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

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://www.englewoodcitizens.org

Why don't the newspapers or City Council tell us the truth? They are protecting something by "urging" citizens to vote no. But, I smell a skunk. Vote yes on Amendment 60. It protects you and your rights. It stays all Colorado governments from keeping extra property taxes collected above the present constitutional limits.

60 holds all Colorado governments, accountable via two means: mandatory audits and citizens' right to file lawsuits to enforce compliance.

60 would establish expiration dates on any new property tax increases. This automatically begins to lower your mortgage payment next year, and if you are a commercial business owner, your taxes are automatically lowered by a thousand dollars.

60 would require public facilities like golf courses and sewer plants to pay property taxes.

Proposition 60 takes the heat off of small businesses carrying the greatest liability for public debt. Secondly, it takes the penalty out of work by evening the score.

I see these little red and yellow warning signs in the yards saying 60 will kill jobs. This is laughable. No where in the blue book does any part of the analysis include killing any jobs.

After Amendment 60 in enacted, Public schools, K-12 will receive most of their funding through the State of Colorado, instead of their funds being swiped off to fund State colleges and universities. I believe it is basic education that is desperately in need of our funding. Not everyone goes to college. It is a privilege, not a basic right.

College presidents are hired to raise funds privately for their institutions and that is what they do for a living. Federal grants and loans are still available to students beyond that. Proposition 60 enables competition and free market for universities, not just a free hand out.

Proposition 60 goes hand in hand with 61 and 101. If enacted, the economic systems in Colorado will change, by putting the proper line items into the proper budgets where they are meant to go. Revenue streams will continue.

But it keeps politicians from dipping their hands into the pot for personal salaries, and padding the pockets of their personal passions. It will also overturn tax measures created in the last ten years. Don't believe the fear mongering that schools will lose out. Vote Yes! on Amendment 60.

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://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

After one of Matt Crabtree's political groups delivered fliers to owners of campers and recreation vehicles, Matthew Crabtree became the target of retaliation. Why? Because one interested citizen packed out a full house against Representative Linda Olsen's intent to disrobe her neighborhood of their vehicles.

Next thing Matt knew, the City Attorney, Dan Brotzman, investigated his political group to see whether it complied with the Colorado election statutes. He employed the City Clerk, Lou Ellis, to see whether Matt could be prosecuted for running an illegal campaign.

Clerk Ellis and Attorney Brotzman contacted Mr. Crabtree warning him that his political group was not in compliance with the Colorado regulations for backing a candidate, but that since he had registered it in good faith, they would not prosecute him this time.

The warning was clear. "Either back a candidate, or stick to one election topic. Since this wasn't the topic of your flier, your group doesn't qualify as a political action committee under Colorado statute definitions."

"What does that mean?" Crabtree asked. "You don't have the power to regulate me if I don't fall within the scope of your definitions?"

Brotzman snapped that he could not put the committee name on the bottom of his fliers any more, that he must put his own personal name on the flier.

Brotzman then patiently explained that in Englewood's ordinances, any corporation advertising in Englewood, must not only identify themselves as the corporation, but also add the corporate representative and his or her phone number on the flier.

Crabtree was incredulous. "You mean, you would prosecute Breakfast on Broadway for advertisements or Yard Sellers for posting a sale sign without a phone number?"

Nothing more than a chuckle echoed across the air space.

It is clear that where retaliation comes into play in Englewood, the enforcement of ordinances are selectively enforced.

Matthew found a ticket for alley weeds upon his return home from work that evening.

Don't speak up about your opinion on anything in Englewood, and they will not prosecute you for weeds, or building permits, or raising your political voice.

At study session on Monday evening, Linda Olson, District Representative II, asked, "how can City Council stop this kind of thing?"

At that point, District I Representative, Joe Jefferson replied, "Hold on there. You are in the public eye. You cannot stop it. People have the right to respond to our policies." Basically, Mr. Jefferson was upholding the Constitution's freedom of speech clause and the right of the people to redress government.

