cover seal.

 Based upon the above, at the April BOD meeting the 3-person majority decided to table further action until after the May 6 elections so the public could weigh in on their concerns and priorities. A couple weeks later (April 29) the BOD minority, led by the President, pushed for a “special” BOD meeting to revisit this issue BEFORE the May 6 election. However, in reliance upon the previous meeting’s decision to wait until after the elecction the majority of  BOD members had already made other plans and did not attend this special BOD meeting. As a result the special meeting failed to achieve the necessary quorum to legally conduct business.

 This issue was the defining political question for the public and electorate in the recent special district elections on May 6. This election pitted supporters of the development against skeptics who wanted to investigate the issue in greater detail.

 There were four seats up for election on May 6. However, for unknown reasons, the vendor hired to manage the election did NOT send out nomination petitions that spelled out that three seats were to be filled for a four-year term and one seat was to be filled for a two-year term. As a result of this error all six candidates were considered to be running for four-year seats and NO ONE was running for the two-year seat. Everyone assumed the election would utilize the former practice of awarding terms based upon their vote results. We thought the top three vote-getters would get the four-year terms and the fourth place winner would get the single two-year term.

 At the April BOD meeting it was revealed that the assumed practice had changed and that everyone was now running for the four-year seats and NO ONE was running for the two-year seat. Staff reported the single 2-year term seat would be filled through an APPOINTMENT by the new BOD elected May 6. This was a surprise to the Board members but appeared to be too late to do anything about it. The majority of directors assumed the BOD would ratify the fourth-place winner to the 2-year term.

 However, late on the afternoon of election day (May 6), the district’s attorney sent out an email to the board claiming the term of the two current directors who were appointed (Little and Martinez) were terminated as of 7 p.m. on election day. The lawyer concluded that for a one-week interim period between election day (May 6) and the swearing-in of the new BOD (May 13), based upon the election results, the BOD would shrink down to three members (President, Wiechman and Wendell).

 The staff memo goes on to claim that the next BOD meeting (regularly scheduled May meeting - May 13) would consist of only three directors (President, Wiechman and Wendell) with a quorum of only two necessary to conducy board business. The other two Board members (Little and Martinez) were declared to be non-members as of 7 p.m. on election day. The memo goes on to claim a quroum would now only be three members.  This would make just the President and Wendell as the sole, de-facto decision makers and render the votes of all district voters in the recent election null and void.

 The agenda for this rump May 13, 2025 meeting, now calls for the selection of a new Board member for the 2-year term. The way the meeting has been set up allows the President to select an ally from outside the current Board members or anyone who actually ran for election and thus form a new majority. The result would be the President would be able to ignore and thwart the will of the voters as demonstrated in last week’s election.

 Applicant’s Request - prohibit any legal GMWSD Board meetings until June 2025 to prevent the complete disenfranchisment of voters participating in May 6’s election.

 Prerequisite 1 - Likelihood of success 

 If the Board is prohibited from holding a board meeting on May 13 then there would be sufficient time for the elected board members to be certified, returned to office and their board voting rights restored. The addition/return of the previous Board (and now retained) members allows for the preservation of the status quo. The restoration of the balance of power could prevent the appointment of an unknown new board member who has not been vetted nor ratified by a vote of the people.

Prerequisite 2 - Irreparable Harm - significant and lasting damage - can’t be compensated for by money.

 Sabotage of GMWSD’s elected form of governance could create long-term irreparable harm to the water district, its customers and the community. The minority faction seeks to allow a developer to build huge apartment buildings on a former toxic landfill. This action would enrich the out-of-state developer at the expense of putting the health and safety of future residents and adjacent neighbors at possible risk. An example of this type of endangerment is the case of Love Canal in New York during the 1970s.

 By restoring the voting rights of the board members who were previously appointed, served honorably and are now officially elected, a palace coup will be thwarted, and the status quo preserved. The board members who were temporarily disenfranchised will be returned to their proper office and the balance of political power restored. Although the preservation of democratic governance is of major importance in our society, it does not have a quantifiable monetary value.

 Prerequisite 3 - Balance of hardships

 The restoration of the voting rights of the appointed (now elected) Board members will NOT harm the interests of the Board minority who had been previously thwarted from awarding advantages to the developers.

 Failure to restore the balance of power that people created through their votes will be a major hardship for the majority of our customer/voters. Their voice in democratic governance will be effectively silenced, and they will be forced to face potential financial hardships IF the water district enables a development that may degenerate into an environmental disaster.

 Prerequisite 4 - Not Adverse to Public Interests

 As noted in the satisfaction of the first three prerequisites, the restoration of the voting rights of the previously appointed and now elected Board members will preserve the interests of the voters/customers of our water district. By preventing the imposition of minority interests upon the majority, democratic governance will be preserved. Furthermore, by forestalling the minority’s attempts to advance dangerous development schemes, the health and safety of the community as well as the financial well-being of the district will be protected.

 Conclusion

 With the satisfaction of all the prerequistes for a prohibitory injunction, I petition the court to prohibit the Board of Directors of the Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District from meeting in May. This would allow sufficient time for the certification and swearing in of the newly elected, returning Board members. I also petition the court to order the Board to select the next highest vote getter in the May 6 election as the appointment for a 2-year term. This person should be the remaining incumbent Board member (Randy Little) who received the fourth highest vote total. 

Attachment 1 - message from district staff to Board of Directors at 12:58 p.m. on election day Tuesday, May 6, 2025:

 As you know, today is election day and the four incumbent directors are on the ballot for three four-year terms and no one is on the ballot for the two-year term. No matter the outcome of the election, there will be a vacancy after the election results are certified.

 However, due to a quirk in timing, there will be two vacancies on the board at the next regular meeting (May 13):  Karen, Roger, and Dave were elected to their positions and those positions last until their successors are elected and seated (which means oaths taken and filed).  Art and Randy were both appointed to their positions, though, and appointments last only until the next regular election, which means Art and Randy will not be directors of the board after 7pm tonight, regardless of the outcome of the election.

The composition of the board on next Tuesday will be Karen, Dave, and Roger.  Those three directors will constitute the board and two directors will constitute a quorum.  The two-year term vacancy could be filled by appointment by those three (this is not required, but possible).  After the election results are certified, the newly elected directors will take their oaths and then be seated.  The composition of the board at the June regular meeting will be determined by the final election results (and any potential appointment made prior).

Please contact me with questions about the timing or other issues.

Attachment 2 - May 6, 2025 election results

  #1 David Wiechman - 2,086  Incumbent

 #2 Art Martinez - 1,397         Incumbent

 #3 Roger Wendell - 1,319     Incumbent

 #4 Randy Little - 1,272        Incumbent

 #5 Phil Hardinger - 794

 #6 Dallas Joss - 788

 Attachment 3 - Nomination Forms - no opportunity to run for the 2-year term (only the 4-year option is provided):

 Board agendas and minutes indicated that the issue was discussed at the March 11 meeting. However, there are NO minutes available. Listening to the video recording indicates there was NO notice or discussion about how many candidates were running for what seats. The issue of 4 or 2-year terms was NOT mentioned.

 The subject of the election was on the agenda of April 11. At this meeting we learned for the first time about the election being limited to three 4-year terms with the one 2-year term to be appointed by the new board. At this point, the deadline for submitting nominations had expired.