Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizen.com

It used to be that a "profession" such as doctoring, lawyering, running a football, priestly duties and public servants were paid very little. This was true, even though the skilled individuals acting in these fields were considered "experts". They received honor as part of their pay because they were viewed as public servants. To compensate for this feeble pay, they were supported by the good will of the people, commercial interests, patrons, tips, and insurance.

I attended the Colorado Symphony recently and was reminded that Beethovan and Tchaikovsky had patrons to support them. Tchaikovsky had his 13-year association with the wealthy widow Nadezhda von Meck. And,he was honored by the Tsar, awarded a lifetime pension and lauded in the concert halls of the world. Beethovan's first patron was his own piano teacher, Count Waldstein.

In the western world, the pursuit of "entitlement" is sometimes a full time career. Being a lifetime professional has re-defined the meaning of entitlement. It now means someone is intellectually trained beyond the common amateur, and one who is generally comfortable financially. Albeit, because of the personal and confidential nature of many professional services, and often the necessity to place a great deal of trust in them, most professionals are held to ethical and moral standards called rules, regulations or oaths.

City Managers belong to an ethics association. Attorneys are held to an Attorney Code of Ethics, Judges to a Judicial Code, Plumbers to a Plumbers Code, and an Olympian, to an Olympic Code of Ethics. Nevertheless, when "experts" holding your life in their hands fail to do their jobs, and are sued, they are the first to demure that they were merely "practicing" law, or "practicing" medicine or "practicing" management of your civil welfare.

But, home rule managers are not in the same class as regular business managers. Can you guess why? City managers do not create the money they earn. They spend people's taxes. The Citizens very literally are their patrons. Members of City staff also do not make money for their employers, ie: "We, the people" but instead spend it, lots of it. They enjoy your money much like royalty.

Quite unlike a business owner who creates substantial income as a product of their ingenuity and work ethic, the news article in Your Hub shows how a City Manager gets to name his budget without showing a work product, gets a budget approved, and then plays all year long on it. Several residents showed up to the Englewood Budget Hearing to protest this very real situation. Ida Mae Nicholls particularly protested having to pay for an Assistant City Manager as well as a regular City Manager, putting Englewoods' budget a hundred thousand dollars above neighboring cities.

Mama always told me to watch out for those shysters who want an up-front deposit before doing the job. She reasoned, "What holds them to any standard if they have already been paid? What is the incentive?"

Meanwhile business owners who are already sweating away to maintain a viable service or product for their customers, are forced to keep receipts, collect taxes, figure percentages and pay the special government districts for the right to provide jobs and make money. Taxes, fees, fines and regulations assessed against business owners grow in larger and larger sums. This money is not being carried into the public river. Instead, city managers are getting paid more and more, while still enjoying greater benefits. Cushy job, that!

What is this topsy-turvy honor system? Business owners are the ones who creatively provide for the public desires. They are the ones who should be honored, not taxed for their services or treated like slaves to the so called professionals.

Business owners in Englewood should start attending the City Council's meetings and speaking their minds on the value of their work, compared to the value of the City managers. Business owners should demand their vote on anything that concerns their ability to function in the City or to earn money.

And all the citizens should consider the real comparisons of real managers and those who only call themselves managers by professional advantage.

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Citizens' canons appeared on the hillside at the public budget hearing Monday evening, September 20, 2010. The House was filled with various groups of disgruntled citizens who applauded loudly for each other's fiscal observations and causes. Click link items 7 and 10 to hear these 25 various presentations. City Manager Sears went red in the face and stayed that way for much of the meeting. Bob McCaslin engaged one group near the end and argued publicly out of turn with them from his seat to the back row. Although the City's policy since Mayor Bradshaw was in office has been that Council members do not respond to Citizens' comments until "their choice" at the end of a council meeting, Mayor Woodward defended himself out of turn.

Citizens waited to the last hour to hear any responses to their concerns. And, council members falsely placated their issues. I believe Council's attitude is that they are special, and thus they do not need to listen, or respond to Englewood representatives who make the effort to come out.

