12/28 Article in The Castle Pines Connection - "There Is No Free Lunch"

http://www.castlepinesconnection.com/pages/news/2011/qtr1/cpc/treasurer.html

Let's Saddle Up - Comments on the 2011 Draft City Budget

Our City has an unfunded liability of seven million dollars - the cost to bring the surface of the streets up to like-new condition. In fairness, we might not want to bring the streets to like-new conditions, but a bigger concern is that we have no idea what costs lie beneath the surface of the streets. This is not something we have to address by noon, but we do have to address it. Let's saddle up as part of our 2011 budget process. Here's how:

$25,000 should be budgeted for a robust study to combine the surface and subsurface street needs numbers. Then the community could discuss how to pull together a TABOR election in March 2012 to approve a property tax to fund a capital program to address maintaining the City's assets in proper condition. Let's ask Council to consider including this $25,000 in the 2011 budget. Our acting City manager has said including this item in the budget would be very helpful.

Ahead of the results of that study, the City will need to spend +/- $610,000 every year to keep the streets from getting worse while we're figuring out our capital program. That expenditure keeps our roads at a slightly worse condition that the average community in our region. If we do not properly fund, the streets will fall into a state of greater disrepair. The current draft budget includes only $300,000 for this item, a shortfall of $310,000. $300,000 is an imprudent approach to this need. The budget instead funds other initiatives. I beleive this is cross-threaded. I believe we should fund the upkeep of what we are already responsible for before we take on new initiatives. So, where could we get the $310,000 to fully fund this item? How do we pay for our streets?

a) We could pay $90,000 for City management, rather than the $180,000 suggested by the current draft budget. If we combine managerial skills with the Metro District, $90,000 is a very real number. So long as water is Job 1 in Castle Pines (North), let's not hire a City manager to supervise the Metro District. Let's instead hire a Metro District manager to also supervise functions of the City. If you add $90,000 to what the Metro District will pay for a manager, you can attract an individual to perform both tasks. This change provides $90,000 for streets.

b) We could pay only $96,000 for legal fees, rather than $192,000. If the City dissolution petition goes away, a lot of legal fees go away too at both the Metro District and the City. We might have to curtail some City initiatives if we spend less money on legal fees, but as slow as this economy is, what's the big rush? Rather than cancelling these initiatives, let's just wait to see if revenues prove higher than forecast. If and when we have the money, then we could ask the attorney to pursue those initiatives. The change provides $96,000 for streets.

c) We could pay only $37,500 for communications, rather than $75,000. We don't have any impact metrics to support an expenditure of this magnitude. Is the problem with the issues we're trying to communicate, or with how we communicate them? Until we find out, blogs are free. Facebook is free. Costs to keep fresh news flowing is about $2,000 per year. Website maintenance costs are small, as are costs to send E-mail blasts. If the Master Association stages events to support our sense of community, and if the Chamber advocates for the businesses in the community, why would we want to pay $75,000 for communications? This change provides $37,500 for streets.

d) We could pay only $36,000 for parks rather than $72,000 for parks. It's suggested the cost would remain the same for the park whether we combined forces with the Metro District or not. Rather than looking at incremental costs for one park, look to apply a single budget to all park management functions. See what you get. For example, installing more efficient rotary nozzles to irrigate the parks could reduce water costs and fund operation of the new park. The Metro District is budgeting $200,000 for the Dissolution process. What could the community derive instead from an investment of $200,000 in more efficient irrigation? This change provides $36,000.

e) We could pay only $24,360 for bookkeeping services rather than $48,720. $48,000 is a lot of money to keep our books, write checks, and help budget. Our current bookkeeper works with HOAs, and has no real expertise with other Cities. Let's offer Metro District staff an additional $24,360 to do our books too, and see if they'll say yes. This change provides $24,360 for streets. (While we could combine bookkeeping, we would need to conduct separate audits.)

f) We could pay only $21,200 for office space rather than $42,400. Let's take out a measuring tape and see how much square footage the City now leases, then measure the space in the upstairs loft of the Metro District (including the store room). Let's see if there's a fit. This change provides $21,200 for streets (and puts money in the Metro District's wallet).

If you total up the savings, that's an additional $305,060. If we need an additional $310,000 for streets, that's pretty close. Think about what we would have to give up to get our streets properly funded. It's really not very much. And if someone has a better idea on how to fund the streets, let's do that.

A fair question is, "How firm is this +/- $610,000 number?". Earlier in the year a study of the streets was scoped, and a vendor hired. The vendor drove all the streets, measuring the needs of the pavement surfaces. The results of the draft report were worked for a period of months to make sure they reflected reality. The draft was brought to final report. Still, this is a planning number. Actual costs could be $550,000. Actual costs could be $750,000. We cannot know for sure. However, it is prudent to take action to fund our best estimate. If we do not pursue adequate effort, the downside is steep. The $7 million figure will go much higher if the proper work is not performed. If costs are not in fact as high as suggested, funding can then be reprogrammed to other initiatives. If costs are higher, we may have to tighten our belts in other areas to provide for the needs of our streets. Let's act in good faith on this effort, and fund our best estimate at $610,000.

Don Bobeda made a pitch for Council to grant $10,000 to the Chamber of Commerce, and $5,000 for the Economic Development Council. I suggest the City provide that grant funding in 2011, one-half that amount in 2012, and tell the organizations now that they need to find their own funding from 2013 onward. This approach empowers the organizations to stand on their own feet, while giving them a chance to get started. Funding to support our community organizations is included in the draft budget. Let's not micromanage the efforts of these organizations, nor spend hours debating $5,000. Let's grant the money, with the proviso that it's going away, and so make hay while the sun shines. Empower the organizations to create successful futures for themselves. If in time their membership does not see value in their efforts, they should fail and try something else that can work.

Lastly, a good first step to a brighter future for the citizens of the community is to put the City's Dissolution Petition in our rearview mirror. It's time to saddle up and move on along. Let's offer sincere congratulations to the Metro District for their efforts on the interconnect pipeline with Centennial Water and Sanitation District. The news that this pipeline is completed will be the best news the citizens of this community have ever had! This interconnect is Job 1 for the citizens of the community. Let's support it, and not make it more difficult to achieve.

Is That What Cities Do?

I attended the City Council meeting on November 8th. While the meeting lasted over 3 ½ hours, there was not a great deal of substantive discussion.

The 2011 budget was presented to the public, with the hearing continued to the next meeting. Next year's budget will likely be adopted at the December 14th meeting.

The cost to maintain our streets, at the current average pavement condition index rating of 69, has been determined by a pavement study to be $610,000 per year. (The cost to make all repairs identified in the study is $7 million. The City doesn’t have anywhere near that much money. The City currently has no plan to provide for that capital need.) The current budgeted amount to go towards this need in 2011 is $300,000. How can we find the other $300,000 in the budget to properly fund this obligation? Or, would you like to see the streets fall into further disrepair?

$180,000 is aimed at a City manager. (Do we need $180,000 worth of city management? In a separate discussion it was asked why we have a Court. The answer was, “That’s what cities do”. Other cities pay managers $180,000, so we should too?) When the Dissolution Petition that the City has filed goes away, the Metro District can hire a new manager. Could the District pay their manager a few extra bucks to manage City operations too?

Legal fees increase to $192,000 for 2011. Regular attorney fees increase to $144,000, plus special counsel is budgeted at an additional $48,000. At $175 per hour, that’s 1,100 hours worth of lawyering. Is that what cities do? Would it be wise to back off on being so aggressive about ramping up every function a city does?

We're contemplating $372,000 for legal fees and a manager. Are we spending more on this than on keeping our streets in good shape? Is that what cities do?

$75,000 is targeted towards communications. If the Chamber of Commerce is going to represent the merchants in the area, and if the Master Association is going to stage community events, what exactly does the City need to spend $75,000 to communicate?

Parks maintenance is $72,000. I thought the Metro District maintained the parks, and did a pretty good job of it. Why do we need to add another layer of government to maintain our parks?

The cost of financial services is $48,720. Maybe we could pay the Metro District half that much to have their staff do our books too. What we do is not terribly complex, and their staff is good at minding the books. (If we hired such services from the District, we would have to have a different auditor from the District.)

The City Hall, yes the “City Hall” lease is $32,400. Could we lease the upstairs of the Metro District building for half that? Would the dividers in City Hall fit nicely in the Metro District loft?

If we halved these costs we would find the $300,000 that’s needed for the streets. That money would then go to pay for what cities really are supposed to do. From there all we have to do pull together a capital plan to fund the big expenses, present the need to the citizens, and ask for the taxes needed to pay the bill.

