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

Archive for the 'Merv Bennett' Tag

« Previous Entries

Quote of the Day

November 15th, 2012, 5:32 pm by

The mayor a few years before he was at UCCS. (Click on image to enlarge)

City Councilman Merv Bennett said residents in the Cragmoor neighborhood have approached him with complaints about parking problems created by students at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs.

During the monthly Mayor’s Counsel meeting Thursday, Bennett said he’s been told that the problem has existed a for a long time and that it’s so bad that homeowners can’t even park in front of their homes or have guests.

Mayor Steve Bach said he would meet with his staff and then talk to the chancellor.

“This problem goes back to 1966,” Bach said. “I am one of the offenders. I used to park in front of somebody’s house.”

Posted in: City Administration • People • • • • | 4 Comments »

Which City Council members have smoked weed?

October 11th, 2012, 10:54 am by

City Council members inserted themselves into the statewide marijuana debate when they took up a resolution to oppose Amendment 64, which seeks to regulate pot like alcohol.

That got some people wondering: Have council members smoked pot? And if so, do they still smoke pot?

A few coughed up to trying weed.

Others said they’ve never touched it and never would.

A couple of councilmen were vague in their answers.

Here are their answers, all via email:

“In high school, I tried it with my four best friends in my home — yes mom was out of town,” Councilwoman Angela Dougan said.

“We had one joint. We all took a couple of puffs, and it was awful tasting. My thoughts were, ‘What a dumb thing and why would anyone do this?’  Never did it again,” she said.

“I have never used marijuana,” Councilman Merv Bennett said.

Bennett said the question posed to council was “very inappropriate.”

“The inappropriateness relates to asking a question that could lead to a criminal conviction.  It isn’t  a problem for me. I haven’t even smoked a cigarette,” Bennett said.

“As it relates to the debate, it is an Amendment to our State  Constitution that could have significant and serious implications to our City, the quality of life of our citizens, federal funding for roads and bridges, public safety, etc.  Something of that significance demands our attention,” Bennett added.

Like Bennett, Councilwoman Brandy Williams said she’s never smoked pot — or even a cigarette.

“I took D.A.R.E rather seriously,” she said, referring to the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program.

Councilman Val Snider took a page out of the Bill Clinton playbook.

“Does it count if you didn’t inhale?” Snider asked.

Councilman Tim Leigh was evasive in his answer.

“I saw your inquiry about council’s pot-smoking-propensity,” Leigh said in his first response.

“While I cannot state with absolute equivocation, it seems we’re all dipping in the medicine on about every other Tuesday afternoon, just after the lunch hour.  That will likely come to an abrupt and unfettered halt when the Mayor (with my full endorsement) creates a no-smoking zone in Acacia Park,” he said.

When pressed for an answer, Leigh continued to be evasive.

“Puff the Magic Dragon, lived by the sea, Frolicked in the autumn mist in a a land called Hana Leigh,” he wrote.

When asked if he was smoking pot when he came up with that response, Leigh, a fitness buff, offered this tidbit and hinted that he may be cover-boy material.

“I’m smoking, alright. I’m on the stair master at the club with Men’s Journal. Photo shoot. Something about my lung power and fitness!” he said.

Councilwoman Lisa Czelatdko is out of town and did not respond.

The three council members who served on council before answered the question a few years ago.

Councilman Bernie Herpin said the only marijuana he had ever seen was on TV.

“Until I visited a dispensary, I had never actually seen marijuana in the flesh,” Herpin said.

Council President Scott Hente said he “never” smoked marijuana.

“Look where I graduated from,” said Hente, a retired lieutenant colonel who graduated from the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1975.

Council President Pro Tem Jan Martin said she tried it once and only once.

“I was so paranoid and looking over my shoulder the entire time that I decided it just wasn’t worth it and never tried it again,” she said. “That’s a very honest answer from a politician.”

By the way, Martin cast the lone dissenting vote on the resolution opposing Amendment 64.

“I wasn’t afraid of medical marijuana dispensaries, and I’m not afraid of this bill for marijuana in our community,” Martin said Tuesday.

