Gene Wieneke

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Amendment 38 Supplemental

I need to modify my last posting on Amendment 38 as it pertains to the source of the Whereas I found objectionable. It seems that the Northglenn City Council adopted a model or sample resolution written by the Colorado Municipal League.

During my career as a City Manager in Colorado I learned early on that the cities’ advocate in the State, CML, was an institution that fought and fought hard for local control. It is a valuable resource that cities normally can count on for good advice. I was not happy to learn that CML had prepared such a one-side and inflammatory resolution.

My apology to the Northglenn City Council. I only wish the members and City Attorney had read through it more carefully before its adoption.

Friday, September 29, 2006

Council Position on Amendment 38

In and earlier posting I criticized the City Council for taking a position on one of the amendments to the Constitution which will be voted on this November. My criticism was based on the fact that the issue will not have a direct impact on the operation of the City. Last night they took a position on an amendment that will impact the City which I believe to be quite proper.

I do have a quarrel with some of the rational they used in their Whereas portion of the resolution recommending disapproval of Amendment 38 also known as the Petition Amendment. Under the Mayor’s sponsorship the City’s disapproval passed with the minimum number of votes. I am linking the resolution for your convenience in the Title.

The Whereas section common to all resolutions and ordinances is the location where a governing body specifies their reasons for its adoption. It is also used in future years to clarify the “legislative intent”. While I agree with most of their reasons, some contain words and concepts that are controversial and deceptive.

In number three we see that they feel the cost of complying with the amendment will “paralyze” municipal operations. Don’t believe that for a second.

In number four anyone who files an initiative is “disenchanted”. I guess the majority of you that voted for the charter amendment on the Water fund or said no to the very expansive and expensive recreation center project now know what your elected officials call you in private.

In number six the prophets have determined that the amendment “will” be found to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. We also find the first major deception from the Mayor and Council. The act will “violate the free speech rights of municipal employees.” Let me quote the applicable part of section (d) from the amendment.

“No district (City for our discussion) or district staff shall aid spending district resources, or using any district procedure, equipment, or staff time, to discuss pending petitions after petition forms are delivered.” The City cannot use its financial resources or staff to fight an initiative ON THE CLOCK. The language in the Whereas is just plain wrong. Our employees’ right to free speech is not denied or compromised.

In number seven I see the second deception. Please read it because you would never guess that the actual amendment provides for a statement from the opponents to any initiative equal to that of the disenchanted disproportionately small number of residents. In other words, you will receive the familiar blue book in local, non TABOR, elections. Gosh, a level playing field.

In number nine they content that “honest mistakes” will result in a $3,000 penalty to the city official reviewing the petitions for sufficiency. The amendment spells out exactly what the reviewing official can and cannot do in determining petition sufficiency. There are no “honest” mistakes if they follow the very specific brief language in the amendment.

Vote your conscience but be informed.

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

City Returns Grant Money

For over a year now I have been receiving a copy of the monthly payables from the City. There were two interesting checks in the August payables. In an earlier email to some residents I pointed out that, per the Finance Director, the City had not spent $1,939,740.23 of the Adams County Road and Street half-percent sales tax you authorized in November of 2001. Why?

From the August payables we find that the City also returned, unused grant money as follows: $41,999.59 that was not used on the Sensory playground improvements, and $87,500 that was not used from the Northwest Open Space Grant.

I understand that Adams County will soon be auditing all grants and the pass-through funds soon. Good! There is one question. The City Council did not vote to kill the projects, so why was the staff allowed to cancel the projects on their own volition?

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Response to Previous Posting's Comments

Every blog on Blogspot.com has an option concerning comments. By checking one box the author can censor any comment he/she does not like. If I had wanted to skew the information by having only one viewpoint, I could have followed that route. I did not as most of you have already found out.

In the previous posting, based on some of the comments, I should have emphasized the fact that the information was primarily a summary of previous posting going back to October. The information is still there. I spent time and money requesting information from the City under the authority of a state law and stand by the one-sided but accurate information.

When interviewing managers City Councils always present the positive side of their communities and minimize the negative. Before the internet, manager candidates had to rely on comments from other managers working near the city of interest. That always helped but the information gathered was lacking in detail.

