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

Archive for the 'Issue 300' Tag

Transparency in government isn’t always pretty

August 4th, 2010, 9:04 am by

Sometimes you just want to scream.

Last week, the City Council was scheduled to meet in executive session to talk about ballot Issue 300, the brainchild of City Hall critic Douglas Bruce, and how it affects the annual payment that Colorado Springs Utilities makes in lieu of taxes.

When Mayor Lionel Rivera polled council members about going into executive session, a council majority decided the matter could be discussed in public.

Transparency in government is a beautiful thing.

The council went on to discuss a memo prepared by the City Attorney’s Office that was stamped “confidential” and “attorney client privilege” and ”attorney work product.”

The memo basically said that the so-called PILT “constitutes a surplus under the City Charter” and that the city can continue to collect and spend those funds.

After the meeting, I requested the memo from Deputy City Attorney Wynetta Massey, who provided a hard copy after clearing it with Rivera.

On Friday, I requested a copy of the memo from Massey via e-mail with the intent of posting it on the City Desk blog so taxpayers could read it for themselves.

When Massey responded Monday, she said the hard copy “satisfies” the Colorado Open Records Act.

“While I realize the hard copy of the memo satisfies CORA, I am requesting an electronic copy,” I wrote back Tuesday.

(I didn’t reply sooner because I had the day off on Monday.)

“Are you saying you won’t provide it to me electronically?” I asked.

“The Office policy is not to provide electronic copies of documents released in hard copy that satisfy CORA,” Massey said in an e-mail about three hours later.

Office policy? Seriously?

That triggered a request for the policy.

Three hours later, Massey responded again.

“After seeking Council’s authorization to release the memorandum, I provided you a hard copy of the document, without charge, within 15 minutes of the request.  If a written document is provided, it is an Office policy not to duplicate efforts and email the same document, so long as CORA has been satisfied.  However, as a courtesy, I have attached an electronic copy of the memorandum,” she said in the e-mail.

“If you wish to obtain an electronic copy of requested documents in the future, you should identify that format when making the request,” she added.

Long story short, transparency in government isn’t always pretty.

Click here to read the memo.

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

Quote of the day

July 30th, 2010, 1:04 pm by

“That’s why we’re in the mess we’re in.”

– Councilman Darryl Glenn

“Yeah, because you won’t listen to reason.”

– Mayor Lionel Rivera

“No, because you …”

– Glenn

The comments above were recorded on SpringsTV after Mayor Lionel Rivera had adjourned Tuesday’s City Council meeting.

The mayor and Glenn continued to argue over what the city should do about payments in lieu of taxes from Colorado Springs Utilities given the passage last year of ballot Issue 300, which calls for enterprise payments to the city to be phased out over eight years. Utilities is considered an “enterprise” of the city.

Rivera believes the city charter allows the city to appropriate those funds from Utilities, but Glenn believes a clarifying question should be placed on the ballot, letting voters decide whether the city should be allowed to keep the so-called PILT payments.

To listen to the recording, click here and fast-forward to about 3:02:09.

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

Bruce, city’s legal eagles will try to hash out compromise

January 18th, 2010, 11:21 am by
City Attorney Patricia Kelly

City Attorney Patricia Kelly

Last week, the City Council ordered wary-looking employees in the City Attorney’s Office to work side-by-side with one of their harshest critics — anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce — on a “consensus ordinance” to implement ballot Issue 300.

Let the fun begin.

Their first meeting will be Wednesday afternoon, Bruce said in a telephone message late Friday.

“I don’t think it’s appropriate for the (public) and the media to attend because it will cramp the city’s style in terms of discussion and negotiation or candor or something,” Bruce said in the message.

Whether the meeting is open to the public remains to be seen.

But putting Bruce in a room with city employees, especially those who work in the City Attorney’s Office, could be highly entertaining.

There’s no love lost between Bruce and the City Attorney’s Office.

In the past, Bruce has called City Attorney Patricia Kelly a “bad woman” and a ”lawless city attorney.”

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

Bruce balks at city’s attempt to implement issue 300

January 11th, 2010, 11:06 am by

s-douglas-bruce-large1-150x1501

Expect anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce to butt heads with City Council members tomorrow over a proposed ordinance crafted by the City Attorney’s Office to implement ballot initiative 300, which Bruce authored and voters approved in the Nov. 3 election.

“They’re planning to steal the election this Tuesday,” Bruce said last week.

“It’s a new low for the City Council. I didn’t think that they could think any lower,” he added.

Tomorrow’s council meeting starts at 1 p.m. But the possible fireworks between Bruce and council members won’t happen until later because the proposed ordinance is the last item on a long agenda. The meeting is on the third floor at City Hall, 107 N. Nevada Ave.

The initiative approved by voters calls for “all enterprise payments to the city” to be phased out over eight years or less “with all yearly savings passed on as reductions to each customer bill in dollar amounts as equal as possible.” It also prohibits “all loans, gifts and subsidies between an enterprise and the city or another enterprise.”

