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

Archive for the 'Mike Kazmierski' Tag

Kazmierski infuriates Crank after dismissing no-tax pledge as ‘silly’

January 27th, 2011, 11:33 am by

Mike Kazmierski

When conservative radio host Jeff Crank asked mayoral and City Council candidates to sign a form pledging to “oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes,” some people just rolled their eyes.

Mike Kazmierski called it downright “silly.”

In an interview with the Indy, the president and CEO of the Colorado Springs Regional Economic Development Corp. said the pledge means a candidate “pledges to not allow the voters to decide what’s best for them.”

That got Crank’s blood boiling and sparked a series of verbal jabs between Crank and Kazmierski, according to e-mails obtained by the City Desk blog.

Initially, Crank invited Kazmierski on his radio show to discuss the issue, saying they obviously disagreed about the need for a tax increase in the next few years in Colorado Springs.

Kazmierski flatly rejected the offer.

“I would really not prefer to be attacked by some of your fans that already have their minds made up – by making a pledge not to think. Which in fact is what you are doing when you pledge something long before you know what the facts are or the situation you may be in,” Kazmierski said Sunday morning in an e-mail to Crank.

“Elected officials in this state do not raise taxes, the voters do, so to pledge not to raise taxes is silly in my mind,” he added.

Crank responded the following day, saying he was “disappointed” in the e-mail.

“Instead of debating the merits of a policy proposal – which most of the major mayoral candidates have signed – you just call it “silly.”  Is that the best you have to offer our community?” Crank wrote in a long e-mail.

“If you change your mind and want to have such an intelligent discourse, either on the show or elsewhere, let me know and I will be happy to work with you in a polite way to ensure that happens,” Crank concluded. “Please understand, however, that if you continue to attack either the pledge or the candidates that signed it, I will use every necessary means to defend them, their honor and their integrity from shallow, personal attacks on candidates who stepped up to serve our community and just happen to disagree with you about taxes.”

Kazmierski was back at his keyboard that afternoon, saying he never said that whoever takes the pledge is silly, “just that the pledge is silly as far as local politics go.”

“There may be a very real community need that is not allowed to be addressed because of this “pledge,” like the upcoming RTA extension, that if not supported and even promoted by our leadership (elected officials) will not happen,” Kazmierski wrote. “From my perspective as an economic development expert, to allow our infrastructure to decay further is not what we need to do to grow our economy and create quality jobs.”

Jeff Crank

Crank’s rebuttal came less than four hours later.

“For the record, I don’t know how anyone could construe an extension of an existing tax, like the RTA at its current level, as a tax increase,” Crank wrote. “Doing so at its current level would not be a violation of the tax pledge which talks about ‘raising taxes.’ Whether an extension is a good idea or not should be a matter of debate but common sense tells us that it doesn’t violate the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. The pledge was designed as a simple, straightforward document. It only gets complicated when we make it so.”

Kazmierski tried to quell the dispute when he responded.

“Your and the principles you believe in are commendable, and you have every right to promote that philosophy with our elected officials and others. I, however, have the same right, to question if taking a pledge to do something – when the facts and conditions are unknown is prudent and reasonable,” Kazmierski said in an e-mail Monday night.

“P.S.” Kazmierski wrote in the e-mail, “Still think the pledge is silly – Sorry.”

Ratepayer, taxpayer support to EDC totals $2.3 million

August 31st, 2010, 2:50 pm by

EDC President and CEO Mike Kazmierski

The Colorado Springs Regional Economic Development Corp. has received nearly $2.3 million in ratepayer and taxpayer support since 2002.

City officials had previously estimated that the EDC had received at least $1 million in public funds in recent years, but according to city documents, the amount is much higher.

“It’s a significant sum,” said Councilman Sean Paige, who is calling for an audit of funds provided to the EDC by the city and Colorado Springs Utilities.