The vote to pass the resolution was 5-1. Leigh refused to vote, saying the council isn’t in the business of making pronouncements.

Czelatdko and Williams were absent, though Williams said she would have voted with the majority.

 

Posted in: City Council • Elections • People • • • • • • • • • • | 12 Comments »

Czelatdko points finger at city attorney over McMillion

July 26th, 2012, 9:56 am by

An editorial that resurrected the $1.15 million separation agreement with former Memorial Health System CEO Larry McEvoy led City Councilwoman Lisa Czelatdko to divulge new details about what happened behind closed doors.

On a Facebook post of Gazette editorial page editor Wayne Laugesen, Czelatdko revealed discussions in closed executive session.

Here is what Czelatdko wrote, with edits:

I was actually in the closed executive session Wayne Laugesen and so know exactly what was said and not said. What was not said was a 1.2 million dollar severance package was being given to (former Memorial Health System CEO Larry) McEvoy.

What was said was:

1) Why is McEvoy here in chambers announcing a resignation with no announcement of it on the agenda or notification to Council from the City Attorney’s Office?

2) What was said from the Memorial Hospital Board Chair Jim Moore, was that they (board and Chris) were working on a severance package for McEvoy up to 18 months and that they had been working on possible packages for two weeks under the direction of Chris Melcher

3) What was said was that no Memorial contract would be valid without the signature of Jim Moore and Chris Melcher

4) And lastly, what was said was the reminder that Council, the City Attorney’s Office and Memorial board could not enter into any contracts over 1 million dollars without all three parties acknowledging it. This understanding was put in place a month prior to protect the lease negotiations and keep the current admin entering into big money contracts that UCHealth might not want.

When I left that room I know myself and many of my colleagues who did not support retention packages thought, ‘Good luck getting us to agree to anything more than his agreed contract package,’ and we went home after a 7-hour meeting day.

Wayne, please, please stop perpetuating incorrect information and writing articles based on non factual assumptions. Did (council President Scott Hente) and (council President Pro Tem Jan Martin) know more specifics? I don’t know. Do you know for a fact? Did (Councilman Merv Bennett) and (Councilwoman Brandy Williams) know? I’m not sure. Do you? All I know is Council was told by Jim Moore that Chris Melcher, City Attorney was assisting in package negotiations. Chris did not refute that as he stood there listening to Jim speak. Chris confirmed to Council what I mentioned above regarding signatures needed for agreed contract limits and Council was told a package would come back for confirmation. No confusion for me when I walked out of the room that the city attorney who is suppose to serve both Council and the Mayor, who dare Council question or challenge his legal opinion, had it under control and was working on it with the board. Assumingly looking out for the best interest of council and the city.

I also know after the nightmare began, Chris Melcher, city attorney informed council that he paid for an outside legal consult who confirmed the board could do what they did, that if we challenged them through litigation which (Councilwoman) Angela Dougan, (Councilman Tim Leigh) and myself all said we’d support, the City would be responsible for paying all their attorneys, fees, etc and they probably would win costing the taxpayers millions more of wasted dollars. Chris told Council it was a weak case to challenge, a done deal, basically Council would have to take the lumps, and the lame press release was put out by my colleagues (I was flying with space command) that we would not pursue the matter further. So as I see it everyone won but Council and the health payers.

Memorial and UCHealth got rid of McEvoy who was tainting the campaign and poisoning the morale of hospital employees, the Board showed defiance and wielded their authority one last time, McEvoy lost a job but got a heck of a lot of money, and Council gets the blame for not overseeing the Board more thoroughly. A board who legally was given full authority and fiduciary responsibility years prior. I can only assume that decision was because the prior council thought it made sense to appoint a full time board of knowledgeable people who could dedicate their time to the health system and report back monthly to council. Council, who back then, was a part time, poorly compensated body in charge of the city, the health system and the utility company. Council, who now is even more limited and minionized by certain vocal, agenda driven, influential people, who so obviously serve one master. All I can say is I hope someone is keeping track of some of these personnel issues and making permanent notes in personnel files.

