Eye On Englewood

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.englewoodcitizen.com

It used to be that a "profession" such as doctoring, lawyering, running a football, priestly duties and public servants were paid very little. This was true, even though the skilled individuals acting in these fields were considered "experts". They received honor as part of their pay because they were viewed as public servants. To compensate for this feeble pay, they were supported by the good will of the people, commercial interests, patrons, tips, and insurance.

I attended the Colorado Symphony recently and was reminded that Beethovan and Tchaikovsky had patrons to support them. Tchaikovsky had his 13-year association with the wealthy widow Nadezhda von Meck. And,he was honored by the Tsar, awarded a lifetime pension and lauded in the concert halls of the world. Beethovan's first patron was his own piano teacher, Count Waldstein.

In the western world, the pursuit of "entitlement" is sometimes a full time career. Being a lifetime professional has re-defined the meaning of entitlement. It now means someone is intellectually trained beyond the common amateur, and one who is generally comfortable financially. Albeit, because of the personal and confidential nature of many professional services, and often the necessity to place a great deal of trust in them, most professionals are held to ethical and moral standards called rules, regulations or oaths.

City Managers belong to an ethics association. Attorneys are held to an Attorney Code of Ethics, Judges to a Judicial Code, Plumbers to a Plumbers Code, and an Olympian, to an Olympic Code of Ethics. Nevertheless, when "experts" holding your life in their hands fail to do their jobs, and are sued, they are the first to demure that they were merely "practicing" law, or "practicing" medicine or "practicing" management of your civil welfare.

But, home rule managers are not in the same class as regular business managers. Can you guess why? City managers do not create the money they earn. They spend people's taxes. The Citizens very literally are their patrons. Members of City staff also do not make money for their employers, ie: "We, the people" but instead spend it, lots of it. They enjoy your money much like royalty.

Quite unlike a business owner who creates substantial income as a product of their ingenuity and work ethic, the news article in Your Hub shows how a City Manager gets to name his budget without showing a work product, gets a budget approved, and then plays all year long on it. Several residents showed up to the Englewood Budget Hearing to protest this very real situation. Ida Mae Nicholls particularly protested having to pay for an Assistant City Manager as well as a regular City Manager, putting Englewoods' budget a hundred thousand dollars above neighboring cities.

Mama always told me to watch out for those shysters who want an up-front deposit before doing the job. She reasoned, "What holds them to any standard if they have already been paid? What is the incentive?"

Meanwhile business owners who are already sweating away to maintain a viable service or product for their customers, are forced to keep receipts, collect taxes, figure percentages and pay the special government districts for the right to provide jobs and make money. Taxes, fees, fines and regulations assessed against business owners grow in larger and larger sums. This money is not being carried into the public river. Instead, city managers are getting paid more and more, while still enjoying greater benefits. Cushy job, that!

What is this topsy-turvy honor system? Business owners are the ones who creatively provide for the public desires. They are the ones who should be honored, not taxed for their services or treated like slaves to the so called professionals.

Business owners in Englewood should start attending the City Council's meetings and speaking their minds on the value of their work, compared to the value of the City managers. Business owners should demand their vote on anything that concerns their ability to function in the City or to earn money.

And all the citizens should consider the real comparisons of real managers and those who only call themselves managers by professional advantage.

Link: http://www.EyeOnEnglewood.com

On February 22, 1010, Dianna Wray Tomasso was asked to speak during the City Council Study Session. Tomasso is a gifted, educated woman who provided her resume to the City of Englewood as her "two cents" in obtaining a National Historic Designation for Englewood's Broadway Post Office. Hear her presentation on ECOG website.

You don't have to listen very long to realize the Mayor and Tomasso had privately shared a letter from the Post Office and discussed the price the Post Office had suggested to pursue a place on the National Register of Historic Places. Deeming it to be substantially unfounded, Tomasso was asked to present her own bid for the project, which she did on February 22.

Whose property is the post office? Does it belong to the City of Englewood, the State of Colorado or to the Private Postal Service? It seems it is the duty of the owner to decide whether they wish for their property to obtain a place on the registry because although there are grants to be had, there are also extremely costly limitations and restrictions to building renovations that the owner may not wish to be subjected to.