In my previous posting I used much stronger terms than usual in summarizing the current situation from the information I have gathered. The frustration comes from having shared the information over the last nine months with members of the Council many of which are not too fond of my stance on most issues. Their ears were closed.

Hopefully my posting will at least get the candidates’ attention. I also hope it will enable them during their interviews this weekend to be more informed in responding to questions from residents. Placing all the information in one posting has certainly had an impact from your responses. Let’s try some questions for the candidates.

It has been stated publicly by a critic that the condition of the streets will require millions to correct per the Auditor. Please prioritize streets along with other municipal functions?

It has been alleged by a critic that you will not be able to rely on your senior staff. How will you evaluate them and how long will it take you make a decision on the staff’s future?

Do you believe that the Council would be interfering with your authority should it establish specific policies governing personnel regulations, purchasing guidelines, etc?

Our local critic has also stated that the budget adopted by the Council is so generalized that you can ignore it. How detailed should the Council’s approval be?

He and some friends have also filed and initiated ordinance that will stop the Council from demolishing city hall and the recreation building without a vote of the residents. How will you deal with the situation?

How are you going to deal with our critic and the others who regularly harass the City Council and Staff?

Monday, September 25, 2006

City Manager Candidates: Heads Up

With a new City Manager on the horizon, everyone is anxiously holding their breath, curbing their zeal and biding their time. Everyone includes the members of the Council, the senior staff, the worker bee staff, and the residents who are involved and interested in City operations; including me.

With that said, just what is the new Manager facing besides a Council badly split on all things important to our continued viability as a community. While the City web site, Connection and other activities of the public relations department keep pushing the “we are wonderful and responsive to you” campaign, the quality of our municipal services continue to deteriorate and millions of dollars are wasted on plans, plans, plans and dreams.

To give the new Manager a heads up as to what he will find upon reporting to work, I’ll rehash some problems and reveal some new. I’m sure readers will have there own lists or maybe even feel that some of the following statements are exaggerations. Just remember, I obtain my facts from public records requests, in accordance with State law, and supplement it with information from those in the know. I then give you the facts and information; with an obvious attitude.

First, the Council is composed of individuals that have serious personal difficulties with each other on a daily basis. The Council has members that believe if you do not agree with me 100% of the time; you are my enemy. It has a majority that believes the Council should speak with one voice; mine. The major division on the Council is between those that sincerely believe that the staff is, and is the only one, that has all the right answers, and those who will question and challenge the staff when recommendations are inconsistent, incomplete or inadequate. The vast majority of the Council is a sucker for a classy, well presented report or presentation. If it looks and sounds good; it must be a good recommendation.

Second, the new Manager is going to love the following information. Under the guise of not interfering with the day to day operations of the City, the current and past Councils have abdicated their responsibilities under the Charter. The budget is so very broad that he can ignore it. Budgeted projects are just that; budgeted, so what? There are no detailed rules concerning personnel, purchasing or even the sale of City property. He can modify, create or abolish positions at will regardless of the budget. The Councils have even dodged adopting Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity policies. What a deal.

Third, thanks to the prior Manager’s staff cleansing, the new Manager must deal with and initially rely on a senior staff composed mostly of losers: One condescending expert who spends more time selling their business than serving the city, two designer examples of the Peter Principle, one who makes decisions based on sexual preference, and three others, so bad that I will not describe them in print. On the positive side there are two professionals who have the qualifications, experience and attitude for their positions.

Fourth, the new Manager unfortunately will not be able to rely on the majority of persons surrounding or close to the senior staff for a variety of reasons. They were hired or promoted by the senior staff for either their aggressive and arrogant nature, who they knew, who they were related to or their sleeping habits; qualifications notwithstanding.

Fifth, the new Manager is going to be expected to turn a lemon into lemonade when it comes to the land the Council has purchased north of City Hall. The City alone has diverted $7.4 million from the General Fund in quest of a new retail center. NURA spent another $2.25 million. Meanwhile municipal services have suffered. In streets alone, the Auditor noted that they needed $2.4 million in maintenance and improvements to meet required standards as of the end of 2005. Now the Council is considering scrapping City Hall and the Recreation Center in favor of a new facility south of the North Metro office building at 120th and Grant. He should realize that the proposed retail area is an obsession that is more important than all other governmental responsibilities together.

