Eye On Englewood

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

Where's that little blue book when you need it? You know, the one that tells you the pro's and con's of an election issue? Some nice ladies dropped a flyer in person by my house, and I got a handwritten postcard in the mail, so I decided to read what I could find on 3D and 3E in the Englewood Herald.

Rick Gillit just wrote an article that was published. He took the diplomatic stance, "Well, I'm not about to slap down the children's educational needs, but I'm just not sure that's what this money is about."

So,I analyzed the property tax issue generally. Most property tax goes directly to the City, and only a portion of it goes to the school district.

I had to ask. Why did the school board request so much money? John Brick wrote an opinion against 3D and 3E saying,

"New facilities are important to a quality facility asset management program but the district needs to be careful of “empire building.” Englewood’s citizens lag behind in wages and household income.

Is it better to wait a year to approve the bond issue until the school district answers the important questions about its size and focus? We stand at the crossroads of more of the same in a new building or schools that build neighborhood identity and contribute to our community economically, politically, and culturally. Let’s ask the district what is our return on investment."

I believe John Brick is right. It is to pay for the empire building of City Manager Gary Sears. Englewood, as City, is IN DEBT. I think that Matthew Crabtree and Bryan Oliver nicely laid out the budget deficit in their political debate at Moe's Barbecue earlier this month. Over the past five years, Englewood has dipped into the emergency assets and reserves to approve the City Manager's recommended budget to the tune of $10,000,000 (that's million) dollars!

I saw that Colorado also has a school tax increase on the ballot, and we will be paying for that as well as benefiting from it. So, I kind of feel like our children are being illicitly marketed to manipulate us to pay for the mess Gary Sears and the present City Council, minus Rick Gillit, has gotton us into. Mr. Gillit is the only councilmember who voted "no" on the budget.

And before him,-- put these pieces together will you?-- Laurett Barrentine was the only city councilmember to ask to review the line item budget and discuss it before voting. So, that lot of council asked Mr. Penn, whose wife represents the school board, to run against her. The popular coach won the last election. Now, Englewood is even more IN DEBT.

Renovations to the school do not cost that much. All the rest is going to sweep the DEBT under the rug...now, it's your expense. (For the rest of your life)

Bill Clayton, wrote another opinion for the Englewood Herald. He broke it down for us.

"For instance, the tax increase brochure describes how this will be paid for with a $5 per month increase on a home value of $100,000. Aside from the fact that most homes in Englewood are worth a lot more than $100,000 and therefore will pay much more, this certainly implies that the residents of Englewood will pay the cost of those bonds and tax increase with a nominal increase in taxes.

This is deceptive, and could not be further from the truth, which is that residents, who can vote, only pay about 40 percent of the property taxes in Englewood. The vast majority of property tax is paid by business property owners, who pay property taxes at a rate four times that of a residence. This means a business property, or vacant land worth $100,000 will pay $20 per month.

Since most of this tax increase will be paid by the businesses we frequent, these additional taxes will be passed along to all residents as higher prices, making every family’s total tax bill at least double the amount suggested by the school district.

Those of us who believe in the principle of "no taxation without representation" find it to be reprehensible that our school district, which is charged with teaching good government and citizenship, seems to care little about that basic principle."

One mom responded kind of nasty to Mr. Clayton's opinion saying she didn't care how much it cost everyone else, she wanted to give her child the best education. The problem with that thinking is the suggestion that we throw money at a building and it somehow motivates the teachers to teach, and gives them all the rest of the tools they need to do their job better. There are too many missing links for me in that equation. When I looked at the handwritten post card I received in the mail, I saw that not once did it mention better education.

I'm all for renovation of gentrified buildings, but there are fundraisers that these parents could pull off to raise needed money. They could put on concerts or sports events, spelling bees, contests and parades to raise money!

Instead, the school board hired a consulting firm to study the median income of Englewood and suggest what kind of money could reasonably be raised. The firm capped the suggested taxes lower than a third of what this bond issue entails. Then, why so greedy?

I would like to think that if the school board AMENDED its proposition and made a less greedy request next year, and we voted onto council people who were committed to rectifying the budget by other means, well we would gladly foot the bill for classy renovations.

I have to agree with Mr. Clayton this time. He concluded, "Apparently Englewood Schools aren’t all that interested in the principles of representative government and good citizenship as long as they can get their tax increase passed."

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Englewood businesses (BID) have begged the City for better lighting in the parking lots along Broadway for at least four holiday seasons. Instead, the City installed decorative lighting on the street front of two city blocks two years ago. But all of Broadway's back lots remain dark during the prime shopping season.

When Santa sneaks down the chimney this Christmas, is this going to be a liability for Englewood as to crime and property insurance? Doug Cohn, Appeals Commissioner, believes so because the Grinch has been notified repeatedly and yet continues to neglect the safety and welfare of its citizens who refuse to buy their bizzle-binks in Whoville. Mister Grinch is a depressed, wicked-tempered grouch with a sour attitude who lives in a mountain cave near the north end of Whoville. He absolutely hates everything about Christmas because of the trash that accumulates around the entire town after Christmas Day. "For fifty-three years I've put up with this threat!"