It could be a wrestling match. The fact that the Mayor and Tomasso have included Representative Dianna Degette into the mix, suspiciously sets the post office up for a unfair fight by weighing in the interests of the entire State of Colorado to take away its own choice.

In any government building undertaking, a bidding process must be undertaken. Englewood skipped this bidding process entirely. It has it's own historic register of places on which the Skerrit House is listed, and another home at 2734 S. Acoma in Englewood. Neither of these homes cost $5,000 to simply apply for and obtain a historic status. But, a few years ago, Councilman Ray Tomasso disbanded the historical society in Englewood.

Another question one might have is why this $5,000 in payment was granted to Dianna Wray Tomasso in a private study session on February 22, 2010? Aren't policies and unbudgeted changes to the City's finances supposed to be published for a public hearing or sent to the vote of the people? Nevertheless, when Councilman Rick Gillit, confronted the rest of council with what they were about to vote on, City Manager, Gary Sear stated that he had the authority to do it on his own and the fact that he was allowing Council in on the action was simply a courtesy.

Apparently Council did not understand Sear's slight of them and his own undertaking of full power. They all voted affirmatively, minus Gillit's vote.

After all, Tomasso's offer was only available for the evening. The woman had to know immediately or would refuse to weigh in with all her experience and price tag to boot.

Once, again, City Council voted to spend the taxpayers' money without letting them know anything about the issue or the change in budget policy, once again ignoring the Colorado open meetings laws, obviating the bid policy and succumbing once again to Gary Sear's personal power mongering. After all, it was only a matter of $2500, or was it $2800, or Hmmmm. Maybe the City will be stuck with the full $5000 pay check to Tomasso if it fails to raise half from private investors. It's really not Council's money that Council is disseminating any way. It's yours.

Then, City Attorney, Nancy Reid, asked the City to consider another change in its policies. Apparently, the Board of Appeals has been having a difficult time with absenteeism, which prevents a quorum, and short a quorum in light of a hearing, means the parties must wait for at least another couple of months to be heard. The absenteeism of the board members is causing some grumbling amongst residents and developers trying to work in Englewood.

So, Ms. Reid requested that the problem be solved by allowing a faithful alternate board member to step in and fill the quorum space required. After all, he or she has not had a difficult time showing up for every meeting, but not being allowed to vote.

The request, being reasonable, was voted on and passed. Once again, I ask you, is a City policy change of any kind to be presented privately to Englewood Council and voted on in a study session where most residents are not permitted to speak?

Take Note. Voting records and official actions are mounting up.

The only way to change the status quo is to vote differently with better educated persons in the next election, but having just passed one in November, you must wait for a long long time, and who knows what other policies will be enacted behind your backs?

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://www.I2I.org

On Tuesday evening, June 9, 2009, 6m at the Englewood Civic Center, the City hosts an open market for determining the image of two important districts, the Historic Broadway Business District and the as yet undeveloped Swedish Medical Business PUD located between old Hampden and I-285.

Having attended the first open market, I am interested in this "Final" market approach, especially since a public hearing is approaching July 6, 2009.

In the first go round, everyone who attended was given sticky dots to affix to their preferences--as represented by the Planning and Zoning Department--of lighting, artwork, street designs and sizes, mall signage, and cross-walk design.

It made for a fun evening out.

While engrossing myself as an outsider in attempts to understand and make choices, to make my mark as it were, I began to hear murmurs from the other guests.

Business owners were saying, "I like this one, but who is going to pay for it?" A person with a disability stated emphatically, "Don't choose those posts at the crosswalk or we can't get our wheelchairs through them."

A politician argued against the cobblestone look of the cross-walks because the cobblestone laid in Denver's Larimer Square is requires regular maintenance because of bulging, trippage and breakage.

One business owner discussed with a citizen the fact that they each quite liked the idea of overhead lighting on Broadway.

One wanted to see Englewood by satellite. The other wanted an atmosphere to invite nightlife into her otherwise small town. Those overhead white lights would accomplish both economically.

