Purvis At Large

Will He or Won’t He?

2014-11-24T18:53:00.000-07:00

There has been speculation on whether Steve Bach runs for reelection. From this point of view, the answer is no. There are several reasons.

First, late last year, Bach suspended his mayoral forums. Any candidate running for reelection would not only continue these events, he would increase the number and frequency. What better way to appear before potential voters than by going from neighborhood to neighborhood with senior city managers in tow to answer questions, make crowd pleasing decisions and take action to solve neighborhood issues. There was some speculation recently when Bach announced a new series of forums following the November 4^th election to promote his proposal to meet storm water and other capital improvement needs. After attending the “forum” near my home, I could only shake my head. The forum more closely resembled a science fair as my wife put it. Various department representatives were standing next to tables around the perimeter of the room with poster boards on the tables. A few of the tables had information hand-outs for the curious, and city representatives were available to answer questions. Bach attended, but all of his conversations were one-on-one with citizens and for a television camera. Not only was there no speech, there were no chairs set up for anyone to take a seat. Not the actions of a candidate looking to impress and convince voters he deserves another term.

Secondly, several weeks ago I attended the annual meeting of Downtown Colorado Springs, when they invite the mayor in for the annual address. Three years ago Bach delivered a speech to this organization that he had clearly written himself, and it was full of new projects and goals to be met. This year Bach spoke, but what he had to say, and how long it took him to say it spoke volumes. The entire speech was backward looking; all content was focused on past accomplishments. Not a word on new goals or even on existing goals not yet completed. The speech sounded like one written by a staff member in the public relations department; Bach read it with little audience eye contact. Further, it took less than five minutes to deliver. Anyone running for reelection would write his own speech, mention a few past accomplishments and then pivot to goals unmet and new goals to be attained.

Finally, when one reviews the recent campaign contribution disclosure reports filed by John Suthers and Amy Lathen and compares them to those filed by Bach in 2011, there is some overlap. Not exact to be sure, but enough that one must question whether the contributors to Bach’s 2011 campaign will be there in 2015 if he calls on them.

Is Bach running? Not according to his actions.

11.24.2014

RFK Redux

2014-11-16T16:38:00.000-07:00

"I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your President." LBJ, March 31, 1968.

All through the fall and winter of 1967-68 Robert F Kennedy debated with himself and his inner circle on whether to seek the presidency, challenging an elected president from his own party. There was no love lost between RFK and LBJ; in fact, RFK had tried to keep LBJ off the ticket in 1960. Still, running against a sitting elected official from one's own party was, and remains, high treason in any political race. Challenging, and loosing, would certainly result in political banishment. Eugene McCarthy had no qualms about such a challenge. Today, McCarthy would be branded an extremist; he was running a one issue campaign: get the U.S. out of the Vietnam War at any price. In the first primary held that year, in New Hampshire on March 12, 1968, McCarthy lost to LBJ, but won far more votes than expected. Four days later, RFK stopped wavering and entered the race. LBJ, being a shrewd politician, made the best decision for himself, his party and the nation. He went on national television on March 31, 1968, to give a speech updating the country on the progress of the war in Vietnam, and after speaking at length on the war, shocked nearly everyone, except his wife, by ending the speech with the quote above.

In Colorado Springs we may be seeing a mini replay of history. We have a mayor who has lost most of the support that carried him into office three and a half years ago. Gone are the moderates. Gone are the business women and men who need a city voice and involvement to woo new businesses to town. Gone are those who thought he would provide community leadership. Gone are those who thought he would provide city government with sound administration.

In September, we saw the entrance into the race of two candidates for mayor: Amy Lathan and John Suthers. This past week, Mary Lou Makepeace entered the race, in all likelihood rounding out the list of big names in the race. John Suthers, at least, had been considering a run for nearly a year. Was Lathan's entrance into the race enough to convince Suthers of Bach’s vulnerability?

What decision will Bach make? Will he, like LBJ, make the honorable decision and withdraw from a race that, at least, will be more expensive, both financially and emotionally than he may be able to comprehend? When one runs against an incumbent, one must convince the voter not only that the incumbent is bad, but that the challenger is the better alternative. On the first issue, one can see the ads now featuring potholes and other decaying infrastructure; depicting a city administration where the average department head tenure is less than 18 months; portraying constant squabbles with a city council he has made no attempt to woo or work with. Additionally, there will be remarks from community leaders he has brusquely pushed aside when they dared to disagree with him. LBJ was a master at his craft; Bach, not so much.

Beep, beep!

2013-04-03T20:58:00.000-06:00

When I was growing up, one of my favorite Saturday morning cartoons was the Road Runner. As one may recall, it involved Wyle E. Coyote who constantly chased a road runner, presumably to make a meal of it. Coyote would prepare elaborate schemes to catch the bird, all of which came to the same inevitable conclusion: he either burned to a crisp, became disassembled or, my personal favorite, ran off a cliff and for a moment was running in place in thin air before falling to the canyon floor. After every disaster, the Road Runner appeared smiling and said: “Beep, beep!”

One must wonder if the current city administration has become our own Wyle E Coyote.

About 12 days ago, Bach announced that Mark Earle, the city airport director, had “resigned.” What was particularly telling was Bach’s quote of Earle’s reason for leaving in the Gazette article: “ ‘Why don’t you hire someone more in line with your philosophy.’ ” I have known Earle through the years and seen many of his presentations to City Council. I can easily hear him saying this. However, it was probably not said with respect for Bach’s leadership. What is more frightening is the thought that Bach will be taking over the negotiations with the airlines. What, if anything, does Bach know about running an airport? If he is confused about why passenger traffic is declining at Colorado Springs Airport, perhaps he should log on to Travelocity or any other airfare booking website and check the price differential between a flight from Denver or Colorado Springs. It is a bad sign when one’s administration cannot retain highly qualified and respected people. Further, that the news was released late on a Friday afternoon indicates that the Bach administration was intentionally trying to bury the story.

The disasters keep coming for the Bach Administration. Last evening I checked the city election results! I cannot remember any election in which the Housing and Building Association (HBA) got shellacked like it did in this election. Sure, perhaps there may be one corollary. In 1991, following years of bickering on City Council, including one incident in which a council member dropped the “F” bomb on an open microphone, the citizens cleaned house. Of the three incumbents running for re-election that year, only one won. The major combatants were turned out in favor of new blood. (For trivial buffs, that campaign also featured the first television commercial in a city election.) This year, however, the outcome is much more sweeping. Particularly telling are the losses suffered by Tim Leigh and Angela Dougan, Bach’s leading supporters on Council. The HBA and Steve Schuck (Bach’s biggest supporter in 2011) were out in front in January with quick endorsements of their slate of candidates, including Leigh and Dougan. Leigh and Dougan did not lose close elections; they were soundly beaten. Given their close and very public ties to the Bach Administration, this can only be seen as an indirect rejection of such.

Now Bach goes forward with his best allies on Council beaten. This is a warning sign for any of the newly elected Council members or the three remaining incumbents of the dangers of alignment with the mayor’s office. It is also a sign of a weakened mayor.

Beep, beep.