But, wouldn't it simply be awful if one of Santa's elves evaporated without a trace in the back lot, while attempting to buy toys from Mr. Cohn's Bonnie Brae Hobbies store?

Some of the business owners remember when the EDDA was active (Englewood Downtown Development Authority). This was a joint venture between the officious City of Englewood and those doing real business on Broadway.

Nothing could be done within the city bureaucracy, however, and it was dissolved in 2002; But, the Grinch kept the $100,000 investment from the owners, rather than turning it over to them to start their new independent organization.

Perhaps the Grinch was punishing the nemesis business owners for pulling out of his cheating game. "You're a mean one, Mister Grinch!" Says, Thurl Ravenscroft. "You're foul, bad-mannered and sinister! And, that goes for your little dog, Max, too!" Though, City Council cared less what the citizens of Whoville thought of them. They absolutely refused to encourage Whoville business sales, even at Christmas. Sigh... Instead, they funneled the business owners' money to the new and improved City Center, and tightened the sign codes against the businesses on Broadway.

With or without the dressed up Grinch and his fraud of a reindeer-dog, the new Business Improvement District(BID)began working to market Broadway in 2006 with meager funds. The first years' fees went to pay off the attorney. But at a quarter til dawn, business owners took marketing into their own hands, and have begun to decorate the street with gigantic flower pots, welcome banners and bike art.

Part of the problem, says Cohn, is that the Grinch tried to take some of the Broadway parking lots and turn them into an arts center, so the Mister Grinch couldn't have cared less about lighting the shopping areas targeted for eminent domain. But scratching out the numbers couldn't save the proposed arts complex viability to bring in funds to the city, so Grinch released his grip over the business lots.

Yet, the lots remain dark. Especially in winter months, the businesses on Broadway seem foreboding when considering parking or shopping after five pm. One could imagine that the Grinch is actually trying to blight his own shopping mall!

Gene Turnbull explained that the lighting in Littleton's Old Town is owned by Public Service (Xcel) but Littleton pays to maintain the lighting and pays the utility bills. This may be feasible, but the Grinch of Englewood continues to provide only a perception of "help" while the Whoville battle goes on to get the Grinch to do anything.

Yet, at the November 9, 2010 City Council meeting, Grinch recommended that a lighted sign be installed at Broadway and Girard in the foreboding empty lot to point people away from the Businesses on Broadway (BOB is the newest private marketing campaign) and toward the light rail station and Civic Center. Mister Grinch's pet project apparently needs to be pointed out, at the expense once again of Businesses on Broadway.

It almost seems humorous in light of last year's drama when the Grinch's claims against business signage was shot down at the higher court level, that Gary would suggest for his own benefit a violation of the Englewood sign code. The sign he was suggesting was 28" and 40" wide, proposed by Mile High Outdoor Advertising.

In repeated efforts to solidify the Grinch's hold on Englewood shopping, the City has again brought up the green Santa's idea of too many trash businesses roaming the alleyways. They reason that if only one company pulls the trash sleigh, the Grinch could regulate how many Christmas and Hanukkah wrappings, boxes and packaging might find a way into the alleys, and how much they can charge for the extra trucks needed to pick up all this holiday trash.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Jerry Ferman derailed City Council as they argued out-of-turn amongst themselves on Monday Night. Mr. Ferman came to complain about Englewood's moldy water. The time clock was stopped, and the flustered council members lost control. But is this the bigger story? For, in this same week the Englewood Water and Sewer Board found a scapegoat in the sewer lines between Chipotle and Chase Bank on Hampden.

The City of Englewood is supposed to inspect sewer and water lines of every business every six weeks under the Englewood Municipal Code. But, Englewood has not been inspecting the lines nearly enough.

So, when Chipotle noticed that they had a block in the sewer trap, they hired their on-call plumber to flush the lines. Plumber Frank, although he works for many Chipotle franchises, has never been cited for anything in Englewood, and he came to the rescue by flushing the sewer trap.

There was still a smell, however, and so another company was called out to clean it up better. This time, the lard got blocked just before entering the city's sewer, (or so the story goes) (don't tell the EPA) and backed up into the neighboring business' basement. The neighboring business happened to be the Chase Bank building, where the ex-officio Mayor Burns keeps his offices. Chase had to replace carpeting.

Mayor Burns, amongst several other ex-officio Mayors, happens to sit on the Water and Sewer Board. The only true civilian amongst the board members is Robert Cassidy. What was the Sewer Board to do? Water board their own city? That would never do.

They couldn't allow Chase Bank's insurance company or the EPA to come after City Manager Sears because, after all, he hobnobs with sewer members. Plus, did I mention? The current Mayor of Englewood also sits on the board. No, an embarrassing ethical situation needed to be mopped up in short order before Mayor Woodward was implicated.

