Less than two weeks after voters flatly rejected a property tax increase to cushion the city’s coffers and prevent myriad budget cuts, the president and chief executive officer of The Broadmoor luxury resort offered the Colorado Springs City Council a helping hand.

In an e-mail sent to Mayor Lionel Rivera and council members Nov. 16, Steve Bartolin volunteered to bring together local executives with strong financial backgrounds to help the city solve its money problems.

“I mentioned it to (El Pomar Foundation Chairman and CEO) Bill Hybl, and he said he would be happy to offer input as well and participate,” Bartolin stated in the e-mail.

Since then, the e-mail has been widely circulated and generated discussion across the community, from living rooms and newsrooms to boardrooms.

On Tuesday, resident Joann Hauser, who recently obtained a copy of the e-mail, stood before council members during the citizen discussion portion of their meeting and asked for a progress report.

“There’s nothing to report,” Rivera told her.

“What does that mean?” Hauser asked.

“It means nothing has happened,” replied the mayor, adding that all council members had received the e-mail and thanked Bartolin for sending the information.

“Nothing collectively as a body has occurred,” Rivera told Hauser.

Stunned, Hauser pressed for answers.

“Can you help me understand why nothing has come of that letter?” she demanded.

“Typically if nothing happens, nine members of council don’t think it rises to the importance to follow it up. Now I can’t speak for all the other members, but I’m going to guess that’s why,” Rivera said.

Hauser wasn’t satisfied with the mayor’s response.

“The majority of council members do not feel that it would be helpful to take him up on his offer?” she asked with a look of disbelief.

Rivera said Councilman Sean Paige was the only one who had approached him about the letter, saying it was a good idea.

Rivera also said he agreed there were “a few things” worth following up on, but others were geared toward the hospitality industry and “totally unrelated” to city government.

“Certainly, we’re not going to bring our average salaries to $24,000 a year,” Rivera said.

“I’m sure there’s things that we could probably follow up on, and we might,” he added.

Paige, who received the letter first and then encouraged Bartolin to send it to the other council members, told Hauser that he took Bartolin’s proposals “very seriously.” He also said he was still talking to his colleagues about taking Bartolin up on his offer.

“We just have to figure out how to do that,” he said.

Paige assured Hauser that “there are some discussions going on” among council members and between him and Bartolin.

“I don’t think we as a city can afford to turn our backs on any good ideas or offers of expertise that are brought forward,” Paige said. “I for one, and I think some colleagues may join me, plan to do something about it”

Hauser encouraged all the council members to take Bartolin up on his offer.

“May I quote a statement: If you continue to do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always gotten,” she said.

(Click here to watch Tuesday’s City Council meeting. Hauser’s comments start at minute 29.)

 THIS IS A COPY OF BARTOLIN’S E-MAIL TO THE CITY COUNCIL:

To: Mayor Rivera and City Council Members
From:  Stephen Bartolin, Jr.
Date: November 16, 2009
Subject:  City Budget
I understand you voted to take $580,000 out of the (Convention and Visitors Bureau’s) share of the Tourism Budget.  I completely understand the financial pressures the City has right now and the tough decisions that must be made.  I am not sure this is the most effective idea, however, for two reasons:
* It doesn’t really put much of a dent in the overall problem.
* I can say with a good fact basis that cutting tourism funding will only dig the hole deeper.  This was proven, in no uncertain terms, when the State of Colorado did this.  It cost them many millions more than they saved.

With that said it is unfair to make that comment and not offer some solutions.  It doesn’t appear to be a popular solution to cut police and fire or not replace street lamps or water parks or close the museum or require temporary furloughs.  It appears to be making people angrier.  People seem to want a more comprehensive and long lasting solution.
The Gazette article a few Sunday’s ago brought some clarity when it broke down the city revenues and expenses by area.  I was surprised that public safety was only a $114M of the overall $226M in expenses.  I am sure there are efficiencies to be gained in public safety, but there is a lot to work with outside of that.
Please understand the constructive manner in which these comments are intended. A good way to look at it is as a business problem.  Say you are the new CEO of a $226M a year business that is going to run $30+M in the red next year.  The easy answer is to raise the rates and increase revenue, but the marketplace won’t support that (in this case, the taxpayers).  That leaves only one alternative.  Deal with the expense side.  A basic analysis of the expenses is that you have a 70% overall payroll cost, $161M payroll for 1805 employees which equals $89,196 per employee and benefit and pension plans that are not only “Cadillac” but more “Ferrari” when compared to what is being offered in the private sector.
Looking at it this way, the solutions become more obvious:

* Restructure and reorganize how the City is run and figure out how to do it with approximately 1550 employees versus 1805 employees.
* Restructure the starting wages for both salary and hourly personnel across the board.

