Whether you're Secretly a Democrat or Secretly a Republican....

I just read a post from a candidate that captures what I think we should be talking about in our community.  It's written by Stephen Allen, candidate for City Council in Ward 3.  Regardless of who you intend to vote for, or your party affiliation, please take a moment to consider his words.  They are right on track.  They matter.

 Dear Friends and Neighbors,

My name is Stephen Allen and I am a candidate for Castle Pines City Council in Ward 3. Let me introduce myself. I am a nine-year resident of Castle Pines. My wife and I moved to the Castle Pines community to raise our family. We feel this is a very special place to live.

I decided to run for City Council because I am concerned about the direction of the current City Council leadership and want to make a change. I share the frustration of many residents who have taken the time to attend City Council meetings, spoken out about issues that concern them, and feel those concerns have been dismissed or ignored.

I believe the current City Council has become preoccupied with issues that do not reflect the interests of the majority of citizens, like pursuing the dissolution action against the CPN Metro District, and voting to authorize an urban renewal authority, which was rejected by an overwhelming majority of voters at the ballot box in November 2010.

If elected to City Council I will pursue three priorities:

Integration. I believe the City cannot move forward with integration without ending the litigation with the Metro District. Since the current City Council voted to dissolve the Metro District in February 2010, the City and Metro District have collectively spent over $500,000.00 on the dissolution litigation.

I believe there is no benefit to continuing the lawsuit. I have been attending City Council and Metro District meetings over the past two years. I have seen the chilling effect of the lawsuit. The elected leaders of the City and Metro District are talking at each other (through their attorneys) and not with each other. I think that is a disservice to our community. Also, if the lawsuit continues, the City is not likely to see any cost savings from integration of services, which was the City's justification for the lawsuit.

The irony is that residents of Castle Pines fund both the City and Metro District though their taxes and mill levies. So, essentially, the citizens of Castle Pines are funding the lawsuit. I personally do not think we are getting a good return on our investment. If elected, I would vote to withdraw the dissolution petition and end the lawsuit. I believe that is the only way the City can move forward and work cooperatively with the Metro District to achieve an integration of services plan that would benefit the citizens of this community.

Transparency. The job of the next City Council is to restore the trust of the citizens of Castle Pines. I believe there are legitimate concerns about transparency and openness in the operation of our city government.

One of the issues is lack of notice and opportunity for the public to provide input in the decisions made by City Council. The City provides the public with the minimum required notice of its agenda for any given City Council meeting. I think the City can do a better job of providing advance notice of its agenda and of public hearings where the input of the citizens is needed. If elected, I would advocate for laws that promote more openness and greater transparency in the operation of city government.

Road Maintenance. I believe that City Council must plan for the future. When the citizens of Castle Pines voted to incorporate, the City took on the responsibility of maintenance of city streets and roadways. That should be a funding priority for City Council.

Although the City Council recently approved funding for pavement repair, the City still needs to study the long-term costs of maintaining those roadways. If elected, I would support a study to determine the costs of maintaining city roadways on a life-cycle basis. Once the City has this information, the City Council can make informed decisions about how to pursue funding for this priority.

Thank you for being an interested and engaged citizen. If you have friends and neighbors in Ward 3 who might be interested in supporting my candidacy, please forward this e-mail to them. If you would like to talk with me or meet some of the other candidates, there will be an open house on Sunday, Oct. 23, from 1- 4 PM at the Merrill's home, 7360 Winter Berry Place.

Please come and invite your friends and neighbors!

Stephen Allen
Candidate for Castle Pines
City Council, Ward 3

City of Castle Pines, Ward 3, includes the neighborhoods of HOA#1, HOA#2, The Retreat, Huntington Ridge, Claremont Estates, Lagae Ranch and the Lodge at Castle Pines.

Comments on Proposed 2012 Budget - City of Castle Pines

Balancing a budget can prove difficult in places like Washington DC.  Similarly, staff has recommended to Council that they adopt another deficit budget for Castle Pines.  Council is planning to spend $1.2 million more than will be taken in for 2011.  Next year Council is asked to spend $223,233 more than it takes in. 

As for money coming into the city, you’re forecast to pay $400,000 for franchise fees associated with utilities and cable TV.  You’re expected to pay $630,000 in fees to the City that are associated with buying a new car.    