Posted in: City Council • Meetings • Politics • • • • • • • • • • • • • • | 21 Comments »

Foundation board ‘a sticking point’ in Memorial lease

June 21st, 2012, 1:12 pm by

The mayor and City Council are still haggling over the governance of a foundation that will oversee proceeds from the lease of Memorial Health System.

“The main thing that we’re dealing now is the governance of the foundation, and we’ll work through that and have something for you, hopefully, by Monday,” City Councilman Merv Bennett said during Wednesday’s Mayor’s Counsel meeting.

Here’s what Mayor Steve Bach said during the meeting:

“I understand the sticking point is who has the authority and who’s involved with both appointing the foundation board and the oversight. I know we’ll try to get this resolved obviously by Monday. I think that the public is looking for both council and mayor involvement there. Although in talking with Merv in terms of ongoing oversight of that foundation I don’t think that’s something where it makes sense to have both a mayor and council responsible for that. Everybody and nobody is kind of in charge. But hopefully we can work out amicably here how we’re going to nominated and you’re going to appoint that board. I certainly respect section 9-10 of the charter which says that council appoints boards and commissions. I think it’ll be comforting to the public to know that the mayor is involved at least in the set up of the foundation and then the selection of the initial trustees.”

Here’s video of the meeting:

YouTube Preview Image

 

Posted in: Boards and Commissions • City Administration • City Council • Health care • Meetings • • • • | 3 Comments »

Bach administration ‘leaning’ toward ending FREX

June 18th, 2012, 11:37 am by

Photo/KozeeLady

Is Mayor Steve Bach going to end FREX?

Probably, though a final decision hasn’t been made.

Chief of Staff Laura Neumann said Monday she hopes to have the mayor’s final decision about whether or not to continue the FrontRange Express, better known as FREX, in time for his monthly press conference on Tuesday.

But Neumann hinted that she will recommend ending the commuter bus service between Colorado Springs and Denver.

Neumann provided demographic data showing that about 4,000 Colorado Springs residents use local bus service daily while FREX has only about 200 daily riders during the work week. She noted that FREX includes riders from Monument and Denver. The city of Colorado Springs, through funding from the Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority, picks up the lion’s share of the costs.

“The average annual household income (of FREX riders in 2010) was $72,000,” Neumann said in an email.

“By contrast, two-thirds of our fixed-route bus riders have annual household incomes less than $20,000/year and 51 percent have annual household incomes less than $15,000,” she wrote.

“This should tell you which way we might be leaning with our recommendation as of this writing; although the recommendation is not yet definitive,” Neumann added.

Even though the Bach administration recommended ending FREX, the City Council voted 6-3 last week to continue an intergovernmental agreement that would keep FREX is operation at least through the end 0f the year. Council members Merv Bennett, Angela Dougan and Tim Leigh voted in opposition.

Council President Scott Hente said the decision was hard but that he had made a lot of hard decisions during his nine years on council.

“It seems like they’ve always been the wrong (decisions) because we’ve always been cutting,” Hente said before the June 12 vote.

(Watch video of Hente’s remarks at the bottom of this blog post.)

“On a per capita basis, we’ve actually cut police and fire. We’ve cut maintenance for streets. We’ve cut maintenance for stormwater facilities. We’ve gotten rid of hundreds of city employees, which means less services that we can offer to our community. We’ve decimated, to a large extent, our parks budget,” Hente said. “I guess at some point, I just to say from a personal standpoint, enough is enough. I guess I’m tired of cutting stuff. I’m tired of reducing services to the community.”

Watch the City Council vote here:

YouTube Preview Image

After the meeting, Neumann said funding options would be discussed, and the chances of ending FREX this year were “very minimal.”

On Friday, Neumann said there were two outstanding issues involving the future of FREX.

“The first relates to the costs associated with extending the service on a month to month basis by four months (through December 2012).  We hope to have that information nailed down by early next week,” she said in an email.

“The second, is final confirmation that it within the Mayor’s purview to opt not to extend the contact if we believe the costs may be prohibitive.  That issue is in our City Attorney’s office for final review,” she added.

During the June 12 council meeting, a representative from the City Attorney’s Office said Bach had the authority to end the service from a contractual standpoint.