Nothing stinks more than that moment during an argument when you realize you're wrong.

Is it against the law to be a Town Crier in Englewood? Of course not. Hasn't the NAACP already settled that privacy and freedom of association protects the identity of the members in a group or club? Of course.

The power to regulate does not apply to absolute rights or guaranteed freedoms. Matt and his grass roots convoys may continue to roam freely through their city and campaign however they wish in response to the City's illegal encroachments.

Stink bugs catching the leftovers of the picnic, whether dressed up in black ties and shorty pants or not, are still just bugs to be flipped off.

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

If there’s something we’ve all learned over our political years it’s this. When you wish to sell something, like a fist full of pig’s knuckles, make sure you wrap it in a pretty package. This week the Nation looked at the hard law when Arizona ratified the federal immigration law. Some laws are more simple in that they don’t cause much controversy for politicians seeking to please. This one was bound to be unpopular in that it attempted to seek what was just. Did it miss the mark?

Compassion is important to religious and moral people alike, which is why catering to inclusiveness continues to be a tasty appetizer for marketing laws. The question distinguishes between legal aliens and illegal. But, is it cruel and unusual punishment to oust people from a home, a job and even their families when they are illegal aliens?

Military man, John Miller, says: “There are beautiful people who we all wish the best for, but if you drive without a valid driver's license, in Colorado even, you will be fined and potentially jailed. That's you, me, or anyone else, regardless of our nation of origin.”

A friend of mine, Jose Escobar, who is an immigration attorney working for the rights of the poor, has suggested the State of Arizona made an immoral law because it seeks to punish whole families for what was only “winked at” and was not punishable two weeks ago. It's a matter of grandfathering those who have already relied on the present system of law. Other currently transplanted Colorado residents also decried the Arizona law against their State of origin, saying how ashamed they were of their Arizona governor.

John Miller responded, “I'll just have to say that I've traveled the world and I know what to expect when I'm a guest in someone else’s country. I don't expect or demand the rights of citizenship. And I darn sure will not be given them. I'm not aware of a country that would be as lenient as the US is in this regard. Hard working immigrants take years to acquire the rights of citizenship, their efforts should not be diluted by those jumping the queue. Some things are legal and some are illegal.”

It is immoral when the laws of America frighten people, yet, Miller’s eyebrow raises as he states the obvious, “Are they so scared they're rioting out in the Open? Once you decide you don't have to be law abiding, it's easy to be uncivil.”

I have to agree that’s it’s rather uncivil to demand the world embrace you whether you are right or wrong and at everyone else’s expense. So, the question is put, once again: When policy makers make laws, do they target individual people or do they target justice? And within those boundaries, people show compassion as good members of society over and above the law.

In home rule Englewood, the City Council, as of May 20, 2010,is still debating inclusiveness as a marketing gimmick. Along with the inclusiveness technique, pretty Linda Olson used a non-inclusive technique, well-prepared before the meeting, to try to intimidate fellow council member, Rick Gillit last Monday evening, in order to address volunteerism and enacting a law that would coerce residents in Englewood to volunteer for areas the City chooses to target.

The problem is that Gillit had a family member in Nazi Germany's Dachau, who was murdered there. Over the entrance to the concentration camp, a sign was posted, "Work Makes You Free". This motto was a complete lie, and anyone who relied on it died in unreality.

Just as slaves and prisoners are not volunteers, hiring more City staff to oversee new "volunteer" agencies is not free to taxpayers. Deception is underfoot.

It takes a wise person to see that laws must exist only when necessary, and only for the good of the whole, and that too many laws encroach upon your rights or mine discriminantly.

The place of compassion and volunteerism is not settled under pressure. Nor is it to be funded by government. Government is precluded legally from funding non-profit charities. The City's place is to see to roadways, parks, emergencies, water, utilities and caring for necessary staff. (See the scope of authority given by City Charter) This compares to the scope of power given to home rule cities from Colorado Revised Statutes and the state Constitution. Forming new, paid positions, for charitable aims is simply extraneous.