If they fined Chipotle, Chipotle would sue the City for failure to perform regular inspections, and again the EPA might get involved. The City has already lost one such suit in the District Court, so another strategy had to be formed.

Oh, of course. Smear the "fog" or lard on the contractor who flushed the system. He's independent, and will not have the resources to fight this thing. Good idea.

So, on Tuesday evening, at 5:00pm, Frank Brandse appeared for his case #AC10-15973, which was described as an "appeal of the Water and Sewer Board's fine of $5300." This amount reflected the maximum allowable criminal fine under POTW (Potable Water) as a class 2 petty offense for someone with habitual and knowing intent to violate EPA Best Standards. Frank didn't believe his actions warranted this decision or fine. He said he had never before encountered this problem and an investigation of extenuating circumstances should take place.

Board member, Robert Cassidy, looked at procedures and found that the Charter required a steno-graphically recorded hearing in these instances, and that testimonies were to be taken under oath. Pouting, sewer members were forced to agree. So a hearing being set, Matthew Crabtree showed up on Tuesday evening to record it for the public.

Mr. Crabtree realized that the hearing was not publicly noticed in the City's newspapers, nor was it noticed as all other board hearings are, on the City website. Posting it on the City bulletin boards barely complied with the minimum standards of "public notice".

Mr. Stu Fonda, Director of the Englewood Water Works suddenly grew quiet at having an audience.

When the hearing began, board member Higday, also an ex-officio mayor, cut into Frank's testimony to attempt to close the hearing. His motion was sidelined until others also began testifying, and he reminded the sewer board that his motion was on the table. As rude and abrupt as member Higday is, he also brought up an interesting perspective that the Board was not following proper procedures according to the Municipal Charter, part IV and sections 60-63.

Member Higday said, when there is a recommendation from the Sewer Board, they are to bring it to notice of City Counsel. Nevertheless, the board went on about their business.

Mr. Cassidy stated that he didn't believe Frank intended to do anything wrong, and that he certainly was no hardened criminal. He recommended the fine, on appeal, be reduced from $5300 to $2000. It was somewhat of a relief to Frank that the Board agreed to that fine.
But, Mr. Cassidy pushed over the line when he suggested that the $2000 be differed pending no further occurrences during the next 12 months.

What? And force our friends in the City to shoulder the insurance deductibles? No way! The sewer board members reasoned. We have a scapegoat willing to shoulder the fee. His name is Frank.

So, Frank, who was cited only by his first name, without the signature of an accusing officer, and without any evidence because he had invoked his right not to be searched without a warrant, was given a fine of $2000, and in exchange, he got to keep his employment with all the Chipotle franchises he serves.

Funny thing. Culpability actually lies with the user, if not with the City inspector. The Littleton/Englewood Waste Water Treatment Plant FOG Policy, page 9, paragraph one states, "Users are responsible for the maintenance servicing, and proper waste disposal and cannot abrogate this responsibility to a contractor,pumping service, or other agent." Modified, July 22, 2010.

Although this is clearly printed in the ex-officio Mayor's manuals, they could not get their minds out of the gutter in order to read their own law as to liability. This makes them culpable for insurance fraud.

Furthermore, the City usurped formal criminal penalties reserved to EPA, the State through the District Court level or the Department of Regulatory Services (DORA). Instead, they protected themselves from liability through an administrative inbred process.

And thus, Jerry Furman, proves himself to be a prophet. Yes, the water in Englewood is moldy dirty. If I were Mr. Brandse, I'd run right up to the District Court and get me an injunction and report the crime to DORA.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Amendment 61 would place severe restriction on governmental agencies borrowing money and would basically eliminate the ability to purchase large items through a lease-purchase agreement. It would encourage business owners to do Colorado business, and government agents to keep Colorado trust, do their duty, and very little else.

TABOR placed severe restrictions on governments to engage in any contract for goods that causes future governors to be yolked to the debt. But in Englewood, governors have disregarded TABOR, and I'm sure like other municipalities, are finding ways to bundle services with goods, or simply failing to notify the people of the right to vote on important contracts. You can read City Council's contract this Summer with the reprehensible BP (gulf oil spill company)also known as Ameresco for the Solar goods, maintenance, and higher energy costs for Englewood over the next 20 years.

Violations for ignoring the law have been shrugged off. So what? Judges tend to say. If a home rule entity wishes to indenture future generations, who are we to interfere?

So, frustrations of those denied recourse in the courts and being depleted of resources by trusted servants have now won the right to petition you because they had legs enough to walk and presence enough collect the signatures, which is a feat in itself, to put ballot 61 into play.