 

Posted in: Budget • City Administration • City Council • Meetings • Transit • • • • • • | 6 Comments »

Quote of the Day

April 19th, 2012, 3:24 pm by

Time flies.

“One year ago today six new members were sworn into the City Council for the City of Colorado Springs, Merv Bennett, Lisa Czelatdko, Angela Dougan, Tim Leigh, Val Snider and myself. We took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of the State of Colorado and the Charter of the City of Colorado Springs. While this position has not always been easy, I am honored, as I know my colleagues are, to serve the Citizens of Colorado Springs to the best of my ability. Thank you for your support!” Councilwoman Brandy Williams wrote today on Facebook.

 

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

Councilman denies saying he couldn’t be objective

March 12th, 2012, 9:26 pm by

Councilman Merv Bennett, the former CEO of the YMCA of the Pikes Peak Region, says he plans to participate in the discussion and vote of a proposed contract between the Y and the city to operate six city-owned aquatic facilities.

Bennett said he got the OK from City Attorney Chris Melcher.

Bennett was quoted in the Indy as saying that he planned to recuse himself from voting on the proposed agreement because he couldn’t be objective.

Bennett denied making such a statement.

“I didn’t say I couldn’t be objective,” he said. “I don’t remember making that statement.”

YouTube Preview Image

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

City contributed millions to Southeast YMCA

March 12th, 2012, 9:50 am by

As Colorado Springs considers a five-year contract for the YMCA of the Pikes Peak Region to operate six city-owned aquatics facilities, City Council members are asking a lot of questions.

Who better to answer them than Councilman Merv Bennett, who served as CEO of the Y until his retirement last year.

Bennett, who plans to participate in the discussion and vote of the proposed contract after checking with the City Attorney’s Office, which said he didn’t have any conflicts of interests, answered questions from his colleagues in a long email this weekend.

Bennett cc’d Mayor Steve Bach, Chief of Staff Laura Neumann and Dan Dummermuth, the current CEO of the Y, in the email.

The city will subsidize the Y for any year-end shortfall “to the point of a break-even status” under the proposed contract.

For 2012, the subsidy is estimated at no more than $632,350.

Here is Bennett’s email:

I am doing this from memory so I will do my best.  Since I lived and breathed this every day for three years I am comfortable I am including all the data.  Lisa and Bernie, the information related to the USO was a part of the Southeast project so the answer to that question will be included within.

Since the early 1970s the YMCA recognized that the Southeast part of Colorado Springs was a community with many service needs and very little access.  This was primarily because the hard working folks in this part of our community could not afford to pay for the actual cost of providing the services.  For this reason, the YMCA built the Garden Ranch and Briargate facilities first to generate income (along with income generated at the Downtown Y) that could subsidize a facility in the Southeast part of Colorado Springs.  The folks in the Southeast did not want anything given to them, they just wanted it to be affordable according to their lower level of income. (At the time the Southeast Y was constructed the average household income in Briargate was around $72,000 but the average household income in the Southeast was $38,000)  When cost studies were done prior to construction it indicated about $450,000 in subsidy would be required annually.  This was based on a $3,000,000 annual budget.  Also, at that time the City parks department was using a national formula that said that nationally city recreations centers only generated revenue to cover 55-60% of their expenses as a national average. (To my knowledge this is still the high end of the average subsidy) This was a time when the City of Denver Recreation Centers were only generating enough income to cover 18% of  their expenses. This would mean that the City of Colorado would need to subsidize annually at a rate of 40-45% of expense.  This translates to annual subsidy of $1.2 – $1.35 Million per year.  The reason is due to operational styles and philosophies.  The Y generates most of its income (about 85%) from program fees and membership income with the remaining 15% from donations, gifts and grants.  The majority of the philanthropic support is provided in the Southeast, Fountain and  YMCA Camp Shady Brook (children’s resident camp).  However all YMCA branches utilize an income based rate scale and provide scholarships where needed for membership and programs.  Their philosophy is that “no one is turned away due to inability to pay”.  It has been for 134 years. The majority of this is provided to families, youth and seniors.  The Y raises in excess of $1 Million for this purpose each year in its own fundraising activities here in Colorado Spring and El Paso County.  The Y believes this is an indicator of a strong community and embraces social responsibility.  Financial records are required to assure that subsidy is provided where it is most needed to be accountable and responsible to the donors.  However, special circumstances are given careful consideration.

