Gar Williams: Fiduciary responsibility
The “Historic Donation” article in June 12’s newspaper brings up several questions in my mind.
The Moffat County Board of Education Superintendent and the Memorial Regional Health Director have agreed to have the School Board sell a property with an assessed valuation of $1,641,664 or more to the Memorial Regional Health for nominal fee, $10 is the fee quoted to me by Superintendent Ulrich.
The article states MRH plans to use the property to “invest in” Providence Recovery Services of Colorado, a for-profit drug rehabilitation facility which has stated they will import the majority of their clients from 2 or more hours away from Craig.
As I understand Colorado Statutes, the Board of Directors of an organization as a group and individually each has a fiduciary responsibility to the institution they serve to do what is best for the operation of that organization.
The Board of Education, which has a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers and students of Moffat County to get the best return for the taxpayers and students in the disposal of any “excess property.”
Is the School Board getting the best return on the taxpayers investment by selling a piece of real estate valued by the County Assessor, at over 1.6 million dollars, for $10 cash and a promise of a 33% discount for future services which amounts to $218,126.19 (for school nursing support), over a period of only three years?
Is the School District getting 7.5% of the assessed value of the School District’s Building really the fiscally responsible thing to do?
Do any members of the School Board stand to benefit from giving the building to MRH for a “nominal fee?”
Why doesn’t the School Board lease the property to Providence and require Providence to modify and maintain the facility at Providence’s expense as part of the lease? This would provide the School Board with an additional funding source other than taxes.
Is the City Council doing what is best for the taxpayers and residents of Craig by approving a drug rehabilitation facility in a neighborhood that will lower the residential property values by up to 20%?
As a tax-supported entity, will MRH, which is cutting back on finishing its medical office building because of insufficient funds, going to the County Commissioners again for “supplemental funds” to cover cash shortages for building and investment expenses?
Will the School Board be coming to the taxpayers for more tax money in the near future?
Will the City of Craig follow its Zoning Ordinance to protect property values?
Do any members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, or City Council stand to profit from the construction or remodel of the Administration Building?
This looks like the taxpayers will come out on the short end of the stick again! If the school admin building was back on the tax rolls “we the people” still lose money because the property taxes will take decades to equal what the building originally cost us.