Eye On Englewood

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a green solar company, for the next 20 years on a lease of solar equipment and a $1.00 purchase at the end of it (outdated and worthless by that time).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://EyeOnEnglewood.com

Why should Englewood prohibit the City from prosecuting any definition of household?

Moral issues are taken care of in the criminal codes of the State and City. Being unrelated and sharing a house, is not in itself worthy of prosecution, but in Englewood, the violation of the City's definition of Household is prima facie evidence of a crime.

Rick Gillit, running for District 4 in the November election, says he believes the term, "'Single Family Residence' is purely a real estate term, and means there is one residence per address. It does not extend to the definition that Englewood currently attaches to 'single family residence' meaning that not more than one unrelated person can live under the same roof."

Since his wife was raised in a home that took in families of patients of Craig Hospital, Gillit may be sensitive to the humanitarian side that some boarding houses offer. But, Englewood has ungrandfathered all pre-existing residences that house more than 1 unrelated person under the same roof.

It is clear that Community Development and Planning and Zoning both have limitations as to implementing codes against existing or grandfathered codes, and are relegated in their duties to forecasting development, plan for the future, and not criminalize the pre-existing.

The Department of Regulatory Agencies (D.O.R.A.) agrees. Their jurisdiction is limited to agencies of the State, not residences. Yet, these departments are the ones prosecuting residents for their choice of who shares their home. Isn't this a privacy issue?

In Gillit's opinion, these departments should not interfere inside a home with whether people are closely related enough to share the residence.

Last July, Planning and Zoning Commission members were asked to amend the code so that City could prosecute a single family in the City Manager's neighborhood. Commission Chair Bleile opposed the tactic as devious. Two other Commission members sided with him, but they ended up the minority and the City Manager Sears achieved his end. The case is scheduled for Court, June 4 and 5, 2009.

In the past five years, the City's habit has been to threaten people reported as violating the definition of household with 7-day or 14-day Notices to Comply. But, when it comes down to the prosecution of such a household, the City staff find themselves asking strange questions of City Manager Sears and Attorneys Brotzman and Reid, "How do we figure the unrelated number 2 again?"

Notice, it is not an issue of knowing how to count 1,2,3,4, or asking the City's accountant. It is rather a question of personal relationships. Does the City have the right to determine your relationships?

Says a widowed father in law who wants to move in with his daughter, "Can they kick me outa' here just because my daughter happens to have a spouse with a son she has not officially adopted? I mean, add me into the mix...ya know? Maybe I shouldn't have sold my place."

Good question. In Alaska, the town actually began to prosecute a family such as this, except the ACLU stepped in. In 2008 Englewood's City Council members McCaslin and Penn promoted not only Englewood's narrow definition of household, but also got personally involved promoting the prosecution and intimidation of moral households who happen to share a home unrelated.

Englewood isn't so afraid of the ACLU, because it has your tax money to fight extended court battles totally in the millions of dollars. Their salaries get paid for looking busy, so why not?

But after all the litigation Englewood has engaged in during the past year, a severe budget cut is occurring of up to 15% to parks and salaries.

But, what if a child has had a name change to resemble that of her family's surname, yet, in fact she has not been adopted. What about x-spouses not quite out of the home? Any why should foster children have more legal rights than your own father-in-law and step child?

This election could stop the intrusion of government into private relationships by voting new blood like Broker Rick Gillit to City Council. Keep Council out of your homes.