Where is the teeth to Proposition 61? It requires the same kind of oversight accountability for governors that is required of CEOs and CFOs. It requires that tax rates raised for the specific item say, the production of government services or buildings or roads, must then be reduced after the projects are paid for. Presently, the system is that once the funds are raised, the expiration date of the tax is simply ignored, and Coloradoans keep paying, but the money gets filtered off to new projects.

61 tells government that people do not want to be sold "a temporary war time tax" yet be forced to pay into it indefinitely. This proposition requires a "truth and lending" element to the practice of raising taxes by requiring that the tax ceases when the museum or transportation system is built.

If governors have a pet project, they can no longer fund it under the table, but must deliberate it thoroughly and present it for a vote through a blue book type disclosure of all the angles.

Another thing this idea does is stop allowing Englewood to say it is raising bonds necessary for schools buildings while depleting the school fund for filtering money to private developments of say,...um... let me think... oh,... City Center...yes, case in point. Now, I loathe City Center's empty storefronts, but I loathe empty-eyed kids more.

Knowing how to budget your own money is a trick, but at least the spending stops with one household. Compare that to the State of Colorado which now owes 17 billion in debt it didn't ask you for permission to obtain. And for what, you ask? Have your parks,roadways, business district or utilities improved? Colorado is presently doing business like a banker or entrepreneur, taking much needed commerce and control out of the private sector.

Amendment 61 changes the present terms of State funding to public universities which have been secretly filtered to certain universities without voter approval. No longer will the State of Colorado be the lender for select home buyers, businesses, ranchers and farmers. And, the biggest impact will be on the all powerful water districts which continue to "improve" without voter approval under the table, and then ask for higher fees.

Amendment 61 is a six pack of muscle back to the people. Vote Yes.

Link: http://www.englewoodcitizens.org/

About fifteen years ago, Englewood enacted a Special Concrete District. This, despite the fact that Englewood already had about 10 times more districts than other municipalities. What an auditing nightmare! But that is not the focus of this piece.

This piece focuses on the fraud of the concrete district scheme itself. In order to create a new tax, and enact the district, City Manager had to feign a disadvantage. Then, he frightened residents into membership for their own protection. Sound anything like a thug making his mark? How did City Manager Sears accomplish this? By, completely ignoring your property boundaries.

Englewood started insisting that concrete sidewalks needed to be upgraded, sending notices to residents. Englewood insisted that the private property owners would be required to pay for the new cement repairs in full. The City required home owners to pay up immediately, short of buying into the new district. Property owners then examined the broken sidewalks and agree, yes, they need repair, and no, I cannot pay for hundreds of dollars, and furthermore, I don't know how to fight city hall. Bingo! City scored!

Very few residents possessed site plans, and they didn't believe that their trusted servants in government could outright lie to them about fiscal liabilities without being caught. So, over time, more and more private property owners began to assume their shares and payments into the concrete district.

The scheme goes this way: If you agree to buy into the district, then when you sell your home, the new owner automatically assumes the concrete debt, and the new owner has no right of redress within the City. This obviates your First Constitutional Right to redress government. Now, ain't that special?

But this month, a family took the Mayor and City Manager to District Court, because it is a higher court than the Englewood Municipal Court which judge is in bed with certain City officers. This family obtained a temporary restraining order against the City regarding the concrete district. They deserve a gold banner, for resourcefulness, don't you think?

Since purchasing their home in 2006, they had requested that Englewood repair their front heaving sidewalk. Every year, they sent letters, and every year, Englewood refused and ignored them. The problem was that an healthy 80 year old tree had roots that heaved the pavement.

Englewood refused to correct the problem unless the new owners allowed them to cut down the 80 foot tall shade tree and replace it with a sapling. Although the owners suggested Englewood correct the slope of the street which was causing various hazards in the winter at the bottom of the block, by simply raising the sidewalk over the tree roots, Englewood refused. The owners then suggested Englewood make the sidewalk bump out in a semi-circle around the base of the tree, separating parking spaces in the frontage. Again, Englewood refused.

Englewood's letters refused to cooperate with the City's engineering and paving departments or with the homeowners, even though the sidewalk was causing a severe stumbling liability. Englewood refused to perform due diligence for creative alternatives to save the tree by inquiring with an arborist. But, Englewood also abandoned the property to the owners three years ago, saying in a letter that the land at the front of their property belonged to the home owners.

The letter went on to say that if Englewood did cut the tree roots, the property owners would have to sign a letter to assume all future liability in case the tree became unstable in a storm and fell on a house in the neighborhood, due to the City's sloppy choice of actions!

The situation came to a head when the City decided to do whatever it wanted to the tree, the home owners' rights, and the sidewalk, without notifying the private owners at all. Home downers believed they had some rights to know whose property it really was, or who would pay for what, or whether the owners would lose the tree. The owners took the City to Court and won an injunction. They easily proved the City was about to perform some urgent irreparable harm to the tree and the threat of the tree falling on a home as well.

I wonder why they didn't take this further and suggest irreparable harm was about to occur to their right to redress government or their own safety and welfare?