What value do you receive in return?  $120,000 pays basic legal services, with an additional $45,000 earmarked for suing ourselves.   $156,000 buys 30 hours a week of City management services.  $132,000 buys 83 hours a month producing financial statements.  “City Hall” rent is $85,000 at a time when we should share space with the Metro District.  $158,000 runs a park with no revenue.  At the same time the Metro District already has a parks manager, and Master Association dues aimed at parks sit idle.  $75,000 will explain to you what a great job is being done by the City, and $16,000 televises Council meetings.  $21,000 pays to ask you to pay more tax to the City, exactly why has yet to be determined. 

Council will consider staff’s proposal.  They can change any item prior to approval.  Oh, that they would.

What’s good news in the budget?  $1.3 million is aimed at our streets.  This time last year staff assured us we only needed to spend $200,000 on street repairs.  While that estimate changed, we still have not determined overall costs to maintain our streets over time. 

You should ask why.

Happily, fresh faces on the new council will soon be seated.  When that happens, talks with the Metro District Board can restart.  I suggest the attorneys and employees be kept out of the room.  Talks should not begin with a list of items to negotiate.  Instead, start with building a social relationship upon which to base the business relationship.  Once you find out you can get along, then start easing into the more substantive discussions. 

When this process produces results, Council can then adopt a revised budget to reflect the opportunities mentioned above.  It’s always important to consider the future, but the next three months need to be focused on slashing costs, and putting our own house in order.

Council Vaults City into Denver Post Headlines One More Time

Castle Pines fight to dissolve Colorado special district gets pricey

By Carlos Illescas
The Denver Post

 

A battle between Castle Pines and a special district over the city's quest to integrate the district into the city is getting expensive and ugly.
More than $500,000 has been spent by Castle Pines and the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District since early 2010, when the city started legal dissolution proceedings.
Much of that has gone to lawyers, consultants and others hired by either side.
The city says that by integrating the metro district into the city, it will be able to provide services at a cheaper rate and save taxpayers money.
But the metro district doesn't trust the city and thinks Castle Pines isn't working with them to come up with the best solution.
So, now the issue is playing out in

(Click for larger map)

court.
The metro district provides services that include water, wastewater, storm draining, and parks and open space to about 3,200 customers.
The district was formed in 1984 and has provided services for Castle Pines residents since then.
After residents voted in 2007 to incorporate as a city, leaders envisioned consolidating the district into the city, but keeping related taxes to provide services or to fund other improvements.
The metro district recently received an extension until February to come up with a dissolution plan. Should the judge approve it, the issue will be decided by voters.
City officials say integrating the metro district into the city would save about $500,000 annually. About half the savings would be in salaries paid to the metro district's manager and finance director.
There would be other savings from consolidation.
Metro district residents now pay high fees and property taxes just for district services — 41 mills, more than half of which covers debt service.
"We want to cut taxes and fees, but we can't do that until we integrate services," City Councilwoman Kim Hoffman said. "It streamlines the process, for no other reason than to make it easier for people to work with us having one entity."
Dwight Kemp, a Castle Pines North Metro District board member, said some of the animosity stems from the timing of the dissolution by the city.
Both sides had been discussing how to proceed, he said, when the council suddenly moved to eliminate the metro district altogether.
"We felt like the city aborted all of our efforts to integrate and do what's best for the community," Kemp said. "The city said, 'You have to go away.' "
While most of the council favors dissolution, Mayor Jeff Huff is against it, saying he wanted more time to study the issue.
Huff also says the money spent by both sides fighting this has gotten out of hand and that it's only going to get worse.
"I expected it would create a protracted legal action, and there would be no assurance of what the outcome would be," Huff said.
Metro district resident Donald Reese agrees that the legal battle is already too costly. But he said, "I don't see how the city can function with an arm out there that doesn't have as much transparency than you would think."

Local Editor Rips Council for Lack of News of Council Election

"City Council Members, 

I am shocked the the city did not find this important to include in their last Citizen or to submit to the local community newspaper.  I would think it important to solicit as much community participation as possible?  Does the city have any plan for communicating this information to its residents? 

http://www.cpngov.com/cityclerk/election2011/index.php. 

Also, three months ago (May 10) was the last update on the city's "Latest News" section of the website. Is there any way to have more current information posted on the city's website or disseminated to local media?" 