The Briargate YMCA was opened in December of 1998. (this also had a small but significant partnership with the City)  We had just conducted the largest capital campaign in Colorado Springs raising $7.6 Million.  The cost of construction was $7.8 million.  Our plan was to start of a project southeast in about 5 years. ( I was eager for a rest, capital campaigns are exhausting)  However, three months later the City, through Parks Director Paul Butcher, called and asked if we could work together on a project Southeast.  The City was working on what became the Springs Community Improvement Program (SCIP). The City believed a recreational facility in the Southeast part of the City was critical but they knew they would not be able to financially operate it. The concept was that the City would capitalize the construction and the YMCA would assume operational responsibility.  It was anticipate SCIP would provide $5.5 million which we calculated would construct a facility of approximately 35,000 – 40,000 sq. ft.  Since the YMCA did not have land in the southeast part of Colorado Springs, the City offered the present 5 acre site that was a dedicated park site that they had decided to not develop.  The YMCA agreed to do this since it would allow services to this area much quicker and meet a priority need of the City and the YMCA.

A couple of things occurred immediately after the YMCA agreed in principle to the partnership.  The Briargate YMCA (with 50,000 people within a 3 mile radius of the building) filled to capacity and exceeded its 3 year projection within three months of opening.  Second, when doing the demographic study of the 3 mile radius of the Southeast site, we found there were already over 90,000 people in this area with specific and dramatic recreational, social and family needs.  i.e. 29% of that community were single parent households and 48% of the community were military family households who behave a single parent households during deployments.  This totals over 75% of this community.  This resulted in the YMCA recognizing that building a facility half the size of Briargate to serve twice the population would be inadequate.  As a result another exhaustive capital campaign was approved and executed.  To shorten this slightly, the final amount from SCIP was $4.6 million and the YMCA raised $7.2 million.  The final cost was $11.8 million.  Because of the operational support that would be needed, it was important that all the money be raised to eliminate or minimize any debt service.

During the capital campaign and while SCIP was going through an extensive community process, the USO Board of Directors (The US0 was a separate 501c3 corporation operating as a subsidiary of the YMCA) conducted an extensive strategic planning process.  The result was that the local USO Board decided to amiably disaffiliate with the National USO organization and affiliate with the National Armed Services YMCA.  This was done for one major reason and a minor issue.  The minor issue related to confusion in fundraising, the National USO was conducting (and still does) extensive fundraising within our area.  This made it more difficult for the local USO to be successful with the fundraising that would meet the specific needs of our local military community.  However the more significant reason was a recognition of conflicting missions. (both missions are valid and important)  The National USO had a primary focus on serving military personnel  traveling or overseas while the local Board of Directors felt their mission should be focused on serving military families at home. This is the mission of the Armed Services YMCA.   As a result, the National USO, the Armed Services YMCA, the local USO Board and the local YMCA Board all agreed to the new affiliation plan.

I tell you the above to answer the USO question but to also help explain that the new Armed Services YMCA Board agreed to become the advisory board for the Southeast Armed Services YMCA (Southeast Y)  That structure continues very successfully to this day.

Now the agreement information between the YMCA and the City as it relates to the Southeast Y.  The City has leased the land to the YMCA for $1 per year.  Because it is a dedicated park site it could not be gifted or sold.  The City could not gift bonded money, so the agreement is as follows:

