Gazette

82°

Partly Cloudy and Windy 5-Day Forecast
City Desk ~ An insider’s view of the policies and politics of Colorado Springs city government

Archive for the 'Councilman Bernie Herpin' Tag

« Previous Entries

Fallout from ‘disrespectful’ remark to councilwoman

April 25th, 2012, 12:33 pm by

Brandy Williams

The mayor’s Transit Solutions Team presented its final recommendations to City Council on Monday.

When Councilwoman Brandy Williams asked whether anyone on the team tried to get around the city using only the bus system as part of their research, Chairman Robert Shonkwiler refused to answer the question.

“I was asked to do this by the mayor, and there weren’t any qualifications that I had to do that,” Shonkwiler responded.

“And frankly, our recommendations stand where they are, and personal questions about what I do or don’t do, I think, is my business,” he said.

When Williams said she wasn’t meddling in his personal business, Shonkwiler she was.

“I don’t think you’ve got any right to ask me that question, and I respectfully decline to answer. It’s none of your business,” he said.

Williams didn’t engage Shonkwiler from the dais, but she said Tuesday that she was “taken aback” by his reaction to her question.

“I thought it was disrespectful,” she said.

“I definitely did not expect that kind of reaction, not in my wildest dreams.”

Reaction from Williams’ colleagues has been mixed.

“Shonkwiler is one of the brightest minds in the public policy debate. To call him out was very disrespectful and is another reason we cannot get more community involvement. Private citizens won’t put up with the brain damage,” Councilman Tim Leigh wrote on Facebook.

“‘Brightest minds in the public policy debate’” — gimme a break,” responded Councilwoman Lisa Czelatdko. “According to whom and displayed when Tim? Also, an expert in Boulder does not make an expert in Colorado Springs.”

But Czelatdko said council members “should just listen and say thank you” when community volunteers give of their time to provide reports and recommendations to council.

“We shouldn’t question, debate, point out disagreements, etc. until a recommendation comes forward needing a vote. Nobody who has sat on a committee and given their time and attention to a subject wants it picked apart or criticized. I’ve seen my colleagues do that several times and so I can understand the defensiveness and irritation. I think things could have been handled better on both sides,” she wrote.

Councilman Bernie Herpin said it boiled down to respect.

“It’s not whether or not he used public transportation. It was his reply that was uncalled for. All he had to say was, ‘No I haven’t, but I had experience in Boulder…’” Herpin wrote.

At the beginning of Tuesday’s council meeting, Council President Scott Hente said Shonkwiler’s response “unfortunately” was “not in keeping with the civility and the decorum” expected at council meetings and then he apologized to Williams because he didn’t say anything Monday.

“That sort of instant will not happen again,” Hente said.

In a telephone interview Wednesday, Leigh said if anyone should be apologizing, it should be Williams.

“Someone should ask her if she’s sold a hospital before,” Leigh said, referring to Williams being one of two council liaisons to the Memorial Health System negotiating team.

“If there’s an apology to be made, I think it should come from her to him because if there’s anybody who’s doing on-the-job training, it’s Brandy,” Leigh said.

Here’s video of Shonkwiler telling Williams that her question was none of her business:

YouTube Preview Image

Posted in: Boards and Commissions • City Council • Meetings • • • • • • | 12 Comments »

Mayor’s chief of staff counters councilman’s claims

March 29th, 2012, 8:42 am by

An analysis of the city’s new council-mayor form of government — aka “strong mayor” — from the group that put the charter change on the November 2010 ballot has created a long thread of emails among city officials.

The biggest point of contention is whether the new form of government is affecting City Council members’ ability to be responsive to their constituents.

Here are the emails, with a few minor tweaks, in the order I received them:

8:40 a.m. Wednesday

Dear Ms McNally, Senator McElhany, and Mr. Murphy,

Thank you for your analysis of our new form of government.  As one of three council members who have served under both systems, I appreciate your suggestion that we not rush into further changes, or “tweaks”.

I’m also glad that you emphasize the “checks and balances” that were built into this new system.  We have experienced some “growing pains” as we get used to this system.  In addition to a new form of government and a new mayor, we also had six new council members.  So, this has been a learning process for all of us over this last year for council and nine months for council and mayor.

