Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Many government offices, including schools, are urging "No" on 101. Why?

In essence, Proposition 101 would move state motor vehicle registration fees back to 1919 levels, reduce or eliminate taxes on vehicle purchases and rentals over the next four years. 101 would also reduce the state income tax rate from 4.63 percent to 4.5 percent in 2011 and then to 3.5 percent gradually over time. It would put money back into the pockets of taxpayers. And, finally 101 would required your vote to create or increase fees on vehicles and telecommunication services in the future, so your cell-phone, internet and television fees would not go up without an official vote.

If you are against inflation and high salaries for government servants, you should vote yes to 101. If you feel out of control financially because of crazy fees, fines and taxes on basic services, stop letting them take bites out of you.

The government says this proposition is confusing and ambiguous. But, the blue book analysis of the bill is concise. It assures us the impact is expected to be $2.9 billion in today's dollars, ($1.9 billion in state reductions and $1 billion in local government reductions).

Additionally, the bill puts control and choice back into your vote. We all know that government has ways of relaxing any restriction placed on it; we've seen it with TABOR. But at least, this measure compels public servants to ask you first before taking a raise, before seeing your utility bill and phone bill skyrocket when you relied on the two year provider contract. I've never been one to like strangers having a monopoly on my budget decisions.

Government is trying to guilt you into voting no to 101. Because a very small percentage of the fees we pay for telecommunications are federally required to subsidize low income, or the blind, deaf or speech impaired, these fees will likely be paid out of another source of taxation or government funding. Government is not concerned about charity nearly as much as it is about the portions of these fees that line government salaries. You don't have to feel frightened for the underprivileged.

I value my opinion, as you may have noticed in this blog. I would like to keep my personal voice when it comes to taxation and spending.

But, perhaps you like taxation and spending more than I do. Well, good news! 101 does not take away your opportunity to contribute to government as much as you like. It merely gives you a choice in the future when you find that your district representatives do not represent your interests.

Some of my good friends are campaigning for all their worth against 101 saying that it will bankrupt schools. Don't ya just resent fear mongering? What I love about 101 is that K-12 will get the state funding these grades deserve. It will merely force the C.F.O. (Presidents) of Colleges to do their jobs and raise private funding rather than depleting all the State money that should be going to our kids' basic education. It will put genuine competition back into play amongst the Universities. Grades and character will again matter. The market will matter. After all, colleges are private business all too long having masqueraded as "government".

In conclusion, I would urge all those who do not care whether their votes are heard later, to refrain from voting on this bill now. If you insist on being heard on this bill 101 now, I challenge you to continue the right to be heard, and vote yes as an investment... towards your own voice, your own control, down the road.

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."