In a report to council members, City Attorney Patricia Kelly said it would be easy to comply with the requirements of initiative 300 “in the case of private business entities.”

But compliance is difficult for the city government and its enterprises “because there is only one legal entity recognized by the city charter and state law: the city,” Kelly said.

“Because the city and its enterprises are recognized as one legal entity by law, actions undertaken by an enterprise are considered by to be undertaken by the city,” she said.

Under the proposed ordinance, the city would be allowed to collect payments from the enterprises for services rendered, including the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes from Colorado Springs Utilities.

“For example, if the city had a piece of heavy equipment with a fair market value of $25,000, the city could ‘sell’ the equipment to an enterprise for $25,000 cash,” Kelly said. “Likewise, Colorado Springs Utilities provides utility services to the city in exchange for cash…So long as value is exchanged for value between an enterprise and the city, there is no violation of issue 300.”

Bruce vehemently disagrees.

“They’re trying to redefine issue 300 into oblivion,” he said.

Bruce called the proposed ordinance the “worst piece of legislation” he’s seen in 35 years.

“Page for page, word for word, this is the most atrocious example of governmental outright moral and legal corruption I have ever seen,” he said.

Bruce also is asserting that the council “is planning to slip this by in one hearing, not the usual two,” because the council is expected to take formal action Tuesday. However, the council has discussed the proposal once before, during its Dec. 21 informal meeting.

Bruce’s assertions are somewhat misleading because Bruce was aware of the first meeting.

City officials “are trying to give the people of Colorado Springs a Christmas present, which is a brightly wrapped package of cow dung,” he said before the Dec. 21 meeting.

“This will undo the plain meaning of issue 300,” he said back then.

Posted in: City Council • Elections • • • | 7 Comments »

Stormwater Enterprise will mail refunds later this month

January 7th, 2010, 12:33 pm by

The controversial Colorado Springs Stormwater Enterprise, which the City Council abolished at the end of 2009 after voters approved ballot issue 300, is winding down.

The city today announced that the estimated 20,000 customers who paid their storm water fees in advance will start to get refund checks the last week of January.

Customers received a 5 percent discount if they paid four or more quarters in advance.

The refunds, which total about $700,000, could range between $6.45 for residential customers and up to $11,040 for commercial customers with large properties.

“I know we have (a residential customer who) initially paid 30 years in advance,” city spokeswoman Mary Scott said. “Right when we first started, they said, ‘Here’s my payment for the next 30 years.’ But that’s an anomaly. That’s not normal.”

Scott said customers owed a refund may want to verify that their name and address is correct in the El Paso County Assessor database, which the city-owned enterprise used to send out bills to Colorado Springs property owners.

Scott also encouraged customers who used automatic bill pay to stop future payments because the city is still getting money from accounts with no balance due. However, those customers will also receive refunds, she said.

“We think they most likely had automatic bill pay … and they haven’t turned that off yet,” she said.

Call the enterprise at 385-5913 if you have any questions.

Customers will no longer be billed for storm water fees, but city officials are expecting people to pay their bills through 2009. The last bill from 2009 will be due at the end of this month.

“For those who have not paid, the city will pursue collections, whether that’s through liens on property or through collections agencies,” Mayor Lionel Rivera said in December. “The $1.7 million that’s still owed the city, we’re not just going to wave our hands and say it’s going to go away.”

Scott said the plan is to return to council members around February or March to ask how they want the enterprise to pursue collections.

Posted in: Elections • • • | 7 Comments »

Bruce warns mayor to cut stormwater or face ‘horrible consequences’

December 2nd, 2009, 3:03 pm by

s-douglas-bruce-large1-150x15011

Face reality and end the much-maligned Stormwater Enterprise immediately.

That was the gist of what anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce told city officials yesterday during a closed-door meeting that lasted about 45 minutes, Bruce said today.

“They just have to accept reality, and that was the thrust of what I was saying,” he said.

Bruce, a former El Paso County commissioner and author of the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights – which he lovingly calls “my baby” – contends that Issue 300, which voters approved Nov. 3, calls for an immediate end to the Stormwater Enterprise.

Hoping to avoid a court battle, city officials extended an olive branch to Bruce by asking for a private meeting to discuss his ballot initiative and its repercussions.

Mayor Lionel Rivera, who was about 10 or 15 minutes late, Councilman Randy Purvis, City Attorney Pat Kelly and a “cute court reporter” taking notes attended the meeting, Bruce said.

“I don’t think anything was accomplished,” he said. “There was no handshake. There was no document to be signed. I think they wanted to assess how firm I was, whether there was any give… I made it clear that there was no give.”

Bruce has threatened to start a petition drive for a property tax cut in Colorado Springs if city officials don’t end the Stormwater Enterprise this year.