Signed, by editor of local paper

Council Approves Additional Funding to Pave Streets, Support for Library

Tonight Council increased funding for streets to $1.8 million!  This is a great step forward for our community.  Construction will begin shortly, and could last three months.  The approval at the last meeting was for $425,000.  An additional $1,375,000 was added tonight.  Council also took action to amend its 2011 budget to reflect this work on community streets.  This expenditure will address most pavement issues on Monarch and the Parkway.

Council also voted $25,000 to help jump start fund raising for the local library.  If you would like to write a check for this worthy cause, the address is Castle Pines Library, 7437 Village Square Drive, 80108.  Every little bit helps, so please support this effort if you can.

Let's all congratulate council members for their votes for these two very worthwhile community efforts!

Please Show Support For Council's Street Resurfacing

On Tuesday, August 9th, the City Council is planning to consider a resolution to spend $1,374,937 for the 2011 street resurfacing project. 

Location of the meeting is 7404 Yorkshire Drive. 7 p.m. start.

Passage of this measure will be a bold step forward for our community. Pricing appears attractive. Repairs are clearly necessary. This action is timely. 

Please make plans now to attend and show Council your SUPPORT for this action.

Council Votes Significant Funding to Pave Parkway, Monarch

You may have noticed the concrete batch plant by the Park and Ride on the east side of I-25.  Operators of that plant were asked by City staff if they had plans for the plant once the paving of the County road from Parker to I-25 is completed.  As it turns out the facility will be available at that location through year-end.  Council secured a very attractive bid for concrete from this batch plant to replace significant sections of Monarch Blvd. and Castle Pines Parkway.  This represents an enormous opportunity.

Tonight council approved a bid for 6,000 square yards of concrete at a cost of $534,000.  Because of the proximate location of the batch plant, this cost is about 40% lower than bids from other contractors who would have to truck in concrete.  Council also directed that it will consider an appropriation at the next Council meeting to fund an additional 12,000 square yards of concrete.  Total volume is 18,000 square yards at a cost of $1,602,000.  This work can address virtually all of the cracked concrete issues on our two main thoroughfares.  Paving will begin soon, and could take up to twelve weeks to complete.

This is EXACTLY the type of issue City Council should be tackling.  Much of the cracked pavement to be replaced is twenty-six years old, and has reached its effective service life.  With the batch plant located in the area, pricing appears very attractive, unlikely to be repeated.  Congratulations to all Council Members who voted for tonight's action.  This is a good sized chunk of money for Council to consider.  It takes guts for them to cast yes votes.  Please thank them for taking this action for our community.  It's the right thing to do!

July Article for Local Newspaper

Thanks very kindly for your supportive words regarding the series of columns here in The Connection.  I’m humbled by your overwhelming response.  For a long time I felt we were not heading in a good direction.  It’s good to know I wasn’t the only one, and in fact there are a ton of people who agree we should do something about it.

The other night Council decided not to have an executive session, the first such meeting in a very long time.  After the regular meeting we all went out and had a beverage together.  It’s what we should have been doing all along.  We acted like neighbors should act.  It was a good thing.  Maybe next time we can invite members of the Metro board.  While I respect the roles of our consultants and advisors, maybe we should just talk as neighbors.  Rather than focusing on “what’s in the city’s best interest”, we should focus on what’s in the best interest of people living in our community.

One Council member asked, “When are you going to write something positive about Council?”  I believe a great action would be for council to withdraw the dissolution petition forthwith.  You’ll see a rosy column in the wake of that action.  Other People’s Money (yours!) is funding both sides of that issue.  We should stop doing that. 

Until that day, I hope to see you at the Master Association’s Independence Day celebration at Coyote Ridge Park.  The Castle Pines Chamber is helping to host the event, as is The Connection.  Keep in mind the library effort here in the community is in fund raising mode.  The economy is tough, but if you have a couple extra bucks, support for the library in our community is most worthy of your consideration.

Funding Both Sides of the War on ......the Metro District.

I was asked at last night's council meeting a recurring question, "How much is the City spending on the Dissolution Petition matter?"  A similar story was detailed in The Connection six months ago.  We were assured by appointee Shul not to worry, records were being carefully kept.  And yet, hard numbers remain illusive.