  • The aquatics portion of the building would be under the ownership of the City of Colorado Springs with the YMCA as the exclusive operator.
  • The City would depreciate the aquatics portion of the building over their normal 25 year depreciation schedule.
  • When the depreciation is completed and it is no longer on the City’s books as an asset, it would be given to the YMCA for $1.
  • During this time the YMCA would be responsible for all staffing, operation, deferred maintenance and additional capital development that might be needed.
  • The YMCA would provide daily usage at the same or comparable rate as provided by the City at the Memorial Park and Cottonwood Facilities.
  • The City would not be responsible for any operating subsidy although the YMCA was not prohibited from asking.  (to my knowledge, not operational funds from the City have be requested or provided)
  • The City could have a program office in the building.  (to my knowledge this has never been requested by the City)
  • The Harrison School District was also our partner during the project and provided communication to the local community, the School District also requested the building be moved to the West end of the site to give a campus atmosphere to Sierra HS and to allow them to provide additional parking for the facility on the West side(after 3pm).  This has proven to be a great aspects of this collaborative venture.
  • The Southeast YMCA opened in April of 2002 and has required annual subsidy each year averaging between $250,000-$450,000.
  • Each year YMCAs and City’s from around our country come and visit this model.  In my last year as CEO the City of Syracuse NY and Ventura County California, along with their YMCA counterparts visited.

Believe it or not I could make this several pages longer but I think I have provided an overview of a change in operational philosophy where our City and YMCA recognized they could do much more together than they could ever do separately.  It resulted in the City recognizing they could cause great services to be provided to the community without being responsible for delivering them.

One other thing, when we did the planning for the Southeast YMCA, I insisted on have the responsibility for the engineering, architect design and hiring of the contractor (GE Johnson).  If we were going to take responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the City owned pools, I wanted to be assured that they were developed and constructed in a manner that could be successfully and sustainably operated.  Also, all contractors were from Colorado Springs and 60% of the work force that built the building lived in the 80910 zip code. (but that is another story)

Sorry for the epistle but inquiring minds ought to know!

Merv

PS  Because our City legal department has indicated I do not have any conflict of interest, I will be participating in the discussion and vote.

 

Posted in: Budget • City Administration • City Council • Politics • Recreation and Cultural Services • • • • • | 1 Comment »

YMCA may take over 6 city pools

March 7th, 2012, 11:25 am by

The YMCA of the Pikes Peak Region may step in to operate six city-owned aquatic facilities in Colorado Springs.

The mayor’s office announced Wednesday that the Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services Department will present details of a proposed agreement with the YMCA during Monday’s informal City Council meeting.

“Per the proposed agreement, the City will subsidize the YMCA for any shortfall experienced at the City’s aquatic facilities. Based on proposed budgets, the subsidy is estimated at no more than $632,350 for 2012. By utilizing the remaining subsidy already budgeted for Cottonwood Creek Recreation Center, estimated at $208,000, a supplemental appropriation of $425,000 is necessary. Should revenues come in higher than budgeted, or expenses turn out to be lower than anticipated, the subsidy amount will be appropriately reduced,” according to city documents.

The council will be asked to vote on funding in support of the proposed agreement the following day.

“We are thrilled with the potential of a partnership with the YMCA of the Pikes Peak Region moving forward with City Council’s approval,” Chief of Staff Laura Neumann said in a statement.

“The City has a great history of working with the YMCA, and we optimistically look forward to being able to open our swimming pools again for the benefit of our entire community,” she said.

When the city terminated its contract with private operators Kevin and Tina Dessart, at least one council member speculated that it was because the Bach administration wanted to let the YMCA take over the pools.

Councilman Merv Bennett, who was elected last year, was the longtime CEO of the YMCA of the Pikes Peak Region. Bennett did not immediately return a call for comment.

Councilwoman Brandy Williams said she wanted to know whether the proposed contract was competitively bid.

“The reason the laws were set up the way that they are was to prevent people from getting into office and then simply handing contracts to people. There’s usually a competitive bid process because, over time, citizens have seen that that could become an issue and it’s to prevent anything like that from happening,” she said.

“There’s at least a process that the public can see how the decision was made, the bids that came in, things of that nature, so there’s more transparency brought to the issue,” Williams added.

Williams said the YMCA looked into taking over some of the city’s pools the first time the city said it was looking for partners from the private sector. She said the YMCA concluded at that time that it wasn’t cost-effective.

“They didn’t even present the bid because in their due diligence process, the math didn’t work,” she said. “The difference (under this agreement) is that $600,000 in funds from the city. That’s the difference, and that begs the question: Could the Dessarts have used that $600,000 much like the Y is using it and ran the pools? Was that question asked?’