CPN - Where We're At/Where We're Going/How We Want to Get There

Let’s take a look as a community at where we’re at, where we’re going, and how we want to get there.

a) Here’s a song that describes how our community organizations currently interact today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2nfgp3Ga80&feature=related

b) As to how we want to get to where we want to be, here’s a song that embodies the spirit of how things could run if we banded together, albeit a bit differently. This is a song about a big 18 wheeler steaming down the road with a head of steam, the hometown coming into sight. Notice Tom Petty is still the front man, but he’s switched roles and is playing bass instead of rhythm guitar. Mike Campbell is comping in the background to give the arrangement a full sound. A new guy is playing lead guitar. He’s not as good as Mike Campbell, but so what? A new drummer is getting the job done. Same keyboard player, still top shelf. The Heartbreaker’s utility player isn’t in this band. They all sing in harmony on the main themes. It works. It adds new textures. It’s a little toe tapper that sounds pretty good:

http://www.ilike.com/artist/Mudcrutch/track/Six+Days+On+The+Road

c) As to how to get to where we want to be as a community, we need to go through some sort of process to come together. That process can take the form of a crisis, like the bankruptcy, or we can work to figure it out, like our approach to renewable water. Crisis is inevitable if we don’t figure things out. Thus far nothing has worked on the community harmony front because nobody actually wants to work together. Sometimes in life you have to give up on being right in favor of choosing to be happy. In the CPN saga, everybody wants to be right, but nobody is happy. I suggest a dance party! Pick your favorite member of “the other side” (by that I mean the person you love to hate the most) and let’s go dance dance like it’s the last last night of our life life. Let’s build social relationships upon which the necessary community business discussions can take place. Imagine all the combatants letting go of their pet affront, and getting together to celebrate what makes our community special by dancing together to Usher’s song, DJ Got Us Falling in Love Again. (The rap is by Pit Bull, and we should change that hat at 1:26 from The Dodgers to The Rockies.):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-dvTjK_07c&ob=av2n

Any band worth their salt knows how to play all three of these simple songs. It’s just a matter of deciding which one they want to pursue. Somebody is going to win on Ballot Question 300 on Tuesday, and someone is going to lose. While both sides are expending energy for the final votes, I’d like to ask the winners to extend the olive leaf to the losers.

Colorado Congressional Delegation Supports Efforts for Chatfield Study

A study process concerning how water can best be stored at Chatfield Reservoir will soon be moving forward to invite public comment. The effort at Chatfield has brought together farmers in northern Colorado, municipal water users in Douglas and Arapahoe Counties, as well as recreational and environmental users throughout the Metro Denver area. “This sort of cooperation is unprecedented”, said Jeff Shoemaker, Executive Director of The Greenway Foundation, an environmental advocate for Front Range water issues.

Colorado’s federal elected officials have been instrumental in the success of this process. All nine members of the delegation recently pulled together in signing a letter of support for the completion of the study in a timely fashion. Sen. Udall’s staff helped pull together this joint letter effort. Sen. Michael Bennet personally made telephone calls to help facilitate communication with Federal agencies. Congresswoman Betsy Markey directed her staff to attend meetings with the Chatfield supporters to talk out issues with federal agencies. Congressman Ed Perlmutter worked hard to make sure the Chatfield study is completed, not lost in the shuffle with other Federal initiatives. Congresswoman DeGette and Congressman Coffman directed their staff to participate in conference calls on important interagency cooperation. Congressman John Salazar and Congressman Doug Lamborn have been untiring in their support for good process and successful completion of the study effort. Without this support and teamwork from our Federal elected officials, this important cooperative study of a Front Range water project may not have been possible.

The state is the local sponsor of the effort. Special thanks to Gov. Ritter for his letters of support.

The study will determine if additional water can be stored at the existing facility, without having to perform any new construction on the existing dam facilities. The study will consider mitigation of environmental impacts as well as recreational modifications that will be required at the facility. “This is a Win-Win-Win situation for the environment, for recreational users, and for water users. It could be water supply for farmers to grow crops, and water for families along the Front Range” said Shoemaker, who also heads the Foundation for Colorado State Parks. The process is being directed by the US Army Corps of Engineers in partnership with the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and water users with service areas that stretch from Park County, through the Denver Metro area, to Ft. Morgan. Invitation for public comment on the process is expected early next year.

Streets of Fire

I attended the 10/12 City Council meeting. The highlight of the work session was a first presentation of a notion for the 2011 budget. Property values are anticipated to decline 14% at the next evaluation, so the City will see a decline in revenue of $100k. (Impacts to the Metro District will be far greater.) For the first year of the valuation, that's OK because the City will not have to repay the Master Association $144,000 for the cost of incorporation. The budget assumes the County will provide the same level of service for a price that is 14% lower. While it never hurts to ask, this assumption is unlikely to become truth.

The budget is largely flattish, save for unbundling of services that will be provided by employees, and maintenance of the surface of the streets. We learned the condition of the streets is currently rated at 69 (on a scale of 100?). While the budget anticipated $200,000 for surface street repairs (which would take the rating to 54), we learned an expenditure of $610,000 is needed just to continue the surface conditions of the streets at the current level. Council advised that letting the condition of the surface of the streets become worse than current levels is unacceptable. An additional $410,000 will need to be added to the budget just to maintain streets at current levels. If we wanted to repair all of the problems with the surface of the streets, the cost would be $7,000,000. The City does not have that kind of money, and is not likely to.

If the next budget includes the true cost of County services and the cost to maintain the surface of the streets at current conditions, we likely to not have enough revenue to fund the budget. We can dip into the annexation fees, but that is one time money. I fully support maintaining the surface of the streets at 69 or better, and support asking residents if they will pay a tax to continue the surface of the streets as-is or better. We did not talk about money for street issues below the surface, or for the maintenance of other assets owned by the City. I asked that $25,000 be put into the budget to understand what our financial obligation is to maintain these assets, as well as looking at the cost of their replacement over time. When you read articles in the paper about how the City is in great financial shape, you might want to ask a couple questions about that claim. Once we get a true number for costs, we can come back to citizens and ask how they want to pay for it.

The highlight of the regular session was a debate over establishing a policy for spending money out of the annexation fee that is over and above budgeted and appropriated dollars. Not to exceed expenditures of around $70,000 were approved for additonal street sealing. I believe this is money well spent, even if we don't have it in the budget. We need to protect our streets, and keep costs from skyrocketing next spring due to neglect.

As to cutting expenses in order to balance the budget, I've sent a note to the manager for consideration in preparation of the next budget draft. We should eliminate the utility consultant because we are not in the water business. We should look at hiring an in-house attorney, or be realistic about billable hours for pursuits that are not going to happen. Our legal expense is way, way too high. We shoudl stop chasing the Metro District, as we have no standing in their issues. Taking on management of a new park is puzzling, but operating a water feature given our water issues and the lack of revenue from the park is imprudent. If that's not enough to balance things, we simply need to ratchet down the City operations until such a time as voters approve taxes to support a higher level of service by the City.

In the "Man Bites Dog" category, our communications committee suggested we hire CH2MHill to be out communications provider. This is really weird. We're trying to unbundlge and move away from CH2MHill. The search for a communciations provider began with the CH2MHill communciations consultant saying their costs are too high, and we should hire a small local firm to help us out, as our needs are modest. Instead there's a request to increase the budget form the low $60,000's to $70,000 to pay for this notion. This is really dumbfounding. Someone isn't getting the memo.

We did have some voluneteers come forward to serve on the finance and public works committees. They sounded qualified, and it was good to see fresh faces wanting to help out the volunteers already serving on Council.

The Risks of an Aging Water Infrastructure

Every day, nearly 1500 water mains break across the country. Most occur without any noticeable impact. But there's a greater impact than just the inconvenience of going without water for a few hours. These breaks are cause for alarm and pose a significant threat.

Last month, a burst water pipe shut down a plant in Fort Worth, Texas that produces F-16 and F-35 fighter jets. According to the Star-Telegram, the plant uses over 300 million gallons of water per year and the pipes that provide the necessary water for its operations are over 20 years old. Going without water brings the plant to a screeching halt and causes delays and additional expense for our military production.

What happened in Fort Worth should be eye-opening. While it turned out to be a minor disruption for only a few days, we face significant risks across the country as our aging water infrastructure begins to crumble. And in some areas, the water infrastructure is over 200 years old. Industry relies on water and so do we.
Beyond the economic consequences, there are also environmental impacts when the pipes carry waste water. Billions of gallons of raw sewage are dumped every year as these old pipes burst. The sewage ends up in our groundwater, our streams and rivers, and requires us to exhaust additional energy and resources to clean it to drinking standards.

In a 1941 article titled “Water Supply Facilities and National Defense” in the American Water Works Association Journal, then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover noted that our water infrastructure is imperative for security because of the “strategic position they occupy in keeping the wheels of industry turning and in preserving the health and morale of the American populace.”

Old pipes are not the only infrastructure that need help – over 15,000 dams are rated “potentially high hazard” by the Army Corps of Engineers and need to be repaired. Remember the consequences of the broken dam in Lake Delhi, Iowa when hundreds of homes and businesses flooded in July and factor that by thousands across the country.

The cost of repairing and replacing our water infrastructure is billions of dollars. But the cost of waiting is even greater.

We must invest heavily in our infrastructure as part of our national security strategy in the 21st Century. As J. Edgar Hoover said 60 years ago, “In this great undertaking, water supply facilities occupy a key position, and, therefore, it is essential that they operate without interruption.”

We don't have to wait for the federal government to act – we can act locally. You can invest in water saving devices for your home to use less water on a daily basis – look for EPA Water Sense appliances like toilets and faucets, and replace your sprinklers with more efficient rotary nozzles. Check with your water provider for rebates when doing so. And support your water provider as they seek additional funding to make the necessary upgrades to your system. For the cost today is far less than what consequences of inaction will be in the future.

Douglas Campbell is the Education Coordinator for the Douglas County Water Resource Authority (www.dcwater.org) and a fellow for the Truman National Security Project.