“This isn’t exactly what I said, but I said (something along the lines of) the consequences of continuing to plan to violate Issue 300 are too horrible to contemplate,” Bruce said.

The issue has divided the City Council.

Purvis and Tom Gallagher, Darryl Glenn and Jan Martin voted to end the Stormwater Enterprise immediately.

But they didn’t have enough votes.

Rivera, Vice Mayor Larry Small, Scott Hente, Bernie Herpin and Sean Paige voted to phase it out over two years.

On his Web site, Bruce is encouraging his supporters to lobby the five council members who voted for a two-year phase-out to change their minds.

Bruce calls the five council members who voted for a two-year phase-out the “foolish five” and the four who voted to end it right away the “fearsome foursome.”

Posted in: Elections • • • • • • • • • • • • • | 2 Comments »

Quote of the day

November 20th, 2009, 10:43 am by

“If we do have a summit in some summit-like destination, they’ll only buy me a one-way ticket.”

— Douglas Bruce, who still hasn’t heard a peep from city officials who said earlier this week that they wanted to sit down with Bruce to discuss legal problems they have with ballot issue 300, which Bruce authored.

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

Mowle: City Council can’t have it both ways

November 18th, 2009, 10:23 am by

tom-mowle-photo2

El Paso County Public Trustee Tom Mowle is jumping into the politically charged debate over how the city of Colorado Springs should collect overdue stormwater bills after the passage of ballot issue 300.

Mowle, who is running for county clerk, issued a news release this morning weighing in on the issue after reading a story in The Gazette about the political repercussions facing County Treasurer Sandra Damron, who is also running for county clerk.

“Now that The Gazette has given some candidates the opportunity to speak about fees, I would also like to express my opinion,” he said.

“ My view is not a complicated one. Governments cannot decide that the stormwater fee is a ‘fee’ when they want to avoid going through the (Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights) process, but then call it a ‘tax’ so they can have the County Treasurer put it on your property tax bill.  It’s one or the other,” he said.

“Likewise,” Mowle added, ”governments cannot say that the Stormwater Enterprise is separate from the municipality to avoid TABOR limits, and then claim it is part of the municipality so they can put a lien on your property.  Again, it’s one or the other.”

Posted in: Elections • • • | Post a Comment »

Councilman: Dump Stormwater Enterprise right now or else

November 13th, 2009, 2:31 pm by

darryl-glenn1

The Colorado Springs City Council is mulling some tough policy decisions about the future of the Stormwater Enterprise that could derail plans to ask voters next November to approve the creation of a regional stormwater authority to oversee drainage projects.

Councilman Darryl Glenn, who is spearheading the effort to create a voter-approved stormwater authority, said his plans would go down the drain if the city filed tax liens against delinquent property owners and didn’t end the Stormwater Enterprise right away.

“I’ve got some definite deal breakers,” he said.

“I’m not going to support liens, and I want it to end right now,” Glenn said. “I don’t think we should send out fees for 2010…I don’t know how you do that when you’re going to bill them for something that they just rejected.”

The uncertainty surrounding the Stormwater Enterprise stems from Issue 300, an initiative sponsored by anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce that phases out enterprise payments to the city. According to Bruce, the ballot measure, which has been called confusing and ambiguous, requires the immediate end of the Stormwater Enterprise.

Most council members were initially adamant that Issue 300, approved by voters Nov. 3, didn’t affect the Stormwater Enterprise. But days after the election, they said it was the intent of the voters to do away with it.

But exactly when to pull the plug and what to do about the small percentage of people who haven’t paid their fees remains unresolved.

Some council members think the enterprise should be phased out over eight years. Others think it should be done faster. Like Bruce, Glenn thinks it should be done immediately.

“I’m a pretty good predictor of what my colleagues are going to do,” Glenn said. “I don’t see them immediately wanting to phase that out. In my opinion, I think that the intent of the voters was to get rid of it now.”

Glenn doesn’t support amnesty for delinquent property owners, but he said filing tax liens against property owners sends the wrong message.

“There are other ways to collect from people who haven’t paid, whether it’s through collections or whatever,” he said. “When you put a lien on somebody’s property, that’s a tax. That functions as a tax. I think it violates the spirit of what we’re trying to do.”

Another unresolved issue: stormwater projects in the pipeline.

“In talking with some people on staff, some of the projects that are out there, (such as the Templeton Gap floodway project), they can only finish that project if they bill for 2010 and part of 2011. If that’s the case, you’re missing your window to be able to put something on the November 2010 election,” he said.

“I think council is in a box here,” Glenn added.

It’s unclear whether the council will pick up its ongoing conversation about the future of the Stormwater Enterprise at its Nov. 23 informal meeting or at its formal meeting the following day.

“Don’t know yet,” city spokeswoman Sue Skiffington-Blumberg said in an e-mail. “It is not presently on the agenda.”

Posted in: City Council • Elections • • • • | 1 Comment »