Less than two weeks after voters flatly rejected a property tax increase to cushion the city’s coffers and prevent myriad budget cuts, the president and chief executive officer of The Broadmoor luxury resort offered the Colorado Springs City Council a helping hand.
In an e-mail sent to Mayor Lionel Rivera and council members Nov. 16, Steve Bartolin volunteered to bring together local executives with strong financial backgrounds to help the city solve its money problems.
“I mentioned it to (El Pomar Foundation Chairman and CEO) Bill Hybl, and he said he would be happy to offer input as well and participate,” Bartolin stated in the e-mail.
Since then, the e-mail has been widely circulated and generated discussion across the community, from living rooms and newsrooms to boardrooms.
On Tuesday, resident Joann Hauser, who recently obtained a copy of the e-mail, stood before council members during the citizen discussion portion of their meeting and asked for a progress report.
“There’s nothing to report,” Rivera told her.
“What does that mean?” Hauser asked.
“It means nothing has happened,” replied the mayor, adding that all council members had received the e-mail and thanked Bartolin for sending the information.
“Nothing collectively as a body has occurred,” Rivera told Hauser.
Stunned, Hauser pressed for answers.
“Can you help me understand why nothing has come of that letter?” she demanded.
“Typically if nothing happens, nine members of council don’t think it rises to the importance to follow it up. Now I can’t speak for all the other members, but I’m going to guess that’s why,” Rivera said.
Hauser wasn’t satisfied with the mayor’s response.
“The majority of council members do not feel that it would be helpful to take him up on his offer?” she asked with a look of disbelief.
Rivera said Councilman Sean Paige was the only one who had approached him about the letter, saying it was a good idea.
Rivera also said he agreed there were “a few things” worth following up on, but others were geared toward the hospitality industry and “totally unrelated” to city government.
“Certainly, we’re not going to bring our average salaries to $24,000 a year,” Rivera said.
“I’m sure there’s things that we could probably follow up on, and we might,” he added.
Paige, who received the letter first and then encouraged Bartolin to send it to the other council members, told Hauser that he took Bartolin’s proposals “very seriously.” He also said he was still talking to his colleagues about taking Bartolin up on his offer.
“We just have to figure out how to do that,” he said.
Paige assured Hauser that “there are some discussions going on” among council members and between him and Bartolin.
“I don’t think we as a city can afford to turn our backs on any good ideas or offers of expertise that are brought forward,” Paige said. “I for one, and I think some colleagues may join me, plan to do something about it”
Hauser encouraged all the council members to take Bartolin up on his offer.
“May I quote a statement: If you continue to do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten,” she said.
(Click here to watch Tuesday’s City Council meeting. Hauser’s comments start at minute 29.)
THIS IS A COPY OF BARTOLIN’S E-MAIL TO THE CITY COUNCIL:
To: Mayor Rivera and City Council Members
From: Stephen Bartolin, Jr.
Date: November 16, 2009
Subject: City Budget
I understand you voted to take $580,000 out of the (Convention and Visitors Bureau’s) share of the Tourism Budget. I completely understand the financial pressures the City has right now and the tough decisions that must be made. I am not sure this is the most effective idea, however, for two reasons:
* It doesn’t really put much of a dent in the overall problem.
* I can say with a good fact basis that cutting tourism funding will only dig the hole deeper. This was proven, in no uncertain terms, when the State of Colorado did this. It cost them many millions more than they saved.
With that said it is unfair to make that comment and not offer some solutions. It doesn’t appear to be a popular solution to cut police and fire or not replace street lamps or water parks or close the museum or require temporary furloughs. It appears to be making people angrier. People seem to want a more comprehensive and long lasting solution.
The Gazette article a few Sunday’s ago brought some clarity when it broke down the city revenues and expenses by area. I was surprised that public safety was only a $114M of the overall $226M in expenses. I am sure there are efficiencies to be gained in public safety, but there is a lot to work with outside of that.
Please understand the constructive manner in which these comments are intended. A good way to look at it is as a business problem. Say you are the new CEO of a $226M a year business that is going to run $30+M in the red next year. The easy answer is to raise the rates and increase revenue, but the marketplace won’t support that (in this case, the taxpayers). That leaves only one alternative. Deal with the expense side. A basic analysis of the expenses is that you have a 70% overall payroll cost, $161M payroll for 1805 employees which equals $89,196 per employee and benefit and pension plans that are not only “Cadillac” but more “Ferrari” when compared to what is being offered in the private sector.
Looking at it this way, the solutions become more obvious:
* Restructure and reorganize how the City is run and figure out how to do it with approximately 1550 employees versus 1805 employees.
* Restructure the starting wages for both salary and hourly personnel across the board.