Predictions

2013-03-24T18:00:00.000-06:00

The election is coming up soon, so it is probably time for a review of the six district races and some predictions.

District 1: A standard rule of thumb is that a controversial incumbent wants a lot of opponents to split the anti-incumbent vote. I am not sure whether that will work in this district. Tim Leigh has two main opponents: Don Knight and Joe Barrera. Only Knight has any money, which makes gives him a one on one with Leigh. At the candidate forums I attended I thought neither Leigh nor Knight connected very well with the audience. I am guessing that Leigh will win on the basis of name recognition with Barrera getting just enough traction to split the anti-Leigh vote.

District 2: This is a one up between the incumbent Angela Dougan and Joel Miller. Dougan is one of two council members (Tim Leigh is the other) who usually votes the way the mayor wants. She has a lot of money, over three times the amount Miller had in the last report. At the campaign forums she also brags about being the most conservative council member. She did not talk about any issues, much less any nuances of an issue, and alone of all the candidates at the forum, she did not use all of the time given to her for an introductory speech (everyone else ran long). Unfortunately for Dugan, her reputation as a council member is poor and there is no one to split the anti Dougan vote. I think Miller has just enough money to run a credible campaign and ekes out a win.

District 3: This is the hardest to call. There are three candidates, Keith King, Jim Bensberg and Brandy Williams, all with name recognition, money and a winning track record. Of the three, King’s campaign fund is most puzzling; he has probably three to four times the funds necessary to run a good campaign. Why? Are donors trying to curry favor in the event of a victory? Since I will not permit myself to straddle the fence, I will say Bensberg wins, but I would not be surprised with a King victory either.

District 4: This race is also difficult to call. Helen Collins and Deborah Hendrix have the money; Hendrix has over twice the funds Collins has, which alone makes her the favorite. Dennis Moore has just enough money and endorsements to be in the race. And Gary Flakes is infamous. I did not think any of these candidates connected with the audience; all had trouble dragging people out of their iPads or smart phones. Dennis Moore has been a Republican precinct walker for many years and has demonstrated the willingness to do the grunt work necessary to win a small district race. I think Dennis Moore wins in an upset.

District 5: This is essentially a one-on-one with Jill Gaebler running against Bernie Herpin. Al Loma is also in the race and may play a spoiler role splitting the anti-incumbent vote, but he does not appear to have enough money. If the vote comes down to name recognition, then Herpin will win. If Gaebler has been successful in organizing small neighborhood meetings and meet-and-greets, she will win. Indeed, Gaebler is the only candidate to really connect with the audience at any of the candidate forums I attended. She had just enough energy to pull people out of their electronic devices, catch their eyes and hold them without being over the top.

District 6: This is the race that strikes fear in the hearts of all. This is also essentially a two- candidate field: Ed Bircham and David Moore. David Moore has the endorsements, money and virtually all of the support of the power elites in Colorado Springs. Bircham has name recognition and a very surprising sixth place finish two years ago. Playing a hunch, I think Bircham finishes on top this time.

Issue 1: This is the TOPS modification measure. While I personally oppose this (please see my post from a few weeks ago), I expect it to pass.

Issue 2: Pay for Council. The role of council is in great flux right now. If a separate utility board is created, council's work load will be much smaller and the time / salary requirement also smaller. I just think this is the wrong time for this measure. I expect it to fail.

Sorting Through the QUE

2013-03-17T17:10:00.000-06:00

Once each quarter, the University of Colorado Colorado Springs College of Business and Administration publishes a review of economic metrics in El Paso County Colorado. (Available here) Known as the Quarterly Updates and Estimates or QUE, it is a must read for anyone in public office or in business in Southern Colorado. One can even subscribe to it free of charge and have it delivered each quarter to your email inbox. Several items in the most recent publication merit comment.

The first one is the data set on housing starts in El Paso County. Housing starts are up in El Paso County over the last year. Good news. However, the data set used by UCCS only details the last two years for a year-over-year comparison. Curious, I visited the Pikes Peak Regional Building Department (PPRBD) for a longer term view. The PPRBD data set goes back over a decade, and provides not only the total number of permits issued, but the total dollar value for those permits as well. This enables a rough calculation of the average dollar value of the permit issued. Using a crude inflation deflator, one can compare the average dollar value of a permit over time:

Year	Single Family Permits	Single Family Gross Value	Average Value per Permit	Average Value of Permit - Inflation Adjusted
2000	5,000	$608,339,213	$121,667.84	$164,036.79
2001	5,272	$635,301,017	$120,504.75	$157,973.49
2002	4,931	$594,876,052	$120,640.04	$155,689.36
2003	4,856	$625,138,761	$128,735.33	$162,434.60
2004	5,789	$803,787,146	$138,847.32	$170,649.16
2005	6,269	$904,596,195	$144,296.73	$171,535.05
2006	4,148	$696,796,063	$167,983.62	$193,452.80
2007	2,686	$478,817,710	$178,264.23	$199,606.90
2008	1,547	$301,121,873	$194,648.92	$209,894.25
2009	1,315	$416,491,672	$316,723.70	$342,749.62
2010	1,629	$505,995,855	$310,617.47	$330,716.95
2011	1,563	$528,358,733	$338,041.42	$348,902.25
2012	2,387	$836,160,686	$350,297.73	$354,221.90

From 2005 to 2009 the gross number of permits cratered, as El Paso County suffered along with the rest of the nation from the fallout of the interrelated housing and banking crises. However, the average value of the permits issued skyrocketed both in absolute and inflation adjusted terms. Indeed, in 2012 El Paso County had almost recovered all the way to the 2005 high in gross value of housing permits; but on only about 1/3 of the total permits. Fewer permits mean fewer housing starts and, thus, fewer construction jobs, while the higher dollar value of those permits means that city and county sales tax revenue should be recovering quite nicely. And it appears, based on the most recent City sales and use tax report, that they have.

The second interesting data set to be pulled from the QUE are the details on the unemployment rates. At the end of 2007 there were about 290,000 jobs in El Paso County. Today there are fewer than 270,000. Factor in the growth in the population of about 60,000 to 70,000 people and we have a significantly worse employment situation than the official unemployment rate of 9.2 percent.

An improving real estate market is not solving the unemployment problem.

(I would like to acknowledge and thank my wife, Robin Purvis, for her willingness to edit my posts each week. She has saved me countless times from my mistakes.)

Storm Water

2013-03-10T19:51:00.001-06:00

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” -- George Santayana

So, Colorado Springs Utilities should fund storm water capital and maintenance needs. Really?

I am not sure where to begin on this one. Does this mean that there should be a fifth utility, storm water, to go along with electric, gas, water and wastewater? Or, maybe that storm water channels are so important to drainage crossings of water and wastewater lines that utilities should be responsible for the entire channel? Or, perhaps simply that CSU should pay for storm water improvements, just because?

On the first suggestion of a fifth utility, well, we’ve been there, done that. We had a fifth utility once not so long ago. It was called street lights. The public objected very strongly, and in 2003 the citizens elected a new City Council that promptly eliminated it. It seems the citizens thought it was a general fund expense. After that lesson, City Council tried storm water as an independent enterprise, this time operated by the general fund. Again the voters rejected it, passing Doug Bruce’s Issue 300 in 2009 thus forcing the elimination of the storm water enterprise. Surely, the current administration is not so ignorant of recent history that it does not know the likely citizen response to the idea of a fifth utility.