Ms. Olson's prepared tact of using President Bush's inauguration speech was a pretty package of intimidation and nothing else. Someone with her credentials should know better.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

"Cities of Service" is coming to a City near you. In fact, the invitation descended upon Englewood by way of the City Council packets this week.

After thousands of tax dollars sent City Council members to the National League of Cities last month, the League of Cities sent Mayor Woodward an invitation. Mayor Woodward approved of it and invited City Council to join him.

So, how does the Cities of Service describe itself? By a national invitation for all Mayors to manipulate their citizenry into the Single Collective. The call from Cities of Service is to employ all residents to volunteer for projects identified by the City itself "in dire need of aid."

Like the Borg, they travel through diverse civilizations and societies, assimilating their citizens into their own single collective mind. They insert microscopic nan-probes into your blood stream that travel around infecting your DNA, slowly transforming you into one of them. They are ugly.

"The worst thing about The Borg is that there is no individuality at all. Every unit is connected to the whole, and there is no capacity for individual thought or expression. This is feared most in a postmodern universe. Their infamous greeting of any species they happen to cross paths with is, 'We are Borg...you will be assimilated...resistance is futile,'" writes critic, Paul Vieira.

Is the Borg just a science fiction depiction of Nazi-ism and Cities of Service-ism? I've heard that Hitler was a winning politician who indeed charmed German youths with soundbites of cultural feel-good ideas that seemed harmless until he found you opposed them. Don't modern politicians get it? This post-modern era fears assimilation into any form of authoritarianism. We are skeptical even of forced charity work.

With the dawn of "Cities of Service", comes the defeat of your own personal choice to express your own religious style of human aid, political aid or your indifference to aid. It demands you be assimilated or face "high pressure sales" manipulations, or peer pressure humiliations for non-conformance to the City's agenda.

People only have so much time to donate to their volunteer activities, and they like to chose wisely. But, "We are Borg" has arrived in Englewood. What's a trekie to do?

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

On Monday evening, the topic of discussion came round to the City’s pet peeve of the gas operated golf carts at Broken T Golf Course. The carts are not using green energy. But to turn the relatively new carts into brand new green machines, Gary Sears set forth a proposal for Council to consider. The City would be asked to fund the construction of a $200,000 storage facility, and all new electric carts, where the golf carts could be plugged in and recharged every night.

It was estimated on Monday that for every round of golf, a gas operated cart is costing the city twenty cents in fuel. Nobody asked whether upgrading the budget to include the new construction and purchase of "green" carts was really the City's highest priority in this economy.

For a bit of recent history: the City reduced a large chunk of land kept as a long-term investment asset, to the sale and development of the golf course, Broken T, which now serves the interests of the few. Namely: Denver's Singles Golf and Englewood’s City Manager, Gary Sears, who is listed not only as Englewood's Mayor, but also as employed by Broken T in the White Pages, and those who broker deals with him over the green. It seems to me these few interested persons could fit the bill for the twenty cents of fuel costs by raising fees.

Or, perhaps they could hold a fundraiser to raise a new electricity-charged storage facility.

Batteries routinely die, and electricity is the most expensive form of energy Englewood could buy. In eight years, the electric carts at Broken T Golf Course will have to be recycled and replaced, whereas the fuel operated carts have engines that will continue to run.

If Englewood has $200,000 to burn in the budget, then perhaps it should invest in equipment to make its meetings and study sessions more open and accessible to the public. Perhaps it could build bathrooms in the parks that do not have toilet facilities, as one resident asked for last year. But I can see why the City Manager's whims might be considered more important than a common resident's more urgent park request, don't you?

While we are on the subject of priorities, I'll add this. If anyone does hope to address their city on any well-researched topic, they may as well put it into outline form.

Council just changed the rules for wasting their time with your puny requests. You now have three minutes to state your name, address and explain your cause. Forget your research. Otherwise, a newly purchased traffic light will go off and humiliate you publicly. Police bouncers are still available to this Council if you exercise your right to freedom of speech over the traffic light flashing.