One misconception, and I’ve been guilty of this as well, is the term “strong” mayor.  We did not elect a strong mayor.  We changed our form of government from council-manager to council-mayor, and then elected a mayor.

In some of the issues, where each branch has been trying to determine their roles and responsibilities (and authority), I’ve received admonishment from some citizens that “we elected a strong mayor and you should fully support him in what he is doing”.  While I want to support the Mayor in his desire to make our city the best it can be, we did not change our form of government to “mayor-rubber stamp”.  As a part of the checks and balances put into place, I believe we have the duty to examine each issue and offer, if appropriate, alternatives or suggested changes.

One issue I have with this new form is my inability to be as responsive to my constituents as in the past.  We were elected by the citizens and they still look to us for assistance with everything from fixing potholes to code enforcement violations to public safety concerns.  But we can no longer directly raise these citizen concerns with city staff.  We need to go through a “liaison” who forwards our concerns to city staff.  This can add delay in getting the citizens’ issues resolved and I lose the ability to provide direct feedback to the citizen with a status on their concern.

We have also changed our council makeup from 4 at-large, 4 district, and 1 mayor to 3 at-large and 6 district representatives.  Where we used to elected the 4 at-large and 4 districts in different cycles, we will now elected 6 districts at a time which could result in a large turnover every 4, or at best 8, years.  There is a steep learning curve and this could result in loss of continuity.  In addition, it could make it easier for a faction to organize candidates in the 6 districts and, if successful, gain control of the council.  As we saw in the last election with the 5 “reform team” candidates (which, thank God, were not successful), this is a real possibility.  Perhaps we should look at 9 at-large or 9 districts with the 5 odd-numbered elected in one cycle and the 4 even-numbered in the next.

I am committed to making this new form of government work for the betterment of our city.  We do face many challenges and it will take a cooperative effort between citizens, council, the Mayor, city staff, and business and civic leaders to achieve the goal that we all have of making this the best possible place to live, work, play, and raise our families.

Thank you for your continuing service to our community and for your support.

Sincerely,

Bernie Herpin

Council Member District 4

8:53 a.m. Wednesday

Andy, Mary Ellen, and Chuck,

Ditto Bernie’s comments on our appreciation as to your analysis and commentary on our new form of government.  While I am not in complete agreement with everything you stated, I do believe you raise some valid points.

While I could be accused of being too close to the changes brought upon by this change of government, I would be willing to sit down with the three of you and do a “lessons learned” session based on experiences, frustrations, and successes after having been at this for close to a year.

Your call – let me know if you think this would be a worthwhile use of our collective time.

As always,

Scott (Hente)

5:37 p.m. Wednesday

Councilor Herpin:  I feel the need to respond to your comment about your inability to be as responsive to your constituents as in the past.  You stated you can no longer directly raise these citizen concerns with City staff; but need to go through a “liaison” who forwards your concerns to City staff.  You further added that this is causing a delay in getting the citizens’ issues resolved and as a City Councilor you lose the ability to provide direct feedback to the citizen with a status on their concern.

The ease of which a citizen request or Councilor question gets through our system has not changed with this new form of government; although I will admit there was some misunderstanding (from both the legislative and executive branch) during the transition in government.  I believe as of January 2012 it is nearly the same as it was before the government change.  When the issue you highlight above was surfaced as an issue by some Councilors, it was quickly agreed by the executive branch that Councilors may contact City staff directly for minor items that do not require significant staff time; such as constituent concerns/requests.

However, we did agree that any significant requests by Council (such as a project requiring considerable staff time) would be directed to the City Council Administrator who would then coordinate with City Chief of Staff in every attempt to support the two-week advance communication reciprocity agreed upon at a recent City Council retreat.  I believe the City Council Administrator is developing a process for routing citizen requests received by Council members through the City’s citizen request system which has been available to all City staff and Councilors for some time.  As you know, this online Footprints tool gives all of us the ability to log a citizen request and track the follow-up personally.  As I understand it, there was initially a hiccup in the system of communication with City staff, but that was addressed months ago.

Please take my comments in the spirit they are intended; to educate all copied, but more importantly to provide meaningful support in providing even better service to our citizens in the months and years ahead.