Council then denied both Jefferson's move to amend Council Bill 32, to take a formal stance against "urging" citizens to vote against Amendments 60, 61 and 101. These amendments are carefully engineered to employ an entirely new system of funding Colorado's economic priorities. Colorado's ballot initiatives 60, 61 and 101 place fund raising for higher education back in the private sector of friends of the Universities. Raising funds are what C.F.O.'s and presidents of Universities are hired to do.

But, kindergarten through grade 12 basic education will be guaranteed the funding education deserves from the State of Colorado. This funding has typically been diverted to legislators' pet projects such as the development of Lowery's subdivision, R.T.D., sports stadiums and East Colfax...all of which should have been funded privately.

Jefferson and Gillit argued it is not the position of a non-profit government agency to tell the Citizens how to vote on money systems. Jill Wilson then moved out of turn saying, "I don't care. I move to vote on the bill right away, without the amendment." Her motion was shut down however, because Jefferson's amendment was already on the floor. Yet, Council voted down the amendment to Englewood Bill 32, and then voted to approve Bill 32 as originally proposed "urging" citizens to vote against Amendments 60, 61, and 101 just because they say so.

Isn't it special that Englewood Council members completely miss it, that anything they take a formal stance on while abusing the voices of their constituency will be automatically seen as suspect? We might as well chalk up the entire voting populous of Englewood in favor of Amendments 60, 61, and 101.

When these Amendments win in Colorado, an entirely new economic system, guarantying state funding for schools together with lowering mill levies (taxes) from 7% to 3.5% on your home owner's mortgage will put smiles on faces everywhere. Everywhere, except City Council.

It was the late August study session, topic: fiscal emergency, where District 4 Council member Gillit suggested that the paid stipend of Council is not the real reason council members serve the City, (being only $600 per month). He wondered if council members would be willing to sacrifice their stipends until the City's finances were corrected.

Oh, the reciprocal uproar!

No-one felt the condition of public welfare warranted a personal sacrifice. Councilman at large, Bob McCaslin, summarized council's consensus denying Mr. Gillit's suggestion, when he shouted, "I deserve this money and much more, too!"

Yet, Englewood Council continues to give money to charities, spend weekly for catering their own food for meetings, they include hefty salaries of two City Managers in the budget year after year, and refuse to settle legal disputes with citizens in an amicable way prior to engaging in the big bucks of trial.

Englewood's City Council voices are special indeed. Just as special as the wind from the inside of an old bagpipe.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizen.com/

Announcing the 2011 Englewood Budget Hearing. Monday, September 20, at 7:30 pm, Floor 2, Englewood Civic Center.

Please Take Notice: City Council will actually release the proposed budget the week after the hearing, on September 25, 2010...strangely backwards, but oh well. You can still register your general ideas, strategies, complaints and priorities this Monday at the hearing.

Note that it is the City's lawful duty by City Charter as well as the Colorado Constitution, article XX and the Colorado Revised Statutes §§29-20-101, 205, 24-65.1-101, et seq., 30-28-101, et seq., 30-28-201, et seq., or 24-32-111 to provide full and complete services to roadways, parks, fire, utilities, courts and police enforcement. Englewood is not permitted to cut these services by law. You can rely on your payments for these services through your taxes, because the government must fulfill their duties. It is the City's duty "to provide for the peace, welfare and safety" of your neighborhoods and your well being.

Do you find it okay that Manager Sears has proposed cutting the fire marshal position after the current fire marshal retires this year? Do you think that cutting city services is your sacrificial duty during a bad economy? Chief Vandermee of the Police Force is also retiring in May and another officer is leaving on his own accord. The City is not planning to replace these services for you next year, cutting services you will need and have grown used to.

It has been suggested that the City Manager's office itself is top heavy in the budget. Englewood recently compared itself to Northglenn, Colorado, a similar sized populous, but I've checked the figures and this is what I found:

Northglenn published a 2010 fiscal report, showing the total personnel expenditures for the city manger's office budgeted was $343,482 with a Full Time Employee (FTE) count of 4 people. The City of Englewood's 2010 budget, page 68, indicated personal expenditures of $591,340 and an FTE count of 5. The City of Englewood has one more employee, and a difference in personal costs of $247,858!