On the second option there is, obviously, a nexus between the condition of the drainage channel and the security of water and waste water crossings. Everyone would accept utility’s taking steps to care for the channel within a reasonable distance of the crossing. Much more than that and one is quickly in a quagmire. How far upstream (or downstream) does the responsibility go: the city line? CSU service territory? the Fountain Creek watershed? the county line? These are four different geographical areas with no logical connection between them and CSU’s primary services. CSU has for some time contributed to storm water channel improvements within 100 yards +/- of a water or waste water line crossing. The Utility Board even discussed increasing that distance, and walked away from it for the reasons discussed below.

Maybe CSU should pay for it, just because? Except, unlike the Federal Reserve Board, CSU cannot simply print money. CSU must raise it through the rate structure. Adding tens (hundreds?) of millions of dollars in expenses will require raising rates for either water, waste water or both. Water rates are already sky high to pay for the Southern Delivery System, now under construction. Waste water rates are also high, having been raised over the last 15 years to pay for system-wide improvements to replace and repair ancient, decaying mains thereby reducing waste water spills. Adding the costs without raising the revenues to pay for it is even more dangerous, impacting many different bond rating metrics. Further, bond rating agencies are always on the lookout for publicly-owned utilities pulling this type of shenanigan: foisting general fund expenses off on the utility rate payer. The rate payer pays for the storm water improvements, either directly through rates consciously increased to pay the added expenses, indirectly through lower bond ratings and higher borrowing costs, or, most likely, both. It is, in fact, a back door tax increase without any public discussion of either the cause of the problem or where the costs should fall.

It is the nature of everyone newly elected in public office to blame one’s predecessor for current circumstances. A close corollary to this precept is the argument that one’s predecessor overlooked the obvious solution to the problem. Unfortunately, in public office, this is almost never the case. The newcomer to office simply (willingly) does not remember the past.

Productivity

2013-03-04T21:32:00.000-07:00

Telephone switching desk

I was in Galesburg, Illinois, this past weekend visiting one of our sons at college. While there we went to one of his favorite places, an antique store, where I came across a telephone switching desk and a long distance calling log, both were in use in the early 1940s. The desk was run by an operator, who manually connected each telephone call made. When a customer wanted to make a long distance call, the operator connected the call, then recorded it in the log book and subsequently billed to the customer. Both were labor intensive activities. Over the years the switching desk was replaced by the switching centers, filled with hundreds of thousands of relays and occupying thousands of square feet of floor space, (the tall building in downtown Colorado Springs on East Pikes Peak Avenue was one), and then by computers. With each change, telephone calls became faster, more reliable and less expensive.

In 1974 the U.S. Justice Department filed an antitrust suit against AT&T. At the time, AT&T consisted of the operating telephone companies in each of the states, the long lines division -selling long distance telephone services, Western Electric, which manufactured the equipment, and Bell Telephone Laboratories (Bell Labs)*. Bell Labs consisted of more than 4500 employees. The minimum education requirement for employment at Bell Labs was a Ph.D. in a hard science, engineering or math. They operated under three basic directives: improve the quality of the communication (signal to noise ratio), improve the durability of the equipment, and make it less expensive to operate (resulting in lower costs to the consumer). Over the years, Bell Labs scientists have earned Nobel prizes, on average, about once a decade for inventions and discoveries such as the transistor and the CCD (which makes digital photography possible). (The outgoing Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu, shared a Nobel Prize for work he did while on staff at Bell Labs.) Bell Labs created the first computer operating language, Unix; the concept that all information can be expressed digitally, and thus communicated over very long distances in a fraction of a second; the first solar cells and satellite communications. Bell Labs did not just invent items, they invented entire industries. And because they were part of a regulated monopoly, they gave away the technology for free.

When the Justice Department settled the antitrust case in 1982 with a consent decree, the Bell System was broken up into regional operating telephone companies; an independent manufacturing company; and a much smaller AT&T providing only long distance services. Bell Labs was given to the manufacturing company, what is now known as Alcatel-Lucent. Because the manufacturing company did not have the resources of a national monopoly, Bell Labs was decimated, staff levels have been reduced by about 80 percent.

In the years since the breakup of AT&T, the original AT&T saw its revenues dwindle as cell phone services (also invented by Bell Labs) ate into long distance services. It was acquired on the verge of bankruptcy in 2005 by SBC, one of the regional telephone companies created by the breakup in 1983. The inventions and discoveries from Bell Labs have also dwindled. While the Nobel Prizes have continued to come, they are mostly for work done prior to the breakup.

The current fiscal crisis in the United States is now approaching five years of age. The most significant measure of our fiscal problems is the debt to GDP ratio. Everyone is focused on the rate of growth of the numerator in this fraction, with almost no attention paid to the denominator. If America is to dig out from under a mountain of debt, the GDP must grow faster than the debt, and key to that is increasing both productivity and products. Unfortunately, productivity growth has been stagnant over the last fifteen years.

Every action has both intended as well as unintended consequences. One wonders, what industries do not exist today, what productivity multiplying devices to not exist today because the Justice Department succeeded in 1982?

P.S. For a complete history of Bell Labs, check out: Gertner, Jon. The Idea Factory, Bell Labs and the Great Age of American Innovation. New York: The Penguin Press, 2012.

*Conflict of interest disclosure: my father was employed by Bell Labs for 30 years before he retired in 1984.

On Ballot Issue #1

2013-02-24T19:11:00.000-07:00

Colorado Springs Voters will have a decision to make on a proposed amendment to the TOPS Tax. The proposal will permit up the 20% of the tax currently allocated to new park construction to be used for park maintenance.

First, a little history: The TOPS Tax was enacted in 1997. Under the original formula, up to 3% could be used for administration expenses. A minimum of 60% must be used for acquisition of open space. Up to 20% is used for acquisition construction and maintenance of trails. And up to 20% is used for new park land acquisition and construction. The original language specifically forbids the use of the TOPS tax for maintenance of existing parks; the intent of the new tax was to build new facilities, not maintain old ones.

In late 2010, the language was amended permitting up to 15% of the tax receipts to be spent on maintenance of existing trails, open space and parks. This change was for a limited period of only two years and sunset on December 31, 2012. The effect meant that in 2012, approximately $965,000 was available for parks maintenance from the TOPS tax. The amendment was intentionally designed to sunset at the end of 2012 because the measure was viewed as a temporary fix. The city council working with the mayor would have two years to come up with a more sustainable method of funding maintenance of this asset. That did not happen.

So where do we go from here? It is no secret that the city of Colorado springs has many fiscal problems: constantly rising pension costs with potentially huge unfunded liabilities, decaying roads and bridges, demands for storm drainage capital improvements and maintenance costs, just to name a few. Recent improvements in sales tax revenues have simply allowed the city to restore services that were cut back or eliminated following the start of the economic crises in 2008.

