The proposed charter change by Chairman Scott Hente and board member Jan Martin calls for replacing the council with a seven-member independent board that would be elected as early as June. Board members would serve four-year terms and be limited to three consecutive terms. The proposal also calls for a supermajority vote of Colorado Springs voters to sell Utilities or any of its assets.

The Gazette asked the mayor to weigh in on the proposal, and here’s what he said in a statement:

“Scott Hente and Jan Martin stated at the Utility Board meeting today that they will bring to City Council next Tuesday a ballot measure for the April Municipal Election, asking voters to approve a change in governance for Colorado Springs Utilities, our largest and most important owned asset.  Mr. Hente and Ms. Martin surprised the other members of the Utility Board and me in making this proposal today at the last minute before the City Council statutory deadline for placing items on the April ballot.  They are suggesting that a new 7-member elected Board control CSU in the future.  While this idea may be worth debate, the community should complete a thorough discussion of all alternatives before this most important decision is made.  This is yet another last minute, piecemeal, proposed change to the City Charter on the eve of Mr. Hente being term limited and leaving City Council.   I’m disappointed that Mr. Hente would attempt this power play as he leaves office, and hope the City Council will turn this back next Tuesday and the other piecemeal Charter changes it is entertaining – which represent bad policy and are not in the best interests of our fellow citizens.”

Here is the questionnaire:

Please write a short paragraph about why you are running and your philosophical agenda for the City of Colorado Springs:

Please provide a summary of your professional background your qualifications for serving on the Colorado Springs City Council and as a member of the Board of Directors of Colorado Springs Utilities.

Please answer the following series of questions.  Please submit electronically with the questionnaire.  The questionnaire will be distributed to the members of our PAC interview committee prior to your interview.

Do you favor the current form of government as approved by the voters in 2010 to have a strong mayor form of government?  Explain your position.

Will you support any charter amendments to change the form of government by rolling back or adding to the powers of the Mayor or Council? Please explain.

Does the Mayor have too much or too little power under the new form of government?

How would you change the balance of power between the Mayor and City Council.

What is your assessment of the first two years of the term of Mayor Bach?

Do you support changes in the employee pension plans?

– For police and fire

– For civilian employees

If there are not sufficient revenues to meet the expenses of the City, what is your approach:

– Increase revenue?  How?

– Decrease expenses?  How?

At what level should the City maintain its unrestricted reserve fund balance?

It is estimated that the backlog of storm water drainage improvements is around $500 million?

– As a member of Council, what would be your proposal to deal with this?

Did you support or oppose the extension of PPRTA?  Explain your position.

Are the funds received from PPRTA adequate to meet the needs of the City?

– If not, how would you fund the deficiencies?

What are your views on public transportation, including our bus system, FREX, light rail and a downtown trolley?

– Explain your proposal for funding those items you support.

As a member of Council, you will also be a member of the Board of Directors for Colorado Springs Utilities.

– Do you favor a change in the governance of Utilities, and if so to what?

What are your views about the following Utility issues:

– Implementation of the Neumann technology at the Martin Drake or Nixon power plants.

– Should Martin Drake be decommissioned?  Explain your position.

– Do you favor selling or leasing any of the four utilities?  Explain your position.

If you favor selling or leasing, how would you use the proceeds from the sale or lease.

Do you support Southern Delivery System?  Explain your answer.

Should Utilities sell water to the City at a reduced rate for watering of public parks?

Is the City getting its fair share of funds from CDOT?

– If not, what is your proposal to make sure the City gets its fair share?

Did you support or oppose the lease of Memorial Hospital to University of Colorado Health System?

– Would you have preferred the sale or lease to an entity composed of the leadership of the hospital?

– Explain your positions.

Please provide a closing statement with any additional information you would like to provide to our interview committee.

Please include a copy of your professional resume with this questionnaire. 

Donna Nelson

Does Mayor Steve Bach want to appoint the LART committee or not?

The mayor’s office appears to be putting out contradictory information.

Here’s the background:

Members of the mayor’s team have been meeting with City Council President Pro Tem Jan Martin and council Administrator Aimee Cox on how to streamline the work of the Lodging and Automobile Rental Tax advisory committee.

Why?

