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.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
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?)
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?)
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
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.)
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.)
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
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)
"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)
Saturday, August 14, 2010
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)
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)
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
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
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
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
