Eye On Englewood

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

Over the years, Community Development has received a budget of $2,000,000.00 per year. The exact “USES of FUNDS” according to the 2009 budget for the Community Development Department is $1,639,615, that would be $32,792,300 for a twenty year period IF that was the budgeted amount for every year which it probably is not, factoring in inflation, etc..

If this figure has been consistent, they will received at least $40,000,000.00 over the course of the next 20 years. With that money they have developed a fine two story brick strip mall called Trolley Square, which was not thought through sufficiently, -- therefore could not be leased, -- and which within five years time, was demolished.

Community Development also oversaw the demolishing of much of Historic Broadway, the old City Civic Center and Cinderella City.

They received grant money to clean up the brownfill on the backside of Elati and made a deal with RTD for the development of a walk on station. But, Community Development tried to cut out the existing residents' mountain views by inviting loft high rises into the area.

Robinson brick now uses the contaminated land for storing bundles of brick. When asked about the development of this property this year, City Councilman, Jefferson stated that Community Development deemed it too expensive to develop. It might be a bike park, or a retail mall or a hotel for light rail accommodations, but for some reason, the City has become disenchanted with their previous agreements.

They paid professionals for studies on the redevelopment of the RTD Light Rail cleaning and maintenance facility, brought in the station for light rail to Englewood at Hampden, and designed the new transit oriented City Center. This City Center was the recent subject of a video published on the Englewood Citizens For Open Government website. The results of the video show how several deadly marketing choices were made so as to prevent the open offices at the base of the light rail station to receive no access, and thus remain unleased office space.

The study also resulted in the claim that most retailers will not inhabit a retail mall area so small, and that a broader nucleus of retail stores would likely need to be offered to bring in willing businesses who viewed the traffic in the area as viable for money making.

Despite these critiques, Community Development is currently trying on new shoes East of Broadway, at the Swedish Medical PUD site, where they hope to offer a Whole Foods Store in the old Bali’s Gym structure. This idea would likely be a hit for health conscious citizens, and accessible to much of the outside public driving through Englewood on Highway 285.

Nevertheless, Community Development has the Kent Place at University and Hampden to worry about. When they initially cut the deal with the buyers to develop the highly visible property, the City accepted a deal where they would not take the tax monies from the property owners for up to 30 years.

Because Kent Place has changed hands a couple more times, concerned citizens would like to know whether they must continue to face the 30 year deprivation of tax revenues at the hands of the new investor/developers, or if that aspect of the deal was not an asset passed through from developer to developer.

In any case, Kent Place lies dormant, while the relocated Denver Seminary which vacated the premises has flourished in their new Aspen Grove property for three years onwards. Give it another four years, and the property’s renewed soil nutrients should sustain a farm pretty well.

Meanwhile, there is the McClellan Reservoir Foundation whose board of directors are the Community Development and Finance gurus of the City of Englewood. The City recently spent approximately $45,000.00 for a weekend in Las Vegas, marketing this property to the World. Maybe Las Vegas looks like modern Dubai? For that price, it might as well have been a trip half way around the world.

Why would Englewood market this piece of property at such an expense, when it is situated inside of another town, the town which would profit from the taxes of the Reservoir’s development? Why would Englewood agree to pay for the moving around of the dirt on this property, when the City doesn’t stand to gain tax revenues back? If Englewood were a large corporation, it certainly would have enough losses to qualify for great tax shelters each year.

We turn now to Historic Downtown. Why do Broadway’s sidewalks have weeds growing through the cracks? Why are they dirty and unkempt? Why do so many storefronts remain vacant?

The empty lot next to Bonnie Brae Hobbies could be transformed into a delightful, accessible Farmer’s Market in Summer or an Ice Skating Rink in Winter. Why not? It seems the City of Englewood would rather not claim the historical parts, but treats them as the unwanted step-child. Historic Englewood could prove to be a real Cinderella itself, if Community Development chose to throw a little dress on her shoulders.

Could it be that no amount of marketing Englewood’s prime retail space can spin itself as a good deal while Community Development hassles new business owners on Broadway about signage, paint choices, bed bugs, murals, signage, outdoor seating, taxes, and signage? What safety issues are Community Development trying to curb by micro-managing the small business dealers?

Meanwhile important issues such as the parking crises, empty storefronts, brick walls facing the public’s access to City Center, and lack of passageways, bridges, sidewalks to these areas are simply ignored.

For $40,000,000.00 budgeted over the next 20 years, I’d demand a little more attention to detail for my money. That kind of budget could at least clean up the issues that remain before embarking on more speculative deals.