Let me take a SWAG at it.  It looks to me like total tax dollars spent by both sides will be about a million dollars through the end of this year, given current trends in feuding and arrogance.  Costs appear to be divided about 2/3rds Metro, 1/3 city.  I'd call it a combined $650k for 2010 and 2011 at the Metro District.  I'd call it $300k this year and last at the City.  That's $950k to fund both sides.  A little frosting on the cake, and you're at a million.  Maybe that's just walking around money for some folks.

Last night the City paid bills from May.  $5,000 of your tax dollars went for specialized legal advice on the TABOR violation matter and The Buffalo Affair.  Billing tops out at just under $400 per hour.  I gues it's good work if you can get it.

We paid an additional $9,000 to another law firm for dissolution this month.  This amount is not atypical for a recent monthly billing cycle.  While the content may be privileged, you should be able to ask for a Total to Date figure for "Matter 10.L" from the legal firm.

We paid a media consultant $9,500 in April and $13,250 in May.  Total is $22,750.  Most of this expenditure paints the City is a rosy light, and the Metro District in an unflattering light.  If you've been to your mailbox lately, you know what I mean.  (Those bills have yet to be approved by the committee.  They should be considered in the next 48 hours.)

We paid $2,350 for postage to mail out the content created by above.

The Utility Director was paid $13,300.  Much of his billable hours are spent on dissolution related items.  I'd guess half, though in fairness he does perform other work too.  The invoices are easy to understand.  While some content my be privileged, it's easy to see how much money is going to what tasks.

$1500 was paid to a regional Chamber of Commerce.  I can't say that's dissolution stuff.  But, I wanted to mention I wrote on the check that their correspondence should go to Mayor Huff from now on, and no longer to appointee Shul.  (The Mayor previously refused to sign a check to this organization until this change was made.  I was asked to sign the check, but was not made aware of this difference of opinion.  I don't understand it, but you did elect him to be your Mayor.  We should support your choice.)

Does our financial employee spend a lot of time on dissolution?  Some.  I don't know if it's 1/4 of his time some days, or only 1/10th.  He did pull together some of the financial illustrations being bandied about.  He is salaried, so his hours are not shown.  I'd say $2500 is fair on the bottom end.  I don't really know.  I do know we have a shiny new accounting package in place, and as of July 1st we'll be doing financials internally.  Perhaps one of the first tasks could be to actually generate a report on the dollars and cents hard cost of this adventure/misadventure.

If I had to make an educated guess, I'd go with +/- $35,000 this billing cycle.  That's not a typical monthly figure.  There was enhanced excitation ahead of the June 20 Court date, plus The Buffalo Affair, which called for our attorneys to work on Sunday to make sure the District didn't get water to those buffalo.  For gosh sakes, include the area and water the herd!

I didn't use exact amounts, or names, in the above but these are very illustrative of the tax dollars flying out the doors.  It's sufficient information to clearly make the point that this episode needs to stop, and it needs to stop right now.  Cooler heads can prevail.  End it, have a cooling off period of six months, and then try again to see what measures can be pursued to save tax dollars and run things more smoothly.

"Are You In the Dark", Keith Dodd, Silence DoGood, Election 5 Months Away

There are citizens with informed opinions who are trying to be heard ahead of the Metro District's hearing date with the Court on the Dissolution Petition of City Council.  We are also five months ahead of the City Council election.  Good candidates need to be coming forward to put their campaign plans in order.  To that end, I'd like to publish the link to the "Are You In the Dark in Castle Pines North" site on Facebook, a letter to the editor of the Castle Pines Connection from Metro District Board Treasurer Keith Dodd, and a reply to Mr. Dodd's letter from concerned citizen, Silence DoGood.  (Who knows, we may have a series of Silence DoGood letters, in the American political tradition.)

As to the propaganda being spewed by the City Council Communication Committee, no, I wouldn't think so.  And even if they are correct, what you need to know is they have $75,000 worth of your tax dollars to fund meetings, blasts, and mailings putting forth their world view.  (The Propaganda Committee is headed by appointee Schul, who was not elected to her seat, and Councilmember Hamilton Bruer, who was elected on 504 votes.)

Please note that what follows are opinions of the authors, and do not necessarily represent my views.  (Specifically, I support Mayor Jeff Huff's efforts.  He and I do not agree on all points, nor are we supposed to.  In fairness, he voted against the Dissolution Petition.  It's not mentioned below that Councilmembers Gilbert, Hoffman, and Hamilton Bruer voted for the Dissolution Petition.  As to DoGood's statement that voters will say “so what” and side with the city, I believe the vote on "Blight's Not Right" negated that view. I believe voters are smarter than commonly believed, and are in fact paying attention quite nicely.)