Unfortunately, no one at city hall seems to be working on a comprehensive solution for park maintenance or any of the city’s financial problems. We keep seeing stop gap measures, like the one on the ballot: tinker with the allocations in the TOPS tax; get utilities to pay for storm drainage. (More on this topic in a future post). I fully expect that we will see campaigns in the future to change the formula again and again, each time transferring more and more of the tax revenue away from new infrastructure and towards maintenance of existing parks trails and open space. The first step in this process will likely be a rewriting of the parks master plan and park ordinances. Be on the look-out for changes that reduce the park land, trails and open space requirements for new developments or existing developments. It’s the first step to establishing the predicate: we have enough parks, trails and open space. We’ve reached the promised land for trails open space and parks and do not need any more; now let’s dedicate all of the TOPS Tax to maintenance. It’s also an old way to define success: If you cannot meet the standards, dumb down the standards.

If you live in a part of town with adequate parks, trails and open space, you may not care what happens across town in someone else’s back yard. If not, you may never see a new park if this measure passes.

Who’s Going to Do the Thinking?

2013-02-17T20:03:00.001-07:00

“I can't fight it anymore. . . . Oh, I don't know what's right any longer. You have to think for both of us. For all of us.” Ilsa to Rick, Casablanca

What is the proper role of the City Council in a mayor-council form of government? Over the past two years, we’ve seen a battle played out in our City Council. Some of the council members act as if their role is to rubber stamp anything that comes out of the mayor’s office, taking the role as his cheerleaders. Whatever the proposal, they neither question nor challenge the solution the mayor’s office offers. One might wonder whether they have given any independent thought to the policy issue or any of the possible solutions. Others, meanwhile, have attempted to establish City Council as an independent branch of municipal government, struggling with limited resources to present solutions.

The campaigns for City Council elections are underway. There are now six district seats; all are up for election. Since there are no hot button issues this campaign cycle, the only driving issue is how independent will the new council be?

To answer this question, we must first do a sort of the candidates. Those who are in play, who have a chance, and those who fall into the “also ran” category. There are several criteria used to sort them apart: Anyone who is an incumbent, anyone who has name recognition, anyone who has money to buy name recognition is immediately in play. But there is also another category: Those to whom God has given a unique gift: the ability to identify with and connect to the public. Every now and then, someone with this special talent comes on the scene and, from nowhere, wins a seat. I’ve seen it happen with Wayne Fischer in 1987, Cheryl Gillespie in 1991 and again with Tom Gallagher in 2003. There is a magic ability to connect. At a campaign forum, try watching not the candidates on stage, but the audience when each of the candidates speaks. One can learn a lot that way about who has a chance. In a small district race, the outlier has a much better opportunity to win a seat with limited resources.

By now, however, we know who has received the backing of some of Colorado Springs’ more influential players. Bach was Schuck’s candidate two years ago. Undoubtedly, the two have a very close bond. This past week Schuck sent a mass email endorsing specific candidates. In addition, the HBA has always been out in front with its endorsements and this year is no exception. The questions the HBA asked of the candidates are very much in lockstep with Bach’s positions on the issues; the candidates endorsed by Schuck and the HBA are identical. What is unclear is whether the candidates they endorsed will think for themselves if (re)elected to Council.

The role of any Councilmember is to think for one’s self, investigate, question, demand answers. If answers are not forthcoming, take advantage of any and all methods available to get them. But above all else, act independently of the mayor’s office. Be a credible check and balance on the mayor’s assertion of control and authority. Would the State of Colorado be better off if the legislature or state attorney general went to the governor’s office to ask direction on every issue?

I have not been to any candidate forums yet, but I will seek them out over the next few weeks. (e.g.: The Trails and Open Space Forum on March 4, 2013, 5:30 pm at Stargazers Theatre.) I will be looking to candidates who can think for themselves.

Principal and Agent

2013-02-10T16:17:00.000-07:00

The relationship between an attorney and the client has many different characteristics. The attorney acts as an advisor seeking to understand the goals of the client, and then outlining different alternatives on how to achieve those goals. Occasionally, the attorney is merely a scrivener, recording the client’s actions in a manner that puts them in the best light. In litigation, the attorney is the chief strategist trying to achieve the best result under the constraints of the facts, the law, and the resources the client is willing to spend on the case. In all events, the attorney is the agent, obligated to perform, within the code of ethics, the principal’s (client’s) directions.

At its meeting as Utility Board on January 16, 2013, City Council directed the City Attorney’s office to prepare for consideration at its next regular meeting on January 22, 2013, a charter proposal to make the Utility Board an elected board. Recently, I obtained a copy of the presentation City Attorney Chris Melcher prepared for delivery to Council at that meeting concerning that proposal.

The presentation is striking in several aspects. From the first page it attacks and impugns the direction given to the City Attorney by the Utility Board. In places it is whining about having only two business days to carry out the direction by the Utility Board. (In all my years on Council, I do not recall a single incident when former city attorneys Jim Colvin or Pat Kelly complained about the amount of time given to complete a task.) It is argumentative: Melcher does not take direction from Council, nor does he attempt to objectively outline pros and cons of the proposed action; his presentation is a broadside attack on the proposal. This is not the work of one taking direction from his client; this is the work of one arguing with City Council. It is the work of an attorney publicly telling his client where to stick it.

In the past, when a Council appointee committed such an act, the conversation in the back room was instantly transformed from “Should we let the appointee go?” to “How many days does the appointee have left?” Under the new charter, Council no longer has any authority over the length of the city attorney’s tenure. Once the appointment is approved, only the mayor can terminate the attorney. Nonetheless, reading between the lines of Melcher’s memo, it’s easy to see that there is no working relationship, no mutual respect between Melcher and Council. Perhaps that is why, starting tomorrow, there will be a new person sitting in the city attorney chair when Council meets.

This is a step in the right direction. I have a lot of respect for Wynetta Massey. She has worked in the City Attorney’s office for many years. She is a person of integrity and exceptional legal skills. Nonetheless, she is still an employee of ~~Chris Melcher~~ the mayor. When push comes to shove, she will face the dilemma of following orders or seeking to serve Council. Unless Council is willing to make her its employee, under the city’s current leadership, I fear she is in a situation where she is destined to fail.

[P.S.: I cannot figure out how to post a copy of the presentation with this post. If you would like a copy, email me; I will send it to you. RP]

Not With A Bang

2013-02-03T15:57:00.000-07:00

This is the way the world ends

Not with a bang but a whimper.

“The Hollow Men,” T.S. Eliot

Let’s start with a simple premise, one with which, I would hope, all can agree: In any form of government, there must be some means that holds public officials accountable for their words and deeds. In the U.S., the press, protected by the First Amendment, has served that function, acting as the canary in the coal mine. To fulfill this duty, members of the press often have to walk a narrow line. The press must develop sources in public office that will trust them and speak candidly to them off the record, and yet not become captured or manipulated by the public official. The press must have access to information, exercise its own independent judgment, question, and challenge everything that comes out of government. The press must be independent. Otherwise, the press is little more than a propaganda ministry.