Respectfully,

Laura Neumann

Chief of Staff/Chief Administrative Officer

7:33 p.m. Wednesday

Thank you for the clarification. Hopefully this will facilitate better communication between the Council and their staff liaisons and the citizens they serve.

Mary Ellen McNally

7:55 a.m. Thursday

Laura,

Thanks for the information; however, the reference cited was for questions that council members have on council agenda items, not constituent requests/concerns.  But, I’ll take the clarification in the spirit offered that council members can directly refer constituent concerns to appropriate staff.

I often receive a concern or request about such things as a pothole, code violation, neighborhood traffic, etc.  In the past, I forwarded these citizen requests/concerns directly to the appropriate staff member and they usually responded within a day acknowledging the request and offering some resolution or a time frame for a response.  I could then respond to the citizen, again, usually within a day of getting their request.

Somehow we accomplished this with a couple of emails and no need for on-line databases or tracking systems or liaisons.  As I mentioned at our first mayor’s counsel meeting, I do understand how staff can be overwhelmed with council requests when a citizen sends a concern to all 9 of us and several of us then forward that request on to staff or multiple staff members.

The ability for an elected council member to be responsive to constituents was the concern that I was addressing.  Since being appointed to council in 2006, and elected in 2009, I have always tried to be responsive to constituent requests for assistance.  When contacting staff, and the most often concern involves code violations, I’ve always had great cooperation, understanding, and response.  I know that our city staff has the same goal as I do of providing the best possible service to our citizens.  I just need to be able to ensure that citizen concerns get to staff in a timely manner.

As a citizen representative, I take the “representative” part of my job very seriously and don’t think that responsibility has changed with our new form of government.  Again, I believe staff shares this concern.  We just need to make sure we have a logical, and responsive, way of getting these concerns to them without a lot of bureaucracy getting in the way!

Sincerely,

Bernie Herpin

Council Member District 4

9:11 a.m. Thursday

I would also like to make a comment on response to my constituents.  I have had no issue in helping my citizens  who reach out to me but I prefer to further help them understand the new system and how they can proactively help themselves.  My citizens really like the direct line they now have with the city and only come back to me if an issue is not resolved.  Which by the way, to this date has only been one time.   I am still working with her to see if we need changes at a systems level rather than a micro level (of just fixing her issue). I feel it is my job to speak for my district as a whole and be the person who can help carry out a vision/message that makes our city more customer friendly, business friendly, efficient and effective within our governmental structure.

My residents do feel they voted for a strong Mayor system and really want the Mayor to make decisions and be held accountable.  They would like me to focus on MHS and Utilities.  If I have any frustration it is not at the Mayors office but at the Council level that we need to truly focus on Utilities.

Thank You,

Angela (Dougan)


Posted in: City Administration • City Council • City employees • Elections • Politics • • • • • • • • | 7 Comments »

‘You are nothing but a lousy politician’

March 18th, 2012, 12:48 pm by

Retention bonuses for several senior executives at Memorial Health System — possibly in excess of $1 million — are turning into a big battle.

On Friday, Jeff Crank of Americans for Prosperity Colorado asked AFP members to contact the City Council and Memorial’s Board of Trustee to strongly oppose “golden parachutes” to the hospital’s top administrators.

“We’ve blown the whistle before about questionable activities and insider game-playing related to the debate Springs residents are having about future ownership and management alternatives for city-owned Memorial Health System,” Crank wrote in an email blast.

“Our concern this time is with the potentially huge ‘retention bonuses’ Memorial’s unelected governing board is planning to pay the system’s already well-compensated top administrators, for fear of losing their services before any final decision on Memorial is made.”

AFP’s members responded.

Councilman Bernie Herpin shared the following email thread with The Gazette after an angry Colorado Springs man threatened to share their email exchange with the news media.

“You are nothing but a lousy politician who is WRONG!”  Joseph Barcellos wrote in the email to Herpin.

Here’s the first email:

March 16, 2012
Colorado Springs City Council Bernie Herpin

Dear Bernie Herpin,

I am writing to express my strong opposition to a proposal to pay “retention bonuses” to senior Memorial Health System executives who might be thinking about bailing-out on their responsibilities before a final decision on the system’s future is made. Reports are vague about what those payouts might total, but I feel that any “golden parachute” of any size is unwarranted under the circumstances.

