Search: Site   Web
City Desk ~ An insider’s view of the policies and politics of Colorado Springs city government

It’s (almost) official: Tim Leigh is running for mayor

February 8th, 2010, 12:15 pm by dchacon

tim-leigh

Tim Leigh is making it official: He’s running for mayor.

“I plan to file the formal papers later this week,” he wrote in his weekly newsletter.

Talk about a planner. The next mayoral election isn’t until April 2011.

Leigh is a commercial real estate broker.

He’s one of three people who have already been selected to serve on the new Citizens Commission on Ownership and Governance of Memorial Hospital.

In his newsletter, he writes about his appointment and his intentions to run for mayor.

 

Here’s what he wrote:

On the local political scene, you may have seen the article in the Gazette.  I was appointed to the Commission to study Memorial Hospital and whether or not it should be part of city government.  Should we sell it?  Should we keep it?  Should it produce income to our general fund? Are we more greatly liable for any bad stuff than beneficiaries for good stuff?  What is the role of government in providing health care?  These are all good and interesting questions.  And as I mentioned privately to Memorial’s CEO, I will do my best to live up to expectations, learn what the issues are and recommend accordingly.  I told him that if we work together we can accomplish great things.   And I believe that. 

 

The article went on to describe me as a “potential” candidate for Mayor.  You can now remove the word “potential” from that description.  I plan to file the formal papers later this week.  (Yes; you can now call and offer congratulations or condolences!)  In that role, (as a candidate with no bearing or standing), I met Denver’s Mayor Hickenlooper last week to find out what the channel of communication is like between our cities, and to find out if it’s possible for us to work together on economic development, cultural exchanges or other business and political issues.  Mayor Hickenlooper was very receptive & encouraging and I’ve already scheduled another meeting with his advisor on regional cooperation. 

 

Confidentially: I hope to meet with Pueblo’s Mayor soon, too; and frankly, I hope to engage Mayors from across Southern Colorado with an event billed as The Southern Colorado Mayor’s Conference on the theory that (let’s repeat this) “together we all get more done” kindly referred to as “GMD!”  Yes, I know that’s a reworked version of a tired cliché, but it’s true; together we all accomplish more. And I know that I have no bearing or standing, but dang-it; someone’s gotta step-up so I decided what the heck?  I’ll grab the bull by the horns.  What’s the worst that can happen? A light gorging; hey, I’ve been selling real estate.  How bad can it be?  LOL!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon

FREX may continue running, after all

February 8th, 2010, 11:26 am by dchacon

FREX, which was poised to end Friday, may continue running this year, after all.

The city received bids on nine “surplus” FREX buses by today’s 10 a.m. deadline. The city is hoping to use the proceeds from the sale of those buses to keep the commuter bus service between Colorado Springs and Denver in operation through 2010.

“They bid on each and every bus,” Curt DeCapite, the city’s procurement services manager, said today.

The buses were sold to York County Transportation Authority in Pennsylvania for a total of $1.44 million, or about $160,000 per bus.

The City Council will decide tomorrow whether to approve the funding proposal.

The city had put the buses up for sale twice before, but no one had bid on them.

The city was then contacted by unidentified agencies interested in buying the buses and put them up for sale again.

 

Here’s a copy of the city’s press release:

Nine surplus FREX buses put up for sale a third time in an invitation for bid, posted by the City of Colorado Springs, have sold to York County Transportation Authority in Pennsylvania for a total of $1.44M, an average of $160K per bus.

Colorado Springs City Council will be asked to make a determination February 9th during their formal session whether local proceeds from the sale may be used to operate FREX service for the remainder of 2010.  The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), who owns 80% of FREX buses, has already approved use of state proceeds to sustain the service for the rest of the year.  It will be up to Colorado Springs City Council to determine appropriate use of the remaining 20% local proceeds.

Without City Council’s approval, FREX service will be terminated in its entirety after Friday, February 12th. 