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

The topic of Council's April 13, 2009 study session regarding office expenditures and discretionary funds actually began right after the close of last election, when council woman Laurett Barrentine lost the popular vote to coach Randy Penn.

Because Ms. Barrentine had been the voice of accountability and fiscal conservation on Council, albeit bull doggedly, it was not enough to simply hush her voice this term.

No. Not nearly enough. In retaliation for daring to request a line item budget report for Council's review, the City Manager arranged a little parting gift to Ms. Barrentine.

She was billed, then publicly threatened by council's vote to prosecute her in a collection action over $57.00. This bill was in dispute as to whether it qualified as part of her allotted $150.00 discretionary funds. It was the City's opinion that she had billed them and been reimbursed for something not covered by discretionary funds.

She argued that the bill she submitted for reimbursement was indeed included within her line of duty. It was related to her computer access used to perform Council duties.

Council members decided to agree with City Manager Sears that the $57.00 was outside the text of the policy. The text of the policy reads, "Or materials directly related to the responsibilities..."

According to District 1 Council Representative, Joe Jefferson, stated he believes the meaning is wide open within the judgment of the elected official.

Where previously John Moore voted to prosecute a collections action against Ms. Barrentine, he flipped at the Council meeting of April 13, 2009, stating that he agreed that standardized computer access was a requirement of members of Council and within a member's discretion.

Ms. Barrentine knew at the time of the City's collection action against her that it was retaliatory in nature, but she paid the City's claim because $57.00 wasn't worth the cost or trouble of hiring a defense.

I find myself aghast at the City's public humiliation tactic to pursue a questionable $57.00 from a civil servant, while the same officials privately approved another hefty raise to the City Manager's salary, weighing him in at $160,000.00.

In a City where people are questionably surviving lost jobs and failure to achieve merit raises equal to inflation, it's not likely Council or Manager can successfully argue the proper allocation of residents' tax money being their true aim. Me tinks they just wanted a play date with darts at the bar and Ms. Barrantine as the target.

In the final minutes of the discussion, Jefferson requested that he use his discretionary funds for informal district meetings with residents, specifically for invitations. When Wilson asked what he meant by "informal" he explained: no notice would be required, no more than 3 council persons would be in attendance, no decisions could be made.

Its purpose would be more of a communication opportunity with the residents in his district. Jefferson has been talking about implementing this since being voted onto council, better late than never.

Wilson stated that everyone should be invited to a District 1 meeting. Disregarding the rule prohibiting a quorum [C.R.S. 24-6-402(2)(c)]of council at any informal meeting, she stated that she has a hard time understanding excluding people. She favored public notice and an invitation to all people. She specifically stated that she lives in District 1, and would like to participate.

Jefferson reminded them about Open Meetings laws, and that his purpose would not be to exclude anyone, but to allow his constituents to speak freely, without fear. His goal is to provide a casual avenue for communication.

Woodward, Oakley and Moore questioned whether the meetings could be construed as a campaign booster so near elections. But Jefferson's district seat is not one of those available this November.

Moore stated he did not believe district meetings were necessary, and therefore funds for invitations should not come from office supply funds. He further stated that the entire council would have to vote to approve the funds for the single district meetings if it came out of discretionary spending. He admitted the concept was a new one to him.

In the last seconds of Monday's meeting, Moore completely turned about face, actually daring anyone to "take me to court." Some of the last comments in the discussion were John Moore's when he arrogantly stated: "If I believe in my personal discretion that I needs to host a district meeting with only half of my district, I have that right."

Not so fast, Mr. Moore. Your attitude toward your district is opposite that expressed by Mr. Jefferson. While you know you are protected by governmental immunity and your solid dare, who is going to recuse you or prosecute your over suspicious use of your annual $600.00 discretionary budget?

We know you are well aware of this fact. It is precisely because the people are helpless that you can get away with such patronage of your district.

At the end of the day, Council members generally decided that contributions to charities or other council member's needs will not come out of individuals' discretionary funds due to possible abuses of unilateral entitlement of voters' money. They decided that whatever is surplus at the end of the fiscal year is returned to the general fund.

Finally, they decided that members only carried the right to advise Joe on his expenditure, but not the power to interfere or limit his choice on how to spend discretionary funds in relation to his duties.

It looks like District 1 will get its private play date. Sorry, District 2, you will have to take Mr. Moore up on his challenge in order to bend your District Representative's ear.

The full discussion can be heard on www.EnglewoodCitizens.Org.
IV. Council Discretionary/Office Supplies Policy