Here’s the breakdown:

Colorado Springs Utilities

2002 – $200,000

2003 – $200,000

2004 – $200,000

2005 – $240,000

2006 – $240,000

2007 – $240,000

2008 – $182,000

2009 – $192,000

2010 – $240,000

City of Colorado Springs

2005 – $45,000

2006 – $45,000

2007 – $45,000

2008 – $70,000

2009 – $70,000

2010 – $70,000

In 2009, the city also forked over an additional $10,000 to participate in the Operation 6035 Study.

Cost, time of EDC audit spurs resistance

August 30th, 2010, 10:15 am by

Last week, Councilman Sean Paige ruffled feathers when he called for an audit of the Colorado Springs Regional Economic Development Corp.

According to Paige, the EDC has received more than $1 million in public funds from the city government and Colorado Springs Utilities in the last six years.

After Paige called for the audit, the City Council decided to ask interim City Auditor Denny Nester to research how much it would cost and how long it would take.

Nester’s response, which can be read by clicking here, has generated some interesting reactions among some council members, according to e-mails obtained by The Gazette.

Here are excerpts of some of the e-mails:

E-mail from Paige to Nester:

“Mr. (Mike) Kazmierski or some other EDC representative at a recent meeting made a point of saying that they were going to more carefully segregate funds for such purposes (which seemed a belated acknowledgement that this hasn’t been done in the past) and I would want you to confirm that such controls are in place now. Mr. Kazmierski’s statements in today’s Gazette make it clear that the EDC has not “gotten out of politics,” as a representative also recently said, and it’s important, in my view, that controls exist to ensure that public funds are being used for job retention and creation, not political posturing.”

E-mail from Councilman Bernie Herpin to City Council:

“During our discussion for the need of an EDC audit, each member supporting a city audit of EDC remarked that they did not expect to find any ‘irregularities’, or words to that effect.  Given the estimated time and cost of such an audit, I cannot justify spending city resources on an audit when there are no grounds to believe that any impropriety has occurred.

In addition, we receive an annual audit report that is directed by the EDC Board of Directors using an independent auditing firm.  While this audit does not specifically detail where Colorado Springs city and utility money is spent, nor does it contain any specifics on exactly where any of the other sources of funds are spent, it does review the proper accounting of funds.  Just as we don’t track how a specific taxpayer’s funds are spent (all taxes go into our general fund), I wouldn’t expect the EDC to specifically track our funds.  They are used to fund the operation of the EDC.”

E-mail in which Paige responds to Herpin:

“Perhaps you are willing to lay out significant taxpayer and ratepayer funds annually, without exercising some independent oversight, blindly trusting that EDC is using these funds wisely, and that they are delivering the results they say they are. But I am not. The expenditures highlighted in Denny’s letter don’t seem excessive, given the significant amounts (more than $1 million in the last six years, by my count) that flow to the organization.

At a time when locals are nursing a deep cynicism and distrust toward City Hall, maybe a little confidence can be restored if we turn words like transparency, accountability and oversight into action.”

E-mail from Councilwoman Jan Martin to City Council:

“It was my understanding at our Monday meeting that the Mayor asked for Denny’s assessment on time and cost before moving forward with the audit.  At this point, and with the additional size and scope being requested for the audit, I think it would be appropriate for us to either ask Council for another consensus vote or add it to our next agenda for a formal vote before moving forward with the audit.”

E-mail in which Paige responds to Martin:

“I don’t really believe this constitutes a major expansion of the scope of the project, just a clarification, since there was no discussion at Monday’s meeting about what time-frame this review would cover, or what constitutes an appropriate use of public funds. I just think, if we’re going to take a closer look, a year and a half isn’t adequate. And my latest e-mail to Denny simply gets a little more specific about what might be looked at, when we ask what public money is going for. Again, I think this is more of a clarification than an expansion. And it’s only one person’s opinion.

And by all means, let’s have a formal vote. I think the public should know who is interested in exercising oversight and who is not.”