Sixth, the new Manager should be prepared for the following influences on his and the City’s future. There will be an election next year and some members of the Council will be actively campaigning to defeat their fellow members. There are many more residents besides me that want major changes in the City and its use of our sales and property taxes; and we will have an impact. He has until February 2008 to demonstrate that he is worthy of the challenge. His actions must prove to the entire Council that he works for all them no matter how much danger he places himself in to accomplish it. The residents deserve a competent, qualified, professional and polite staff. The sooner he makes the necessary changes the better.

Finally, I will give him the benefit of doubt as long as does what is necessary and places the community and its residents ahead of his resume.




Friday, September 22, 2006

City Manager Candidates

Here are the three candidates for City Manager. Following the public interview process next Friday the 29th and Saturday. One of them will be offered the position.

Aden Hogan, Jr.
Age 55
Education: Bachelor’s in Business Administration-Mesa State College, CO-Master’s in Public Administration-1992-Univ. of Colorado
Prior Professional Experience (Last first): Former Town Administrator, Parker, CO--Assistant to the City Manager, Oklahoma City, OK--Risk Manager, Oklahoma City, OK--Director of Risk and Fleet Management, Mesa County, CO

Thomas Hutka
Age 48
Education: Bachelor’s in Engineering-Princeton-1980—Master’s in Public Policy-Harvard-1987
Prior Professional Experience (Last first): Former City Manager, Port Huron, MI—Assist. County Manager, Osceola County, FL—Assist. County Manager, Hennepin County, MN—Commissioner of Engineering & Construction, Cleveland, OH—Capital Projects Manager, Hillsborough County, FL

Arthur Krieger
Age 38
Education: Bachelor’s of Science-Illinois University, IL-1990—Master’s in Public Administration-1993-Saint Louis University, MO
Prior Professional Experience (Last first): Current City Manager, Ferguson, MO-- Assist. City Manager, Decatur, IL—Econ. Dev. Director, Decatur, IL— Econ. Dev. Director, Woodstock, IL— Econ. Dev. Director, Decatur-Macon, IL

Questions that need to be asked and answered:
Who has a career in communities our size?
Who is accustomed to having a large staff?
Who is building a career?
Who has been the “head man” in several communities?
Who will use our limited revenues wisely?
Who is knowledgeable in the inner workings of a city our size?
Who has the knowledge to accurately evaluate the staff?
Who will have the support to do what needs to be done?

P.S. One of the candidates is an adjunct professor at CU-Denver as is our Mayor and the selection process may be only a ritual.

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Adams County Ballot Deception

I suggest you read the ballot issue proposed by the Adams County Board of Commissioners very carefully this election cycle. They are banking that you will skim through the ballot title and miss a major point. I am speaking about their request to extend the half percent sales tax for roads and bridges. Four years ago we said yes. Now they want to extend it for twenty years. Why?

The full amount of the current tax has been shared by the cities, towns and county for our mutual benefit. This time the Commissioners have chosen to neuter most of the benefits in favor of a personal pet project. If you approve the extension, only Forty percent of the revenue raised will go the roads, streets and bridges. The remaining Sixty percent will go a totally unrelated purpose.

In 1993 you first authorized the half percent sales tax for the new Justice Center. In 1997 you extended it for the Detention Facility. In 2001 it was extended for the street, road and bridges. Now they want to use sixty percent of the money primarily to construct a new “centralized government center”. Because of the major expense involved, they need to continue the tax for Twenty years.

If you feel that their request for the additional County facilities is needed after reading through the ballot issue, vote yes. I for one will vote no simply because of the underhanded deception. Most of us have every right to trust our elected officials. We generally do not pay attention to their every move and should not have to do so. Government officials need to rely on our faith in their judgment in order to operate. At the same time, as they rely on us to give them undying loyalty; we deserve the same. The Commissioners have broken our trust with this ballot issue.

In the ballot text they state that they want to continue the half percent sales tax for improvements to the roads and bridges. A quarter of the way down they mention justice center, a pre-trial holding facility and finally the centralized government center. When you have read half way down you will finally see that the roads and bridges will only get forty percent of the tax extension instead of the present one hundred percent.