Serious Conservation, Serious Results

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prRNlI_aRMQ

Acting Manager's Presentation to Transition From Outsourcing to Hiring City Employees

Here's a link to an audio file of the City's acting manager making a presentation about moving away from outsourcing to hiring employees. There's about 20 seconds of silence as he prepares to begin his 17 minute talk.

http://kiwi6.com/file?id=q4dhino7i3

If you click on this link, you can then download the file in ten seconds, and even listen to it on iTunes or your iPod.

It took about a minute to upload the file to the Internet, and about a minute to link to this blogsite. Cost was virtually free.

Parker's vacant retail space worries business leaders

Some say the rents for Parker retail space may be too high, but the town will host an event for real-estate brokers Sept. 30 to promote what's available.

Parker's vacant retail space — there are more than 65 spaces for rent or sale — is concerning community leaders and Realtors.

"It really is a black hole of retailing," said Tim Danahey, a Parker community activist.

There are 15 buildings for sale, according to the third- quarter 2010 Real Estate Resource and Development Report from the Parker Economic Development Council.

"What I'm afraid of in Parker from just looking at all the vacant storefronts is that there will be owners that walk away from their buildings because they don't have tenants," said Carole Schumacher, executive vice president of BRC Real Estate in Parker, which handles commercial properties.

Schumacher and Danahey say rental rates for retail properties are too high. She said that could be simply because building owners or developers don't understand what the market is like.

"Is Parker an island unto itself? I think some people that own real estate out there think that it is," Schumacher said. "It's their world, and they don't go out there very much."

Mitch Trevey, executive director of the PEDC and owner of a commercial-real-estate company, Trevey Co. LLC, said Parker has been slow to drop its rental rates but that many landlords also are in a bind because of the weak economy.

"Some of them are accountable to investors or partners, etc., who are not necessarily so willing to allow them to drop the rates just to get somebody in there because that also affects property value," Trevey said.

Joe Maxwell, co-founder of the Metro Parker Small Business Alliance, said he thinks business owners sometimes need to be smarter when they sign leases.

"I think it's a deeper problem," Maxwell said. "Any time you start failing in business, you start looking for a scapegoat: 'My rent is too high.' " (Other excueses may include, "My CAM charges are too high, or we need a URA, or the Metro District did it." - MS)

Becky Hogan, Parker's economic-development director, said there's not much the town can do about the rents, but she thinks the rents are very competitive.

On Sept. 30, the town of Parker will be participating in a virtual broker tour at the Wildlife Experience, which will show about 100 commercial-real-estate brokers properties in Doug las County.

"It's a matter of educating people (on) what's available," Hogan said. "We haven't really done that down here in the south metro Denver area. And that's always going to help. It may not help that next day, but it's always going to help in the future."

Read more: Parker's vacant retail space worries business leaders - The Denver Post http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_16119526#ixzz104a1QUZv

It's Your Dough, Water Slow!

Douglas County Water Resource Authority (www.DCWater.org) has just been awarded a grant for $250,000 by the Colorado Water Conservation Board to retrofit 1,000 yards with more efficient rotary sprinkler nozzles over the summer of 2011. The nozzles are about 30% more efficient that current designs, and that means a good deal of water demand can be reduced by use of these devices. The roots of the grass in our lawns will still receive the proper amount of water. It just takes less water to get to the roots. Traditional designs are prone to misting, as well as impacts of windy conditions and evaporation. Rotary nozzles shoot streams of water that are heavier, not as susceptible to these other problems, and so do a better job of irrigating our lawns. Use of the nozzles also means your water bill can be lowered by about 15% from what it would otherwise be with the old design sprinkler heads.

Water providers in the area are looking at migrating to a renewable surface water system in the near future. To give you an idea of cost savings, our community uses somewhere around 2,000 ac-ft of water every year. (Ac-ft is a common measurement for a lot of water, and every family of four uses about ½ an ac-ft of water every year.) If we have to pay $17,500 per ac-ft for renewable water rights to replace our existing water supply, we could be talking a lot of money. Saving 15% could reduce the cost of our renewable water future by around $5,250,000. While the City Council has not expressed interest in this sort of savings, the Metro District has. Rebates are now available through the Metro District for your installation of rotary sprinkler nozzles.

The DCWRA retrofit program will create several dozen summer jobs for high school students in the area. To get ready for this project, a pilot program featuring 50 yards is currently underway. Partners on the pilot project include the Douglas County School District, Arapahoe Douglas Works!, the Center for Resource Conservation, and DCWRA. DCWRA members participating in the pilot project include Town of Castle Rock, City of Lone Tree, Castle Pines Metropolitan District, and Castle Pines North Metropolitan District.

For those do it yourselfers who can’t wait to participate in next summer's retrofit project, go ahead and ask your local retailer now for money and water saving “rotary sprinkler nozzles”. For more information, please check out: http://www.dcwater.org/pages/sprinklers/sprinklers.html. It’s your dough, water slow!

We Don’t Believe in Big Government

I attended the City Council meeting of 8/24. Highlights included approval of a large home day care center and a solar panel array. Former Councilmember Coppola asked the Council to appoint someone else in the community other than themselves to some of the commissions and boards created by the council. Acting Manager Suiter asked for input on the budget process calendar for 2011, but got no response. The ballot initiative to abolish the URA was approved by the City Council for inclusion in the November vote. (Just to be clear, the City Council acted to create the URA in May. Last night’s action puts the item on the ballot for voters to decide. A “YES” vote means you want to get rid of the URA. A “NO” vote means you want to keep the URA. The Council wasn’t saying they agree or not, they were just putting the item on the ballot for voters to decide.) There was some sort of preference item added to the November ballot after the legal session broke up. Something about asking homeowners a non-binding survey question as to whether they would rather have other water providers provide water to the community, or if they want to take a chance with the City doing it (the City has ZERO experience in these matters), or maybe none of the above, or something like that. Never heard of it before, so who knows what that is all about?

I invited two community leaders to attend a baseball game to talk about the URA. Some folks think the URA is a good idea, and don’t understand why other folks don’t like it. Some folks don’t like the idea, and don’t understand why other folks created the URA. I thought that maybe inviting these leaders to attend a baseball game could help to build a social relationship before diving into the pros and cons of the URA situation. The City’s consultant said the URA would be slightly positive to the County, but the County’s consultant said forgone tax revenues are over $17 million. Who knows where truth lies on projections that stretch out over decades, but it's safe to say there is no consensus on what the URA would bring. There is an arbitration process going on so another lawsuit over the matter will not have to be filed. I hope cooler heads prevail, Solomon can watch over the process, and both sides can come to agreement without spending even more money on legal fees. The folks thinking the URA should go away have a website. The City can't have an opinion on the issue one way or another, though individual members of Council can.

There was talk of putting the HOA takeover back on the Council’s agenda. I was hoping this notion had died. The City wants to save money by taking over all the functions of the subassociations – the folks who run your swimming pools, get your grass cut, get your trash collected, remove snow, appoint your architecture control committees – tasks like that where service levels vary from neighborhood to neighborhood. Saving money sounds good, but this idea was not well thought out. Our HOAs already do business with management firms who do business with a number of clients. Economies of scale have already been achieved. One reason given for our roads being in bad shape is the trash trucks running over them. The thought is, “If only we could consolidate garbage service, the roads would be better.” There is room for consolidation if numerous trash companies serve one subassociation. We faced this issue ten years ago in HOA, and addressed it easily, without forming a City. The Master Association could address this issue, if it chose to, but even that is likely not necessary. We also tried to share grass cutting services between the Metro District and some of the HOAs with a sizable amount of grass. We were told no thanks, “We don’t believe in big government.” Regretfully, homework was not done to ask the HOAs if they wanted to be consolidated by the City. It was just assumed of course this is a great idea. This is another tenet of incorporation that is not going to be a glorious as promised. Instead of trying to save a couple bucks on HOA consolidation, maybe we should spend the time figuring how to raise the tens of millions of dollars that may be needed in the not too distant future to keep our existing City assets in good order. Think about that the next time your run over a bumpy patch in the road.

Costs of Stormwater Management Going Up?

The Highlands Ranch Metropolitan District Board is looking at implementing a stormwater fee
August 22, 2010

From the Highlands Ranch Herald:

Federal and state regulations for municipal stormwater systems have redefined the responsibilities associated with owning and maintaining facilities such as surface drainages, detention and water quality management ponds, and storms sewers and culverts. As the permit holder under the Clean Water Act, the metro district is responsible for public education and outreach, as well as participation.

Money from Centennial Water and Sanitation District, developers and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District have for years helped fund the initial stormwater management projects in Highlands Ranch. However, the long-range plan for stormwater infrastructure, including capital and maintenance costs, requires approximately $30 million over the next 30 years. It is anticipated that UDFCD will continue to partner with the district, but will require matching funds for capital projects. “It is important that the metro district identify a reliable funding source to allow us to stabilize the channels in our natural open space lands and meet our requirements as the holder of the Clean Water Act permit,” a press release from the district says.

Metro district staff will conduct a public workshop at 6 p.m. Sept. 1 at the district office at South Broadway and Plaza Drive to explain the financial implications and the alternatives.

Those with questions should visit www.highlandsranch.org or contact director of public works Jeff Case at jcase@highlandsranch.org or at 303-791-0430.