Under the existing structure, the city could end up with three different recommendations on how revenues collected from hotel room and rental car taxes are spent. The convention and visitors bureau typically gets about 2/3 of the money, and the rest goes to special events, such as the annual balloon festival and the Pikes Peak International Hillclimb.

The council-appointed committee makes a recommendation. City staff also makes a recommendation. Both recommendations go to the mayor, who could propose something completely different.

On Thursday, Donna Nelson, the mayor’s economic vitality specialist, said the “whole purpose” of the discussions with council “was to have a new committee that would be appointed by the mayor.”

Nelson and the city’s events coordinator have been representing Bach in meetings with Martin and Cox.

On Saturday, Bach spokeswoman Cindy Aubrey contacted The Gazette, saying the administration wanted to make a “point of clarification” regarding the LART committee.

The mayor’s office sought to clarify the mayor’s position after a “Question of the Day” about the LART funds appeared in the editorial pages of Saturday’s Gazette.

The question followed a Friday story about Bach’s proposal, which explicitly states that a resolution outlining the makeup of the LART committee would be amended “to provide the Mayor with appointment authority over a reorganized LART committee.”

But Aubrey offered a different stance Saturday.

Jerry Forte

Colorado Springs Utilities CEO Jerry Forte wants Mayor Steve Bach to reserve any more questions about the Martin Drake Power Plant for a decommissioning study.

“From both a limited staff perspective and to best honor the study initiative, it would be best if any further questions were vetted as part of the study,” Forte said Saturday in an email to the mayor.

“Adding your voice to the scope and depth of the study would be very helpful in reaching a decision that is best for and can be supported by the community at large, both today and into the future,” Forte said.

The email included answers to a long list of questions that Bach had posed to Forte about the Drake power plant and other Utilities power facilities on Dec. 17.

Bach gave Forte a Christmas Eve deadline to answer the questions. Forte told the mayor he needed more time and delivered his responses to Bach via email on Saturday.

Utilities posted the answers on its website “so that our customers can see the information and stay up to date on energy issues that are affecting the community,” spokesman Dave Grossman said Monday.

Forte told the mayor that answering his questions required “certain assumptions” for current and potential environmental regulations and risk mitigation/generation ownership practices, among others.

“For whatever that is worth,” said Bruce, an anti-tax activist who was convicted of tax evasion and other crimes last year.

But Bruce said he’s open to the idea of paying council members more than the $6,250 a year they get now.

Yes, you heard that right.

Bruce, who has clashed with council members in the past, thinks the council should get more money.

Bruce said he objected each time a proposal to increase council members’ salaries was brought to voters, primarily because Colorado Springs was paying a city manager under the old council-manager form of government.

But the switch to a council-mayor form of government “ostensibly” created some savings because the mayor is paid $96,000 and the city no longer has a city manager.

“Since we’re saving some money, I don’t have an objection to paying the council because there’s a savings in one area of administration or leadership and some of that can go to paying people who are undercompensated,” Bruce said.

“But, having said that, to sextuple their salary is absurd. I mean, that’s beyond audacious. It’s not even borderline greed. It’s wallowing in greed,” he said.

Bruce said he did some calculations and figures that council members should be spending about 20 hours a month in meetings “if they didn’t engage in these silly marathon spectacles about solicitation on the sidewalk and what do we do about homeless people and all these problems that they’re manufacturing.”

Council members have two informal and two formal council meetings each month, and they meet once a month as the Utilities Board.

Council members also serve on various boards, committees and commissions, but Bruce said that’s unnecessary.

“They don’t need to serve on all these boards and committees. They need to simplify city government. That’s why we have a mayor. The mayor is supposed to be the administrator,” he said.

Bruce also thinks council meetings need to be run more efficiently. He said council meetings should last no longer than four hours each.

“They have these meetings that are much longer than they need to be, plus of course they waste a lot of time on ceremonies,” he said. “They have these meetings and they have people twirling their batons or singing America the Beautiful.”

Bruce proposes paying council members $15,000 a year, or $62.50 an hour for 20 hours of meetings each month.

“That’s more than your average plumber or electrician or somebody that actually does something useful,” he said, adding that a 140 percent increase “would be enough.”

Amy Lathen

Amendment 64, which Colorado voters approved in November, decriminalizes the consumption and possession of less than an ounce of marijuana by adults ages 21 and up.