Another subtlety lies in the fact that the “big” project, the new government facility, is listed third instead of first. After all, you supported the new justice center in 1993, a detention facility in 1997, and the roads and bridge improvements in 2001. Clever! Bury the major reason for a twenty year tax behind things you already supported. They are counting on our tendency to not read everything through to the end.

Now that you know what is included in the ballot issue; vote your conscience. The Commissioners broke faith and you know my vote.

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

No More Debt Without A Vote

On August 24th we filed a citizen initiated ordinance to stop the City Council from authorizing a multi-year debt, without a vote, to develop the land they have acquired from the City Hall and E.B. Rains Park northward to 120th Avenue. With Century Theatre asking to be excused from the land lease and the advent of some new, more extensive ideas by the Council majority, we are going to withdraw the submission and filed a revised initiated ordinance for the following reasons.
.
PROTECT THE GENERAL FUND SAVINGS
NO MORE DEBT WITHOUT A VOTE

(This ordinance applies only to the area from City Hall and E.B. Rains Park northward.)

A. The City diverted $7.4 million from the General fund’s operating departments and capital improvements projects for the purpose of land speculation in the Area.

B. The Auditor reported that street maintenance, overlays and construction activities did not meet established Standards. The Audit states that the City had a deficit financial program need of $2.4 million as of December 31, 2005. (Source: 2005 Financial Audit)

C. In an Executive Session with NURA on August 23rd the Council members discussed the demolition of City Hall and the Recreation Center following the construction of a new municipal building where the Century Theatre was proposed to be located. The information was disclosed by the Mayor at her following Monday coffee.

D. The General Fund savings (unreserved year-end balance) was only increased three million during 2005, from the five year low of $8,418,836 in 2004 despite the fact that:
1. The City cancelled the entire street maintenance program for 2005.
2. Voters disapproved of the issuance of debt for the recreation center.
.
Our ordinance will not hinder the City from developing the retail land with the on board developer. However, we do not want to see them enter into a debt situation that will delay the first penny of profit for 20 years.

Do you want a say in all of this or are you going to trust the Leadership?

Email: committee@northglennco.us

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Sewage Treatment Plant Odor

The Northglenn sewage treatment plant located on the county line between Adams and Weld Counties and just east of Interstate 25 has been a real stinker recently. Hot weather, gentle breezes and poor operation by the City are to blame.

The treatment lagoons utilize various types of bacteria including aerobic, facultative and anaerobic. The odors came from the anaerobic bacteria that usually thrive near the bottom of the lagoon and the residue they leave. When they and their by-products float to the surface because of operational neglect, they leave their aromatic signature for all to enjoy.

The State has a special form called the Annual Biosolids Disposal Report. Note the word Annual. When a resident in the general vicinity of the sewerage plant sent a letter to the local paper on August 24th, he complained that he could not obtain a reason or explanation for the odor. He tried to get answers from the City of Northglenn, the Weld County Health Department and three State agencies all to no avail.

As a frequent critic of the current Northglenn staff and council, I chose to file a formal request for information utilizing a State law on open records. The response was as I and another had expected. The city did not remove and dispose of the anaerobic sludge from the bottom of the lagoons in 2002, 2003, 2004 or 2005 per official records. I still have to verify whether or not sludge was removed this year. I doubt it.

By neglecting to remove the sludge on a timely basis, the city appears to have allowed it to accumulate to a level higher than the pipelines from the high volume vane air pumps. The forced air is what keeps all aerobic bacteria in the upper levels of the lagoons reproductive and hungry. When the anaerobic bacteria and sludge levels are above the air supply lines they are forced upwards toward the lagoon surface bringing the foul odors with them.

The former, experienced staff that operated and supervised the sewage treatment plant operated it according to the standard operating practices and State Law. However, many knowledgeable employees were laid off or moved on during the reign of the former City Manager. With the incompetent or inexperienced staff that Phil Nelson hired all that remains, it is no wonder that the sewage plant, our streets and our reputation has hit a new low not seen since the fiasco on the water system purchase and fallout.