(The CoCPN is looking at taking over stormwater functions in CPN from the Metro District. Little revenue is associated with this function, while potential financial liability is enormous. Has CoCPN evaluated the long-range plans and costs for stormwater, or are they looking to add legitimacy to CoCPN efforts? While the Metro District might be wise to dump this obligation, what's best for the citizens of CoCPN?)

City Makes Front Page News Again!

Blight on the ballot

By Rhonda Moore
Published: 08.16.10

(Here's an excerpt of the front page story in the local paper.)

The debate over the Castle Pines North blight issue will continue to the polls with a ballot question to abolish the city’s council-driven urban renewal authority. Castle Pines North residents successfully petitioned for a ballot question to overturn city council’s decision to establish an urban renewal authority and accompanying plan that declared portions of the upscale community blighted.

The public outcry over council’s April decision began shortly after city council created the authority, which city council members laud as a tool to trigger economic development. Opponents express regret that the debate had to come down to a public vote. The action reflects a refusal on the part of city council to listen to its constituents, said Deanna Merrill, spokeswoman for Blight’s Not Right, the driving force behind the petition effort.

“It’s unfortunate that we had to get to this point, that so many people in the community distrust the efforts of the city council,” Merrill said. “The real concern is that the people are not being heard. We don’t feel we have a true voice. There’s definitely a disconnect between what city council is doing and have in motion and what people of Castle Pines North have in mind.”

Castle Pines North city council established the authority April 25, after conducting a study that concluded portions of the city met the state’s criteria as “blighted.” Included in the blighted area is more than 3,300 acres of vacant land slated for improvement by the Canyons development, the city’s first annexed property.

With the subsequent May 25 approval of the urban renewal plan, the city positioned itself to capture the increase in property taxes, otherwise earmarked for servicing taxing authorities, as property within the authority boundaries gains value. Approval of the plan triggered three legal filings by impacted taxing districts, positioning petitioners to challenge formation of the urban renewal authority.

The May 25 approval of the plan came days before a new state law went into effect, which calls for a 10-year waiting period to blight agricultural property and consensus among impacted taxing districts before a municipality can adopt an urban renewal plan.

Blight’s Not Right went into motion as public outcry rose over the city’s decision to move forward with the urban renewal authority. The effort was driven by a dual concern that the authority does not reflect the community’s wishes and that city council pushed the issue without adequate public notification, Merrill said.

With the help of representatives from every Castle Pines North neighborhood, Blight’s Not Right launched an effort for a ballot initiative to abolish the authority. Organizers needed at least 346 signatures to force a ballot question and in 10 days collected 495 signatures, Merrill said.

“In that sense, there’s some community pride,” she said. “Folks are saying ‘wait, let’s stop and talk about this a little bit more.’ The sad part is this was all said at public hearings in council meetings … and ignored. It’s really just trying to give the folks an opportunity to have a voice.”

By Aug. 9, the deputy city clerk ratified the petition signatures, about 20 days after the petitions were delivered to town hall. At the Aug. 10 council meeting, councilmembers asked staff to prepare ballot language to consider for the November ballot, said Carl Kollmar, Castle Pines North City Clerk. The council aims to consider the optional questions at the Aug. 24 meeting with a goal to approve a ballot initiative in time for the November general election Douglas County ballot, Kollmar said.

(The full article can be viewed in the current Castle Rock News Press.)

What can CPN learn from Boulder County?

Cash-strapped local governments sometimes turn to "public-private partnerships". From Boulder County comes a huge stretch on that theme, as reported in the Longmont Times-Call:

"I don't think it's a serious proposal," said George Gerstle, director of the Boulder County Transportation Department.

On Thursday, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent Gerstle a letter proposing to resurface some of the subdivision roads - if the county would agree to stencil a PETA ad over each such repaved road.

"The ad features a sexy silhouette of a curvaceous woman holding a sign that reads, 'Word on the Street: Go Vegan! PETA,'" the organization wrote Gerstle...

Gerstle said Friday afternoon that even if PETA's proposal is serious and not just a publicity stunt, "we don't want to go down that path of having advertising on our roads."

Boulder County officials have estimated that it could cost $22 million or more to bring all of the more than 150 miles of paved roads in more than 100 unincorporated residential subdivisions up to good condition in five years, and as much as $25 million if the work were spread over 15 years.

(Or they could explain the need, explain exactly how the money will be spent, and ask the citizens to pay a tax to pay to fix their roads. Rather than going to great lengths to concoct some scheme, that's probably what we're going to have to do in Castle Pines North. - MS)

Introducing.......Sen. Michael Bennet

There was a town hall meeting today in Lone Tree. A standing room only crowd came to hear U.S. Senator Michael Bennet speak about his campaign and answer questions. I am a registered Republican voter, I am an elected official, and I will vote for a Republican candidate for County Commissioner, for our state General Assembly, and for U.S. Congress. Unless something drastic happens, I'm voting for Hickenlooper for Governor. I was asked to introduce Sen. Bennet, the Democratic Candidate for the Senate seat, at this town hall meeting. I said done, just let me know where and when. Here are the introductory remarks I made:

Hi, my name is Mark Shively. For those of you who don’t know me, I’m the City Treasurer for Castle Pines North. I’m a 24-year resident of the area, a staunch fiscal conservative, a registered Republican voter, and a proud supporter of my friend, and fellow public servant, Senator Michael Bennet.

A lot of you may be wondering why a Republican supports a Democrat for U.S. Senate. The answer’s simple, in this election cycle more than ever, it’s about the person, not the party, and Michael is the best person for this job.

Like Michael, I believe party isn’t a pre-requisite for results. Like Michael, I don’t care if an idea is a Republican idea or a Democratic idea – what I care about is whether it’s a good idea, the right idea.

Throughout his career, Michael has shown an ability to bring people together to take on the toughest challenges. We face similar challenges every day at Castle Pines North, and we could do a better job of working together within our own fences, as well as with our neighbors. We all know that the only way we will ever succeed is by finding ways to work together.

Michael’s record speaks for itself. As a businessman, he turned around failing companies and saved jobs. In his time with the City of Denver, he balanced budgets and made government more accountable and more responsive to the people it serves. That’s what we’re supposed to do.

And as Superintendent of Public Schools, Michael challenged stale orthodoxies and outdated solutions, enacting a bold reform effort that resulted in higher student achievement and better results for our kids. That’s something we all want to see.

A record of results as I see it. And he’s taken his turnaround skills to Washington, where’s he’s worked to create jobs, balance our budget, and provide a little Colorado common-sense in a place that could use a lot of it. As we walk the halls in DC we say, “This is the worst system of government there is………except for all the others.” We should respect the process, but we should work to make it better.

Michael knows, as I know, that the best way to get things done is to solve problems, not play politics.

So for me, when it came to deciding who to throw my support behind in the race for U.S. Senate, the choice was clear: Michael Bennet. Because what I see coming from my party of choice – the Republican Party – is another lap around the same track, pursuing failed policies that blew a hole in our budget, and nearly wrecked our economy. We were right on the brink of collapse. We put ourselves at risk of being the first generation of Americans to leave less, not more opportunity, to our kids and grandkids. How terrible is that?

Now’s not the time to pander to extremes or allow ideology to take over our debates; now’s the time to come together, to bridge partisan divides and get things done. That’s what Michael has done throughout his career, and I know that’s what he’ll continue to do for Colorado in the U.S. Senate.

He’s the guy who’s standing up for us in Washington, and I’m proud to stand with him today. So with that, let me introduce Senator Michael Bennet.

(For more information on Michael Bennet, here's a link to his official Senate website: http://bennet.senate.gov/, and here's a link to the campaign website: http://bennetforcolorado.com/Splash)

Funding Not Adequate to Complete Needed Street Repairs

I attended the City Council meeting on August 10th.

This time we had a good handful of citizens from "Blights Not Right" attending the meeting. Council agreed to move to put their ballot initiative on the November ballot, and so those folks listened rather than doing the torch and pitchfork thing. This issue can now have a thorough airing over the next few months. Council agreed to stop spending City money on the pro-URA campaign.

Most of the meeting was ministerial in nature. Three questions about invoices and accounting were asked. The City manager will look up the answers and give replies. I don't think this is any smoldering issue, as much as request for clarification. The financials have not been posted to the website since April, and I don't think the 2009 audit is on there yet. The finance committee (2 council members) and communication committee (2 council members) deal with that, so I dunno.

One member of the audience offered to serve on any committee created by the council in lieu of a council member serving on that committee. It's a start. If you want to be a member of a committee, now's a good time to check out the committees that are available, and think about putting your name in the hat. It's true we've got the same seven people (the council members and Mayor) serving on virtually all the committees. There is interest in changing that situation, so again, if you have some time and some interest, now's a good time to check out how you might get involved.

There was a straight forward message that we do not have the money we need to do the street repairs that are currently needed. Nobody's going to enjoy that news, but it was delivered straight out, without a bunch of mumbo jumbo. I've always believed our community can handle bad news. Just tell people what's going on. They can deal with it. So, hooray for just saying it. As to what to do about it, 2011 budget discussions will begin over the next month. While we likely do not have the money from the operating budget, there is that one-time money we got from the developer for annexation. It's food for thought. We need to get the streets up to speed. There was some blaming of The County, and The Economy, and maybe Elvis did it. Rather than blaming, it is what it is. Now how can we best address getting things fixed? While street repairs are going on this week, even if we had the money, it's August, and there's not time on the construction calendar to get the work done before the snow flies. It may well be a bumpy winter and spring. I'd encourage you to attend meetings and say you want the money spent to fix the streets. Just remember, there's no free lunch.