* Contract out everything that is practical with sharply negotiated pricing which gets you out from under the overtime, benefit and pension costs paid to City employees.
* Restructure your benefit and retirement plans to something more comparable to what is available in the private sector.
More specifically:
* 70% payroll cost – No matter what business you are in, for profit or non-profit, the game is pretty much over if you are running a 70% payroll cost. We do approximately half the revenue the City does and we run a 30% payroll cost with 1800 plus employees, near the same number as the City.
* Per employee cost of $89,196 – It is doubtful you can find any private employer for 500 or more people in the state of Colorado or practically the nation that has a per employee payroll cost that high. Our per employee cost is $24,460, which includes seasonal and part-time people which we use a great deal as there are no benefit costs associated with these.
* The number of people it takes to get things done -
The Gazette reported that the City has 81 people in its IT Department and is reducing it to 69. We have some ultra-sophisticated and integrated systems and a large PC network. In addition, we provide 24-hour IT customer service to all of our guests. We do this with 9 people.
I was told that the Utilities Department has over 30 people in Communications plus employs the services of an outside PR agency. We have 1 person in PR and we have to compete for our business across the nation.
The Gazette also reported that Utilities has approximately 60 people in Human Resources. We have 13. Yet we have over 1800 employees compared to their 1300.
* Examine the number of salaried positions – of our 1800 plus employees we have 144 salaried positions. I have no idea how many the City has but it would be interesting to know.
* The Gazette reported that the City has 67 positions paying $100,000 or more. We have 13.
* Restructure starting wages for hourly and salaried positions – every year we do a wage survey among major employers as well as other hospitality employers in the city for comparison purposes. For all like positions and in almost every single case the City had the highest starting wage over any of the other private sector companies we surveyed.
* Restructure the health insurance program to one comparable to what is being offered in the private sector and examine the costs shared by the employee.
* Move retirement age to 60 no matter how many years of service – both for collection of benefits and for medical insurance.
* Once a retiree reaches age 65 move them to Medicare and off the City plan.
* The weight of the pension plan is crushing the City financially. If the private sector cannot afford plans likes this how can the taxpayers? It has to be dealt with. It occurs to me Police Officers and Firefighters who risk their lives for this community should be excluded from the ideas being advanced. Police and Fire support staff should be treated like all other City employees. Develop a generous matching 401K plan and have people take responsibility for their own retirement planning. A friend of mine’s wife works in the IT Department of one of the City entities (she is paid $120K a year – she is not the department head or the director). Our Director in IT makes $90K a year. This lady is 49 years old and plans to retire next year at 50. She will receive 80% of her salary with annual cost of living increases and full medical package for the next 30+ years. Who can afford this?
* Whatever measures are decided on should be carried right across to Utilities. They operate like their own private fiefdom. When I look at our water bill going from $580,000 in 2008 to $2.5M by 2018 certainly the same operating efficiencies applied to the City should be applied there. Possibly it makes sense for Memorial Hospital as well.
* Capital Expenses – the article did not indicate how much the City spends annually in capital expenses, but I am sure it is many millions of dollars. Our staff is always amazed at the new fleets of vehicles you see in use, i.e. when the Stormwater Enterprise was established everyone was outfitted with fully optioned F-350 trucks. You see them all over town. We maintain vehicles well and run them until they don’t run anymore. We have many with over 200,000 miles. We also buy well maintained used trucks, shuttle, vans, etc., many of which have been in service 10 years now. I understand the Police Department just spent $3M on new portable telephones when the present system was operating fine. In this economy could that have been postponed for another year or two?
* Go to zero based budgeting for operating and capital expenses immediately before capital budgets for 2010 are approved.
We know the arguments you’ll get: that we are only in the mid-pay range of other cities – won’t be able to hire and recruit – etc. etc. – baloney – I showed you a number of comparisons to our business with staffing levels, number of people at 6 figures or more, number of salaried people, average cost per employee and benefits per employee, etc. between The BROADMOOR and the City – we are not comparing some third rate organization. The BROADMOOR is recognized nationwide as a world class organization and we compete in a world every day where the best is just good enough. We are able to recruit top professionals in all the key positions and get creative with how we staff and operate our business.
It probably would not be effective to turn these suggestions over to somebody within the City and have them develop and implement the necessary solutions. You’ll have to bring in a firm from the outside to do it under Council’s direction or you can put together a panel of CEO’s within the community to analyze this and I am sure they would have many more points to offer. I would be happy to facilitate such a group and host a lunch discussion. I mentioned it to Bill Hybl and he said he would be happy to offer input as well and participate. A more comprehensive approach is what will provide a viable long term solution. I predict that if Council were to take this on and restructure with real reform and solve problems you would earn the respect and admiration of the entire community. In fact, this could be a national success story.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Stephen Bartolin, Jr.
