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?