The amendment states that the first $40 million annually from a new excise tax on marijuana sales would be devoted to education capital construction. But the excise tax must be approved by the voters, and it takes a two-thirds majority of the Legislature to get such a measure onto the ballot. That means that the $40 million may never be realized if voters turn down the tax question next year, according to statehouse reporter John Schroyer.

During Tuesday’s Board of County Commissioner’s meeting, Chairwoman Amy Lathen said a “huge portion” of the campaign in support of Amendment 64 was “just a complete lie” to voters.

“I have no problem in saying that,” she said. “Telling people that we’re going to get have these great taxes for schools when it takes another very arduous process to do so, I think, is deceptive. There’s no question that that was deceptive in the campaign.”

David Neumann

The secret agreement between the city of Colorado Springs and the Sierra Club may put a controversial emissions control technology being installed at the downtown power plant in jeopardy.

“My understanding is that recent secret negotiations with the Sierra Club conducted by the City Attorney have resulted in an agreement which partially or wholly suspends our contract,” businessman David Neumann, who invented the sulfur dioxide scrubbers, said in an email to the Colorado Springs Utilities Board.

” I appeal to you to have a full and open discussion with the community before you proceed to endorse the dealings of the City Attorney.  These dealings by the City Attorney may appear to many of the Colorado Springs Utilities’ citizen-owners and ratepayers as truly egregious acts,” he wrote.

Here is the full text of Neumann’s email:

Dear Colorado Springs Utilities Boardmember:

As you know NSG with its 55 employees has a contract to provide emissions control capability for the Martin Drake powerplant in compliance with EPA requirements. Already $60 million of rate payer money has been committed or spent.  NSG stands ready to continue performance of that contract and provide the City with one of the cleanest coal plants in the country.

My understanding is that recent secret negotiations with the Sierra Club conducted by the City Attorney have resulted in an agreement which partially or wholly suspends our contract.   I appeal to you to have a full and open discussion with the community before you proceed to endorse the dealings of the City Attorney.  These dealings by the City Attorney may appear to many of the Colorado Springs Utilities’ citizen-owners and ratepayers as truly egregious acts.

While it is clearly not my place to judge the City Attorney’s actions, I do believe that NSG, as a vendor of Colorado Springs Utilities, has a right to expect full and open discussions, with substantial Community input, before actions are taken that may adversely affect assets of Colorado Springs Utilities, the Community and NSG.

Thanks for considering this,

David K. Neumann, CEO

Neumann Systems Group, Inc.

The utility budgeted about $774,000 to hand out to various organizations and charities in 2013, raising the ire of some Utilities Board members.

“The greater question pointed out by these gifts and the gift-giving process leads to the overall structure of the board and the built-in conflict of interest presented by being both a city councilor and a utility company board member,” Councilman Tim Leigh recently wrote in his electronic newsletter.

“As a utility company board member I understand and condone the giving.  I encourage it.  As a company, the million dollar give-away is chump change used to curry small-time political favor.  I understand the process,” he said.

“But as a city councilor looking out for Fred the Plumber and his good wife Ethel and their 3 kids living in a poorly insulated, small duplex on the east side, I’m compelled to call-out the unfairness of arbitrary gifts of rate payer dollars. ”

Click here to see the list of groups that are poised to receive ratepayer money and the amount.

The Gazette asked Springs Utilities to provide more information about the “Community Focus Fund” program.

Here is their response:

As a citizen-owned utility, we are committed to giving back to the community we serve.  Our community investments programs include investments in community organizations that retain, grow, and recruit businesses in our region;  grants through the Community Focus Fund program; support of designated City Sponsored events; sponsorships of local non-profit events and memberships in local community associations.

Community investment provides financial support for activities and events in the community or in communities impacted by Springs Utilities operations.  Utilities Board policy requires us to demonstrate strong corporate responsibility and be responsive to community needs and values.  Community investment is limited to financial contributions which are budgeted as annual operating expense derived from operating revenues.  We are able to invest no more than 1/4 of one percent of budgeted operations revenues in support of the community.  Our budgeted amount is actually about 1/10 of one percent. The small increase in the 2013 budget covers increased costs in city-sponsored events and realignment of funding to meet community needs.