The YMCA of the Pikes Peak Region has been in the for 134 years.

“We believe this partnership with the city will enhance the overall quality of life and ease the burden of government,” Dan Dummermuth, president and CEO of the YMCA of the Pikes Peak Region, said in a statement.

“The YMCA strengthens the foundation of our community through youth development, healthy living and social responsibility,” he said.

According to the city, here are the highlights of the proposed agreement:

  • Target date for finalized agreement:  April 5, 2012
    • 5-year agreement
  • Target pool opening: May 28, 2012
  • Aquatics facilities included in the agreement:
    • Cottonwood Creek Recreation Center,
    • Aquatics and Fitness Center at Memorial Park,
    • Portal Pool, Wilson Ranch Pool,
    • Monument Valley Pool, and
    • Prospect Lake Beach.
      • The only City facility not being considered is Valley Hi outdoor pool due to its proximity to the Southeast YMCA, the Aquatics and Fitness Center at Memorial Park and the Prospect Lake Beach.
  • City will maintain ownership of all sites
  • YMCA will manage and operate the City’s aquatic facilities including all programming.
  • YMCA will apply its operating policies and provide an affordable rate structure across all sites, as well as financial assistance when needed
    • Including the Income-Based Rate Scale to ensure membership is available and affordable to all
  • All YMCA centers and City recreation centers will offer reciprocal use of facilities through membership.
  • Non-membership day passes for pools will be continued; however, a reduced rate will be available to members
  • YMCA will be responsible for operating income and expenses;
    • Should there be a year-end short fall; the City will subsidize the YMCA to the point of a break-even status.
    • Should the YMCA realize excess revenue at year-end, those funds will be shared between both parties.
  • 2012 City budget supplemental appropriation request = $425,000
    • Based on estimated operating expenses minus revenues for each site.
    • Should revenues come in higher than budgeted, or expenses lower than anticipated, the subsidy amount will be appropriately reduced.

Posted in: City Administration • City Council • Meetings • Recreation and Cultural Services • • • • | 12 Comments »

Herpin: Changes to mayor’s budget not a ‘power play’

December 19th, 2011, 11:11 am by

An editorial in The Gazette last week described Colorado Springs City Council members who voted to override five of Mayor Steve Bach’s vetoes as spoiled brats, saying they were rebelling “like angry teenagers given a curfew.”

“Only two council members, Angela Dougan and Tim Leigh, consistently voted against overriding the mayor’s responsible vetoes,” the editorial stated.

“Seven others — Merv Bennett, Lisa Czelatdko, Scott Hente, Bernie Herpin, Jan Martin, Val Snider and Brandy Williams — chose rebellion over responsible financial restraint. They chose to show Bach who is in charge, and they did so with disregard for taxpayers’ interests and the challenges facing city finances.”

In an email to Wayne Laugesen, the newspaper’s editorial page editor, Herpin wrote that he saw his support for council’s additions to the 2012 budget “not as a ‘power play,’ but as concern for our community.”

Herpin provided a copy of the email to Laugesen to the newspaper’s news department, which operates independently of the editorial department.

“I’d like to share with you my response to today’s Gazette editorial on this subject,” Herpin said Friday.  “Please keep two things in mind:  Our changes represent 0.135% of the total 2012 budget, and, even with these additions, we added $371,000 more to our reserves than the Mayor requested in his initial budget.”

Here is the full text of Herpin’s email to Laugesen:

Wayne,

I saw my support for the 2012 Colorado Springs budget additions by council not as a “power play”, but as concern for our community.  I few things you didn’t mention in today’s editorial:

- In his remarks at his swearing in, apparently recognizing the importance of well maintained parks to our community, Mayor Bach asked for more than $800,000 for additional parks watering and maintenance.  Council approved that request 8-0 (one member was on vacation).  Turns out, that money came from “salary savings” from unfilled positions within police, fire, and other departments.

- The Mayor stated he asked the police and fire departments to cut $1.6 million from their 2011 budget for 2012.  And then he turned around and established a $1.5 million “contingency” fund that he could spend any way he wanted without reporting to council who has the authority, and responsibility, for funding city government.  Most of that $1.6 million came from eliminating unfilled positions and “efficiencies”.  As a long time supporter of our public safety, I would have gladly supported an increase in their budget.