The "Are You in the Dark" link is:  http://www.facebook.com/home.php?sk=group_113063618727991

The missive from Mr. Dodd follows.  Silence DoGood's response follows that. 

Mr. Dodd:

Dear Editor, 

Responsible voters in our community need to be aware of a few facts regarding Jim McGrady’s May and June 2011 articles in the Castle Pines Connection.  While growing number of people in our community are aware of City Council's propaganda campaign (a hostile takeover attempt which your tax dollars subsidize) against the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District, not everyone understands what's going on. 

I recommend your readers review City Treasurer, Mark Shively's thought provoking June 2011 column in the Castle Pines Connection.  

City Council unilaterally chose to file an application in Douglas County District Court to dissolve the Metropolitan District. 

The Metropolitan District, chose to work through a process, as responsibly as it can, to comply with the State's dissolution law which the City's action triggered. 

In addition to its attempted "water-grab," City Council's  taxpayer funded campaign to force the Metropolitan District to dissolve into the City has serious consequences for the people, families and businesses of our community -- consequences like dividing our community and jeopardizing our community's Standard & Poor's AA and Moody's A1 bond ratings. 

Because a few consequences of their hostile takeover campaign are coming to light, it appears that Jim McGrady, Maureen Shul, Jeff  Huff and their Council colleagues seek to divert attention away from the following indisputable facts: 

1)       The City owns no water, no water rights, no water storage and no water infrastructure.

2)       The Castle Pines North Metropolitan District is the drinking water (DW) and waste water (WW) services provider for all the people in our community who live west of I-25. 

3)       The Parker Water and Sanitation District  is the DW and WW services provider for everything in our community east of I-25, including The Canyons.  

4)       The word "dissolution" is not synonymous with the word "integration." 

3)       City leaders chose to attempt a costly and divisive hostile takeover of your Metropolitan District and the DW and WW services the Metropolitan District has responsibly provided the people of this community for decades.    

4)       The City can withdraw the application it filed in Douglas County District Court to dissolve the Metropolitan District any time it wishes. 

5)       As long as Jim McGrady, Maureen Shul, Jeff Huff, their colleagues and City attorneys continue trying to dissolve the Metropolitan District in Douglas County District Court, Colorado law requires the Metropolitan District, in its sole discretion, to file a Dissolution Plan with the Court.   

6)       Once the judge determines that Plan is sufficiently responsible, the judge will direct a question onto a future Metropolitan District ballot asking local voters whether or not they wish to dissolve the Metropolitan District. 

7)       City Council's claim that dissolving the Metropolitan District into the City would save the people hundreds of thousands of dollars was and is wholly unsubstantiated thereby caused the Metropolitan District Board to question what appeared to be City Council's costly, divisive and financially meritless claim.   

8)       After City leaders demonstrated they were unwilling/unable to itemize their cost savings claims, the Metropolitan District Board commissioned rigorous, independent, fact-based and data-driven cost/benefit analyses of possible dissolution options.  The Metropolitan District intended and still intends those results will serve as the factual basis upon which the Metropolitan District will prepare and submit the single most fiscally responsible Dissolution Plan it possibly can to the Douglas County District Court judge. 

9)       The Metropolitan District Board of Directors engaged StepWise Utility Advisors to conduct the rigorous, independent, fact-based and data-driven cost/benefit and comparative analyses of CPNMD’s dissolution options for its water and wastewater utilities.  

10)     StepWise's Phase 1 Summary Findings: Economies of Scale Matter! 

·       StepWise’s analyses reveal what many people know intuitively -- that economies of scale drive both cost and cost savings.   

·       Serving approximately 3,200 residential and commercial customers, the Castle Pines North Metropolitan District is a relatively small DW and WW services provider.  

·       Although the Metropolitan District provides DW and WW services at a competitive cost, in the mid- to long-term, neither the Metropolitan District nor the City possess the customer base and associated economies of scale sufficient to provide the people of our community with competitively priced rates.  

·       The most fiscally responsible way for the Metropolitan District -- and ultimately for the people and families of our community -- to control water-related service costs may be to regionalize the DW and WW utility systems, or otherwise partner with one or more existing DW and WW service providers/districts in Douglas County. 