Under a strong mayor form of government, the mayor of Colorado Springs has enormous power to limit and control the message that comes out of city hall. Every evaluation of a potential course of action gets stamped “work product for an elected official” and, thus, becomes exempt from a Freedom of Information request. Any employee who nonetheless leaks a report or speaks frankly to the press, or anyone outside City Hall, is fired. (The mayor only has to make an example of one or two people to get the message across to all other employees.) As a consequence, the discarded alternatives never see the light of day, nor do the cautions and cons of the selected course of action. The public is all the poorer in evaluating the actions of city hall. Without public scrutiny, those in City Hall suffer a much greater susceptibility to the dangers of group think.

Over the past few weeks some very ~~interesting~~ ~~disturbing~~ frightening items have come to light. We have known for some time that City Hall has clamped down on access to and distribution of information. We have seen career employees fired on questionable grounds. But the press has remained independent, striving to do its job under changed conditions, pursuing accountability in City Hall.

Until recently.

A couple of recent incidents make one wonder whether City Hall is trying to rewrite history, 1984 style. Daniel Chacon has been the Gazette’s principal City Hall reporter for many years. He has also maintained a blog at the Gazette’s web site for stories and short pieces that do not make the print edition of the paper. In recent months he has written some posts more critical of the current mayor. In December he called out the mayor for trying to rewrite history concerning the concept of a baseball stadium on the Drake Power Plant site. Although the Gazette denies it, Mr. Chacon may be suffering the consequences of doing his job. Within the past few weeks, the mayor has again tried to rewrite history, as reported in the Independent’s city blog.

Controlling the information disseminated from city hall is to be expected. Changing one’s position and then denying it in the face of numerous recorded reports to the contrary is inept at best and political suicide at worst. But a politician, who attempts to control the press and succeeds, is frightening and dangerous, and makes the rest of society little more than hollow men and women.

Changes at the Top

2011-10-08T19:46:00.000-06:00

So the police chief is out, as is the HR director and, presumably in the near future many other department heads. I cannot say I am surprised. As I commented some time ago, it is the mayor’s team to put together. Everyone who was there in May is a product of the old, council-manager form of government. Furthermore, any executive taking over any major enterprise must be expected to put people in place at direct report positions who owe their allegiance to her. Still, how the change was made in the police chief position bears some comments.

First, there is no public context to the change. There has been little or no explanation of why the change was made, or how it fits into Bach’s vision for the city or how he plans to get us from here to there. (Indeed, has Bach even articulated a vision for Colorado Springs?)

Second, if, as one of the local media outlets has suggested, the police chief is taking the fall for failures of officers under him (one officer has been charged with felony possession of child pornography, another for false reporting), then it’s like firing the manager of the ball club when the players on the field have a losing season. Every police department must stress having its officers leading exemplary lives, setting an example for the community. But the department still hires from the culture in which we all live.

Third, the era of working one’s way up through the ranks to the top has come to an end. Under a council-manager form of government, Council, of course, only had the authority to hire/fire the city manager, who alone appointed department heads and otherwise organized city government. That person almost always had a long resume of employment in public entity administration. Now, the chief executive will always come from outside city hall, outside the ranks of career government employment. While this carries the pitfall of cronyism, it is also much more likely that leadership positions will be filled with people from outside the organization, who have not made a career in government service.

Finally, a few thoughts (pure speculation) on why the change was made. City government is facing growing and severe challenges: demand for services is outstripping the ability to pay for those services. Simply look at the budget projections. A standard method of cutting costs in the private sector is by replacing full time personnel with part time employees and/or outsourcing services. A year ago I had a conversation with the police chief asking him to comment on the solution being used by other, albeit smaller, communities across the country of outsourcing police services to county sheriff’s offices. The chief was very quick with a raft of reasons why there was no way he would consider such a proposition. Perhaps, the outgoing chief is not innovative enough to meet the needs of the future.

Who is the Client? n/k/a When I Want Your Opinion, I’ll Give It To You!

2011-09-06T21:31:00.000-06:00

This post was originally published in February 2011. The original post is at the bottom in italics. Given recent developments, I thought I would update it.

We are about to have a new city attorney. Mayor Bach is presumably looking far and wide for the right person for the job. Unfortunately, there are very few people who can meet the job requirements: a solid working knowledge of Colorado municipal law; Colorado and federal hospital and healthcare law; Colorado and federal utilities law and regulatory requirements; and traffic codes to name only a few of the subject areas. Furthermore, this person must also have proven management abilities, as the city attorney supervises a professional and support staff larger than nearly every private law firm in Colorado Springs, if not the State of Colorado. However, I strongly suspect that most of these requirements will be sacrificed for the person who is willing to work under the revised title of this post.

The danger, quite simply, is that the person appointed will be one who will find ways to rationalize and support the mayor’s point of view, and to accommodate his preconceived conclusions. If this person was solely concerned with city affairs such as police, fire and public works, that might not be a very big concern. The mayor, afterall, was elected to lead municipal government. He should be able to direct the future of that government. It is a huge concern when one realizes the impact a “Yes-Man” in the city attorney’s chair can have over Colorado Springs Utilities and Memorial Hospital. These are areas over which the mayor’s office has absolutely no say, either under the new charter or under the electoral ordinance governing the hospital. However, a compliant city attorney can provide a back door manipulation of these enterprises.

Recent comments and developments by Mayor Bach indicate he may well be aware of this possibility and possess a willingness to use it. He has recently involved himself in at least one area where he has no authority. The electoral ordinance under which Memorial Hospital operates clearly provides that the day to day operations of Memorial Hospital are under the supervision and control of the Board of Trustees; subject to the general supervision and control of City Council, which appoints the board of trustees. Nowhere does the electoral ordinance mention the mayor’s office. Yet in the past several weeks he has appointed himself as a “collaborator” with the City Council’s Task Force on the Hospital, and forced the inclusion of others who also have no apparent knowledge of the healthcare field.

Council should take steps now to assert its role as the check and balance for the mayor’s office: the city budget discussions will soon be underway. Council should expand the city auditor’s office to add an attorney, who answers solely through the auditor to Council to provide City Council with legal advice. It should assert its position as the Board of Directors for Colorado Springs Utilities to appoint an attorney for the Utility Board. It should see that the Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees also appoints its own attorney, who answers solely to the Trustees. If the mayor objects, Council should stand its ground. The city charter and code still provides that it is City Council, not the Mayor, who sets the salary and compensation of the city attorney and his/her staff by ordinance. It’s not likely the mayor will find someone willing to work for free.

Legally, Colorado Springs Utilities does not exist. Neither does Memorial Hospital nor, for that matter, even the city streets division. Legally speaking, the only entity that exists is the City of Colorado Springs. For decades, the city attorney has represented the City of Colorado Springs. Although appointed by the city council, the city attorneys have long enjoyed the broad confidence and support of the mayor and council. So much so, that they have been free to provide legal advice that has focused on what the law is, and what is in the best interests of the city, and not any particular individual. This independence has worked to the city’s advantage. Over the past ten to fifteen years, Patricia Kelly has been the City attorney and has hired and maintained an outstanding staff. (Just ask Doug Bruce what his winning record is against the city.) (Hint: it’s almost an O-fer.)

