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.

City Attorney Chris Melcher

David Neumann, who invented the scrubber technology that is being installed at the Martin Drake Power Plant downtown, is accusing City Attorney Chris Melcher of “extreme prejudice” toward his company and Colorado Springs Utilities.

In a strongly worded email sent Sunday night to Melcher and some City Council members, Neumann also says Melcher may be trying to stonewall an ethics complaint that Neumann filed against City Councilman Tim Leigh.

The Gazette received a copy of Neumann’s email late Sunday. About 9 p.m., the newspaper sent an email to Melcher seeking comment. Chief Communications Officer Cindy Aubrey was cc’d in the email.

This blog post will be updated as soon as Melcher responds.

A private meeting in Mayor Steve Bach’s office Friday apparently prompted Neumann’s email to Melcher.

But the meeting wasn’t about Neumann’s scrubbers.

The meeting was about the work of the Stormwater Task Force.

Jason Hann, a task force member who was not in the meeting but heard about what happened afterward from someone who was there, described the meeting like this:

“Melcher stated that NO regional cooperation would take place and if there were collaborative efforts for projects the City would be at the helm. Bach commanded that he knew there were several agendas at the table and that he was going to tell us what our agenda is. Bach stated there will be NO tax recommendation and that while his administration existed, CSU was going to be responsible for paying for stormwater. That CSU needed to “scrub” their budget again (despite the City not being able to execute a zero-based budget themselves). That the Neumann cleaner technology should be removed and that would provide millions right away and for years to come,” Hann said Sunday morning on Facebook.

Robin Roberts, who was in the room, corroborated Hann’s account.

“I was on this committee and in this meeting on Friday,” Roberts said on a Facebook thread. “The way Jason is reporting it is accurate, although I do remember that the suggestion of Utilities taking over the storm water function was just a suggestion, an option thrown out there.”

Roberts said she will never volunteer for the city.

“It will be a cold day in hell before I volunteer my time on a committee for this city again,” she said.

Here is the full text of the email that Neumann sent to Melcher:

Mr. Melcher:

You are being quoted by a number of sources as expressing extreme prejudice toward our company and CSU as part of a Storm Water meeting last Friday which was presided over by the Mayor and held in the Mayor’s office.

Additionally, we are in receipt of a letter from you to two council members which instead of providing them with legal guidance on how to determine conflict of interest you single out the employees of our company and employees of CSU as being the definition of a conflict of interest.

Further evidence of your extreme bias toward our company and CSU is shown in your negotiating a deal with the Sierra Club that involved damaging our company and a CSU project approved and budgeted for by the CSU Board. You attempted to cut a deal with a radical environmental group that could have resulted in a $400 million loss in ratepayer assets and a 30-50% increase in electric rates and may have prevented the Drake plant from receiving required emissions controls.

Additionally, we expect that any meeting discussing the merits of our contract or our company’s past, present or future relationship with CSU will be discussed openly with an opportunity for public comment.  Furthermore, we demand that you release to the public the records of past private meetings dealing with our contract with CSU so that the public may determine whether your conduct is appropriate to your position.

Finally, based on information from two separate Council Members, your alignment with Councilmember Leigh has become clear and it appears that you are attempting to stonewall or deflect the Ethics investigation of Councilmember Leigh.

We can only wonder why you have not taken action directly against Councilmember Leigh when you have explicit examples of his providing false information to the public and the Board. It is obvious that you have examined our contract with CSU in detail. Therefore, when Councilmember Leigh says the contract title says it is for “Experimental” equipment you know that is false. When he says the CEO did not sign it you know that is false.  When he says there are no specs, you know there are over ten pages of specifications. We are prepared to present over twenty separate counts of ethical and legal violations by Councilmember Leigh should we be given the chance.

Request that you explain to the public how your actions above and other related actions you have done as required by the Mayor are consistent with the appropriate conduct of the City Attorney. Perhaps you can also explain the responsibilities any lawyer has to avoid conflicts of interest. How is it possible for you to do the will of your boss the Mayor under threat of termination, while simultaneously representing the best interests of the City, the Council and Colorado Springs Utilities when their interests are in conflict?