·       StepWise’s Phase 1 Cost/Benefit Analyses Findings suggest that dissolving the Metropolitan District into the City would provide no additional economies of scale, whereas dissolving into either the Town of Castle Rock or Parker Water and Sanitation District would increase economies of scale and the potential for significant cost savings. 

As Jim McGrady, Maureen Shul and Jeff Huff continue their disinformation campaign to convince our community that somehow the City can save $600,000 in annual DW and WW costs (if only the Metropolitan District Board would forget about its fiduciary responsibility to the community and dissolve into the City, I urge your readers to remember that their claims remain as unsubstantiated today as they were 18 months ago.   

To the McGrady/Shull/Huff propaganda campaign, I respectfully say, "please stop."   

Repeating factual inaccuracies over and over again will not transform them into truths.   

Ignoring StepWise Utility Advisors' analyses findings makes you appear desperate and marginal -- it's causing many people and families in our community, who are neither Metropolitan District nor City partisans, to question your motivation, integrity and leadership. 

Knowing that the City possess neither water, nor water rights, nor water storage, nor water infrastructure, you deliberately undermined the Metropolitan District's work with the City & County of Denver to deliver water to the Bison herd at Daniel's Park.  

Your costly and divisive campaign to dissolve the Metropolitan District reminds me of a similar effort last year in which the City tried to cram an Urban Renewal Authority (URA) down our collective throats.  It backfired. 

The people and families of our community are exhausted with the City's overreaching power plays and costly/divisive water-grab attempt.  

Perhaps I would feel differently if the City were performing its existing core services well.  Sadly, the City is unable to maintain City streets anywhere near as well as Douglas County previously did before incorporation.  If the City can't manage basic street maintenance, why on earth would we rely on the City to manage the community's drinking water, renewable water and waste water services? 

Sincerely,

Keith Dodd

Silence DoGood:

You missed the point entirely! Everything you’ve outlined can be summed up as a big “so what”!

You must answer the question first and foremost, “Why is the City doing this?” if you have any hope of succeeding at the ballot box.

Your letter, though seemingly thorough, will confuse anyone who does not know the motivation behind the City’s action and bizarre chain of events that have followed.

Without this knowledge most folks would simply say “so what” and side with the city they voted to incorporate.

The fight is over funding the founder’s of the city’s exaggerated claims that they could be all things to all people.

The founders claimed that if we became a city the City could provide:

·     Control over traffic/roads

·     Control over development

·     More water financing options

·     Land use authority

·     Parks and recreation

·     Greater efficiency of services

·     Control over city sales tax

·     No threat of annexation

·     Increased property values

They promised to do all of this with no property tax increases!

They messed up the wording on Ballot question 2D. Property Tax – Metro District/Water? Transfer of Existing Property Tax to New City for Water and Sanitation Services

This is the important point – The language in 2D was a sales job. The City never intended to use ALL the money for water and sewer but that was the law they wrote and that was the law that was approved by the voters. The City needs some of the money to run its operations. This is why the city is doing this. There is no way they can do what they claimed they could do without more money.

Now how are the founders going to get out of this one? It’s not possible to keep all the promises they made without the millage from the Metro District or a property tax increase, which they all took a solemn oath not to raise if you elected them to the new city’s government.

Here’s what they came up with:

First the City tried to fix its mistake on a subsequent ballot, 2D & 2E, which would have allowed the city to transfer the millage and NOT use it exclusively for water and sanitation services. 2D & 2E failed.

They then asked the Metro District to give up the millage voluntarily. The Metro District said no. There was no excess millage to give up. The district was in the middle of negotiations to solve the long-term water uncertainties in the district with renewable water and infrastructure.

The city then went on a public relations campaign to convince the voters that the city could do a better job than the district when it came to solving those water problems and as an extra bonus the city could realize an even bigger savings by doing a better administrative job than the district by providing more competent and efficient services. As an added incentive to help the district move towards the city’s position, a spouse of a city council person circulated a petition to dissolve the district entirely. It’s easier to ask for the district’s millage if the district no longer exists. The city demanded that the district let the city prepare, or be strongly involved in, the dissolution process.  The city’s PR machine called it integration. The voters had had enough and elected a new Mayor.

The city then went to court to force the district to let the city participate in the dissolution. The court said no, explaining that under Colorado state statutes the city had no standing in the matter.