If these already highly compensated senior officials don’t see their responsibilities through to the resolution of this issue, they don’t deserve a dollar more than what we’re paying them now.
Memorial simply isn’t in a financial position to be giving away money. And part of the responsibility for that rests with those who would be on the giving and receiving end of these payments.

I also strongly urge City Council members to weigh-in on this issue, with an up or down vote, so I will know who to hold responsible for an unnecessary and wasteful misuse of patient dollars. Oversight responsibility for this enterprise still ultimately rests with City Council. And a refusal to weigh-in doesn’t just constitute a political dodge, but a dereliction of duty.

These issues are important and I urge you to consider my viewpoint. As the ultimate owner of this enterprise, my opinion needs to be heard.

Sincerely,

Joseph F Barcellos

Here’s the second email:

Thank you for your message on Memorial Health System (MHS).

We are currently going through the most significant change to MHS since it became a city owned hospital in the 1940s.

To allow MHS to achieve its full potential and become a destination healthcare system for all of Southern Colorado and the surrounding states, city council and a citizen led commission made the decision to lease MHS to another healthcare system. The bidding process attracted bids from several major healthcare providers. This interest in being associated with our healthcare system indicates the strength and potential of MHS. It also showed how the current MHS leadership team had improved MHS’ ability to provide excellent healthcare services.

As evidenced by the bids to take over the management of MHS, MHS is financially stable and is one of the best healthcare systems in the nation.

The city’s proposal review team selected Colorado University Hospital (UCH) as the winning proposal. They have since formed a partnership with Poudre Valley Hospital in Fort Collins. With the addition of MHS, UCH will have a healthcare system spanning the state. In addition, being associated with the University of Colorado Medical School, UCH will be aligning with the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs (UCCS) to open a medical school at UCCS and this will give MHS the opportunity to become a teaching hospital augmenting our existing nursing program associated with the Beth-El nursing program at UCCS.

During this period of lease negotiation and transition, it is important the MHS remain stable and continue to provide superior healthcare to our citizens – the owners of MHS. Since UCH will want to consolidate management between all their campuses, it is likely that some of the current MHS leadership team will be asked to resign. Knowing this, other healthcare systems are actively recruiting some of our team. If any member of our current leadership team were to leave during this critical period, the MHS Board of Trustees, which has the responsibility of ensuring that MHS continue to provide the best healthcare possible, believes this could adversely impact MHS’ ability to be the healthcare leader it has become under the current leadership. Therefore, they have proposed to offer these critical leaders an incentive to remain with MHS during this transition period. No retention pay will be paid if the executive leaves of his/her own accord, is dismissed for cause, or is retained by UCH. This is common practice in business where mergers are occurring or a contract is ending to maintain continuity and stability. The Colorado Springs City Attorney has determined that the MHS Board of Trustees has this authority. In fact, I believe they would be remiss in their responsibilities if they did not take steps to protect this valuable community asset.

The healthcare consultant that has been advising us during the bidding and proposal process stated it is possible to bring in “caretaker” management; however, the cost for such management is general three to five times more costly than the existing management personnel as they know this is a short term employment and they would not move to Colorado Springs. In addition, this temporary management team would not know MHS and would only serve to maintain the status quo and not continue the improvements that are ongoing within MHS. We also know that no one person is indispensable to the operation of any enterprise. However, it would be impossible for us to recruit a replacement given the short term nature of the position.

Therefore, the most cost effective manner to ensure that MHS continue to be an excellent healthcare provider in our community is to retain the current leadership team in place. Their value to MHS has been demonstrated by all of the healthcare providers who were willing to spend millions of dollars to associate with MHS. In addition, the lease arrangement with UCH must be approved by the voters. Should this not happen, we want to ensure that MHS is able to continue to provide the level of healthcare that we expect and demand from a citizen owned system. I believe any mass exodus of the leadership team would seriously impact MHS’ ability to function in this changing and competitive healthcare industry.