* Contract out everything that is practical with sharply negotiated pricing which gets you out from under the overtime, benefit and pension costs paid to City employees.
* Restructure your benefit and retirement plans to something more comparable to what is available in the private sector.
More specifically:
* 70% payroll cost – No matter what business you are in, for profit or non-profit, the game is pretty much over if you are running a 70% payroll cost.  We do approximately half the revenue the City does and we run a 30% payroll cost with 1800 plus employees, near the same number as the City.
* Per employee cost of $89,196 – It is doubtful you can find any private employer for 500 or more people in the state of Colorado or practically the nation that has a per employee payroll cost that high.  Our per employee cost is $24,460, which includes seasonal and part-time people which we use a great deal as there are no benefit costs associated with these.
* The number of people it takes to get things done -

The Gazette reported that the City has 81 people in its IT Department and is reducing it to 69.   We have some ultra-sophisticated and integrated systems and a large PC network.  In addition, we provide 24-hour IT customer service to all of our guests. We do this with 9 people.

I was told that the Utilities Department has over 30 people in Communications plus employs the services of an outside PR agency.  We have 1 person in PR and we have to compete for our business across the nation.

The Gazette also reported that Utilities has approximately 60 people in Human Resources.  We have 13.  Yet we have over 1800 employees compared to their 1300.

* Examine the number of salaried positions – of our 1800 plus employees we have 144 salaried positions.  I have no idea how many the City has but it would be interesting to know.
* The Gazette reported that the City has 67 positions paying $100,000 or more.  We have 13.
* Restructure starting wages for hourly and salaried positions – every year we do a wage survey among major employers as well as other hospitality employers in the city for comparison purposes.  For all like positions and in almost every single case the City had the highest starting wage over any of the other private sector companies we surveyed.

* Restructure the health insurance program to one comparable to what is being offered in the private sector and examine the costs shared by the employee.
* Move retirement age to 60 no matter how many years of service – both for collection of benefits and for medical insurance.
* Once a retiree reaches age 65 move them to Medicare and off the City plan.
* The weight of the pension plan is crushing the City financially.  If the private sector cannot afford plans likes this how can the taxpayers? It has to be dealt with.  It occurs to me Police Officers and Firefighters who risk their lives for this community should be excluded from the ideas being advanced.  Police and Fire support staff should be treated like all other City employees.  Develop a generous matching 401K plan and have people take responsibility for their own retirement planning. A friend of mine’s wife works in the IT Department of one of the City entities (she is paid $120K a year – she is not the department head or the director). Our Director in IT makes $90K a year.  This lady is 49 years old and plans to retire next year at 50.  She will receive 80% of her salary with annual cost of living increases and full medical package for the next 30+ years.  Who can afford this?
* Whatever measures are decided on should be carried right across to Utilities.  They operate like their own private fiefdom.  When I look at our water bill going from $580,000 in 2008 to $2.5M by 2018 certainly the same operating efficiencies applied to the City should be applied there.  Possibly it makes sense for Memorial Hospital as well.

* Capital Expenses – the article did not indicate how much the City spends annually in capital expenses, but I am sure it is many millions of dollars.  Our staff is always amazed at the new fleets of vehicles you see in use, i.e. when the Stormwater Enterprise was established everyone was outfitted with fully optioned F-350 trucks.  You see them all over town.  We maintain vehicles well and run them until they don’t run anymore.  We have many with over 200,000 miles.  We also buy well maintained used trucks, shuttle, vans, etc., many of which have been in service 10 years now. I understand the Police Department just spent $3M on new portable telephones when the present system was operating fine. In this economy could that have been postponed for another year or two?
* Go to zero based budgeting for operating and capital expenses immediately before capital budgets for 2010 are approved.

We know the arguments you’ll get:  that we are only in the mid-pay range of other cities – won’t be able to hire and recruit – etc. etc.  – baloney – I showed you a number of comparisons to our business with staffing levels, number of people at 6 figures or more, number of salaried people, average cost per employee and benefits per employee, etc. between The BROADMOOR and the City – we are not comparing some third rate organization.  The BROADMOOR is recognized nationwide as a world class organization and we compete in a world every day where the best is just good enough.  We are able to recruit top professionals in all the key positions and get creative with how we staff and operate our business.