The Judge required the City to hire an arborist and perform due diligence. Because of this situation, I have looked into the Colorado Statutes on Special Districts which do require cooperation with all the parties when there is an easement or right of way privilege onto any given property.

The City's constitutional duty is to protect the health, safety and welfare of a neighborhood, as regarding the slope of the street and the health of the tree. Additionally, Englewood was not allowed to recklessly abandon public property to a private residence and then take it back like Indian Givers when it suited them.

The law of right-of-ways is that government may well own the real property, (usually frontage or alley ways) while private residents may own right of way access to their site from both the front street and the back alley. Additionally, utility companies own a right to access their telephone poles or city ditches on any property, whether owned by government or private owners.

Englewood had abandoned their frontage rights to own the real property in front of these residents' site plan in order to sell shares into the concrete district. And these owners had continued to pay. Thus, the City had an absolute duty to repair the concrete...three years ago.

The City perpetrated fraud against its own people in order to gain a financial advantage over residents, like these, to make them pay for the same duty Englewood always held to maintain its own neighborhood sidewalks. Taxes were already there for new concrete. But, after paying for years, the government refused to perform its duty to cooperate with the home owners and do the job properly. The district judge stopped short of telling the City how to do its job

Do you have a "Notice" stating that Englewood will do something on "your property?" You should find out what your site survey actually says from your Title Company, or hire a survey company to mark the edges. The wording on Englewood's Notice may well be deceptive. If the weeds belong to the City, then, the City owns the duty to trim and care for them. What would happen if residents began noticing the City with 14-day warnings to pull weeds, or repair sidewalks? That's so backwards.

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://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."

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Has anyone noticed housing and property tax assessments continuous rise? Yet, Englewood School attendance is low, so low an entire school in Englewood closed down a couple of years ago. The only legal way to raise property taxes is by public vote or in proper relation to the school enrollment.

Yet, City Manager Gary Sears continued to budget and spend as if the ceiling was merely foggy. Absolutes do not pertain to him, because he is absolutely above the law.

The official spokesperson for Englewood government, Tom Munds, reported in the Wednesday edition of the Englewood Herald, front page: the "gloomy picture" Manager Gary Sears has finally owned up to. The problem is, Sears is not cutting the budget in his own salary or benefits, or those of his top cronies.

Instead, the Englewood Herald cites that Sears proposed "transferring about $600,000 from other city funds, and reallocating the Long Term Asset Reserves to the City's general fund!" Is anyone screaming about this theft?

Not Mayor Woodward. Not a peep from that fearless leader is heard. The only place Woodward responds is in the additional targeting of many various City services such as street repair, Parks and Recreation, the Summer Concert Series, and the Art Shuttle. Then, Woodward is reportedly moved. "I don't think eliminating the Art Shuttle is a wise place to cut spending because a lot of residents depend on it."

Nevertheless, Mayor does not ask that employees take several more furlough days, nor does he suggest that the heads of department salaries are actually cut rather than merely frozen.

Tom Munds again reported in the same edition of the Englewood Herald that a Code Enforcement Advisory Committee special meeting is scheduled on the ordinance governing the parking of trailers and recreational vehicles in one's own driveway.

Back up. Munds writes, "The turnout was sparked by a flier indicating the council was about to take action to pass more restrictive rules. However, about half the people left the July 19 meeting when Mayor Jim Woodward said no council action was anticipated on the issue."

Yet, special meetings have been scheduled to quickly address the issue. Munds admits the advisory recommendation could be to leave the rules unchanged, but that the City's Code Enforcement Officers have been told not to enforce the current rules. Apparently, the City's newest ordinances do already encroach onto private driveways, and the residents who packed out City Hall on July 19th should not have been so easily dissuaded by Mayor's downplay of the situation.

Considering the discrepancy in Mayor's wages to City Manager's wages, Woodward certainly has been accommodating. The problem is, Mayor is not the only person being taken advantage of. His job is to protect the people's resources and welfare, oversee that government administrates Parks and Recreation and street maintenance to the fullest extent, and insure Englewood's future Assets are not raped.

This is a public emergency, and it did not happen over night. District Four Representative Gillit has been harping on the fact, continuously shut down by the rest of council, as was the infamous Laurett Barrantine's (District 3) vocal tirades on the matter. But no "Emergency Meeting" has been called over the City's finances.

Public Criminal number one is hiding in plain sight. What's a Mayor to do? Especially since, he has been complicit all these years in creating the fiscal emergency.

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

The latest full house at City Council meeting turned up when Council member, Linda Olsen, complained about seeing recreational vehicles, trailers and caravans on the streets and in driveways of her neighborhood. She requested that her friends on council implement laws to address the problem. Arapahoe Acres is an upscale Englewood neighborhood where each address has a unique piece of art in the front yard.