- With our changes to the proposed 2012 budget, even after overriding his vetoes on 3 spending items totaling $302,295, we increased the amount going into reserves by $371,000 more than the Mayor had requested in his initial budget.

Mayor Bach, rightly so and with my full support, has made job creation the number one goal of his administration.  Colorado Springs has been recognized as one of the top places in our country to live, work, and play by several organizations.  I think the “play” attribute is a key component in achieving the Mayor’s goal.  We all remember 2010 with no trash cans or bathrooms in parks, 6 foot high weeds in the medians, a third of our streetlights turned off, and other cost cutting measures that council took to maintain a balanced budget.  Our fund balance (reserves) were reduced.  How could we expect company CEOs looking to relocate out of California to look favorably on Colorado Springs when they consider the quality of life for their employees?

When things picked up a little for 2011, we didn’t foolishly throw money into hiring back all laid off employees and go on a spending spree.  We made reasonable restorations and, at the same time, increased our fund balance.

Mayor Bach took a very conservative approach to the projected 2012 revenue.  He stated he feared we would increase that projection and spend more money.  Not only did we not do that, we increased the amount going to our reserves and made only a very modest increase in spending and offset that spending by savings in other areas.

What did we fund and why?

Code Enforcement:  In 2009 – 2010, code enforcement officers were reduced.  Neighborhood organizations complained about the lack of adequate code enforcement.  Code enforcement officers are a part of the police department and play an important role in ensuring the public health and safety and maintaining property values.  In emails on city services, code violations complaints are near the top.  Our code enforcement officers do a great job, but they are under staffed.  This addition of an additional officer will help relieve this.  It should also be noted that, even though council funded an additional code enforcement officer, the Mayor has unilateral control over hiring and firing and he can choose not to fill this position.  Cost:  $84,295 salary and benefits

Tennis Court Maintenance:  As I stated above, in order to attract more jobs to our community, a prospective employer will consider the amenities that a community provides for their employees: arts, cultural venues, recreational opportunities, parks, trails, open space, and other quality of life factors do play into their decision when comparing our community to other possible locations for their business.  $175,000 for sorely needed tennis court maintenance, out of a $222,650,500 budget is a small investment and, leveraged properly for grant matching can result in significant improvements.  There is a tennis organization that is going to work with our Parks Department to raise additional private funds and matching grants.  Cost: $175,000

Legislative Assistance/Communications Person:  The Mayor, who hired a “social media” staff member at $56,000 plus benefits, controls all of city staff.  As the legislative body for our city, we need a full-time person to watch what is happening in the state and federal legislatures to alert us on things that may impact us.  During the Colorado legislative session, he works with our state legislators to keep them abreast of issues of importance to our city.  Council needs to do a better job of communicating with the media and our citizens.  This person will be our advisor on how to do that.  Cost: $43,000 salary and benefits

Flowers for Springs in Bloom:  In 2011, flowers for the Springs in Bloom program were purchased from a nursery in Penrose, Colorado, while in the past they were grown in city owned greenhouses by existing staff and volunteers.  This was a recommendation, since only the Mayor can direct staff, that we should keep Colorado Springs taxpayer money in Colorado Springs whenever possible and we get better results with locally grown flowers.  Cost: $0

PPACG/CML Dues:  Since Council members, not the Mayor, participate in these organizations, Council believes the responsibility for funding our membership in them belongs with Council.  Cost:  $0

The $302,295 of additional expenditures authorized by Council in overriding the Mayor’s vetoes, is 0.135% of the total budget.  The final budgeted expenditures of $222,650,500 are $801,000 less than the projected 2012 revenue of $223,451,500 thus adding to our reserves rather than drawing from them as we did in 2009 – 2010.  I’d say that Council, and the Mayor, have taken a conservative and responsible approach to funding our city for 2012.

Sincerely,

Bernie Herpin

Council Member District 4

 

Posted in: Budget • City Administration • City Council • Politics • • • • • • • • • • • | 9 Comments »

« Previous Entries