It probably would not be effective to turn these suggestions over to somebody within the City and have them develop and implement the necessary solutions.  You’ll have to bring in a firm from the outside to do it under Council’s direction or you can put together a panel of CEO’s within the community to analyze this and I am sure they would have many more points to offer. I would be happy to facilitate such a group and host a lunch discussion.  I mentioned it to Bill Hybl and he said he would be happy to offer input as well and participate.  A more comprehensive approach is what will provide a viable long term solution.  I predict that if Council were to take this on and restructure with real reform and solve problems you would earn the respect and admiration of the entire community.  In fact, this could be a national success story.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Stephen Bartolin, Jr.
President and CEO

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.

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.

A political advocacy group that promotes equal rights for gays and lesbians made a big splash this summer when it announced it was resurrecting a proposal to expand health benefits to Colorado Springs city employees, including their same-sex domestic partners.

But since the Citizens Project made the announcement during its annual Creating Community Breakfast in June, talk of the “Plus One” benefits proposal has quieted down.

In August, Executive Director Barb Van Hoy said she expected Councilman Randy Purvis to ask to add the proposal to an informal City Council agenda in September.

But in September Van Hoy said the proposal was being pushed past the Nov. 3 election, a decision directly tied to what was on the ballot: a proposed property tax increase.

“We understand that when the community is dealing with really difficult budget decisions … it’s just not the right time to be extending benefits, even though the fact is that it will be cost-neutral,” Van Hoy said back then.

Despite putting the contentious proposal on hold, voters flatly rejected the tax increase.

So what’s happening with the proposal now?

Van Hoy did not immediately return a call for comment today, but Purvis said the answer is unknown.

“I haven’t talked to anybody about it in sometime. I’m not sure what the plans are,” he said in a telephone interview. “I have to talk to (my council colleagues) before anything happens on that.”

When asked whether he had agreed to bring the proposal forward, Purvis said: “I told people I would look at it. Now I’m not so sure because times have changed.”

The city is in “turmoil,” Purvis said.

“There’s just a lot of turmoil in the community right now and a lot of stress, and I just don’t see a need to stir that pot if it doesn’t need to be stirred,” he said.

Under the proposal, a city employee “plus one” more person would receive health insurance coverage.

The proposal has been cloaked in controversy because the coverage would be available to same-sex couples, but other people, such as unmarried heterosexual partners or an employee’s parent or child, would also be eligible to participate in the plan.

The Colorado Springs Stormwater Enterprise will cease to exist in less than three weeks.

But the city-owned agency created to levy fees for drainage projects is still generating controversy.

The bone of contention now revolves around the fate of 39 trucks, trailers, mowers and other pieces of equipment purchased by the enterprise since the City Council created it without voter approval in 2005.

Earlier this month, a majority of council members decided to abolish the enterprise at the end of this year in light of the Nov. 3 passage of ballot issue 300.

The ballot initiative has varying interpretations, but author and anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce told voters it would bring an end to the enterprise.

Initially, five council members voted to phase out the enterprise over two years instead of immediately, allowing it to finish projects under construction and also make improvements to the Templeton Gap Floodway.

But after two weeks of sleepless nights and a lot of prayer, Councilman Bernie Herpin changed his mind, and the council voted 5-4 to end the enterprise on Dec. 31.

While that decision was finally resolved, it was unclear what would happen to all the vehicles and equipment owned by the enterprise.

The answer arrived today.

Since the enterprise still has money and is billing through December, “these vehicles (and equipment) will be used in 2010 during the phase out of the program,” city spokeswoman Mary Scott said in an e-mail after being contacted by The Gazette last week.

“We will be doing a reduced maintenance program, so we will be using the equipment required to perform the maintenance, we will also be working on the in-progress and pending CIP projects, etc,” she said.

“We have not yet identified what will happen with the vehicles (and equipment) in late 2010,” she added.

Bruce was chafed by the news.

“They appear to be blatantly violating the council’s directive to end the program,” he said.

“Do they not understand the meaning of issue 300 and the council vote to end it Dec. 31, this year, 2009?” Bruce asked.

Scott said the enterprise is doing what the council asked.

“In accordance with the direction from City Council, we will be using the SWENT 2009 fund balance to perform a reduced stormwater program in 2010,” she said.

To do that, the vehicles and equipment are needed, she said.

Scott could not immediately provide the value of the vehicles and equipment, but many are only a few years old.

Bruce said the enterprise needs to sell them immediately and return the money to property owners.

“They bought all these toys with our money, and I’ve been saying that for three years,” he said. “It’s about them driving around in shiny new trucks to build their self-esteem. It isn’t about actually solving a drainage problem.”

Here’s the list of the enterprise-owned vehicles and equipment:

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.”