Political opponent, Matthew Crabtree, and some Concerned Englewood Citizens stirred the pot. He says, "For clarification, this was this was NOT a discussion about parking on the street - this is a debate on how you can use your own driveway." The house was packed when people turned up to represent themselves. That would be their right to freely and openly express a pursuit of fun in life. Mayor Woodward refused to let so many people speak, and Olsen herself apologized, --not for her attitude,-- but for so many people feeling compelled to come out and represent on “such a non-issue.” Then, the tempers flared. To an outsider, it seemed a bit like July 4th celebrations.

Afterwards, Crabtree, approached Olsen to encourage her once again to make these kinds of decisions public so that there is a fair fight and the people are heard. But Olsen leaned in to quietly lecture Crabtree, “Do you realize that I now fear for my life?” She hissed. “I need a police escort just to get out to my car after this meeting!”

A criminal case is being served this week against the City Council by Douglas Cohn against the Mayor of Englewood, Jim Woodward, and the City Manager, Gary Sears for various violations of the Tabor Act, the most recent being the green solar panels. A more efficient manner of erecting green building standards in Colorado would be to enact a building code utilizing solar attic fans and 2”x 6” exterior framing, costing taxpayers nothing. Or, erecting windmills in open areas to generate energy.

Last year, a couple running a boarding house for seminary students and missionaries, the Bartnicks, filed for a special recall election on several of City Council, then decided instead to put their efforts towards a lawsuit against certain Council members and staff for acting outside their scope of legal authority and for illegal lawmaking, including retrospective laws, a bill of attainder and the City’s triple religious discriminatory prosecutions. An unwarranted search and seizure escalated by Englewood’s top judge, Mr. Atencio, was included by the District Judge, and the City is compelled to Answer charges this month.

Another case was filed by an Englewood Developer on Ogden Street for the City’s intermeddling in a land deal, which ended up costing the developer months and money, which the City paid back in restitution to the tune of approximately $60,000.

Again, in the case where an Englewood industrial developer over shot his lot survey, and developed on a neighboring property, all approved by Englewood’s Building Department, the City is again defending its reckless disregard for your money at work.

This is the same government that asked for their two terms to be enlarged to three, and won the vote in November, 2009. This is the City Manager whose salary is $165,000, with added travel and vacation packages, and who just slashed your benefits across the board from street maintenance, snow removal and paving, to parks and staffing.

Bloomberg reported this week: “Hundreds of residents of one of the poorest municipalities in Los Angeles County shouted in protest last night as tensions rose over a report that the city’s manager earns an annual salary of almost $800,000.

“An overflow crowd packed a City Council meeting in Bell, a mostly Hispanic city of 38,000 about 10 miles (16 kilometers) southeast of Los Angeles, to call for the resignation of Mayor Oscar Hernandez and other city officials. Residents left standing outside the chamber banged on the doors and shouted “fuera,” or “get out” in Spanish.”

“The Los Angeles Times reported July 15 that Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns $787,637 -- with annual 12 percent raises -- and that Bell pays its police chief $457,000, more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck makes in a city of 3.8 million people. Bell council members earn almost $100,000 for part-time work.”

Yes, when citizens turn up and turn out their government, is when they see the shenanigans going on and figure out how the system works to correct the funny business.

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

What Englewood does right certainly deserves Kudos. In this case, it may be the one man band, Jon Cook, who not only owns much retail space on Broadway, but who also serves up his own marketing schemes, and is doing it right.

THE GRAND OPENING of B.I.T.E.S., on S. Broadway and Amhurst will be a sell out on August 6, 2010, if you're one for samies, soups and brekkies. It is located where the popular Auld Dubliner Pub and the one time breakfast spot, Marmalade sat.

Jim and Dave, co-owners, say that BITES is a spin-off of the Blueberry Cafe. All I know is you can get a hell of a good turkey bacon croissant there, and the crab lobster bisque tastes fresh.

The place is well lit and colorful. A roomy, well-healed coffee bar features at the front end. Made fresh daily pastries for the lean at heart entice your digestive juices in the air-conditioned entryway.

In fact, I'd heartily recommend that City Council members eat their fill not only of the pastries, but also of the small business ideas opening up all around them. They, who continue to state they do not have a plan for their main retail district, Englewood's mainstreet, Broadway, should take inventory of the many places bringing paychecks to them.

While City Manager, Gary Sears, has finally recognized his mismanagement of the City budget, cutting jobs, supplies and benefits across the board, entrepreneurs such as the Englewood ma and pa eateries are opening and flourishing in this economy.

Business managers as well as home bodies alike love a good bite out, and Englewood's restaurants are heads above surrounding suburbs.

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

It takes green to make green. That is the theme of the latest Englewood's heated discussion and vote; Five to two, in favor of a flimsy lie. District 4 Gillit and District 1, Jefferson opposed. Englewood, however, was rushed. Englewood citizens are now indebted to pay Ameresco, a green solar company, for the next 20 years on a lease of solar equipment and a $1.00 purchase at the end of it (outdated and worthless by that time).