Council did authorize the contract to have the models developed on what it costs to run the City using CH2MHill, what it might cost to run the city using employees, and what it might cost to have employees run both the City and the Metro District. The $7500 contract will fund about twelve hours of analysis of each thought. The City Manager pointed out that's not really a lot of analysis. So, don't expect the world from this effort. So far, the Metro District's June financials and last year's numbers are being used for the basis of analysis. There hasn't been much any face to face conversation. When the City experts came to visit the Metro District to talk about budgets and consolidation as part of that plan, the Metro District sent two experts to talk with the City experts. About the notion of savings through consolidation, one of the Metro District experts said about the City experts, "Those are not the type of folks to let a little thing like facts get in the way of a good time." Further discussion was that a City would have to levy a significant property tax to fund its operation. With regards to savings through condolidation of staff, the other expert said, "It doesn't make any difference financially. You can do whatever you want." Life can be like a circle, and these days the two Metro District experts are now the experts for the City in discussions with the Metro District. OK, so have things changed several years down the road? If so, let's hear it.

It occurs to me that by now most all the tenets of the $7500 analysis that produced the "plan" for incorporation have pretty well been set aside. While we do need a new plan, beware of $7500 studies dealing with the consolidation of multi-million dollar entities that perform disparate tasks. Savings are usually derived from consolidation of similar business entities. That's not what we have with the City and Metro District. One paves streets, and the other operates water wells. There could certaily be consolidation of financial reporting functions. Storm water has little revenue, but almost unlimited liability. That discussion is "Pin the tail on the donkey". Parks operation doesn't much differ one way or the other. If there's no savings, why bother? If the City has no revenue to pay for parks, and funds would just be transferred from the District, why bother? As to water, the City has no expertise and few relationships. Wastewater is already part of a cost saving regional consolidation. If it ain't broke, why fix it?

Could the city manager run both the City and the Metro District? Administratively, the break-even point is about 23 hours a week. If the Metro District manager job requires more work than that, hire an employee. If he could administer the District three days a week, and the City two days a week, OK. The District Manager's task of course is not just admistrative, but largely about water. You would still need to hire someone to do the water part of the job. The list of folks who can do that is pretty short, and so long as the City is at odds with the District, it will be hard for any of those names to say yes. We really do want to ask if there's a better use of our tax dollars than attorneys fees over this discussion. It makes more sense to me for the Metro District to explore opportunities for cost savings by combining functions with other entities that perform similar tasks. But, let's keep our eyes and ears open and see what the new study says. It should be completed in thirty days.

The meeting then ended for the Council to go into legal session to discuss the Metro District pursuit and the URA litigation and arbitration.

Clerk Verifies Petition - a good step....

The citizen petition to abolish the Castle Pines North Urban Renewal Authority (URA) has been verified by the City Clerk!

The next step is for the City Council to consider the petition and take one of two actions: 1) approve the proposed ordinance that abolishes the URA or 2) schedule the issue for a public vote.

This is likely a good move that will provide for a thorough discussion of both sides of this issue.

Putting the CPN URA to Public Vote

(I don't know what anyone's intentions are with regards to stalling, or any of that. And rather than accusations, which lead to hurt feelings, and the inevitable defensive counter claims, can't we just act like neighbors about this? If 500 citizens have signed a petition to put an item on the ballot, that item should be put on the ballot. Yes, those signatures need to be verified. If it's true that a few hours of staff time can preclude a $15,000 expenditure for a special election, let's spend a few hours of staff time to try to place this item on the regular ballot. Let's get this item on the list of things to do, take care of it in a timely fashion, and just move on along to whatever comes next, and avoid the torch and pitchfork meetings. Torch and pitchfork can result in "bunker" mentality, and only beats drums more loudly for recall. The campaign over the URA question can actually be good for the community because it provides a forum for council members to explain to citizens why they voted for it. Citizens can explain to council members why they are not happy with the action of council. We may find the truth lies somewhere in between, if we could just communicate with one another.) - MS)

WWW.BLIGHTSNOTRIGHT.COM
Put the CPN URA to a Public Vote


City's Stall Tactics Raise Concern

The citizen petition to abolish the Castle Pines North Urban Renewal Authority (URA) has been with the City Clerk’s office for the last 17 days. The clerk is responsible for validating a minimum of 346 of the 495 petition signatures against the Douglas County voter registration list. While state statute allows 30 days to verify petition signatures, a petition this size should take less than one day to complete. It’s unfortunate, but not surprising, that the City Council and the City Clerk haven’t prioritized this petition request by citizens of Castle Pines North.

Blight's Not Right purposefully stopped gathering signatures and delivered the petition on July 21 to allow ample time for validation and for City Council to either abolish the URA or place the question on the November ballot. We also notified the City it was our desire to avoid the unnecessary expense of a special election (which would cost a minimum of $15,000) and we expected the issue to be placed on the regular November ballot.

17 days later, the signatures are not yet validated. We believe City Council is intentionally stalling action on the petition so they can continue to spend public funds for advocacy purposes for the URA, a practice that is restricted by the Fair Campaign Practices Act (FCPA) once action is taken on a petition. The policy behind FCPA is clear: a public entity should not advocate for or against a ballot issue using public funds because those funds are extracted from citizens who may not agree with the government's position on the matter.

City Council Meeting - August 10, 7pm

Bight's Not Right will represent the petitioners at the City Council meeting this coming Tuesday to demand that action be taken on the petition and that City Council cease spending public funds on their expensive marketing brochures to promote the URA. We will also reiterate our request that City Council place the issue on the November ballot to avoid the unnecessary costs of a special election. If you too are dissatisfied with the City Council's apparent disdain for the people it allegedly represents, please join us at the Community Center (7404 Yorkshire Drive) on Tuesday, August 10 at 7pm.


Check out this Castle Pines Connection article on the petition, and visit www.blightsnotright.com for more information.

Regards,
Blight's Not Right

I Like a Cheap Movie as much as the next guy.....

The Castle Rock movie theatre by the Outlet Mall has recently been bought by AMC. We took the kids to see "Sorcerer's Apprentice" tonight, and found out that ALL Movies Monday through Thursday all day, and Friday, Saturday, and Sunday before noon are $5. (There are a few exclusions, so don't hate me if you go and they charge you the regular ten bucks.) But, this looked like good news to me, and I thought I'd pass it along.

The movie was not as bad as the review suggested. It was not great art, as much as something sort of fun to do on a Tuesday night. I'm glad we paid $5 to see it, not ten.

King Soopers still has $12 Rockies tickets through tomorrow. We went Saturday night, saw Cargo hit for the cycle, and saw the Cubs on their way to getting swept. Houston Street retired the side with five pitches in the top of the 9th. When the bat cracked on that first pitch in the bottom of the ninth, there was no doubt where it was going - 465 feet into the upper deck. Rockies win!

What If They Gave a Council Meeting, and No One Came?

I attended the July 27th meeting of the City Council of Castle Pines North. Other than elected officials of the City, and people paid to be there, out of a community of 10,000 people nobody came - not one citizen attended the meeting. Nobody.

There was a request for additional expenditure for street repairs. An additional $80,000 was approved for pavement striping, asphalt patching, street sweeping, work on crosspans and aprons, and concrete pavement panel repair. With the $20,000 worth of repairs that was approved at the last meeting, 2010 expenditures on street repairs move from $200,000 to $300,000. In addition to these expenditures, there is still a great deal of back log in other street repair work that needs to be done. We should hear a detailed report on the condition of the street surfaces in the next few weeks, as well as how much money will be needed to bring the streets up to par.

A consultant was hired by Council at a cost of $7,500 to create three models. The first model will show what it currently costs to run the City using CH2MHill. The second model will show what it would cost to run the City using employees. The third model will show what it would cost to run the City if there is a merger with the Metro District. It is hoped the model will show savings from using employees, as well as further savings from a merger. The hope is savings from the City's merger with the Metro District can be used by the City to pay to fix our streets, though capital costs will not be included in the study. Council does not know whether or not the Metro District will participate.

It was reported zero citizens have volunteered for the committees Council has set-up.

Council met as the URA commission, and set up a new advisory committee to the URA commission. Council also discussed appointing a grievance committee to hear appeals to decisions made by the planning commission, which is also the council members. Council asked if it was a conflict of interest to be the URA, and the planning commission, and the grievance committee. Council's counsel advised there is no conflict of interest.

A special outside communications company was paid $10,500 for one month's work. They will be paid an additional $21,000 for two more months work. A brochure is being printed up at additional cost. The brochure is supposed to explain how the URA is good for residents of our community.

A Council member said that incorporation was supposed to be about combination of HOAs, and that a lot of savings were supposed to flow from the combination. It was pointed out that instead, a bunch of taxes and fees had been passed on to residents, and not any of the imagined savings have ever taken place. The councilmember asked if taxes could be cut. The answer given was not if you want the streets fixed.