Community investments were first formalized in 1997 with the chartering of the Community Focus Fund by City Council. The Community Focus Fund was established as a community outreach program to support employee volunteerism and provide financial support to local nonprofit organizations and schools.  The program is managed by an employee steering committee of about 20 employees from throughout the organization who make volunteer project and funding decisions based on the program’s charter and guidelines. Funding and volunteering is focused on affordable housing assistance, community, education, environment, safety & health, senior citizens, youth.  Funds are also used to purchase supplies and equipment for employee volunteer projects.

Sponsorship funding is determined by a management team to support organizations and events that have a strong alignment with Springs Utilities’ business objectives such as workplace diversity, conservation and the environment, safety, renewable energy, science education or in support of events where Springs Utilities employees have made significant volunteer commitments to organizations as members of the board of directors.

Funds are also used to fulfill requests from City Council to underwrite the cost of barricades for designated city sponsored events such as the USA Pro Cycling Challenge, parades, etc.

In addition, our primary focus is supporting employee volunteerism.  Year after year, we donate thousands of personal hours to local charities and nonprofit agencies to help make our community a better place.  In 2011, our volunteer hours topped 25,000.

Utilities CEO Jerry Forte

Colorado Springs Utilities has created a covert group to silence any questions about its management, including questions from Mayor Steve Bach, according to City Councilman Tim Leigh.

But the city-owned utility has a different explanation about the group and its mission.

“The effort being referred to is a team of existing employees who, as part of their normal responsibilities, are focused on ensuring the community and our customers are informed about current utilities discussions that affect them,” Utilities spokeswoman Nikki Richardson said in an email.

“We are ramping up our outreach efforts to meet an increased demand for information. This team works to provide proactive, reponsive (sic) communication, which is not outside what we normally do,” she said.

Leigh said the team is a special working group “to defeat questions and questioners who voice alternative views to CSU’s management.”

“I have been told that such a group exists and that their function is to defeat the mayor (and anyone else who speaks out) against CSU policy and that this working group is designed especially in context of the coming city council election,” Leigh wrote in his electronic newsletter.

“While I don’t mind political opposition, I do mind it, if it is being paid for with ratepayer dollars,” he wrote.

The allegation is likely to be flushed out today at the Utilities Board meeting, which starts at 1 p.m. The meeting is on the fifth floor in the south tower of the Plaza of the Rockies.

Here is the full, unedited text of Leigh’s newsletter:

I have been considering the CSU budget over the past few weeks and at this time, I don’t plan to support the budget because, as presented it’s a mere marketing piece designed for slick obfuscation.  Furthermore, as part of the conversational process, I plan to ask for separate votes (bifurcation) on the budget detail relating to public relations, advertising, charitable giving and the Neumann spend.

I believe the average ratepayer would like to know what purpose robust public relation, advertising and charitable giving programs serve with respect to their municipally-owned monopoly.  Therefore, I think it would be instructive for leadership to deliver a line-by-line itemization of the rationale for each program and its’ spend, delineating specifically the expected (and actual) rate-of-return for each.

Furthermore, I’d like to inspect the Neumann spend more thoroughly.  I’d like to see a line-by-line itemization of that spend, including following the distribution of money from CSU to the vendor, account-by-account, from the project’s inception, by date, amount and purpose and, I’d like to see the cost and who paid for the validation of the Neumann process.  (An arm’s length forensic audit would be acceptable.)

Does Neumann’s system work?  I’ve been told NO.  Others, including CSU management say yes.  Because of that uncertainty, I’d like to see the 3^rd party verification.

– Does 3^rd party verification exist?

– Who performed the research?

– Was the research done to validate a predetermined conclusion?

If management is so certain that the Neumann system works, are they willing to individually stand-by the process, including accepting responsibility if it fails to perform to expectation?  We’re already aware of one failure in the Neumann grand plan – there are no customers willing to buy the system providing the promised pie-in-the-sky income.  (There are no fish under the ice!)

My position on the Neumann spend has been unwavering.  We need to stop-the-spend [now] until a full inspection the CSU system is completed and until we’ve finally determined Drake’s fate.

We know we have existing environmental compliance issues costing millions beyond the Neumann scrubber.  We also know of threatened law suits from radical environmental groups and now with Obama’s reelection we can legitimately surmise both threats will amplify.  What we don’t know is our long-term ability to pay for these increasing external threats.  I have asked on several occasions about our aggregate borrowing power and the assumptions that were used in determining that borrowing power.  [Consider buying a house.  You like the house.  You think you can afford the house.