Does Englewood get the benefit of the energy credits from Xcel? No. Ameresco as the provider and installer does.

It was "sold" to the City by the promise of 1.3 million in qualified Energy Performance Bonds (QECB-) from the Government Energy Office (GEO) to benefit the City's lease-purchase through savings of $400,000 over the life of the term. Ameresco provides their own annual measurements and verifications of energy savings. Sound anything like BP's arrangement with Halliburton and the U.S. Government to audit themselves?

Local chemist, Robert Cassidy believes so. He suggested, "Put a meter on the inverter. Numbers do not lie. No Ameresco measurement work is required for the sale of the equipment."

The deal is that Ameresco owns the panels until they are completely depreciated, but have been paid for many times over by the "lease" of them through Englewood taxpayers. Ameresco is only responsible for the panels by warranty, not for the bridge device. The average life of the bridge device is five to ten years, but Englewood will purchase that part in the deal, and can simply reinvest in a new one when it begins to fail.

Ameresco designs, builds, operates, maintains the system and will sell the output to the City of Englewood under the Power Purchase Agreement (PPA).

Call it what you will, it sure seems like this is the kind of shady deal, green or no green, that TABOR intended to protect the citizens from under Colorado Constitution, Art 10, section 20(4)(b).

On Monday night, June 21, 2010, Mayor Woodward, broke form outside his normal glibness, and became stealthily defensive when he claimed that nobody in Englewood cares enough about the budget to show up when there is the annual budget hearing. He then chastises the the individual who brought her concerns to council and calls her ignorant or an outright liar, twice. She is so offended she leaves the Council Chambers. Gee Whiz, Mayor Woodward! No wonder people don't care to express an opinion. District Representative Gillit said as much.

In the audience, a member of the Concerned Citizens group retorted, "You should publish it in the Englewood Citizen so that every household would automatically know about it and not have to pay for a notice."

Concerning the Breckenridge vacation that City Council is going on, City Attorney Brotzman bragged that he was going early to play golf. This was the first anyone had heard that several staff members were also asked and trips underwritten to attend the League of Cities vacation, not within the City's 2010 budget.

With the City Attorney being treated like the City's playboy, no wonder he missed reading the City Charter regarding the green expenditures and multi-year lease.

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

During June 7,2010 City Council meeting, the Denver Christian School requested a business variance to open a second hand store on Broadway. The history underlying this request is that the latest version of the Englewood code prohibited various kinds of businesses, including thrift. But in this economy, beggars can't exactly be choosers.

Senior Planner, Langon, suggested changes in the code to enable the School to open their store front. The only question there is whether the code should lighten up across the board, or whether the school will receive preferential treatment.

The School also requested a change to the square footage. Again, Council debated the advantages against the disadvantages, and several district representatives admitted that they had no vision for what was to happen along South Broadway, and did not talk with the business owners, but only amongst themselves. Olsen stated she was concerned that there was no real downtown plan, and also concerned about allowing a subcategory for nonprofits. McCaslin recognizing the limits of government in a unprecedented moment, suggested that it was more appropriate to allow the businesses themselves to determine such things, and that it was better for Council to let out the rope.(See Council Bill 11, See Item 11.b.1 discussion.)

Mayor Woodward, however, suggested that Council purchase a new set of aerial photographs for $5,000, at "a real bargain" and that further he personally used the photos for code enforcement issues against business and residential properties comparing the last photographs were taken. (Item 11-a.1. Council Bill 13).

"With a $39,953 loss anticipated this year,and a 2.5 million dollar deficit in the City, I am very disturbed about our cavalier Council," reported Rick Gillit after the most recent financial presentation at Monday's City Council meeting.

The votes are down the line, six to one, six to one, six to one, but District 4 Representative, Rick Gillit is sticking to his Mantra: "Stop Approving New Spending."

Mayor Jim Woodward's response seemed insipidly lacking in perspective when he said, "Well you know, back in 2007, we were really concerned, but we had a super situation and we came out on top." In 2007, Englewood was still rechanneling sales taxes from Cherry Hills and Greenwood Village. Englewood can no longer do that, so it must either amend it's spending or enact a higher tax on the people in order to make ends meet.

"I am very disturbed at this ongoing trend. It terrifies me that this Council just doesn't care." Said Gillit. Thankfully, Commissioners on the Board of Adjustments and Appeals stood up and took notice themselves in this week's Board meeting directives to the Englewood City Attorney, Nancy Reid.

In the BOAA meeting, two private land owners approached the Board because the present Englewood Code was inappropriate for their properties. Research performed by Commissioner, Douglas Cohn,was presented, showed that,

1. Englewood had originally drafted its zoning codes after Denver's zoning codes in the 1903 (Mayor Jacob Jones, and afterwards, with Mayor Daniel Sutton). These codes established the typical lot sizes as 25 feet and 37.5 feet wide.