America's Great Outdoors Initiative

On July 16th I attended a Federal listening session for the President's America's Great Outdoors Initiative. The purpose of the meeting was to hear the concerns citizens have with conservation, recreation, and reconnecting people to the outdoors.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar attended and shepherded the proceedings. Eighteen years ago he and Harris Sherman formed Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO). (A portion of lottery proceeds fund GOCO grants for waterways, bikeways, parks, and similar amenities. The LaGae park at CoCPN recently received a GOCO grant.) While this approach is unique to Colorado, Secretary Salazar went to the President to ask if perhaps an initiative could be undertaken to expand such an approach throughout the country. The purpose of the listening session series is to collect public opinion prior to Salazar's request of the President on November 15th.

Remarks were made by Sherman, who is now Under Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment for the US Department of Agriculture, Will Shafroth, Department of Interior's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Senator Mark Udall, Congresswoman Diana DeGette, and Congressman Ed Perlmutter, as well as a representative from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and a panel discussion between Salazar and the executive director of GOCO, the manager of Denver Parks and Recreation, and Christine Stanley, the state representative for Summit County.

After the session, participants broke out into a number of rooms to offer opinions on the topics. The following four questions guided the discussion:

What obstacles exist to achieve your goals for conservation, recreation, or reconnecting people to the outdoors?

Please share your thoughts and ideas on effective strategies for conservation, recreation and reconnecting people to the outdoors.

How can the federal government be a more effective partner in helping to achieve conservation, recreation or reconnecting people to the outdoors?

What additional tools and resources would help your efforts be even more successful?

Amongst all the comments, the thing that really struck me was the input from the youth who are working with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources this summer. Salazar asked them what they thought should be done. They said:

a) teach kids in school about the topic

b) reinforce that teaching with TV ads and social media such as Facebook

c) give kids additional opportunities to have greater connection with the topic

d) pay special attention to, and reach out to, at-risk students.

I don't know what the big thinkers will come up with, but out of the mouths of babes.....

For further information on this initiative: http://www.doi.gov/americasgreatoutdoors/

Group in Castle Pines North seeks to slow massive development

Our community made the papers again! Here's a recent story about the "Blight's Not Right" petition, which I signed this morning. No, there was not enough discussion in the community about the matter. If this process provides a chance for more understanding by Council as to why so many of their constituents are ticked off and why they're getting sued, or if the constituents come to understand why their elected officials voted for this, I'm all for the petition process. Here's the story by Carlos Illescas of The Denver Post:

A group of Castle Pines North residents is collecting signatures in an attempt to abolish the newly created Urban Renewal Authority, which blighted agricultural land to allow for a massive development.

So far, Blight's Not Right has collected about 300 signatures on its petitions, more than is needed to force the City Council, which acts as the authority, to abolish the URA or put the matter to voters.

Doing that, the group says, would slow down the project and allow more time for public input — something it says residents were not given. But city officials say the project was debated for two years.

The petition drive is the latest controversy for The Canyons, a 3,300-acre planned development east of Interstate 25. At build-out, it would have about 225 acres of commercial property and 2,500 homes.

"Our intent is to really vet it through the community properly," said Stacie Sneider, one of the leaders of the petition drive. "I certainly don't believe the community was well-informed on this."

The City Council took some heat in May for blighting the land a week before a new state law kicked in that would have, in most cases, prevented it from doing so.

Urban renewal allows cities to create taxing districts that funnel taxes generated from the authorized area toward public improvements.

Tom Ragonetti, attorney for The Canyons, said the development would pretty much continue as planned with or without the Urban Renewal Authority. It would just mean not being able to take advantage of a few tools a URA could offer.

"It really doesn't hurt us," he said. "It's not essential and never was."

However, City Councilman Doug Gilbert said, dissolving the URA would give the city less input into The Canyons development.

"If voters abolish the URA, it simply gives us less of a voice in what the developer is going to do," Gilbert said.

Sneider said she hopes to have more than enough signatures on the petition to force the issue on the ballot in November.

"We are doing what we can to slow down the process so citizens can understand what the Urban Renewal Authority is about," she said.

Regardless, Ragonetti said, the undeveloped area that is The Canyons probably won't see new construction for years, until the current economic situation improves significantly.

If There's No Savings From Consolidation, and If Voters Won't Approve New Taxes.....

I attended the 7/13 City Council meeting. Zero citizens stayed through to the end of this meeting.

The meeting began at 5:30 with an on-site inspection of an erosion problem on one of the streets in the south part of the City. It's too early to tell exactly what the cause of the problem is, the extent of the erosion, or what the precise fix should be. Water is not flowing as it's supposed to, and some areas are being washed out from the erosion. Further research will be done on the problem over the next few days, and the Council may try to move pretty quickly to address this problem. Citizens living nearby believe the problem has been going on since around February. Storm related events may now be eroding what could be a couple hundred yards of area underneath the street.

The work session began at 6 at the HOA1 Clubhouse, with Council training on public records policy. The Citizens Emergency Response Team made a presentation. Performance measurements were suggested to monitor CH2MHill's contract. The air conditioning was not turned on early in the day, so the room was hot. We opened the doors to let outside air in.

The regular meeting began at 7 with the library district updating its summer reading contest. The City's auditor then presented her report on the 2009 books. She said things were better than a year ago, largely due to a one-time payment of almost two million dollars to the City from the Canyons developer. She said the audit looks backwards, and not forwards, and that the future would be more challenging without these one-time injections from developers. The new City manager chimed in, saying the City would have to live within its revenues. (Hooray!) The auditor said some practices in 2009 were not good, but in as much as a new accounting firm has just been hired, that's old news. (I don't know if anyone told her the new firm specializes in HOA management, and has never done accounting for a City before.)

Audited 2009 Revenues were:

Property Taxes - $661,417
Specific Ownership Taxes - $49,998
Sales Taxes - $716,088
Use Taxes - $694,192
Franchise Fees - $344,630
Intergovernmental Revenues - 6,237
Developer Fees - $1,976,400
Miscellaneous - $250

Audited 2009 Expenses were:

City Council - $24,309
City Manager - $134,871
General Operations - $451,000
Legal Services - $232,514
Finance - $98,441
City Clerk - $134,062
Incorporation Costs - $786
Public Safety - $695,833
Public Works - $551,049
Community Development - $380,404

The City began the year $737,496 in the hole, and with the developer payment of $1,976,400 on December 30th, ended the year at $2,008,804.

As to 2009 expenditures on roads:
Maintenance - $118,500
Traffic control - $9,873
Snow and Ice Removal - $163,033
General Administration - $92,735
Law Enforecement and Safety - $166,908

On the revenue side of roads in 2009:
$420,712 came from local taxes.
$130,337 came from the State of Colorado

The auditor states there was a material weakness in the City's financial reporting process in 2009. The auditor continues to believe the City's internal controls are inadequate to accurately and timely report financial information. The auditor suggests the City seek appropriate resources to prepare financial statements. The auditor says specific recommendations from the prior year were not put in place. Adequate supporting documentation was not found on several expenditures. It is suggested expenditures be reviewed and approved prior to payment, and that the approval should be in writing.

The meeting then moved on to extend the moratorium on marijuana related matters, and to adopt licensing regualtions for sexually oriented businesses. A representative of council was appointed to oversee the new manager's contract.

Money was approved to fix some curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, above the prior budget. Apparently the need for concrete is about six times what the available budget is for concrete repairs. The first draft of the recently conducted pavement study is being massaged, and a report will be presented at the next council meeting. There is no more money left in the budget to spend for the rest of the year. The budget for striping the streets has also seen a shortfall. Council does have $100,000 it could spend on streets. Polymers may be tried for patching some of the holes that can't be budgeted for repair.

A discussion was had about writing a Comprehensive Master Plan for the City, plus zoning regulations, and then design review guidelines. This will take a lot of money and at least two years. It can be done in house, or a consultant can be hired. (You may recall the County's 2030 Master Plan process.) This would be done to aim at the Canyons needs in five to eight years.

Doug will organize an authentic German Volksmarch for the Oktoberfest. This is a form of non-competitive fitness walking that developed in Europe. Participants typically walk 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) on an outdoor path. Participants enjoy recording distances and event participation in international record books. More of a social event than a 'HEALTHY OUTING', participants often bring along a Boda bag filled with wine or Apfelcorn. Maureen and Tara will also sponsor a fun run of some type. It is not known if these two events can be merged. Doug was asked if free beer would be provided to men who have the guts to wear lederhosen in the Volksmarch. He quipped that good Germans don't give away beer, they sell it.

A couple ward meetings had the URA lady come talk about the URA. The new city manager said the petition for a ballot question to repeal the URA has been has been approved to form. If enough signatures are collected, this question will be on the November ballot. (The City has a website that will likely have information FOR the URA. I believe the Blight's Not Right group has a website AGAINST the URA. There is a FaceBook page with a couple hundred supporters called "Are You In The Dark in Castle Pines North?" If you read all three you'll probably have a pretty good idea what the issue is about.)

Apparently a citizen asked City staff if it was ok to have a block party. They wanted to know about blocking off their street for the event. The City does not have a policy on block parties. A wide ranging discussion was then held on permitting block parties, how Castle Rock does it, how the County does it, and the Army's policy under the Clinton Administration on gays in the Military. (Don't Ask, Don't Tell.) It was finally determined the Clintons had it right, but instead it came out as a policy of "Block Partier Emptor", or some such.