Due to budget shortfalls in the 2010 City budget, Mountain Metropolitan Transit has cautioned riders to plan for the possible discontinuation of FREX service since late last summer.  “We have a responsibility to the public to make every reasonable effort to maintain the service,” says Craig Blewitt, Interim Transit Services Division Manager, “however; appropriate use of the proceeds must be determined by City Council.”  If Council approves using local proceeds for the continued operation of FREX, the service will maintain its current schedule without interruption until further notice, and transit officials will continue to seek funding options for FREX in 2011 and beyond.

Copies of the bid tab can be found on the City’s website at www.springsgov.com/rfpArch.aspx after 1:00pm February 8th, or for a faxed copy please call (719) 385-5910.  FREX is operated by the City of Colorado Springs, Transit Services Division/Mountain Metropolitan Transit.  For more information, please visit www.FrontRangeExpress.com or call 719-636-FREX (3739) or 877-425-FREX (3739).

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon

Cops probe whether councilman ignored meth lab warning

February 5th, 2010, 1:49 pm by dchacon

gallagher11

Colorado Springs police may be investigating whether Councilman Tom Gallagher walked into a garage that used to be a meth lab despite a warning sign stating that it’s illegal to occupy and that a violation carries a penalty of up to 90 days in jail.

Gallagher, a professional surveyor who has fallen on hard times, moved into a dilapidated home on East Brookside Street after the home where he was renting went into foreclosure.

The home on Brookside is in one of the city’s seediest neighborhoods, and the detached garage in back was once a meth lab that police say remains contaminated.

Developer Mark Morley, who owns the home with a business partner and is letting Gallagher and his family stay there in exchange for doing home improvements, said a police officer asked him whether he had given Gallagher permission to go in the garage.

“In the conversation I was having with the police officer the other night, we were talking about it and he asked, ‘Was I aware of Tom entering it?’” Morley said today.

“He just asked me, ‘Do I know if he did or not?’” Morley added.

Earlier this week, police spokesman Lt. David Whitlock said there’s an “active investigation” at the Brookside property, but he declined to go into details.

“I don’t know if it’s related to the meth lab or related to any other activities,” Whitlock said.

Morley, who is friends with Gallagher, said police also asked him whether the home where Gallagher is living was habitable.

The officer “made some comment that there’s spray paint on the back wall. Yeah, it’s flowers. It’s not like gang graffiti,” Morley said.

“Then I said to him, ‘It’s not the nicest place. I understand that. But I drive down I-25 every day and I would imagine that all those folks that are in the position of having to be in tents and under tarps, they’d look at this as the Hilton.’ It’s very unfortunate what’s going on.”

Gallagher said he wanted to use the garage to park his Corvette and store some belongings. When he saw the warning signs, Gallagher said he called police to find out what he had to do to get them removed.

He said new signs went up.

“The Code Enforcement Unit of the Colorado Springs Police Department has designated this property … as unfit for human habitation,” one of the signs states.

“It shall be unlawful for any person to use or occupy for human habitation … until the placard is removed,” it states.

Gallagher said he interprets that to mean no one can permanently live in the garage. He said that police are retaliating against him by banning use of the garage because he pushed a proposal to cut city employees’ salaries.

“I know there’s some animosity between the police and Tom and maybe the Fire Department and Tom,” Morley said.

“I don’t want to get in the middle of it,” he added. “I just hope it all blows over.”

Morley said he hasn’t done anything with the garage because he wants to redevelop the area.

“There are reasons you don’t want to take things down when they’re in a floodplain,” he said. “If it’s a matter of taking it down, I’d rather just keep it all boarded up and locked up because when we redevelop the area, the existing print of structures, it allows you to build, at a minimum, at least that existing footprint.”

Morley said he let Gallagher stay in the home out of generosity. Yesterday, he said, someone called him and told him they wanted to help Gallagher and his family. The person on the phone wanted to remain anonymous, he said.

“They said, ‘We would like to do something for Tom because we appreciate him going to bat for the citizens the way he does. We don’t want to go to the house and deliver this stuff. Where’s your office? We’d like to deliver it there,’” Morley said.