You apply for the loan and (in spite of your good intention) are turned down because your current payments exceed your ability (not your willingness) to borrow the money needed to buy the house.]  While I don’t know that that is the case in our case, I’d like to have a clear answer with data supporting the conclusion.   I would like to know what revenue streams were used to determine our long-term borrowing power.  [We’re not building-out Banning Lewis; our population growth is flat; we’re going to lose income when the military installations get to “net zero”.]  Show me the potatoes.

Lastly, and this is very troublesome, I’d like to know if there exists’ a special “working group” within the CSU system designed as to defeat questions and questioners who voice alternative views to CSU’s management?  I have been told that such a group exists and that their function is to defeat the Mayor (and anyone else {little Timmy Leigh from Grand Forks, North Dakota comes to mind}) who speak-out against CSU policy and that this working group is designed especially in context of the coming city council election.  While I don’t mind political opposition, I do mind it, if it is being paid for with ratepayer dollars.

The two letters basically said the same thing, but one was addressed to Hente as the City Council president and the other as the chairman of the Utilities Board.

Hente responded to the mayor’s letters Monday.

Hente sent only one letter.

Here is the full text of that letter:

October 16, 2012

Honorable Mayor Steve Bach

City Administration Building

Suite 601, MC 610

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your recent letters regarding the Colorado Springs Utilities budget and process. I, along with my colleagues, appreciate your input.

Colorado Springs Utilities has always been committed to discussing its budget in an open forum and provides much of the information you suggested, including placing   all materials and videos of past Utilities Board meetings online for public viewing. In addition, every December the Board adopts, by vote, (and publishes) a planning calendar for the upcoming year which outlines expected reports and decisions required at each meeting. This ensures that the Board receives regular presentations on the budget and financial conditions, and provides a public record to our ratepayers so that they know, with sufficient notification, when they can comment on the budget. Last year was no different.

For example, in July of each year, staff presents the Financial Planning and Budgeting overview for the upcoming five years. The report presented at the July 18, 2012 Utilities Board meeting included the 2013 – 2017 projections by year on debt, days cash on hand, customer energy and water sales/consumption, planned capital projects, and programs and other projections. This report, as is the case for all reports and presentations dealing with the budget, was made in an open forum and was subject to public comment.

It is also important to note that Colorado Springs Utilities is not a municipal government and operates under a different planning and budgetary process. Unlike a municipal government budget, Colorado Springs Utilities’ budget is developed and presented in a specific accounting format that identifies the costs for providing services. This detailed format is used to develop an Annual Operating Plan (AOP) that is an integral part of the planning and budgeting process. The AOP provides financial data based on analysis of the current budget and a forecasted five-year financial plan. Once the AOP and budget is adopted, the Board holds the organization accountable through the CEO Performance Plan and Scorecard.

One other aspect that is significantly different is that the Utility budget is specifically tied to the utility rates that are regulated by the Colorado Springs City Council. The City Council, acting within its authority under both the State Constitution and the City Charter, has certain obligations with respect to public notification and the process in setting the rates.  The calendar approved by the Utility Board for each year ensures that the law is being followed with regards to the dates associated with the rate settings.

The draft of the Colorado Springs Utilities 2013 Annual Operating Plan and Budget was provided to Utilities Board members for preliminary review last week and posted on the Colorado Springs Utilities web site for public viewing.

Colorado Springs Utilities leadership will present the proposed 2013 AOP to the Utilities Board on Wednesday, October 17. No action will be taken at this meeting as City Council will be requested to consider and approve the annual budget, the appropriation of monies, and the identification of the annual sources of funds during the November Formal Council meetings. If approved, the Annual Operating Plan will become effective on January 1, 2013. The public is encouraged to attend and comment throughout this process.

The Utilities Board members have had several opportunities to participate in the 2013 budget process, including a public workshop on September 14. While not every Board member was able to attend the workshop, Jerry Forte and members of his executive team met with them individually to discuss the 2013 budget and approval process.

Thank you again for your comments and input. I hope you will consider attending the upcoming Utilities Board meeting and the subsequent Formal City Council meetings to see firsthand how the process works.  I’m confident you will walk away impressed with the operations and management of Colorado Springs Utilities.

Respectfully,

Scott Hente, President

Colorado Springs City Council