David K. Neumann

Joe Palmer will join the city Jan. 21, pending City Council confirmation.

Palmer will be paid $128,000 annually.

The city said Palmer was selected “after a comprehensive five-month recruitment and interview process” with more than 120 applicants nationwide.

“Joe has 15 years of progressively responsible experience in information technology and accounting, including nearly five years as a chief information officer,” the city said in a news release. “He specializes in strategic planning and process optimization and has experience leading multiple large-scale transformational initiative and projects that deliver critical business outcomes.  Most recently Joe served as chief information officer for Jefferson County where he oversaw a staff of 78 and budgets of up to $15.5 million for nearly 5 years.”

Palmer has a bachelor’s degree in accounting and finance from Middle Tennessee State University and a master’s in business administration from the University of Colorado, the city said. Palmer also holds a Project Management Professional certification and is “affiliated with numerous professional associations and has earned multiple awards for his work,” the city said.

Here’s more information about Palmer’s  responsibilities as described in the job posting:

The Chief Information Officer is a highly responsible (at-will) executive position reporting to the Chief of Staff/Chief Administrative Officer. The CIO will provide vision and leadership by championing key technology initiatives that will transform the way the City does business and lead efforts toward practical, effective, and efficient technology and information solutions for the City organization and the citizens of Colorado Springs. This department, with a 2012 budget of over $13 million, is staffed by seventy-one full-time equivalent employees (fifty-five positions currently filled) and nine contract staff.

This position is responsible for all of the City’s technological needs including the maintenance and support of technical network and application infrastructures, enterprise and department specific applications (e.g., email in a Microsoft Exchange environment, PeopleSoft financial and human resources ERP, customer web interface programs and applications, and an award winning eGovernment website), region-wide Radio and ESRI GIS systems, comprehensive data telecommunications network, and a City-operated Cisco telephone system. Currently, the City is primarily a Microsoft shop with minimal open source utilization.

Jerry Forte

Mayor Steve Bach will have to wait until next year to get responses from Colorado Springs Utilities to a long list of questions about the Martin Drake Power Plant downtown.

Bach had given Utilities CEO Jerry Forte a Christmas Eve deadline to answer 18 questions about the power plant, which city officials are talking about decommissioning.

But Friday, Forte sent Bach an email stating he is working on responses but won’t be able to meet his deadline.

“Because of the number and complexity of the questions, I will not be able to complete this effort by the date you requested. I plan on having something to you during the first week in January,” Forte said in the email.

“Please let me know if you would like to meet in the interim.”

Colorado Springs City Auditor Denny Nester carries one of his beloved dog, O.P.

O.P. is no ordinary dog.

O.P. was named Best of Breed for Ibizan Hounds at the AKC/Eukanuba National Championship in Orlando this past weekend. The championship is described as “one of the most prestigious dog shows in the world.”

“He’s actually on his way back from Texas now,” Nester said Wednesday about his dog, whose show name is Arbeca’s Opus for Danzante.

“My daughter’s driving him home today because I had taken him down to Texas a couple of weeks ago for him to make this trip down to Orlando. I don’t like to fly the dogs if we don’t have to,” he said.

Nester said getting O.P. and his other dog, Dori, to dog shows can be a “logistics nightmare.”

“Plus, it’s rather expensive,” he said.

“This Best of Breed, I won $200, but don’t tell everybody that I probably spent $2,000 getting him there, competing and all that,” Nester said, laughing.

Dori, who is O.P.’s 8-month-old daughter, didn’t come home with empty paws either.

Dori was recognized as Winners Bitch, Nester said.

“We bred O.P. to a bitch in Wisconsin named Roxy,” Nester said in a follow-up email.

” Dori is registered to my wife— Jill, me and Wendy Anderson— the breeder in Wisconsin.  In the dog show world, it is common for multiple people to be listed as the owners,” he said.

More information from the release:

“The AKC/Eukanuba National Championship is the largest prize money dog show in the world, with cash and prizes awarded totaling more than $225,000. Although prior editions were invitation-only, beginning this year, the event is an open show for all dogs that awards Championship and Grand Championship points.  O.P. was a special qualifier since he had earned his Grand Championship earlier in 2012. O.P. also qualified for the event as one of the top 10 point earners in 2012 in his breed.  O.P. was celebrated with an invitation granting special recognition and placing him on the AKC/Eukanuba National Championship Honor Roll.”