Twenty minutes later, Morley went outside his office. He said he found 10 to 12 sacks of groceries, which he delivered to Gallagher.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon

Quote of the day

February 5th, 2010, 11:29 am by dchacon

“I don’t want to get in the middle of it. I just hope it all blows over.”

— developer Mark Morley, who owns the home where Councilman Tom Gallagher is living. The home on East Brookside Street has a detached garage that was used as a meth lab before Gallagher moved into the home. Gallagher said he wants to use the garage to park his Corvette but that police won’t let him out of retaliation for his proposal to cut city employees’ salaries.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon

Who made it to the interview process?

February 5th, 2010, 11:22 am by dchacon

For anybody who’s interested in finding out the names of the 20 candidates the City Council is interviewing for the new Citizens Commission on Ownership and Governance of Memorial Health System, keeping reading.

The interviews start out with Mayor Lionel Rivera explaining the commission’s role and then asking the candidates to say why they’re interested in serving.

After that, council members ask questions, such as the pros and cons of a municipally-owned health system and whether they have any family or friends who work at Memorial.

Each candidate gets a 10-minute interview, although some of the interviews Thursday were shorter. 

Sixty people applied to serve on the commission.

Three candidates — Stephen Hyde, Tim Leigh and BJ Scott — were endorsed by five or more council members, making them automatic selections.

That means the only thing 37 people got were rejection letters. 

These are the candidates interviewed Thursday and the order in which they were interviewed:

Murray Weiner

Martha Barton

Paul Dougherty

James Colvin

Allan Roth

John Burrington

Juan Garcia

Mary Ellen McNally

Dave Munger

Myrna Candreia

Jack Flobeck

Jay Patel

These are the candidates who will be interviewed today:

Robert Wolfson

Bob Lally

Peggy James

Allan Davidson

Ken Cantin

William Hodson

William Murray

Bert Wong

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon

Quote of the day

February 4th, 2010, 12:20 pm by dchacon

“Are you related to the Chacon that works for the city? It’s no crime. I saw the name when I was thumbing through the list of salaries.”

— Douglas Bruce, during a telephone conversation today.

(For the record, I’m not related to police Officer M. Chacon, who, according to The Gazette’s database of city employee salaries, earns $66,981 a year.)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon

Citizens group obtains list of employee salaries, benefit costs

February 4th, 2010, 12:12 pm by dchacon

money

Inspired by The Gazette, an Aurora citizens group formed last year to oppose a tax increase has obtained salary and benefit information for Aurora’s 2,666 city employees.

In October, The Gazette obtained a list of the names, titles and 2009 base pay of Colorado Springs’ city employees and put the information in a searchable database, which infuriated many workers. Taxpayers, however, were more appreciative.

Jim Frye, a member of Citizens for Responsible Aurora Government, said The Gazette’s work “inspired” him to seek the same information under an open-records request.

“You all inspired me to do this,” he said in a telephone interview this morning.

Our database guy says, ‘Well, how do you want me to do this?’ I said, ‘Do it just like the folks in Colorado Springs did. I really like what they did,’” Frye said. “That really got me going when I saw what you guys did. I thought, ‘We have to do more of this.’”

The database on Aurora’s city employees has been live for about two weeks, but Frye said the group didn’t announce it until today.

Here’s a copy of the group’s press release:

 Aurora Activist Group Publishes City Employee Payroll and Benefits Cost Data
For Immediate Release:
February 4, 2010

(Aurora) - Citizens for Responsible Aurora Government (CRAG), recently filed a Colorado Open Record Act (CORA) request with the City of Aurora, seeking employee data related to pay and benefits.  Some highlights of the data included:

- The highest paid employees make over $200,000 per year in salary and benefits
- Ninety Four City employees have a salary over $100,000 per year
- Average annual salaries for all City of Aurora employees, which includes all full and part time employees, approaches $60,000

After successfully opposing the city’s November 2009 property tax increase ballot measure (4A), which would have raised the city component of Aurora property taxes by 40%, CRAG wanted to identify current employee compensation.  During the campaign, the city sited the shortfall in the budget, but the idea of reducing employee pay or benefits to help with the shortfall, was never entertained.