All this is about to change. Coming in June, the new mayor will appoint a city attorney, who will serve at his pleasure alone. By implication, all of the attorneys working in the city attorney’s office will be serving at the mayor’s pleasure. The city attorney will then be forced to resolve an issue: Who is the client? The City of Colorado Springs, or the mayor, who holds the paycheck in his hands? The consequences for the type of representation is huge and is likely to shift radically. No longer will the city attorney be focused on what is in the city’s best interests, but on how to advance the mayor’s agenda. If the mayor’s wife gets a speeding ticket, how does the attorney’s office proceed? Louis XIV reportedly said: “I am the State.” As Colorado Springs moves towards a strong mayor form of government, will the mayor be able to distinguish himself from the city he serves?

02-06-2011

Outrunning The Bear – Part 3

2011-08-30T20:23:00.000-06:00

This is a post in three sections, roughly centered on these three themes: Where We Are - How We Got Here; Why Nothing Will Change Soon; and Where We Should Be Going.

Part 3 - Where We Should Be Going

An old joke has two friends out camping and hiking in the mountains. While in the woods, they stumble across an angry bear, which begins to move menacingly towards the two friends. One friend suddenly takes off running. The second calls to the first: “Hey, you’re not going to out run a bear.” To which the first replies: “I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just have to outrun you!”

The United States is in the midst of its most trying economic circumstances in 80 years. There are three primary crises facing us: Loss of confidence in the ability of our government to get control of runaway budget deficits; Loss of the US Dollar’s position as the international monetary unit of trade; Loss of confidence in our government’s ability to pay its debts without inflating them away. Failing to successfully resolve any one of these crises will precipitate a huge loss of asset value and profound structural economic changes. The stock market’s wild swings over the last few weeks show how tenuous the situation has become.

On a local level there is little we can do about these macro issues. However, there is much we can do to position ourselves to be more attractive than the communities with which we compete for capital investment and jobs. We must make Colorado Springs a lower cost place to do business. Put another way, we must be more productive than our competition.

All of our local governments should commence a deliberate review of their regulations. The problem which must be recognized and addressed is that ~~many~~ nearly all government regulations reduce productivity. Indeed, they are a huge drag on productivity, adding costs without creating either better products or more of the product. We must quantify the costs of the regulations and re-examine their benefits with the goal of reducing and eliminating the burden regulations place on businesses. We must compare our regulations with those of the communities with which we compete for investment and jobs. Everything must be on the table, land use codes, building codes, environmental codes, employment regulations, everything and anything that affects the cost of doing business.

This will not be easy; regulations are like nearly all government programs. They were created to correct some perceived problem. They create populations who exist to perpetuate the regulatory program, either because they support the goal of the regulation, or because their income is dependent on the continued existence of the regulation. For example, it is much more expensive to produce electricity through photovoltaic cells than with a coal fired power plant. Yet both environmental groups and solar power companies alike support and encourage the expansion of utility rebates for home based solar power installations, and the rest of the customer base subsidizes them through higher rates.

Eliminating or reducing a program of regulation requires not only voting against the proponents and beneficiaries of the regulation, it requires an acceptance of the risk of harm the program was designed to prevent. However, a wealthy community can afford regulations that lower productivity. A community in debt cannot.

Outrunning The Bear – Part 2

2011-08-23T21:46:00.000-06:00

This is a post in three sections, roughly centered on these three themes: Where We Are - How We Got Here; Why Nothing Will Change Soon; and Where We Should Be Going.

Part 2 – Nothing Will Change Soon.

[Caveat: this post is not meant as negative criticism, just a statement of the facts.]

We have a city council with 6 new members and a mayor, who not only is in his first elected job, he’s in his first management position of a large organization. For both the council and the mayor the learning curve is both steep and long. There is a huge amount to be learned about the city departments, budgets, utilities, land use regulations, litigation in progress and how it is impacted by past law suits, . . . The list goes on and on. The newly elected need to learn the relationships between different parts of the organization and how a change in one part precipitates consequences in another. It takes at least a year to begin to become comfortable with the job as a whole, to see things for a second time and think: “I’ve seen this before. I know something about it. I’m comfortable with it.” And this is only at the 40,000 foot level. It will take years more to learn how each part is put together, to understand each part’s details, to be able to be able to comprehend the issues and to question knowledgably the managers on their decisions.

After, or even while, learning both the principles and the details, the council and mayor must learn the people involved. Sooner or later, as either a council member or mayor, one inevitably reaches a point where one concludes: “I understand that manager’s job, I know or could learn the details of the department and what it takes; but I do not need to: I trust the manager’s judgment to make the correct decision.” Learning the personnel and deciding which managers to trust, and which ones to hold to strict scrutiny, takes time. As with all human relationships, it involves both logical and gut level decisions.

We are in the midst of a fundamental transformation of city government. Employee morale is low, at best, and no city employee is willing to take any risks, to initiate any policy discussions, propose any ideas without explicit direction from above. When there are public discussions about employees learning and respecting the chain of command it has a riveting effect on employees who have a family and a mortgage to pay. Why should anyone take risks if it gets them fired?

Finally, the City’s Strategic Plan is now many years old. I had thought the mayor’s race might be used as a platform for outlining a new strategic plan and gaining the community’s buy-in on it. This was not the case. The dominant advertising was as much a statement of what Bach was not going to do as what he was going to do. No tax increases. No pay raises for city employees. Since the election, neither the council nor the mayor has moved to amend, outline changes, adopt, create anew or even to talk about the city’s strategic plan. As a consequence, there is no basis for any change to the city’s budget priorities. One can see the city budget office preparing next year’s budget using a simple Microsoft Word “find and replace” edit, deleting “2011” and inserting “2012”.

Though they are learning, they uncertain as to where they are. They have spent no time exploring where they want to go. Let’s hope the strategic plan becomes their first priority.

Outrunning The Bear – Part 1

2011-08-15T21:00:00.002-06:00

This is a post in three sections, roughly centered on these three themes: Where We Are - How We Got Here; Why Nothing Will Change Soon; and Where We Should Be Going.

Part 1 – Where We Are Now – How We Got Here.

When I was in college I had an economics professor who delivered a lecture roughly entitled: “Why a Growing National Debt is No Cause for Alarm”. As I recall the thesis was fairly simple: yes, our national debt was growing, but our national income was growing much faster. The debt service payments were actually falling as a percent of national income. On a personal level, the analogy might be: you’ve moved into a bigger house with a bigger mortgage, but you got a raise and your spouse got a raise, so the mortgage payment as a percent of the household income is actually smaller than it was.