Sincerely,

Bernie Herpin

Council Member District 4

Here’s the third email:

Let us be sure of the facts Herpin!  We have an out of control bureaucracy that has failed in its fiduciary responsibilities. The Hospital board, appointed by our renegade and incompetent city council is politically motivated by the status quo. No accountability for the Executive level employees. Yes, they are the employees of this city, as are you! We the people have chosen a strong Mayor because our council, like the U.S. congress, fails to accept responsibility. Memorial’s financial failures are yours as well!

Don’t feed me your standard lies! You can not miss financially in this two hospital town. The quality of care also lags because of operational inefficiencies. You get on it or I will spend money in your district to assure your defeat! Just think we are in a depression and you have access to all kinds of qualified people around the globe to run the hospital. This process of moving Memorial to another organization is the most telling of the serious dereliction of duty demonstrated by the last several and the present councils. Open up the process and take responsibility or prepare to reap you bitter reward!

Joseph Barcellos

Here’s the fourth email:

Thank you for your reasoned and respectful reply.  By the way, I don’t respond well to threats.  If this council is doing such a bad job, why don’t you step up and serve.  I know it’s much easier to sit back and complain and make threats.

Sincerely,

Bernie Herpin

Council Member District 4

Here’s the fifth email:

Your response is now a matter of record. I will find a media outlet to cast you in the light that you deserve to be cast in. You are nothing but a lousy politician who is WRONG!  In the military we say lead, follow or get out of the way.

Since you are neither a leader, or a follower of the people’s will, get out of the way!  I will spend the legal limit to eliminate you from your position, and I will have my friends and associates do the same. Your bumbling response has resolved me!

Like any big government politician you have failed to address my charges, likely because you are not capable of doing so and you now have my determination to place any better more competent person in your spot. Of course you can resolve this and change your arrogant tone and demonstrate some reason and integrity in this matter.

As to your sincerity, I doubt it.

You  have been admonished again and I don’t sit back as you so wrongfully write!

Joseph Barcellos

Here’s the sixth email:

Mr. Barcellos,

I will save you the trouble of finding a media outlet and am forwarding this entire email string to the Gazette and Independent.

I tried to respond to your “parroted” message from Jeff Crank and AFP with the history of the MHS negotiations and why I thought it was necessary to maintain stability during this transition phase.

You responded with threats and insults.

I am proud of my public service.  Feel free to exercise your rights during the next election.  If elected officials responded to every threat of throwing us out of office, we would never make a decision.  I was elected to represent our citizens and to do what I think is in the best interests of our community.  I will continue to serve until I leave office.

Sincerely,

Bernie Herpin

Council Member District 4

Posted in: Budget • City Council • People • Transparency • • • | 14 Comments »

Herpin: Mayor’s appointee has clear conflict

February 29th, 2012, 3:34 pm by

Councilman Bernie Herpin defended his decision Tuesday to question the appointment of Robert Shonkwiler to the Urban Renewal Authority Board.

YouTube Preview Image

Posted in: Boards and Commissions • City Administration • City Council • Politics • • • • | Post a Comment »

Mayor says council president poses bigger risk

February 29th, 2012, 1:42 pm by

When Councilman Bernie Herpin objected to one of Mayor Steve Bach’s nominees for the Urban Renewal Authority Board, the mayor fired back.

More video from Tuesday’s City Council meeting:

YouTube Preview Image

Posted in: Boards and Commissions • City Administration • City Council • Meetings • Politics • • • • • | Post a Comment »

Councilman objects to mayoral nominee

February 29th, 2012, 1:34 pm by

Video from Tuesday’s City Council meeting and the dispute over one of Mayor Steve Bach’s choices for the Urban Renewal Authority Board:

YouTube Preview Image

Posted in: Boards and Commissions • City Administration • City Council • Meetings • Politics • • • • | Post a Comment »

Then and Now: Councilman Bernie Herpin

February 21st, 2012, 8:09 am by

From the city’s website:

Bernie Herpin Jr. was originally appointed to an at-large council seat in March 2006 to complete the term of a member who resigned. He was elected to a full term in April 2009 as the representative of District 4, the southeast quadrant of the city.