The information that the city provided was current as of July 6, 2009 and included all regular employees (both full and part time).  The data included employee name/job title/salary or wage rate and each employee’s combined benefit package cost. The data did not include any contract, seasonal or temporary employees or overtime pay.

On July 6, 2009 there were 2666 regular full and part time employees.

The average pay of all employees (which includes both full and part time) was $59,867.
The average employee benefits cost (which includes both full and part time) was $17,395.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics [May 2008 Metropolitan and Non-metropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates Denver-Aurora, CO] the mean wage rate for all occupations in the Denver-Aurora area is $47,150.

www.bls.gov/oes/2008/may/oes_19740.htm#b00-0000

CRAG believes that City employees ought to bear some of the costs for making up the budget shortfalls that the city is currently dealing with.  Along with potential pay and benefit decreases, future contract increases should be put on hold until there is a turnaround in the local economy.  Voters in Aurora have had to tighten their belts and reduce their personal spending.  The city should be no different.  Continuing to operate business as usual will no long work.

CRAG has posted the employee pay data in a searchable database on the CRAG web site at:

www.concernedaurora.com

You can also download a complete copy of the employee data provided by the city.

Citizens For Responsible Aurora Government is a citizens group dedicated to accountability, transparency, and fiscal responsibility in the city of Aurora, Colorado

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon

Quote of the day

February 3rd, 2010, 3:56 pm by dchacon

“I just want to let you know I’ve turned your name in to the CSPD because I noticed that you attempted to run me down.”

— Mayor Lionel Rivera, during a phone interview today with yours truly.

Here’s the story: Earlier this week, I was late for work after stopping at Starbucks for my usual grande Americano and trying to beat the traffic light at Tejon and Colorado. By coincidence, the mayor was walking across the intersection at the same time. He was walking really, really fast, which led to the close encounter!

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon

Councilman alleges retaliation over backyard meth lab

February 3rd, 2010, 11:27 am by dchacon

getattachment13

A Colorado Springs councilman down on his luck is accusing the Police Department of retaliation over his proposal to cut city employees’ salaries as a cost-cutting measure.

The accusations revolve around an old meth lab behind the councilman’s house.

First, some background.

Councilman Tom Gallagher said he and his family were forced to move out of a home they were renting on Armstrong Avenue after his landlord lost it to foreclosure.

Finding a new place to live wasn’t easy.

Gallagher, a surveyor by profession, has had difficulty finding work, not only because of the recession but because he has to avoid any conflicts of interest as an elected official. He said he’s been living off savings and by “selling stuff.”

“My last paycheck was March 2007,” he said. “I’m not complaining. There’s lot of people in my position.”

Now Gallagher and his family are living in run-down home on East Brookside Street off South Nevada Avenue with a detached garage that used to be a meth lab.

The neighborhood is among the city’s seediest. Several houses next to Gallagher’s have been boarded-up and are condemned.

Gallagher said his friends are letting him stay there and do home improvements instead of pay rent, at least for the time being.

Otherwise, “I’d a been in a tent,” he said, referring to the scores of homeless people living in tents along Fountain Creek.

Gallagher said he wanted to store some of his belongings and park his 1984 Corvette - a “bribe for good grades” for his son - in the garage.

But a sign on the door from March 2008 warned that the garage was “a clandestine laboratory for the manufacture of illegal drugs and/or hazardous chemicals” and that “there may still be hazardous substances or waste products” on the property.

Gallagher said he figured enough time had passed to make the garage safe and called the city’s Code Enforcement Unit to remove the sign. He said he was referred to the Vice, Narcotics and Intelligence Unit.

Soon after, new warning signs went up.

“The Code Enforcement Unit of the Colorado Springs Police Department has designated this property … as unfit for human habitation,” one of the signs states.

“It shall be unlawful for any person to use or occupy for human habitation any dwelling or dwelling unit which has been condemned and placarded as unfit for human habitation until the placard is removed,” it states.