Total Expenditures for the Northglenn City Manager's office is $614,151, whereas the City of Englewood is $668,633.

Also note that the City of Northglenn has decreased its City Manager's staff/FTE by 3 people since the 2008 economic crunch, whereas the City of Englewood has decreased their City Manager's staff by .38(about half of a part-time position) since 2008. Englewood employs Gary Sears at $169,540, City Assistant Mike Flarity at $134, 410, Executive Assistant Sue Carlton Smith at $61,145, and Communications Coordinator LeAnn Hoffines at $61,046. And, don't forget that 42% of a part-time employee. These figures do not include cars, expensive seminars, gas or healthcare bennies. The price of all those extras to the citizens of Englewood costs even more. Nice...

Sure seems like some of these people could afford the hit that most of Englewood has already taken in their jobs. The City of Northglenn does not employ an assistant for every job. Why does Englewood? Perhaps because the head of Englewood has been moonlighting by teaching courses at the University of Denver, and playing golf on City time. Now, Manager Sears is proposing the City cut your services to you. This is the opposite strategy that Northglenn has taken.

Your "City’ Manager’s duty shall require the faithful performance of all administrative duties." The City Manager's duties and powers are enumerated in Sections 1-6A-2 and 1-6A-3 of Englewood's Muncipal Code, as well as the Englewood Home Rule Charter. Section 1-6A-1:E.M.C. (Code 1985, § 1-6A-1)

City Manager Powers.

C. Investigate;
D. Overrule Officials;
E. Delegate Duties;
F. Appoint Administrative Committees; and
G. The City Manager shall have all other powers necessary to perform any duty or responsibility conferred upon him/her by Charter or ordinance. Section 1-6A-3: E.M.C. (Code 1985, § 1-6A-3)

Mayor Woodward said last month that he used to call himself a fiscal conservative, but now he just calls himself fiscally responsible. Is this a joke? Especially in light of last week's Emergency declaration regarding Englewood's finances. A month ago, Mayor said he hadn't yet seen the "trip point." (that line in the available inventory that says an emergency is warranted). Two weeks later the "trip point" apparently arrived.

Last year at the public debates between candidates, Mayor Woodward stated the city has a "policy" not to go below 10% in its reserves. The policies that the Mayor enforces against its citizens are considered law with fines and jail associated for violation of them. Apparently,the Mayor is held to a different standard and sits comfortably above the law when subverting this policy of the City's important financial reserves.

Still, Mayor Woodward says he isn't one to micro-manage the budget so long as the Rec Center does not run out of toilet paper. He may be covering his own butt on this one. Seriously, go out and represent your higher perspective.

If you cannot make the budget hearing, please be sure to contact you district representative with your thoughts. District 4 Representative Rick Gillit and District 1 Representative Joe Jefferson are both actively involved with listening to their constituents.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizen.com

Dave Hill represented at the City of Englewood, on Monday evening regarding the celebration of a waterfall of income. The city's special water district will now earn approximately $2,000,000 per year because it just won a longstanding legal battle with the City of Aurora for 590 acre feet of water rights per year. Now, Englewood can turn around and lease these water rights to the City of Centennial, which is desperately in need of water.

No one likes to talk about dry history when they are celebrating a big splash, but just briefly, allow me to pour one on: Back in the late eighties, the Cities of Thornton and Westminster wished to keep Stanley Lake full to service more of their water directly for their cities' use. Englewood made a deal with them to allow 590 acre feet of it pass through to Englewood.

Along came the City of Aurora, and paddled out a later deal with Thornton and Westminster for their own water, but they left Englewood out. Englewood did not like its senior water rights being diverted, and for many years has dammed up the City of Aurora in a legal battle to return what belongs to Englewood. The matter was settled this week.