Mr. Herpin is a native of Florida and earned a Bachelor of Science degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Kansas and a Master of Arts degree in computer resource management from Webster University. He came to Colorado Springs in 1962 and joined the US Navy in 1965 after marrying his wife, Linda. They returned to Colorado Springs in 1980 and Bernie retired from military service in 1985.

Mr. Herpin is a senior information system analyst at Lockheed Martin supporting the 1st Space Operations Squadron at Schriever AFB. He is a retired military officer having served in the US Navy submarine service and the US Air Force. He has served on several city, county, and state boards and commissions.

Mr. Herpin and his wife Linda have three daughters and five grandchildren.

Bernie Herpin’s Council term ends in 2013.

Posted in: City Council • People • • | Post a Comment »

Quote of the Day

February 9th, 2012, 2:41 pm by

Is the Bach administration trying to dissuade reporters from filing open-records requests?

The mayor’s Communications Office, led by former TV news director Cindy Aubrey, has been sharing open-records requests filed by one media outlet with every news organization in town for about the past month.

It’s happened to The Gazette twice and to the Independent once so far.

“It smells of punitive action,” Al Tompkins, senior faculty member at the Poynter Institute for journalism in St. Petersburg, Fla., told the Indy.

Some City Council members can relate.

“I share your and Daniel’s frustration with the difficulty of getting information from the executive branch of the Colorado Springs city government.  As we work through this new form of government, Council members have occasionally been the last to know some information and, on more than one occasion, we find out something either in the media or when a media person calls us asking for a comment,” Councilman Bernie Herpin said in an email to the Independent’s J. Adrian Stanley and The Gazette.

Mayor Steve Bach, in case you’ve forgotten, pledged transparency when he was running for office.

 

Posted in: City Administration • City Council • Colorado Open Records Act • Transparency • • • • • | 3 Comments »

Councilwoman to Bach: “I’m sick of Council not knowing what is going on”

February 9th, 2012, 10:49 am by

Emails released by the city today under an open-records request filed by the Independent shed more light on the tension between Mayor Steve Bach and members of the City Council.

Here are some examples:

When the mayor’s office accidentally — or purposely? — released emails indicating that the mayor wasn’t going to implement the council’s budget changes, council liaison Aimee Cox was floored.

“This is an interesting chain of email about legal opinion the Mayor’s Office has received about the budget,” Cox wrote in an email to council President Scott Hente on Jan. 13.

“I can’t believe the Mayor’s Office really wanted us to see this,” she wrote.

Hente forwarded the emails to his colleagues the following Monday.

“I saw this chain of emails late Friday afternoon and basically stewed over this over the weekend,” Hente wrote. “I am forwarding it to you all without editorializing on my part but would welcome your comments.”

Councilman Bernie Herpin didn’t hold back.

“Basically, council has become irrelevant to the administration of the city,” Herpin wrote. “The mayor can, in effect, veto our decisions on the running of MHS and CSU by refusing to sign documents. He has also, in effect, taken away our ability to appropriate funds and to make decisions as to how those funds should be spent. He has a city attorney that will provide legal advice that supports his position and it appears we have no recourse. This is very disturbing and should be the focal point of our 18th meeting.”

At that meeting, council members were ready for battle, but the mayor started out by saying he had every intention of implementing council’s budget changes.

Click here to see video of that meeting. The body language says it all.

(To see more video of that meeting or other videos about City Hall and Colorado Springs, click here to check out my new YouTube channel, which is called SpringsNews.)

The emails released by the city today also show that council members have had trouble obtaining information from the Bach administration.

On Nov. 10, Councilwoman Lisa Czelatdko sent the mayor and her colleagues an email stating that “we have to work together as a team” for the city to succeed.

“I’m sick of Council not knowing what is going on,” she wrote.

“I know we have understandable growing pains but I don’t see us working towards improving them. Please let’s commit to working together,” Czelatdko added.

It’s unclear if the mayor or anyone else responded because large portions of the emails have been redacted or altogether blacked out.

On Dec. 23, Czelatdko asked Budget Manager Lisa Bigelow via email to provide information about how much money the Bach administration spent on “office redecorating, security system, total of annual mileage account, trip expenditure acct, and total annual salaries of newly created positions please.”

