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