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.

“After a comprehensive three-month recruitment and interview process with over 65 applicants nationwide, it gives me great pleasure to announce that Peter Wysocki will be joining us as Planning and Community Development Director for the city of Colorado Springs on December 17, 2013, pending successful confirmation by City Council on November 27,” Chief of Staff Laura Neumann wrote in a memo dated Wednesday.

“We’re thrilled to have Peter on board pending council’s approval,” Neumann said.

Wysocki is currently the director of the Planning and Development Services Department in Round Rock, Texas, a job he has held for the past two years.

“One of Peter’s primary focuses in his career has been to improve the customer experience and streamline the development review process in planning agencies,” Neumann wrote in the memo.

“In his words, ‘I’ve adopted a big-picture and real-world philosophy on planning and community development issues. I”m results-oriented with high expectations,’” Neumann wrote.

According to the memo, Wysocki has 18 years of “progressively responsible experience in planning and development,” including more than 11 years as a community development director.

Wysocki has a bachelor of science degree in urban and regional planning from California Polytechnic University and a certificate of professional development in public management from the University of Nevada, Reno, according to the memo.

“He is affiliated with numerous professional associations and has earned several awards,” the memo states.

Wysocki and his wife, Amy, have two young sons and look forward to relocating to Colorado Springs, the memo states.

Wysocki did not immediately return a message seeking comment.

The city’s planning director position had been held on an interim basis by Kyle Campbell.

Sydney Huffman

Nineteen Colorado Springs city employees have received a combined $605,000 in severance payouts under the Bach administration.

They include:

Sydney Huffman, a former Colorado Springs police officer accused of fabricating claims that led to jail time and back-to-back trials against a former Manitou Springs policeman who used to date Huffman.

The city gave Huffman a severance payout of $21,956.

“As is often the case, you need to make decisions in the best interest of the organization as a whole and agree to mutually part company,” Laura Neumann, the mayor’s chief of staff, said in a recent interview.

“It was decided by both parties that it was the best solution to a situation,” she said.

Neumann and HR Director Mike Sullivan said they couldn’t provide any other information.

“We’re not able to under the terms of that agreement. We’re just not able to,” Sullivan said.

Huffman and another police officer cost the city $480,000 to settle a claim filed by Huffman’s ex-boyfriend.

In the suit, Jarrott Martinez accused Huffman of coercing Colorado Springs investigators into pursuing four warrants for his arrest — including one issued after Martinez was acquitted in two trials and a district attorney dropped charges in another case. The warrants alleged Martinez committed burglary, domestic violence and sexual assault, among other allegations.

When asked why the city would pay Huffman when she was part of a $480,000 settlement, Sullivan said there was more to the story.

“We are not able to get into those discussions nor should you. We will jeopardize the terms of that agreement that we’ve got here with that employee,” Sullivan said.

Police Chief Pete Carey declined to comment.

“I spoke with Chief Carey, and he advised that a legal, contractual agreement prohibits the city from commenting on this matter,” police spokeswoman Barbara Miller said in an email.

The Gazette obtained the severance payouts under a Colorado Open Records Request. The severance payouts do not include the amount of money that employees received in vacation or sick leave payouts.

Another former city employee who got a severance payout was Jason Lippert, an hourly employee who worked in the mayor’s office.

Lippert, who was paid $25 an hour, or $2,000 every two weeks, is a former fellow at El Pomar Foundation. He who was jokingly referred to as “the assistant to the assistant.”

“He would fit into the category of, we mutually decided to part ways,” Neumann said.

“Some hourly employees … particularly those who were privy to very sensitive information, confidential information, you reach agreements with some of those individuals,” she said.

The city included former Fire Chief Steve Cox in the list of employees who received severance payouts. But Neumann said Cox’s pay wasn’t a severance but more of a retainer to provide consulting services.

Here is the entire list of employees who have received severance payouts under the Bach administration:

CORA request separation packages since June 2011