Jim McGrady spoke to the topic of the notion of integration between the City and the Metro District. He's going to ask Clifton Gunderson how much it would cost to prepare three models. The first model would show the City operating under a CH2MHill contract. The second model would show the City operating under City employees. The third model would look at the City's 2010 budget and the Metro District's 2010 budget, and look at potential financial savings or improvement in delivery of services by merging the two entities functions. Jim will obtain a quote and have the cost available at the next City council meeting. He would like to have the work performed by September 1st, in time for 2011 budgeting. Jim was asked by Council if the Metro District board has bought into the notion of this study. Apparently that conversation has not yet been had, but needs to happen. Council expressed concern that the District's board may not embrace the study results if they do not participate in the study itself.

(It has long been asserted in some circles that there could be savings from merging the City and the Metro District. While that sounds good, no credible study has ever been presented to show how this desire might come true - or that any such savings are sufficient to fund the needs to the City. The Metro District has moved on to explore whether consolidation with other water providers in the area might in fact produce savings for citizens, or better service levels, or perphaps both. If the Council cannot demonstrate savings, and if needs for street repair and other items exceed the current budget, the Council is going to need to come to citizens and ask for a tax to fund the operation of the City. Development on the east side of I-25 might help with revenues, but it might take eight years to plan, develop, sell, and generate traffic on the east side of I-25 that produces such revenues. Until that cash flows, the City is going to need to pull in its horns, or ask for a tax, or both.)

Bond attorney Dee Wisor will come to the City Council on Monday, July 26th. He will talk about impacts of Amendment 60, and 61, and Proposition 101. (You can see his speech on YouTube.) Citizens are welcome to attend the speech. Citizens will then have to leave so that City Council can have an executive session with Dee to talk about a bond election in November to raise a new tax to support the operation of the City.

I then left, and the Council had an executive session to talk about Metro District matters. They were going to have a session about the URA, but there's no new conversation to be shared at this time. A report on the URA was circulated, and it was mentioned that a motion has been filed in Court to try to get one of the law suits against the City dismissed. I think it was 9:30 when I left.

If there are no substantial savings to be had from integration of the Metro District and the City (likely) and if voters reject a request for higher taxes to fund the operation of the City (way too soon to tell), then how will we pay for the upkeep of our assets, such as the condition of the streets? Does anybody have any good ideas on that score? And once again, shouldn't we have a thorough study of what our assets are worth, and how much money we need to save to pay for their replacement? Until we have that data, do we really have any idea what the financial needs of the City are? While there is only so much bandwidth, shouldn't we prioritize that study of reserves and capital budgets? Do we need to put away several hundred thousand dollars a month? A million a month? More? Less? Does anybody know? Where are we going to get the money needed to repair and replace the assets we already have, more less build other things we might want or need?

More investors saying "no thanks" to muni bonds

Is this an interesting trend to pay attention to, or merely a short-term phenomenon all but forgotten by Labor Day? MS

(Reuters) - Warren Buffett isn't the only investor sounding alarm bells on municipal bonds.

A growing number of U.S. investors are either scaling back or dumping outright their positions in what was long considered the least volatile and safest of markets.

So far this year, municipal bond funds have enjoyed $5.1 billion of net new cash while U.S. government agency and Treasury bond funds have taken in $9.1 billion, extending a record-breaking year for bond funds and exchange-traded funds of $396 billion in 2009, according to Lipper.

The tax-exempt muni market has sheltered investors from the sovereign credit storm so far this year: Total returns year-to-date are 3.54 percent while the benchmark Standard & Poor's 500 index .SPX is down about 5 percent through July 7. For their part, U.S. Treasuries prices are up 6 percent for the same period, according to Barclays Capital.

But as financial markets enter the second half of 2010 with risks of a "double-dip" recession growing, U.S. investors are bracing for even harsher fiscal deterioration at states and localities and, consequently, are shying away from the $2.8 trillion municipal bond market.

"The balance sheets of corporate America are in much better shape than that of our governments, states and localities," said Tom Sowanick, chief investment officer of OmniVest, which oversees more than $1 billion.

"We are completely out of munis, and we don't plan on buying any even though some are yielding more than 5 percent. No thanks."

Sowanick said the relative performance of municipal bonds has been "nothing less than horrible." The total returns for munis between the March lows of 2009 and June of this year were 13 percent, while corporate bonds turned in 28.6 percent.

Christine Todd, a managing director at Standish Mellon Asset Management, said she has been scaling back the level of risk in her portfolios. "General obligations are of the highest quality but with GOs come more economic and political risk," she said. "We took down our exposure there and have gone into revenue or so-called essential bonds."

Revenue bonds are paid from the revenue usually generated from a particular public project, such as a road or a sewer system. General obligation bonds are backed by the full-faith and credit pledge of the issuer, and by extension, the ability to raise money through taxes.

Some mom and pop investors, too, aren't sticking around in the second half. U.S. municipal bond funds reported $232 million of net outflows in the week ended June 30 -- marking the first weekly outflows since mid-April, LipperFMI reported late last week.

A $140 BILLION PROBLEM
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said last week that U.S. states in fiscal 2011 could be facing the worst budget situation since the recession began in 2007. The cumulative budget shortfall of states "will likely reach $140 billion in the coming year, the largest shortfall yet in a string of huge annual gaps that date back to the beginning of the recession," according to the think tank.
Fiscal 2011 began one week ago for most states, which have turned to another round of cuts and tax increases to try to wipe out the gap. All states with the exception of Vermont must balance their budgets.

Concerns about budget deficits and funding shortfalls will probably lead to market-value declines in the municipal bond market and, perhaps, widespread defaults, technical analyst Robert Prechter said in a recent interview.

Conversely, U.S. corporations, not counting financial companies, have socked away $1.84 trillion in cash and other liquid assets as of the end of March, up 26 percent from a year earlier and the largest-ever increase in records going back to 1952, according to the Federal Reserve.

'TERRIBLE PROBLEM'
It is "one of those rare times -- approximately once a century -- when (munis) are at serious risk of default," Prechter said. "The whole municipal area is likely to see a decline in price and a rising yield ... over the next several years."

The amount of debt in municipal bond defaults continues to lag those of corporate debt this year, with 19 muni defaults totaling $1.028 billion through June, compared with eight corporate defaults totaling $2.787 billion, said Richard Lehmann, publisher of Distressed Debt Securities Newsletter. For all of 2009, $108 billion of corporate debt defaulted versus only $6.3 billion of munis.
While most of the muni defaults this year continue to be from risky Florida community development districts, Lehmann said he foresees more defaults as issuers struggle with climbing employee pension costs.

Billionaire Warren Buffett warned the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission in June that municipal bonds faced a "terrible problem." He has trimmed his investments.
"There will be a terrible problem, and then the question becomes will the federal government help," Buffett said at the hearing. "I don't know how I would rate them myself. It's a bet on how the federal government will act over time."

Tom Metzold, co-director of municipal investments at Eaton Vance, overseeing $7 billion, said he is holding and buying high-quality revenue bonds for larger essential service projects. "People will still need electricity so they can watch TV, and they'll need to pay for water if they want to take a bath," Metzold said. "That said, I'd rather have the GO of Massachusetts than the water and sewer revenue bonds of a small town where the consumer demand is not very high."

Market Memo: Municipalities under more fiscal stress than states

(The following views were issued on June 28 by a municipal fund bond manager. I offer them here as food for thought. MS)

When it comes to state budgets, it’s a new fiscal year but the same old story: Days away from the start of a new fiscal year, at least eight state legislatures are extending current sessions or meeting in special session to try and hammer out a budget agreement by July 1. New York already has missed its budget deadline — its 2011 fiscal year started April 1. That brings to 9 the number of states that have entered or are in danger of entering the new fiscal year without a budget in hand, matching last year’s total that missed their deadlines.

And like last year, the issues behind this year’s showdown are the same: revenue and taxes. Hit hard by the recession and slow to participate in the recovery, many states suffered declines in virtually every revenue source — the Census Bureau estimates collective state revenues fell a record $67 billion for the 12 months ended June 30, 2009. Federal stimulus aid has helped, but the bulk of it runs out this year. And states are reluctant to close the gap through tax increases for fear of making their economies worse. Tax hikes that are being discussed tend to be limited in nature, such as on tobacco — not broad income tax increases. Finally, having taken the scalpel to spending the year before, they’re also finding it politically problematic to undergo another round of radical budget surgery. States face a cumulative shortfall of $89 billion for the coming fiscal year, the National Conference of State Legislatures estimates.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that as the state budget drama plays out in the press, the headline news will be worse than the underlying news. There are signs revenue is stabilizing — in this year’s first quarter, states reported their first year-over-year increase in revenue since 2008’s third quarter. Debt service payments among all states also continue to be current, with state revenues coming in at levels that are more than sufficient to cover scheduled payments on general obligation (GO) bonds, the most frequently issued and generally lowest-risk form of bonds issued by states. GO bonds generally rank high on a state’s incoming revenue pecking order. Moreover, a lot of fiscal challenges confronting states are more long-term in nature, such as pensions and infrastructure, and they have time to work it out.

Stringent credit analysis key

The news isn’t as good on the local government front. We share some of the concerns about potential default that have been expressed in recent articles in the financial press. While we don’t wish to remark on specific issues because circumstances vary widely, we believe local governments most vulnerable to a potential default share common characteristics — poor demographics and subpar fiscal management. Areas with older, declining, less educated populations that typically struggle with a dwindling tax base have seen their situation worsen in the wake of the longest and by many measures steepest recession of the post-World War II era. This is a bit of generalization, of course. Fiscal woes and mismanagement isn’t limited to declining areas. Many boomtowns in the Sunbelt also are suffering fiscal crises, in part because they relied too heavily on residential growth and failed to diversify their tax base. Then came the collapse of the housing market, which undermined a key source of revenue growth.