It is well past time for the City Council to get some answers on this and resolve other problems with the staff before the new City Manager is hired. I pity the poor soul who takes the manager position. May he possess the necessary skills to clean up this mess. It will be a tough road and a real measure of his ability.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Audit Question Response

In response to a question concerning my documentation for the two previous postings, I would like to offer the following. You will have to go to City Hall and ask to inspect the 2005 audit.
.
For the posting concerning the year-end general fund balances see page 114. For the Auditor's comments on the co-mingling of federal monies and the capitalization of the sewage treatment plant look at the short letter to the Audit Committee. You may also listen to the Auditor's comments in the audio from the meeting of July 13th. This is available on the City's web site. You can also go directly to the Council agendas using the link on the right side of this site.
.
For the posting concerning the lack of adequate work on our streets, see page 66 in the Audit.

Saturday, September 02, 2006

2005 Audit Continued-Streets

In addition to the Auditor’s comments addressed in the previous posting, they were critical of one of our major reasons for having a city: Street Maintenance. Before I discuss the subject, you might want to click on the title of this posting. It will bring up a map shown to the City Council this July. If your street is purple (excellent) or deep blue (very good) be thankful for the efforts of the City Council, City Manager and staff that served you in 2001 and before. Once you are at the map, the arrows at the top will take you to the entire presentation. (Go forward and backward from the map page)

CAUTION: The PAVER system referred to in the presentation and by the Auditor is an objective tool used to evaluate the condition of a street that is predicated on the judgment of the city employees conducting the initial inspection.

Auditor’s statement: “During our review of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, we noted that in both 2004 and 2005, the repair and maintenance expenditures of the City did not meet the estimated required amount needed to maintain the street system at the originally determined level.” They went on to point out that the City must conduct an assessment in 2006. The City Council has agreed to the assessment and has set the minimum acceptance level at 70% which is the lowest point in the Very Good category.

The Auditor compared the conditions of the streets using the last two assessments: 2000 and 2003. It is also a comparison between the leadership teams of Parsons/Landeck versus Novak/Nelson. Here are the Auditor’s numbers for the streets that were not rated excellent or good:

Year 2000: Arterials 3.8% Secondary 7.4% Overall 6.6%
Year 2003: Arterials 20.7% Secondary 10.0% Overall 11.4%

The Auditor went on to tell us what we already knew in dollars. In 2004 and 2005 the City did not keep up with required maintenance. Here is a number to keep in mind when reviewing the following information. This year the Council authorized a street sealing program in the amount of $458,997.46. That’s it! The following comes from the Audit and covers the year 2005.

Arterial:.......Expenditures needed-$506,404. Actual spent-$169,424
Secondary:..Expenditures needed-$2,057,303. Actual spent-$0.00
Overall:.......Expenditures needed-$2,563,708. Actual spent-$169,424
Deficiency:..Expenditures needed: $2,394,284*
* In 2004 the deficient was $414,523. In 2001 the City was on the plus side: $273,158.





2005 Audit Comments

The City received the 2005 Audit in June of this year; two months later than normal. There were some interesting comments along with the status of the General Fund Year-End Balance. For perspective, the Balance represents our general fund savings account.

Here are the balances for 2000 through 2005: 2000-$17,774,778; 2001-$20,835,264; 2002-$20,222,105; 2003-$11,719,708; 2004-$8,418,836; 2005-$11,900,742. During 2005 many comments were made by us about the $12.4 million dollar deficit spending that occurred in 2003 and 2004.

We initially knew that city hall wages and personnel had bloated by thirty positions after Phil Nelson was hired as City Manager, but land speculation was the major single reason.

During those years, under Nelson’s and the Mayor’s leadership, over $5,999,000 was spent purchasing land and buildings north of the recreation center and Webster Lake. The land remains vacant today but big plans are in the hopper.

The Auditor also condemned the City Staff for co-mingling Federal grant money with the General Fund’s money in the niceness of terms.

“During our audit, we noted that the City does not track federal grant activity in a central series of accounts. We recommend that the City establish general ledger accounts specific to federal grants in order to better monitor such activity.”

On another subject the Auditor noted that the capitalization of the sewage treatment plant was not in accordance with acceptable procedures. Their advice was, “The City should analyze the plant project and capitalize the different systems separately, so that the various useful lives can be defined. For example, the heating and air conditioning system and certain mechanical systems used in the actual treatment process would have shorter lives than the building itself.”

Opinion: The fact that the Auditor pointed out these two deficiencies is indicative of a bigger problem in the City’s fiscal management and procedures.

A third comment by the Auditors concerning the condition of our streets will be addressed in the following posting.