Gallagher said he doesn’t want to live in the garage.

“I understand Transformers was a good movie, but trust me, it doesn’t transform,” he said, referring to the Corvette, which used to be a midnight blue but is now a primer gray.

Gallagher said police are being overzealous in applying the law.

Why?

Pay cuts,” he said. “I’ve got a bull’s-eye on my freaking head.”

Lt. David Whitlock, a police spokesman, said Gallagher is getting the same treatment as anybody else.

“We don’t treat anybody any differently than any other individual when it comes to community and public safety,” he said. “The (posting) of a contaminated building is one of those areas where equality is what’s important. He’s not getting treated any differently.”

Whitlock said he didn’t know the specifics of the case involving Gallagher’s garage, other than it was an active investigation.

“I know from my experiences over at Metro VNI when we did lab cleanups and enforcement that we placarded any facility that we thought was contaminated,” he said. “As far as the rules related to entry into those areas, I think those are pretty strict, and that’s for the safety of individuals that could possibly receive some contamination.”

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon

Visitors who refuse to sign in at CAB can’t be denied access

February 2nd, 2010, 5:12 pm by dchacon

Security guards at the City Administration Building downtown are insisting that visitors sign in upon entering the building.

But people who refuse to sign in still have access to the building at 30 S. Nevada Ave., according to documents obtained under an open-records request.

On most days, the city has between two and three security guards sitting at a security desk near the front entrance of the building requiring visitors to sign in.

The question of whether visitors are required to sign in hit home last week when a rookie security guard insisted that I sign in to use the restroom. When I resisted and asked him for the policy requiring that I sign in, neither he nor his supervisor could produce it.

The policy, obtained this week, states that visitors who refuse to sign in can’t be denied access to the building.

But the public has no way of knowing that because the policy isn’t readily available and the sign on the door to enter the CAB states that visitors must sign in.

“Visitors will be asked to sign their name and their destination,” states the policy from City Manager Penelope Culbreth-Graft. “Visitors refusing to sign in will not be denied access. This step is only in place to increase the deterrent of visible security and to facilitate customer service to our visitors.”

In the policy, Culbreth-Graft says she approved the plan, which has been in place since December 2008, ”to improve security within the CAB without restricting public access.” 

Culbreth-Graft enacted the policy after city agencies housed in the CAB eliminated administrative support staff, such as secretaries.

Visitors were found roaming offices and hallways seeking assistance.

“What is even more disturbing,” Culbreth-Graft stated, was the increasing number of complaints of theft and missing items from employees in the building, “raising serious concerns about the security in the CAB.”

Security at the CAB cost $121,297 last year, according to documents obtained today, also under an open-records request.

The costs included $3,867 for ADT alarm charges, the documents state.

“The City Administration Building has an installed alarm system and pays subscription and service fees to operate the system,” city spokesman John Leavitt said in an e-mail.

 

Here’s a breakdown of the security costs: 

Amount               Journal Line Description       

$9,355                 JAN 09 SECURITY GUARD SVCS     
$8,871                 FEB 09 SEC GUARD SVCS  
$10,351               MAR 09 SEC GUARD SVC   
$10,323              APR 09 SECURITY GUARD SVCS     
$9,355                MAY 09 SECURITY GUARD SVCS     
$10,290             JUN 09 SEC GUARD SVCS  
$2,900               JAN-SEPT 2009 ALARMS   
$10,444             JULY 09 SECURITY GUARD SVC     
$9,807               AUG 09 SECURITY GUARD SVC      
$9,823                SEP 09 SEC GUARD SVCS  
$10,387             OCT 09 SEC GUARD SVCS  
$8,419                NOV 09 SEC GUARD SVCS  
$10,000            DEC 09 SEC GUARD SVCS  
$966                    OCT-DEC 2009 ALARMS    

$121,297.44     TOTAL

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google
  • StumbleUpon
ADVERTISEMENT 
ADVERTISEMENT 
powered by
google
Search
        Search: Web    Site