What's the value to you, you ask? According to Robert Cassidy, Englewood Water Board Member, about five million dollars per year! This is a huge benefit to Englewood businesses and residents because it should lower the water bills significantly. It should also stop the rate increase that was scheduled to happen this year due to the E.P.A.'s requirement on Englewood's water board to install a U.V. disinfectant system.

The cost of this U.V. start up equals approximately one year's revenue to Englewood from the City of Centennial's purchase. Putting it simply, hope for your household budget floats on water rights. Good Work, Water Board!

On the other hand, the Mayor recognized that a line had been crossed in the City's policy on overspending, funds which are kept completely separate from the special district Water Board. Mayor stated that City Council is forced to dig into the long term asset reserves 9.2% percent at this time. To help offset this topsy-turvey raft that's about to drown the budget, the City declared a fiscal emergency, on September 7, 2010, Monday evening. See Ordinances, Resolutions item 11. to click on the link and listen for yourself.

However, the Englewood City Charter specifically prohibits this kind of fiscal emergency, in Article V, Ordinances, section 41. Section 41: Emergency ordinances even to catch a fleeting interest rate are not permitted.

Emergency ordinances necessary for the immediate preservation of public property, health, peace, or safety may be introduced, read and unanimously approved by a quorum present, at any meeting of the Council. The facts showing such urgency and need shall be specifically stated in the ordinance. No ordinance shall receive final passage on the same date it is introduced; however, emergency ordinances may receive final passage by Council on the following day. Emergency ordinances shall take effect immediately upon final passage and shall be published within seven days thereof. No ordinance making a grant of any special privilege, levying taxes, incurring indebtedness, authorizing borrowing money or fixing rates charged by any city owned utility shall ever be passed as an emergency measure unless the indebtedness, or the borrowing of money has received prior voter approval, or the indebtedness does not require voter approval under Article X, Section 20 (TABOR) of the State Constitution.
(Amended 11-2-1965; 11-6-2001)

But a 2 million dollar annual gain is apparently not sufficient for Water Board Director, Stu Fonda, who approached City Council to pass a hefty increase on non emergency utility fees for whenever water or electricity is shut off at your home after hours or on weekends. This is only typically shut off for construction, but occasionally, as Councilman Bob McCaslin pointed out, an escrow issue could occur on new home owners, as happened to himself, where his own water was shut off after hours. This would effect landlords and property owners whose tenants have failed to pay their bills as well. The person on call would have the personal authority to make a decision as to whether to charge a citizen or not.

Requests to turn off sprinkler systems, or at a plumber's request are passed along to the homeowner at an initial new fee of $150, and $75 per hour thereafter. Pay attention, folks, the City is passing along their own failure to stay within their own budget onto your shoulders. Since this is not a matter of public safety or necessity, and the funds go to the special district, City Council should have negated Mr. Fonda's greedy little water request.

It was slightly amusing that McCaslin, at large, admitted he called the police and the fire department before thinking to call the water utility, and that this was the event nine years ago that spurred him on to Council to make better policies. (Uh...now's the time to bob in that pond with your thinking cap on, Mr. McCaslin.)

Could Englewood's budget discrepancies be a problem of priorities? During study session on Monday evening, a sells job from PLACE Ventura, seeking to relocate to Flood Middle School, was presented for well on an hour, asking the City Council for a four million dollar line of credit backed by the City. This representative of PLACE dressed poorly to be asking a city for so much money. His suit was cheap, his collar was wrinkled and his tie was slung low. His cohort, who had flown out from the East Coast to provide architectural services, sat behind him in blue jeans. Nevertheless, Linda Olsen was visibly impressed, and Councilman McCaslin asked excited questions. PLACE admitted in the presentation that if PLACE Ventura defaulted on such a loan, after utilizing say $2,000,000 of it, that the City would be left holding the bag.

After enduring this sales pitch for an hour, it was time to review the City Budget Crises. Ah, too bad. Time ran out. You can hear the all of two minutes given to this encroachment onto City Council's time for yourself. Have a good swim.