Today, 35 years later, that has all changed. Our national debt is growing exponentially, our national income is stagnant. If the Fed fails to hold interest at historic lows, the debt service will be even more of a burden crowding out other expenditures, unless of course, we choose to borrow the money to pay the debt. (Although that does not seem to be working out for Greece, Ireland, Spain, Italy . . . )

On a local level we don’t have that problem. . . . Or do we? Even though we have no practically no general obligation debt to service, we are increasingly using up our capital assets. Every business manager knows that sooner or later, depreciation ceases to be a bookkeeping line item and becomes a physical reality: things get used up; they have to be replaced. As one example, the next time you drive on our local streets, take notice of the road surface on which you are driving. Chances are good that you will be driving over streets that look like alligator skin. The asphalt has broken into small, irregular shaped pieces about a few square inches in size. When the roadway gets into this condition, it is past repair, it must be removed down to the road base, then the road base must be rebuilt and compacted before a new course of asphalt can be laid. The cost of doing this is roughly two to three times the cost of a simple overlay coat. According the City Streets division in a memo from last November, 2010, we had hundreds of lane miles of roadway that needed to be rebuilt. Since last November, the roads have gotten worse. The story is much the same with other capital assets or municipal services: bridges and storm water channels are falling apart, police and fire services are stretched far too thin, the city’s infrastructure is failing.

But at least our income has kept pace, right? While TABOR has prevented the city from imposing new taxes, total tax revenues have grown. So we should be keeping pace? Actually, no. When adjusted for inflation, the city now receives less than 59 percent of the per capita sales tax revenues it received in 1993. Put another way, the city is trying to provide the same level of services it has provided in the past, on 59 percent of the revenue.

Simply put: the city is heavily in debt; its income is falling.

The Living Room

2011-08-14T15:31:00.000-06:00

Over the years our living room has heard it all, starting nearly 20 years ago with the tentative plink plink of a piano. Soon the piano was joined by the oompah of a tuba and the call of a trumpet. Other instruments put in an appearance for a year or two: we’ve heard snare drums, bassoons and just this past summer a viola appeared. But through it all was the melody of a piano: Beethoven’s sonatas, Scott Joplin’s rags, Vince Guaraldi’s jazz all played gigs in our living room and became the sound track of our lives.

This week our living room once again fell silent as we delivered our youngest to college.

Money for Parks

2011-06-27T20:45:00.000-06:00

A few weeks Mayor Bach stated he was a strong supporter of City Parks and had instructed staff to find an additional $800,000 for watering smaller neighborhood parks this summer. He will, of course, be successful. The 2011 City Budget has over $223 million in the general fund, so nearly half-way through the year there should be some underspent line items to be tapped. But is this even necessary?

I thought I would take a different look at the revenue numbers. The city reports sales and use tax receipts on a monthly basis, and has done so for years. Looking at the figures, the receipts are clearly seasonal. Over the past six calendar years, the city has consistently collected about 7% of its annual receipts off of January sales. May sales typically generate about 9.4% of total annual receipts. These numbers have held true even in the down years of 2008 and 2009. So, based on historical trends, the first four months of the year typically generate just over 30% of the total receipts for the year.

Therefore, although we have only four months of receipts for the 2011 budget year, (January receipts are assigned to the year in which the merchants collected the taxes, the prior calendar year) it is possible to make some projections for the total receipts for 2011. The model projects the city will receive about $120,500,000 in sales tax receipts for 2011. The budgeted figure is $117,500,000; the city should have sales tax receipts in excess of budget by about $3,000,000.

Mayor Bach will have the money to spend on parks without having to raid anyone’s budget.

Now, will it matter? It is now the end of June. Much of the grass is already dead.

A Big Week for Mayor Bach

2011-06-27T20:39:00.000-06:00

This will be a big week for the mayor under our new system of government.

Under the new Charter, the Mayor is required to promulgate a strategic plan for the City of Colorado Springs, including a 5 year capital improvements plan. The charter requires this plan be used as the foundation for preparing the city budget. While there is no date placed on the promulgation of the Mayor’s Strategic Plan, if it is to be used to prepare the city budget, it had better be published soon, as city departments have to begin the 2012 budgeting process in the next two or three weeks. How can anyone begin to prepare a budget without knowing the Mayor’s strategic plan?

Also, and this requirement does have a definite due date, June 30^thand semiannually thereafter, the mayor must publish “a report on the financial condition of the City that identifies material changes, both positive and adverse.” City Charter, Chapter 4, §40(b)(2). I doubt it will be ready on June 30^th, but my fingers are crossed.

Finally, Mayor Bach is set to deliver his first “State of the City” address to the Chamber of Commerce. The event was sold out, but a change in location has reopened registration allowing more people to attend. I only hope that Steve Bach wrote the speech himself. If he did, it will be a refreshing change from many of the recent past “State of the City” addresses.

More later on these items.

Burying the Lead

2011-06-12T15:23:00.000-06:00

I had another post on the boards for today, until I read the morning paper.

If memory serves me right, Rich Laden joined the Gazette in 1988. He was assigned to the city beat and quickly taught me, a rookie councilmember at the time, many good lessons about the relationship between media members and elected representatives, and how those in the medial can get a story. Laden was very good at his job and always a man of integrity. Laden was one of many young reporters at the Gazette in those days, working with Barry Noreen and Wayne Heilman. In a few years they would be joined by Pam Zubeck, giving the Gazette an excellent core of reporters serving the community and holding public officials accountable. Unfortunately times have changed. The Gazette has morphed from the canary-in-the-coal-mine to just another booster for Colorado Springs.

Rich Laden had a piece in the paper today about Steve Bach and the impact he might have as the first strong mayor of Colorado Springs. The article is mostly a rehash of what we have been reading for months; a few new quotes, here and there, but little new until almost the end of the article. Laden completely buries the lead in the fourth paragraph from the end, and then all but walks away from it.

To parlay the cheer leader analogy attributed to Dennis Donovan in the article, so what if the Colorado Buffaloes have the best cheer leaders in the nation, if the football team has no talent, they are still a losing team. There are many factors evaluated by a company when it decides whether to move or where to locate an office or manufacturing location. The article would have been much more informative and useful had Laden listed and reviewed the most influential factors, evaluated whether city government can affect how Colorado Springs measures up to those factors, and then discussed what influence, if any, the mayor can have on how well Colorado Springs meets those factors.

Maybe next time.

Changes

2011-06-05T19:32:00.000-06:00

One advantage of the strong-mayor form of government is that it unites the administrative head of city government with the political head. In the past, the mayor, council members and the city manager were in demand for speaking engagements all over town. The mayor, or council members, would be out in the community. They spoke to persuade citizens on a course of action, as well as listened to their questions and made judgments as to what was politically possible. The city manager would be doing the same thing. However, the manager was taking orders from nine council members, and no matter what was heard in the community, the city manager still had to follow the orders of the council. The manager was also limited in what could be passed along to the council from the citizens; after all, the mayor and council members were also in the community listening and it was the council member’s political future on the line.

Now all that has changed. The mayor is the primary spokesperson for the community, sets the primary vision for the community and now has the administrative authority to cause things to happen within city government, without getting anyone else’s approval. The new mayor should be expected to hire a team of people that think like he does and who will work in concert with him to help achieve his goals.

So why is the new mayor’s team ducking responsibility? This past week, Sue Skiffington-Blumberg, the city’s head of public relations, was let go. The mayor elect, through his spokesperson, was quick to deny any responsibility for the decision. How come? This is the first position one would expect to change. The new head of PR for the city must be someone who has worked closely with Steve Bach, knows him well, knows how he thinks and can speak ex-temp for him based on that knowledge. Clearly Ms. Skiffington-Blumberg did not meet the job requirements.