President and CEO
Dear readers: another example – our elected representatives just don’t get it… if our Mayor continues to disregard offers to help from Mr Bartolin, he will cause our Fair City to fail…YIKES!
It’s no wonder Rivera didn’t let that offer go anywhere, it involves firing employees and operating the city efficiently using outside contracting whenever possible.
It is not in the interests of the City Manager or the Mayor to reduce the need for their “expert” services by reducing the number of employees the City Manager manages. City Managers are about INCREASING the size of government, thereby better justifying the need for a professional City Manager, not reducing it.
Dump the City Manager, Permanently, as I suggested here:
http://thebroadside.freedomblogging.com/2009/11/09/dump-the-city-manager-permanently/
The Gazette continues to ignore good journalistic practices in the captioned article when whoever wrote it quoted someone as saying the “‘majority of council members do not feel that it would be helpful to take him up on his offer?’ she asked with a look of disbelief.”
Who is this reporter to add “look of disbelief?” How does she know it was a look of disbelief? Could the woman have feigned a look of disbelief? We don’t know and neither does the reporter. Far better to have left the comment out of the article.
Further, whoever wrote the article about Scott McInnis’ Broadmoor breakfast with business leaders also engaged in a few liberties by suggesting the candidate’s speaking style was adequate but uninspiring. She also said the candidate received “only one spontaneous applause.”
Did it occur to the reporter that the speech may not have been designed to get applause? I was at that meeting and it seemed to me his talk was designed to inform listeners of his plan, not get them on their feet cheering.
The Gazette editors may think this kind of writing goes over the head of readers but they’d be wrong. No wonder people have lost faith in newspapers. The quality of writing is in the toilet.
Jere Joiner,
I was at the meeting and witnessed Ms. Hauser’s look of disbelief. Check out the link to the City Council meeting to see her reaction for yourself.
I also interviewed Ms. Hauser after she made her remarks, and I can assure you that her reaction was utter disbelief.
Thanks for taking the time to comment on my blog.
Daniel
Why would the city want to do something that reeks of professionalism?
That email is full of wisdom in addition to the kind and generous offer. This city needs more people like Mr. Bartolin, and I would like to see his name on a ballot when Rivera is recalled. This man is a true leader, and I thank him!
It’s no wonder Rivera didn’t let that offer go anywhere, it involves firing employees and operating the city efficiently using outside contracting whenever possible.
It is not in the interests of the City Manager or the Mayor to reduce the need for their “expert” services by reducing the number of employees the City Manager manages. City Managers are about INCREASING the size of government, thereby better justifying the need for a professional City Manager, not reducing it.
Dump the City Manager, Permanently, as I suggested in a October 11, 2009 post at The Broadside.
A full, independent outside audit of both the city and the county in the area of finance and human resources – by a firm not tied with the current administration, supporters or contributors as suggested by Mr. Bartolin may be STEP ONE in rebuilding trust with the public.
Without trust, no additional tax revenue increase is in sight
With brainiacs like this running the city we are in deep trouble. Where do I sign to recall the mayor and council.
This blog and letter to the council from Steve Bartolin should be on the front page of the Gazette. Our mayor’s comments are unbelievable. We have given him and the city council the benefit of the doubt for too long. If the city council continues on the present path, we will be a failed third world city.
Good blog post, Mr. Chacon, but I don’t think Council in any way “snubbed” Mr. Bartolin. I provide a little more context at my Page by Paige blog: http://www.locallibertyonline.org/paige_blog.php.
Thanks,
Sean Paige
Mr. Bartolin’s ideas are terrific! From my experience during job hunting, the city pays better than most employers in Colorado Springs. Everyone searching for a job always applies with the city because it is well-known that the city pays the highest wages, provides the best benefits, and it’s a “job for life”. Why are city employees compensated at a higher rate than the people who pay the taxes to the city that employs them? The city should use local data for salary comparisons and not include the salaries of other cities of similar size in other states. Only in positions related directly to city administration function should out-of-town/out-of-state data be used.
Mr. Bartolin’s letter should be published on the front page of the Gazette. Withholding this letter from the taxpayers is a disservice to the citizens of Colorado Springs.
“I have no idea how many the City has but it would be interesting to know.” – at least he admits he’s clueless:
The weight of the pension plan is crushing the city? you hide the fact that pension plan does not belong to the city. It includes nearly every public teacher, city and state worker on Colorado!. Not one of them overlaps with FICA (counties also have private pensions BUT IN ADDITION to FICA: when will the taxpayer complain about that?).