In another email, Czelatdko said she wanted to know how much money the mayor had spent on his new Spirit of the Springs initiative, among other costs, as well as “how money is moved around budget and transferred to various areas.”

On Dec. 29, Czelatdko sent another email saying she hadn’t received “any response or acknowledgment of expenditure requests.”

Bigelow apparently forwarded Czelatdko’s requests for information to the mayor, who told Steve Cox, who was then his chief of staff, to handle the situation.

“Steve, pls advise Aimee Cox that we’ll need 5 or more Councilors to individually request by email before taking up staff time on this,” the mayor wrote.

“Also, pls ask her to remind Councilors of the executive branch action request protocol Council discussed at its retreat,” he added.

Posted in: Budget • City Administration • City Council • City employees • Colorado Open Records Act • Politics • • • • • • • | 10 Comments »

Police and fire pension plans will cost $15M in 2012

January 13th, 2012, 10:56 am by

Mayor Steve Bach convinced the City Council this week to pass a resolution in support of a bill that would allow local governments to force their civilian employees to pay a greater share into the Public Employees’ Retirement Association.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Kent Lambert, R-Colorado Springs, was introduced in the state Senate on Wednesday. Brian DelGosso, R-Loveland, is the House sponsor.

Lambert’s “proposed bill would change State law to allow employers in only the local government division of PERA to decrease the employer contribution rate and increase the member contribution rate by an amount to be determined by the employer. The decrease in the employer annual contribution is not to exceed 2.5 percent,” city documents state.

“For 2012, a 2.5 percent decrease to the employer contribution rate would have saved the City and its enterprises (excluding Utilities and Memorial Hospital) approximately $1.625 million,” documents state.

In 2012, the city of Colorado Springs expects to contribute $9.35 million into PERA.

While the amount of money that the city pays for the pensions of civilian employees could fix a lot of roads and turn on a lot of streetlights, the pension plans of police officers and firefighters will cost taxpayers almost 60 percent more than for civilian employees this year.

“The All Funds total for sworn pension plans is approximately $14,889,100,” Budget Manager Lisa Bigelow said in an email.

Sworn personnel make up the biggest number of city employees.

The city employs about 1,630 people, including about 768 cops and 372 firefighters.

“The only reason (police and fire pensions) cost the city more is they make up the majority of the employees,” City Councilman Bernie Herpin said on Facebook.

“Our contributions to their pension plans, on a percentage basis, is less than to PERA. We contribute 8 percent for those sworn police and fire that are in the statewide plan (which most are now) as opposed to 13.7 percent for PERA. Police & fire sworn also contribute 8 percent,” he said.

In an interview this week, Bach said he would address the pension plans of police officers and firefighters in coming months, though he didn’t go into specifics.

“We will be talking with the police and fire departments about their pension plans as part of our budgeting for 2013 through 2015,” he said.

(To watch the interview with the mayor, click here.)

Bigelow said the city has three pension plans for sworn personnel.

“The City has a closed sworn pension plan, the Old Hire Pension Plan, that has only one active member,” she wrote.

“In 2012, the City’s contribution to the Old Hire Pension Plan for Fire is $1,491,283 and for Police is $1,407,209.  With the exception of the one active member in the Old Hire Pension Plan, current sworn employees are either a member of a closed pension plan, the New Hire Pension Plan, or the FPPA State-wide Plan. The employer and employee contribution rates for these Plans are determined based upon actuarial studies.  These studies take into account all accrued liabilities.  For the New Hire Plan, the employer contribution rate is not currently broken out by specific categories of liabilities such as active and retired employees.  However, the City is working with FPPA to break this out.  For the State-wide Plan, the employer contribution rate is not broken out by specific categories of liabilities such as the City of Colorado Springs Municipal Government retired employees.”

Posted in: City Administration • City employees • • • • • • | 16 Comments »

« Previous Entries
ADVERTISEMENT 
ADVERTISEMENT 
powered by
google
Search
        Search: Web    Site

Privacy Policy | User Agreement | Site Map

Autos | Homes & Real Estate | Jobs | Classifieds | ColoradoSprings.com

Local Business Directory | Webmaster

Freedom Communications, Inc

Freedom Communications, Inc.

  

SEO Powered by Platinum SEO from Techblissonline