Dislaimers:
Views are as of June 28, 2010, and are subject to change based on market conditions and other factors. These views should not be construed as a recommendation for any specific security.
Bond prices are sensitive to changes in interest rates and a rise in interest rates can cause a decline in their prices.

Interest income from municipal funds may be subject to the federal Alternative Minimum Tax [AMT] for individuals and corporations, and state and local taxes.

Past performance is no guarantee of future results.

An investment in money market funds is neither insured nor guaranteed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or any other government agency. Although money market funds seek to preserve the value of your investment at $1.00 per share, it is possible to lose money by investing in these funds.

Investors should carefully consider the fund's investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses before investing. To obtain a prospectus, or if available, a summary prospectus containing this and other information, contact us or view the prospectus provided on this website. Please carefully read the prospectus before investing.

The Good Thing to Do

Last night I attended the Independence Day celebration hosted by CoCPN at the Coyote Ridge Park. This was a really nice event, and sponsoring it was a Good Thing to Do. Special thanks to our attorney Linda, our city services providers at CH2MHill-OMI, the Castle Pines North Chamber of Commerce, Darwin and Chris, the Castle Pines Connection newspaper and website, as well as all the other local businesses and candidates for office who supported this community event. Our Mayor Jeff Huff did a good job of representing the community in the remarks he made. Our state respresentative Carole Murray also made good comments about why Independence Day is an important day to reflect upon what makes our country so very special. Sheriff Dave Weaver also participated in this community family event which featured a pervasive feeling of good will. The fire chief attended, and brought her big red truck - a perrenial favorite with the kids! Our City Clerk attended with her family, as I did with mine. The ladies chorus sang a number of patriotic songs in multiple part harmonies. The hamburgers were good. The weather was absolutely perfect, and the guitar player particularly enjoyed playing "Here Comes the Sun" at sunset. I believe the kids enjoyed the stage show that involved three hogs performing tricks. Apparently this hog act has been on The Late Show with David Letterman Show (Stupid Pet Tricks?). The MC thanks the Metro District for making it possible for this show to be staged for the kids a the Independence Day Celebration. For a couple hours our community leaders put aside differences and pulled together. It felt good to see our community behave like a bunch of neighbors gathering together. It was the Good Thing to Do. If you missed it, I think Tim will have a bunch of good pictures on The Connection website here in a few days.

Do you want to pay a property tax to fund a new City?

I attended the 6/8/10 meeting of City Council. Here's what I saw:

Short version - not much

Detailed version:

The work session began at 6 p.m. with a Council training session. Members of Council shared that they felt uncomfortable and threatened by the way the public behaved during the recent URP hearing. So, measures were reviewed on how to vote citizens out of a meeting if they sassed Council too much. The City's attorney opined that the decisions were controversial and complex, and that elected officials deserve to be treated better. (There was no discussion of how council's decisions may have been ill advised, and how that could have promulgated citizen and elected official outrage. I imagine the truth lies somewhere in between, and we should all treat one another with more respect - City Council members, and citizens. You attract more bees with honey than you do with vinegar. After all, we're neighbors. We should act like it.)

Next up was medical marijuana. The city's attorney suggested the moratorium be extended for another year. Doug Gilbert suggested people be allowed to vote on what they want to do with medical marijuana. The moratorium can be extended, pending outcome of a vote by citizens in November.

Next up was adult oriented businesses. The land use planner form CH2MHill/OMI explained how to zone them out of existence in Castle Pines North. The City will pretty much use the language of the County for this issue.

The regular meeting began with appointment of city council members to the committees of council. We've got a new city manager, who actually works for the city, a huge improvement in things. He's just getting his feet on the ground. No one could remember what had been voted on before, so everyone got out their cell phones and tried to look up the old ordinances on a website somewhere. Eventually Doug's phone worked. Doug didn't want to be on finance, so John said he'd do it. Tara needed a committee to be on, so John said she could be on the finance committee too, if she could count. Jeff suggested everybody be appointed to every committee, and then just show up when they wanted. It was sort of a cluster. Maureen and Tara didn't know that CP Green, which has an anti-growth slant (at least for the Highlands Ranch area north of CPN) right in the middle of annexation and URPs and such, is no longer a committee, nor a sub-committee, but a "public interest group" which is no longer affiliated with the City in any way. The new city manager gets to tell the CP Green folks about this, as well as similar news for the Safety Committee and the Youth Initiative. Maureen didn't like the news, as these were some of her interests when she was Mayor. The change in status for these groups came after she got voted out, and before her friends appointed her to council. But, she only found out tonight.

Kim asked that the Connection ad thank the safety committee for their efforts.

Shelley waited for the meeting to tell that the emergency operations plan wasn't ready, and then asked that presentation be postponed until another meeting.

IGAs were considered with the fire departments and Parker Water and Sanitation. The agreements would make these other entities whole if there are negative tax revenue implications from the URA. The IGA was to be signed by the Mayor, as well as the chair of the Urban Renewal Authority. There was some discussion as to whether the Mayor was the chair of the Authority or not, and the cell phones came back out to try to contact the website somewhere to figure out what had been voted on before. It was sort of a cluster. It was then determined that the Authority members haven't been appointed yet, so there was not a chair to sign the agreement. Maureen suggested council appoint the authority, but she was told that has to be noticed first. Shelly said let's have special meeting. So, the City approved for the City to sign the IGAs, and then the Authority will have to approve and sign, once they are appointed and a chair of the Authority is named. (If IGAs are formed with most of the objecting entities, those left standing with objections will essentially be isolated. There are now law suits filed against the City in conjunction with the URA/URP actions. I guess citizens aren't the only ones who didn't like these actions of Council.)

Jim McGrady, formed Metro District Manager, and now consultant to the City, reported on a meeting with Metro District President Steve Labossiere and assistant District Manager Dan Schmick. Jim said it went well, and the meeting was the first time the District had been presented with an actual illustration of what consolidation might look like, rather than dissolution. Jim also had a conference call with the Metro District attorney, John Hayes. Jim said things were moving towards the District agreeing to certain things in exchange for the dissolution being withdrawn. It's early in discussions, so details will follow over the next month or two. (The District is fine with giving up the stormwater job to the City. It's low revenue and almost unlimited liability. They're also fine with giving up the parks responsibilities, as that is no revenue, and a chunk of costs. The City would have to have a tax to pay for the parks work. Voters have already said no to the District transferring mil levy to the City. Where the District will likely tell the City to pound sand is on water and wastewater, and especially pursuits for a sustainable water future.) Time will tell.

It was around this time that John had to duck out to head to the airport to make a midnight flight to Costa Rica. His son is working down there, doing Outward Bound and guiding raft trips, and such. And so John's going to get to spend a week going rafting and hiking, and zip lining, and maybe bungee jumping with his son. I asked him to E-mail me a pic. I could tell by the look in his eye he's really excited to get to go. What fun!

Shelley talked about how we only have two hours a week worth of website time and two more hours a week of other communications stuff time, and that's why our communications efforts are just awful. (It takes me fifteen minutes a week to post this blog, including the band videos! I think the City communications are bad because they try to massage and rehabilitate a process that is not in my view in good shape.) She asked if a City communicator could be hired, on top of the $31,000 URA/anti-Metro District messaging contract, and the communications plan CH2MHill is trying to put forward, as she has a day job. The CH2MHill/OMI communications director clarified his remark at the lat meeting that they were likely over-communicating, and said it would probably be cheaper to hire an independent person to do the work. Jeff asked with all the spending the City has been doing if there's any money left in the budget to pay for this. Bless his heart for trying! The new manager replied that the new HOA accountant is taking June to learn how to do our accounting, and we may have some financial reports again sometime in July.

Kim thanked the manager for including Council goals in his report of upcoming matters to put on the agenda.

It was announced that the audit has been completed, but I've not seen it. They want to get someone from the auditing firm to come out on June 22nd to make a presentation. The Council would then have some time to negotiate with the auditor over anything in the audit they didn't like. It's possible the audit could be filed on time by June 30th this year. Stand by for news!

The public works director from CH2MHill/OMI said the sink hole on the Parkway would cost $7,857 to fix. The City will pay 60% of that, and the Metro District will pay 40% because the hole was around a Metro District sewer pipe. The most interesting news of the meeting came at this late hour. There was recently a survey done to determine the condition of pavement in the City. The main priority is to fix stumbling hazards on the sidewalks, and there is enough money to do most of that work. Now hear this - the concrete needed to affect the currently needed repairs identified by the study is four to five times the amount of concrete budgeted for 2010. (Does this mean we could have the current cracks fixed by 2015, and if there are no more cracks between now and then, we're in good shape?) Of course the suggestion then came that we spend more money in 2010. The money to do this additional needed work is not part of the budget. Do you want to do the work that's needed, or not? The question is the same as it's always been: Do you want to pay a property tax to fund a new City? Yes or no.

There was then an executive session to talk about the citizen petition for voters to decide whether or not to disavow the URA, Metro District goings on, and other stuff.