That IT lady would’ve had to begin with the city at 18 to be elligible for retirement at 50 – she will have zero Social security benefit and will have to wait until age 65 to apply for medicare. That means 15 years of paying “full medical”: double or triple the premiums when the city’s match stops.
Layoffs? When Perry Swanson published city salaries, he only took a 2009 snapshot: he should have been honest enough to compare with previous years. From 2003-08, while the city doubled in size, city employee numbers did not grow, and they got less than 5% cumulative raises (avg less than 1% per anum), and many positions were phased out upon retirement. That turned into 100% phase-out in 2008-9, amounting to around 500 fewer city workers.
Since the names were also exposed, the public has a right to know the high percentage of people on the same list over decades – conservatively less than 12% turnover in a 5-year span! $24,450 employeee cost, sure – most of them green-card guests, housekeeping or fish tank cleaners without professional licenses, state certificates or even CDL minimum qualifications.
Sounds like this Broadmoor fat cat doesn’t live here, just jets in to exploit us like the minions on the Broadmoor’s limited acreage.
to Suzanne:
Would you give the keys to your city to a brainiac like Bartolin without first checking his agenda and resume, or witout passing his ideas through committees already in place?
His ideas exclude the voters- tell me where he even pretends to work on behalf of the citizens. Be suspicious of a part time ivory palace prince inside an enclave of social elites!
Tell me notsofast, do you or a significant other work for the city? What we are talking about here is running the city like an efficient business. And how do Bartolin’s ideas exclude the voters? Seems to me after reading the posts on the Gazette page, most agree with him.
[...] http://citydesk.freedomblogging.com/2010/01/14/did-the-city-council-snub-the-broadmoors-ceo/1217/ [...]
[...] a 5-star resort in Colorado Springs, offered his help to the Mayor and City Council. He wrote: The Gazette reported that the City has 81 people in its IT Department and is reducing it to [...]
My cousin worked at the broadmore in high school. Her pay was crap.
Her tips, on the other hand … well they were not crap. So she was actually making a very good hourly rate working there … but Bartolin wasn’t paying it. He was passing the cost on to his customers.
So he is not being honest at a fundamental level when he quotes his average compensation figures. Those compensation levels are NOT sufficient to retain good staff. If people stopped tipping tomorrow he’d have to significantly increase lots of wages or people would quit in droves.
Now you can work a government that way … and the Soviet Union did/does. Wages for government workers are poverty level there. So they work for tips. But they aren’t kids working for party money, they are parents working for food/shelter. So they make sure to get their tips up front. And the quality of your service is directly related to your bribe … er scuse me “tip”.
This is unhealthy for a democracy because accepting “tips” is a gateway drug for all sorts of shenanigans/corruption in government employees. It creates a culture where people can’t speak up about wrongdoing because if they do, they can be outted for their “tips”. So it makes it safe for the scoundrels to play.
For two years I managed the salary survey for the State of Kansas. Through this laborius process I learned one critical lesson: government salary surveys are a lot about “monkey see, monkey do.” The game is stacked in favor of the house. Salary inflation is a natural byproduct of the process, since a governmental entity can always point to another entity, public or private, and claim that current wages are too low and insufficient to attract and retain quality employees. Governmental department heads have a built-in incentive to expand job classifications and pay levels: the more you pay, the more you control in terms of loyalty, departmental attractiveness, budget allocations and overall influence. In the context of this “Great Recession,” all the trends about ever-expanding need for larger salaries have changed. A city job paying $95,000 today can attract droves of qualified candidates willing to work for $75,000.
I think the city should take the business model from the Broadmoor CEO executive. He only pays an average of 24k per employee. City pays 89k. Most of those Broadmoor employees are part-time and rely on tips, so city workers could work for tips and the Mayor should be compensated in the same fashion as the CEO; millions for him and his close executives, pennies for workers. No healthcare, paid vacation, pensions, time off for sickness or matching 401k, etc.
As a matter of fact the US government and Military could use this model to reduce the deficit. Why should I pay for healthcare for military or government retirees when they can pay themselves?
The burden of pensions is crushing our Federal Government and local gov and taxpayers pay. Everyone pays his own way, is what it should be! If you want a pool, put one in your backyard. Want a community center, join a health spa. Recreation, buy a yacht or power boat. Wal-Mart needs greeters if you can’t afford your blood pressure medicine.
Who needs a civilized society anyway?
seguro,seguros,seguro coche,seguro de coche…
[...]Did the City Council snub The Broadmoor’s CEO? – City Desk : Colorado Springs Gazette, CO[...]…
Travel forum…
[...]Did the City Council snub The Broadmoor’s CEO? – City Desk : Colorado Springs Gazette, CO[...]…