Indeed, this should be just the first such change at city hall. I would expect over the next 12 to 24 weeks to see nearly every department head changed. It is just the natural progression of this form of government. A new executive takes office; he will want to surround himself with people who owe their position to him, who are loyal to him, in whom he has confidence. The existing people simply cannot meet the job description. They were appointed by the former administration, owed their jobs, and were loyal, to the former administration. They will remember the old way of doing things, if something does not happen on time, or does not work out as planned, they will be suspect.

Finally, even though the last four weeks leading up to the election played as a traditional “liberal” vs “conservative” campaign, this was simply the final scene in a play centered on a “the system is broken, everything must change” theme. Retaining more than one or two of the old players would be a fundamental mistake and misread of the political winds.

Parks Water

2011-05-31T19:38:00.000-06:00

My apologies for being out of pocket the last few weeks. Our youngest son graduated from high school last weekend and we have been busy with the activities surrounding such an occasion. A life changing event for him, and, no doubt, a life changing event for my wife and me.

Barry Noreen had a piece in the Gazette a few weeks ago saying new parks dedicated taxes were unnecessary; the city could save money by, in effect, getting back into the water supply business. (Here)

So, I thought I would take a look at this suggestion and what would it cost? First a few details: According to the City Parks Department, the city currently has approximately 879 acres of turf in regional and neighborhood parks and in street medians. The recommended supplemental water for our climate is 24 inches per year (it does rain a little). That works out to a total of just over 1,750 acre feet of water. What would it cost to acquire this water, get it to the City of Colorado Springs, treat it (the city’s non-potable water delivery system is very limited) and distribute it to the city parks for irrigation?

Fortunately, we have a very good comparable. The Donala water system serving the Gleneagle development just did this very thing to buy water for household consumption. Donala paid about $17,000 per acre foot for water. They are also paying the Colorado Springs Utilities (CSU) $2,200 per acre foot for the transmission, treatment and delivery of the water to their system. Since Donala serves territory outside the city, CSU charges them a higher rate, so we’ll back that out, assuming that CSU would only charge the city their actual costs. Consequently, transmission, treatment and distribution reduces to about $1,466 per acre foot.

Let’s tally this up. Purchasing 1,750 acre feet of water at $17,000 per acre foot costs $29,750,000. Because the city does not have this cash lying around, but would have to borrow it, or get CSU to borrow it for the general fund, we’ll need to factor in the time-value of money. According the Wall Street Journal, AA rated 30 year municipal bonds are fetching just a tick over 5 percent. The annual loan amortization cost: $1,916,000. The cost of transmission, treatment and distribution for the 1,750 acre feet is $2,565,000. Total annual cost: $4,481,000. Quite a chunk of change.

How does this compare to what the city is paying this year? The city parks department has, in its 2011 budget, approximately $2,660,000 budgeted for watering turf. Even allowing for the fact that Parks is only planning to put 20 inches of supplemental water on the 550 acres of neighborhood parks turf this year, the funds available in the city budget is still significantly less that the cost of Noreen’s proposed “solution.” Furthermore, this capital cost is only for enough water to meet current needs, it includes no buffer for growth in the parks system.

I should note that Noreen’s solution would have the city buying water rights gradually over the years “using any extra cash from the general fund” to make the purchases. While this would avoid the interest expense, it does leave one with a question: Where to get the money? Hmmm . . .

Congratulations

2011-05-20T12:34:00.002-06:00

A hearty congratulations to Steve Bach, who has won the opportunity of a life time. Now the real work begins.

Pendulum

2011-05-10T20:20:00.000-06:00

On the evening of November 4, 2008 I was making the rounds of election night receptions. Doug Bruce had petitioned two initiated ordinances onto the ballot and the usual coalition had rallied, even in a crashing economy, to oppose them. Barak Obama was sweeping the nation; his coattails were ushering in massive majorities in both the US House and Senate. The rise of democrat votes had also reached down into state house elections. The election results that evening showed Obama getting 40% of the vote in El Paso County. Not even Mark Udall, running for an open US Senate seat, polled as well as Obama in El Paso County.

At one of the receptions, I crossed paths with Mike Merrifield, who had just won reelection to his fourth and final term in the State House. I recall remarking to Merrifield that this election would swing the pendulum in American politics about as far to the left as it can go. Merrifield’s response was that the pendulum was just getting back to center. I disagreed, and we left it at that.

Let’s fast forward two and an half years. In a week the ballots will finally be counted in the mayoral runoff election. I expect we will see the pendulum swing about as far to the right as it can in local politics. Will City Council be a worthy parry for the Mayor’s office? It is only out of a frank and reasoned exchange of ideas that we are going to find our way out of the budget problems facing the city. To be a worthy balance for the mayor’s office, the council members will have to work much harder that in the past, devoting their own time and resources to the exercise.

Trust

2011-05-01T17:18:00.000-06:00

Much has been made this past election cycle about the community’s lack of trust in the city council and mayor’s office. How did this become an issue, how does it get resolved?

First, start with the economy; indeed, always start with the economy when dealing with trust in government. Maslow’s hierarchy of need places life’s essentials at the bottom of his pyramid: food, clothing and shelter, followed by basic safety and security issues. In an economic crisis, one’s ability to meet these needs comes into question. During the past three years, thousands in our community have lost their jobs. In September 2007 employment in the Colorado Springs MSA reached a peak of 292,274. In February 2011 that figure had dropped to 264,292, a decline of nearly 28,000 jobs over three and a half years. Today, probably everyone in Colorado Springs knows someone who has lost a job, and knows of many more that are unemployed or underemployed. That kind of economic decline affects not only those who are out of work and looking, but those who remain employed and wonder, “Am I next?” It also affects their view of those in office. After all, aren’t community leaders supposed to make sure there are enough jobs to go around?

Secondly, leadership is a human relationship. And as with all human relationships, a large part of its foundation lies in communication. The leader must not only speak to the community, he must also listen to the community. Engage it in dialogue. Understand the hopes, dreams, fears and concerns. On March 31, 2008, City Council approved the USOC deal. At the time, it was widely praised and acclaimed as a coup, keeping the organization here in Colorado Springs; preventing its move to any one of many other courting cities. Sixteen months later, City Council was forced to reexamine and restructure the collapsing deal. However, by late summer of 2009, the economy was in a free fall. Against that backdrop, shelling out millions to one employer looked like the kind of sweetheart deal one insider gives to another, while thousands in the community stood in unemployment lines and bought food with government scrip. City Council appeared to be ignoring or at least deaf to the community. Council had lost the dialogue, the conversation, the relationship.

The advantage of a representative democracy is that it forces the renewal of that dialogue. Candidates must campaign, meet people, listen and search for the message that resonates with electorate. The conversation is restarted. Groups that usually never consider a council member as a speaker, now actively seek out the candidates as part of their program. Candidates similarly seek out groups to engage in conversation. The winning candidates are typically those most successful at establishing a meaningful exchange, at winning the trust of the electorate. The challenge, following the election, is finding ways to continue the conversation.