The city certainly had an interest though. How in the world are they going to fund the city now? They can start by being honest with everyone about their exaggerated claims and let everyone know how much they really need. There was an inkling of truth in one of the city’s meetings in May when it was stated that the city may not need to fully find a renewable water solution, that a 50% solution would work for the time being. After all the time and money wasted on legal expenses is the City finally modifying its position? They are because too many people are paying attention, and asking too many questions. The financial cost of running a city is greater than the claims made by the founders. And it’s certainly more expensive when everyone is suing everyone else. The city of course will disagree.

Ask yourself, “Why would they go to such extraordinary lengths to correct the first little mistake?”  (2D - Transfer of Existing Property Tax to New City for Water and Sanitation Services)

The city will tell you it was always apart of their plan to integrate the Metro District. What they don’t tell you is that it was always apart of their plan to take the millage to run the city’s operations. Now it's a matter of whom do you trust? It’s also a matter of character and judgment.

Now with that in mind, everything the city has done in response to that little 2D mistake can be seen as a frantic attempt to hide the truth.

Silence DoGood

We Don't Need No Stinkin' Potholes!

This year, Council’s budget for overlaying streets is $450,000, which is up from the original number of $350,00, which is up from the most recent former city manager’s number of $250,000.

The number that staff gave to Council last fall for this work was $608,000. Rather than funding streets first, Council funded its communication budget. (You may have recently seen some of your tax dollars hard at work on the communications front.)

A new city study estimates the cost to resurface streets in need of current attention is $1,888,651.05 if "diamond grinding" is used. This work would need to be redone in ten years. The cost is $2,918,165.25 if asphalt overlay is used. This work would need to be redone in ten years.

This list of problem areas includes 17 street segments in the city. This reflects a fraction of the total streets in our community that we now have responsibility to maintain.

Staff is recommending $670,747.98 be spent for resurfacing in 2011. (This is a planning number. Bids could come in as much as 10% lower.) This plan reflects funding somewhere between 23 and 35% of the work that needs to be addressed at this time.

No action has been suggested to address the $220,000 difference between this year’s budget and staff recommendation. If this money is not spent, the streets should be expected to fall into further disrepair. I support this expenditure, as well as additional funding that is needed for streets.

In addition to these items, additional “tear and patch work” is also needed in 2011. That work would require still additional funding. If this work comes out of the repair budget, other repairs already planned would go unaddressed. And yet this work also needs to be done at this time.

A member of council asked about one invoice item at Tuesday night’s council meeting. Staff explained they had spoken with a financial advisor that might be introduced to council in case a G.O. bond was floated in the future. This could be a smart step in raising your taxes to take responsibility for costs associated with maintaining our streets.

Please join with me in thanking staff and council for paying attention to this important city business. Don't you wish they would focus more on city issues, and meddle less in the affairs of other community entities?

Did You Notice the Revolving Door?

Have you noticed that revolving door we’ve installed here at our City?

When we were sworn in a year ago the City manager had been on duty for a while. He was our second manager, the first manager having moved on to other assignments. It wasn’t long before the second manager was gone, and the third manager came up from Austin, TX to manage us. We then moved away from CH2MHill management, and hired our own interim manager, manager #4.

When he came to work he was very enthusiastic. I said, “You seem like a nice guy, and a professional. You’ll try to do the right thing. That won’t matter. You’re here to do as you’re told.” He didn’t want to believe me. His last day was January 31st. He lasted a month longer than I’d guessed. We now have an acting interim manager, manager #5, who in the not too distant future will give way to our 6th manager.

When we were sworn in a year ago a nice communications lady helped us get our pictures taken. She didn’t last long. A Council member took over doing communications, but she quit. Another Council member took over, but she took orders from another newly appointed Council member, who had just been voted off Council by the citizens.

CH2MHill sent a communications professional from Atlanta, but he wasn’t given the chance to make his presentation. He suggested we should save money by hiring a small local firm instead of incurring CH2MHill’s costs. That sounded good, so Council went out for bid. Many candidates applied. Of all the applicants, we hired CH2MHill to be our communications provider. We’ve budgeted $75,000 for communications, a huge increase over 2010.

That’s 12 people. Have you noticed that revolving door we’ve installed here at our City?

Those People Are Trying to KILL our City.....