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

On Monday June 21,2010, the Englewood city council voted to purchase electricity from Ameresco, an energy audit company. The company would install solar panels and would own them, and the city would buy the electricity. But the contract terms show the City has also purchased the solar equipment from Ameresco. The term of the contract is 20 years with a 10 year option. The price is a little higher than current Xcel prices. The anticipated cost to the city the first year is $39,000. There is a 2% increase built in each year for the 20 years for a total cost projected $1,051,000. The City bidded a contract with Ameresco for the energy audit only, not for the services and product which came out of the audit.

Concerned citizens, moved by Mr. Douglas Cohn, have requested the District Attorney's office look into two apparent violations of law, and one ethical violation of attorney/client representation that occurred when the City of Englewood signed the contract with Ameresco.

1. In the Englewood City Charter, chapter 113, there is a requirement that all contracts over $25,000 must have at least 3 bids. There was only one.

113. Competitive bidding.

Before the purchasing officer makes any purchase of supplies, materials or equipment, in excess of $25,000 or as prescribed by ordinance, he shall give ample opportunity for sealed competitive bidding, with such general exceptions as the Council may prescribe by ordinance. Council shall not exempt any individual contract, purchase or sale from the requirement of competitive bidding. No officer, appointee or employee of the City shall be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in the sale of any land, materials, supplies, or services to the City, except in case of purchases submitted to competitive bidding or not exceeding an aggregate of $100.00 in any one year. The lowest and best bid shall be accepted or all bids will be rejected. If the lowest bid is not accepted as being the best, such rejection must be approved by Council. Provisions in this Section shall not apply to professional or technical services, or services of regulated public utilities. All invitations to bid shall require bidders to meet the requirements of State Statutes regarding preference of State products.(Amended 3-24-1981; 11-3-1987; 11-6-2001)

Englewood has not "deBruced" this element.

2. In Colorado's TABOR (tax payers bill of rights), a requirement that all multi-year contracts must be completely funded by the signers at the time of the contract, or one year contracts with extensions can be signed is mandatory. Elected bodies must not sign long term contracts which bind future members of that body.

In this case, the city chose the one-year option with extensions. However, the deception is built in: The contract lists a hefty penalty for withdrawal or cancellation at any time within 20 years. The penalty at the end of the first year is $1,051,000; the second year is 19/20% of that number; etc. These terms do not sound like a one year contract.

The ethical problem comes about because of secrecy. The addenda labeled D1,D2,D3,D4 details the termination costs. But there was considerable difficulty in obtaining these exhibits attached to the Ameresco contract. The notes were not included in the version of the contract the City posted on its web site. They were not included with the library's copy of the upcoming agenda proposals or contents of the meeting. And, there was no hearing. Someone had to search Englewood's website for them under "confidential".

This seems not only to be a clear violation of TABOR, and the City Charter, but also a clear violation of an Attorney/client's right to full disclosure and publication process prior to the Englewood City Council's vote.

When the non-disclosure of these pertinent documents was brought to City Attorney Daniel Brotzman's attention, his only response was, "Opps! Someone went wild with the confidential stamp!"

Sometimes, Cities are immune from liability when a mistake happens. In this case, however, because the vote was rushed and was taken without the constitutional requirement for multiple bids and the City's right to full disclosure, the full weight of the malfeasance lays on City Attorney Brotzman's shoulders. His duty was to defend the City, not play dirty.

Mr. Cohn was incensed by yet another secretive vote that depletes his own wallet. Because this is a type of robbery, Cohn filed a police report with the Englewood police department on July 23, 2010. A copy of the police report was included on "council newsletter 7-29-10", which is a private informational letter that is not made public in the library packets to concerned citizens. City Council stated in Study Session that the matter would not be discussed. The next step was to contact the District Attorney's office when the Englewood Police failed to act.

Charges against Brotzman's license may include extortion since he, as a paid employee, negotiated Ameresco's deal with the City by offering a deal to the people without disclosing the twenty year costs and penalties.

"Opps!" is right. "Someone went overboard with the confidential stamp."