Someone like the arch idea and said, "Couldn't Englewood use this idea to incorporate that bridge from the South of I-285 to the Civic Center?" "No, no." She was corrected, "That arch idea is not presented for the Civic Center, but only for Historic Broadway Businesses."

Upon another person entering the discussion, a critique was made that Broadway's present buildings are only two stories tall at most, and every other one is ranch style height. "Who are they trying to fool with these depictions?" He hissed. "This ain't Broadway."

This point led into whether Englewood intended to rebuild Broadway's lower structures similar to Littleton's redevelopment, and if so, what would happen to the existing businesses?

A chill entered the circle of conversation, then hovered over the voters. They realized that too little information had been handed over, and the depictions of choices were not depictions of the existing Englewood centers.

Further, Englewood does not have the money to improve Broadway presently. It's simply not in the budget.

Questions started arising such as why the City is presenting marketing idioms from two completely separate situations: One being a pre-existing historic Broadway, and the other concerning a largely scraped block of empty land with a few blocks of populated housing and flourishing small businesses.

Someone pointed out that he lives in a small home in the Swedish redevelopment area. "Would my place eventually be taken through eminent domain?"

"Maybe you're land values would increase if it gets zoned commercial," poised another.

There was an awkward shuffling of feet. The hoopla began to wain in the face of larger implications to private property takings.

Questions of business owners' businesses, their rights, taxes and choices being run over by the City 's prostitution of their property to the masses suddenly became a concern.

Why hadn't the City approached the Chamber of Commerce with these matters first or dialogue in a less-expensive way about real proposals and real needs?

Why must the City narrow the already narrow street of Old Hampden while creating a mall that will produce more traffic?

The owner of a mechanic's shop explained how the overlaid redevelopment proposals work against grandfathered business owners. He told his own story about being pushed out of business and forced to sell because he could not obtain a new proprietor/lease until after the six month window of City-allotted time had lapsed.

"There is only so much an owner can do with a building designed for car mechanics." Expressed one sympathetic guest.

Yet, the City ungrandfathered this land owner and forced him out because they had their own plans for that prime corner lot on Logan and I-285. A big beautiful bank now sits there.

The City's position is that outdated, unkempt properties need to be updated or replaced.

Somewhere in the mix are the answers for better stewardship of the existing images and markets of Englewood, and a means to upgrade properties without taking over viable existing rights.

If the City wants to exercise control, it needs to fund its existing rehabilitation budget before implementing frivolous marketing parties and coy marketing plans for eminent domain.

Collecting the funds first and utilizing them for the public benefit is one thing. Diverting tax moneys already vested and raised to other City employee benefits and frivolous exercises is another.

Public Hearing is set for July 6, 2009 to gather public input.

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

Link: http://englewoodcitizens.org/

Closed. Closed for the seasons... and "We Are Nothing"... These are the whispers of experts.

During the City Council study session of April 9, 2009, Alan White, Community Development Director for the City of Englewood presented a 20 minute video presentation from a group of experts from Urban Land Institute (ULI).

There is something to be said for being first, and I'm happy to acknowledge the virtue of creativity. Mayor Wolosyn would have agreed. The expert placemakers acknowledged Englewood's attempt at a transit oriented community as being the first in Colorado.

It's always easier to improve on a prototype, but creating the prototype is hard work. I'd shake Gary Sears' hand for this if he'd care.

Community Development Director White cautioned Council before pressing "play" that City staff do not necessarily agree with the experts' findings. Then the lights went out.

Read more »

Link: http://EnglewoodStory.com

A couple of items stand up shouting at me from this most recent City Council meeting. The first is a letter from Lance Smith, who is the head of Englewood's building department.

It was distributed to Council that night, obviating its way around the library's reference packet for the public.

The letter said that Englewood obtained a low grade on risk assessment because it's building inspectors are performing too many inspections every day. ISO recommends two daily inspections because a thorough inspection takes a little longer.

Englewood performs as many as ten inspections a day. Mr. Smith reported to Council how their grade confused him seeing as they can perform so many inspections in a day. But, safety inspections are not a race.

Read more »