2. Mayor Woodward had changed the entire zoning code (E.M.C)in 2004 off of a generated template from the Municipal League of Cities. This code replaced the old lot measurements with a minimum of 40 feet wide.

a. the template was geared towards new emerging cities, not
existing, and did not apply to Englewood's historic issues.

b. the new Englewood Municipal Code did not grandfather the
residents' pre-existing properties or conforming uses.
Therefore, all lot sizes under 40 feet wide are automatically
non-conforming in use.

c. The enacting of the new Code in it's entirety rather than
in smaller topical sections that had time to be reviewed and
researched in detail, violated Constitutional restrictions for
enactments.

d. Owners and developers are encountering logistical conflicts
in these last few years, throwing the City into numerous
lawsuits due to lack of foresight.

e. Owners cannot sell existing residences as a "conforming use"
and are forced to sell them as "non-conforming" uses at a loss
of value because they are under 40 ft wide.

Chairman John Smith III,'s ire was raised, as a multiple property owner and landlord in Englewood. He spearheaded the ensuing discussion and both of the residents approaching the Board for variances this week obtained their objectives. Chairman Smith and the Board of Adjustments and Appeals instructed City Attorney Reid to direct Englewood Mayor Woodward to revisit and amend the zoning code accordingly. The code is the Mayor's own yard work.

Link: http://www.eyeonenglewood.com

It don't look good, folks. Frank Gryglewicz,Director of Finance, issued this week a Summary of the Updated General Fund Financial Report to City Council, Englewood, Colorado. While April is generally the month that a huge influx of taxes show up in the City budget, this April 2010 shows "Expenditures exceeded revenues by $393,740."

Nevertheless, the financial report was listed as last on City Council's agenda on Monday, and in the end, they simply ran out of time to address it. While a lot of people have been screaming about the Englewood budget,--and being ignored by their Council Representatives,-- the real issue has become obvious. Fiscal Mismanagement. It's a simple lack of leadership in the making of financial policies for the kind of economy Englewood has faced for years.

While Englewood was gladly and deceptively collecting the sales taxes from the City of Centennial, the problem stayed so well hidden that Englewood seemed rich. But Centennial caught on to the sales tax drain, and throughout 2008, formed their own Home Rule City in order to fight back.

Englewood City Manager, Gary Sears, continues to spend wildly as if the funds will come from somewhere, but where's that, folks? And also Mayor Jim Woodward feels entitled, as he expressed in his Monday evening address: I've put out enough of my own money for travel, and I want the City to pay for my retreat. Of course, he wasn't obligated to go to any such retreat he has used your tax money for. He simply wanted to go. The upcoming Breckenridge retreat will cost constituents $900 per council member for one night's stay.

Twelve items of "less than last year" representing thousands of dollars each, were listed in Mr. Gryglewicz' Report. But there is no recommendation to cut back in any area of spending. The silence is deafening because it is not their money that is being spent, and Council members are bought and paid to keep their mouths shut so long as they get their retreats and their power showers.

In this week's Arapahoe County political meeting, Gene Turnbull, a member of the Englewood School Board raucously teased County politicians for the same kind of silence. He stood up and said, "I'm stealing from you, and you are not paying attention." Several people finally noticed his point. Who on City Council has the balls to stand up and say the same thing? Mr. Rick Gillit, from District 4, alone. He is the only one who continues to make a stink about the unreconciled spending practices of City Council and Gary Sears.

Gillit sent out an e-mail to District 4 saying, "Pay Very Close attention to the graph on top of Page #9) Our city had a nearly $450,000 deficit in income in April alone. If this trend continues we will be in deep trouble if we do nothing to change. With this in mind I was "SHOCKED", to say the least, that the Mayor - Jim Woodward, Council Member Bob McCaslin - (At Large), and Council Member Joe Jefferson (District #1) would ask for the city to pay nearly $1,000 each to attend a retreat in Breckenridge Colorado and attend the Colorado Municipal League annual meeting/retreat. Some of you may remember that there was outrage last year on the news about how residents felt that this was a waste of money during hard times. Looks like we don't learn much about what the residents feel!

He continued, "I guess what is most disturbing to me is that we may possibly have to cut some services, salaries, and possible employees if the financial situation does not get better and we are sending people to a retreat that is not required. This is so extremely bothersome to me! The city just spent almost $10,000 in March to send some council members and the City manager to Washington DC for the National League of Cities retreat. Again, a non required trip that has not brought any benefit to our residents and here we go again. Please someone help me understand how we can bleed our city dry during obvious hard times? When will my fellow Council Members say "NO"??? How bad do things have to get before they are pressured to stop spending??? These trips seem like a small amount but they could be the difference of whether or not we cut a position, or some other service."

Anyone in the City can contact Representative Gillit at: RGillit@EnglewoodGov.org or call(303) 246-4780. But because he only represents District 4, he is limited in his power to represent the entire City. That should be the Mayor's Job, and he simply doesn't care.