In the past couple months I’ve written a couple articles for our community newspaper, The Connection. I’ll write more. So far, citizen response to the articles has been very supportive. Most encouraging, some folks who were initially disappointed checked their facts, and now nod. There seems to be appreciation that someone has brought up the topics for community discussion.

A great number of people were initially supportive of the dream of a Great City at Castle Pines. Three years after the beginning of that new City, some of the polish has come off the apple. There is no doubt it took a ton of work to lift the City to where it lies today. There is no doubt the lives of the average citizen are little changed by the creation of the City, if at all. There is no doubt the numbers don’t crunch for the City. They never did. More and more people are coming to this realization.

Some folks opine that the idea of the City is tremendous, but those now in office are just not very good at the tasks at hand. Other folks believe the City could never flourish under present conditions, regardless of whomever was elected.

As for the first view, it is true it makes no sense to give additional authority to folks you elect to run a City, until those folks demonstrate an ability to handle the tasks for which you’ve made them responsible. Would you want our water service or sewer service to run like our street maintenance and snow removal has? (I’m not throwing any barbs at our public works folks. They work hard and try to do the best they can with the tools they’re given. I’m throwing barbs at every Council member who will not vote to properly fund upkeep of our streets.) Rather than spending bandwidth and treasure pursuing the Metro District, let’s please leave the District to the tasks they have responsibility to perform (water, wastewater, open space and parks management). Let’s ask the City to focus on how it’s going to take care of our streets, and properly implement its land use authority.

As for the second view, I’ve never believed a City can properly function at Castle Pines until development on the east side of I-25 comes to fruition. The City isn’t evil. It may have been created too early, or at a bad time, or perhaps both. The necessary development has not been in place these past twenty-five years. It’s not there now. It won’t be put in place until our broad economy improves. We need a crystal ball to forecast exactly when that recovery will happen. It may be eight months or three years from now, and I sure hope it’s not seven or eight years away. I’m all for partnering with land use interests to create the best community we can as the turn-around begins. But, what do we do until that happens?

I believe we should come together to take responsibility for the City’s obligations. If Council demonstrates the integrity to bring the matter of funding the upkeep of the roads to voters for a tax increase, good for them. If citizens understand the need for additional taxes and vote yes, let’s get busy. But if voters say no new taxes, a decision has been made that we need to take to heart. We cannot abandon our streets! If voters say no to funding the upkeep of the roads, we have to go back to the County, hat in hand, and say, “just kidding about that dream of incorporation”. I’m not for “Killing the City”, and I've never met anyone who is. If we have to kill the fantasies of a few folks in order to take responsibility for our obligations, I am definitely OK with that.

Imagine, if you can, a Great City…..that takes care of its streets!

Two Good Conversations - Dan & Doug

Yesterday Dan Schmick and I sat down to chat about our community, as opposed to the "this district versus that city" stuff. Dan has served as the finance director at the Metro District for the past several years. With Jim Worley coming on board as the new manager of the District, an opportunity arose for Dan to move to the City to serve as finance director there. Districts are a bit different from cities, so this new role will give Dan exposure to additional topics in his profession. Jim is well experienced in District management. Welcome to Dan and Jim in their new roles!

Dan and I have always gotten along very well, and I think he's very good at what he does. It was my suggestion to the Council that they engage him to provide services to the City rather than the firm that is currently engaged in that pursuit. I'm happy to see Dan come on board at the City. I do believe the current firm has done a good job in improving our financial reporting, as well as this year's budget process. It just makes sense to me that Dan could handle the financial tasks at both the City and the District, saving each entity - and the citizens of the community - money. (Both entities would need to hire separate auditors to review the books Dan would keep for the separate entities.) This is the sort of combination of efforts that makes good sense and saves citizens money now, as opposed to grandiose visions bandied about these past several years.

I want to thank Councilman Doug Gilbert for chatting with me substantively about City issues last Saturday. We were both attending the same social function, and after a few minutes we migrated the conversation to topics of the City. We had a good back and forth discussion. It's been too long since we did that. I look forward to more of same. Thanks again to Doug.

I'll share with you the thoughts I expressed to them. The City needs a study to determine the life cycle costs of maintaining our roads. If we have plenty of revenue, that's great news! If we need to ask for a tax increase to pay for this obligation, let's pull together the data, and then make the case to residents for a 2012 TABOR ballot question to pay for the City's obligations. It's my sense we will need a robust capital plan to fund this obligation. Does it hurt to find out?