The bad blood between anti-tax activist Douglas Bruce and Colorado Springs City Clerk Kathryn Young will be in full display during today’s City Council meeting.

Bruce is planning to speak at the meeting and put Young on the spot over the way she handled an $11,000 omission in the campaign filings of the political committee that campaigned against issue 300, which Bruce authored and voters approved Nov. 3.

The No on 300 political committee, led by Kevin Walker, filed its report of campaign contributions and expenditures on time.

But Bruce noticed that the group didn’t report a mailer that made him the target.

Bruce immediately contacted the City Clerk’s Office and demanded that Walker be fined.

“Simply telling Kevin Walker to file a revision is NOT satisfactory,” Bruce wrote in an e-mail to Young on Nov. 1. “He violates the law in every election. He filed a grossly fraudulent report … and he should pay the maximum penalty for that.”

In an e-mailed response, Young said Walker had been contacted and instructed to provide the information that was the basis of Bruce’s complaint.

“Mr. Walker indicated a mistake had been made and that the flyers should have been reported on the previous report,” Young said in the e-mail to Bruce. 

“He was instructed to file the appropriate amended report,” she said. ”Penalties are imposed for non-compliance. Compliance was the basis of your complaint. Compliance was obtained and the complaint was and has been closed since Nov. 2.”

Bruce said Walker, who was fined $50 for missing an earlier deadline to submit campaign finance reports, should’ve been fined again.

“It was concealing a massive percentage of their income and expenditure,” Bruce said. “What’s the point of having these reports if the city will give a pass to somebody that’s on the city side of a ballot issue?”

Young said Walker wasn’t fined because he filed the report on time.

“Errors can be made,” she said Monday. “They’re made all the time.”

Walker downplayed the fact that it was such a big expense and said he had simply made “another mistake.”

“I don’t do this for a living,” he said, apparently referring to filing campaign statements. “I have a job.”

Afterward, Walker sent an e-mail to The Gazette saying he wasn’t making excuses.

“I feel that disclosure is appropriate in elections, and I have corrected my mistake,” he said.

Bruce still isn’t satisfied with a correction.

He said he’s going to ask council members to tell Young “to do her job.”

“She shouldn’t be in charge, frankly, of any elections because she is not capable of being neutral and obeying the law,” he said. “Personally, I think she ought to be fired.”

“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.

Douglas Bruce is on a roll.

Coming off an Election Day victory, the author of ballot initiative 300 said today that he will call on the City Council to put an immediate end to the Stormwater Enterprise.

Bruce also said people who haven’t paid their stormwater bills shouldn’t have to pay, an opinion that City Hall doesn’t share.

“Nobody should be forced to pay anything that’s illegal,” he said. “I told people for the past year-and-a-half, ‘Don’t pay. It’s illegal. You won’t get your money back.’”

Council members, some of whom previously maintained that issue 300 didn’t affect the Stormwater Enterprise, agreed Monday to phase out the so-called “rain tax,” saying it was the intent of the voters.

Some council members said they want to end the enterprise as quickly as possible, but that it needs to be done in an orderly fashion because of ongoing drainage projects.

“It would be extremely irresponsible if we just cancelled all on-going storm water work when Issue 300 provides for the phasing out of the work,” Councilman Bernie Herpin wrote in response to an editorial about the council’s decision.

Bruce vehemently disagrees with Herpin and council members, saying the ballot language calls for the immediate end of the Stormwater Enterprise.

The ballot language stated: “Hereafter, all loans, gifts, and subsidies between an enterprise and the city or another enterprise are prohibited.”

“It doesn’t mean eight years from hereafter. It means, from now on, loans gifts and subsidies between an enterprise and the city are prohibited,” he said.

Hereafter means “from now forward,” Bruce added. “Hereafter means the effective date of the passage. I’m going to call the clerk, but it’s my recollection that it was 10 days after the election, which would be this Thursday.”

Bruce said the council would be wrong to phase out the Stormwater Enterprise over a long period.

“After fighting this for 8 years, I didn’t write a proposal to give them another eight years of a blatantly illegal tax that took away our right to vote. They’re getting even more preposterous than saying that it doesn’t even apply at all,” he said.

Voters — or at least people who explore gazette.com – are split on ballot issue 2C, according to an unscientific poll on the City Desk blog.

The proposed property tax increase has received 73 ”yes” votes and 73 “no” votes since the poll was created Oct. 21.

Three people were undecided, and two are not registered to vote.

Have you participated in the poll? If not, click here.

If an unscientific poll isn’t your cup of tea, check out gazette.com tonight. The first round of election results will be released by the El Paso County Election Department shortly after 7 p.m. tonight.