Gene Wieneke

Friday, August 25, 2006

Bye Bye Century Theatre

Century Theater is gone or at least it wants out of the lease. Hooray! As former Councilmember Goodspeed pointed out when the lease was under consideration, the former city manager gave away the farm to convince them to anchor his retail development north of the recreation center. Nelson needed a replacement for the expanded recreation center that the voters killed. Unfortunately the vast majority (7 to 2) of the City Council supported him and massive commitments were made by the City.

It is a true blessing that Century’s new owner, Cinemark, has asked for the lease termination. The City will save millions by accepting unless the City Council offers the same expensive incentives to a new anchor. The staff and their private developer had previously contemplated an alternative to the theater. I wish them good fortune, but keep the incentives reasonable. I hope they remember that they are using money from the General Fund that finances almost all municipal operations save the Water and Sewer Utility Fund.

I have written many times about the theater since last October. My earliest posting dealt with the false, bogus, political, campaign ploy: The official groundbreaking. I had information that only 20% of the required plans for the building’s construction had been submitted and I passed it along to you. The senior staff and some of our elected officials knew the truth but choose to deceive you for political gain. Since then I have had to counter false claims about the theater posted on the City’s official web site several times. I did not obtain the smoking gun of proof until earlier this year but I am not disclosing it still today.

I hope the City will let them leave after recovering the hard costs it incurred per the lease. The City should be entitled to the staff’s time spent reviewing the plans that came in earlier this year. The Council and its lap dog, NURA, purchased only one parcel of land that was really needed according to the terms of the lease. The cost for the parcel in question was just over $382,000. The City also paid an outside consultant $9,700 to address some issues in the plans submittal. I am sure there were some other expenses but I hope the City Council will be reasonable in its request.

The City Council now has the opportunity to move on in its development plans and hopefully convince the voters that it has done its best as steward of the city’s future.

Thursday, August 24, 2006

City Council Conducts Illegal Secret Meeting

Last night the City Council met with NURA in executive session following the regular NURA meeting. No notice as required by City Charter and State law was posted at City Hall or on the City Council's Documents/Agenda web page as required.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Public Disclosure Still Requested

I have not received a response to the following request sent last May. I still believe that disclosure is in the public interest. Update: The Council did recently repay the Water Fund for the money used to purchase land. See one of the June 16th postings.

To: Mayor and City Council
fro: Gene Wieneke
Ref: S.E. Quadrant Development

I had intended on presenting my comments at the last regular, cancelled meeting. I am out of the city Thursday evening and therefore request that you accept my comments at this time.

You have already invested eight million dollars in land acquisition and building demolition and the Sinclair station is yet to come. You still have the expenses for the theater's infrastructure, street reconstruction and a major parking problem. And, in the eight million I have also not included the money you are now expending for revamping the 120th and Grant intersection or the six million you have in mind for a parking ramp.

You have financed your expenses thus far by using the Water Fund, General Fund and property tax collections from many of our existing businesses. Through all this you have not presented the public with a detailed plan for the recovery of these costs let alone the profit you expect to receive starting decades from now.

You have taken a lot of ill advised steps that have led you into a situation that needs to be thoroughly and publicly analyzed and discussed. I have sensed that your lack of concern over the huge amounts you have sunk into the area comes from the belief that NURA's property tax revenues will bail you out. Let me remind you that its property tax revenue is coming primarily from North Metro Fire, School District 12, Adams County and our General Fund. It is not free money for you to waste on a very bad investment.

I would now like to address your parking problem, knowing that you have considered some options privately. You still have one option that you can control easily. Instruct the staff and developer to eliminate a parking ramp from further consideration. In November of 2004, Phil Nelson estimated a ramp would cost 3.5 million and have an amortized annual payment of $300,000. Now you are considering a ramp costing six million dollars. You, we, cannot afford it.

If you ever expect to get a return on the current investment, a parking structure is out of the question. Follow through on the scenario where the theater patrons and your future retail stores customers share a parking lot at different times of the day. Another option you could consider is to seek a partial variance from the parking regulations on a temporary, renewable basis if necessary.

In summary I ask you to take the parking structure off the table immediately and make your plan to recoup the present investment public in full detail. I would like to be better informed and I am sure others feel the same. You might also ask yourselves if your development plan will stand up to the scrutiny of the electorate. And, please do not tell me that NURA makes it own decisions. We both know better.

Thank you
May 23, 2006

Friday, August 18, 2006

Council Direction on Ballot Issues

Last week the City Council members involved themselves in a social issue when they endorsed one of the fifteen ballot issues scheduled for the State-wide election this November. There are fourteen additional issues and only three of them will affect the operation of municipal government.

Referendum F modifies recall-election laws. Initiated Amendment 38 makes it easier to propose initiatives through out the State. Initiated Amendment 41 is intended to stop public employees from accepting gratuities. The remaining eleven are social and/or other issues unrelated to municipal government operations.

If the City Council wants to tell us the consequences of F, 38 and 41 from their standpoint, fine. But don't tell us how to vote on them and don't even comment on the other eleven issues. One mistake is enough and I have my own norms and mores just like you.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Three Updates

Last night the City Council agreed to delay the scheduled first reading of the Radio Amplification and seven building code ordinances along with the Licensing of Contractors ordinance that I discussed partially on August 4th. The staff had planned on presenting them for a first vote on the 24th. The Council will conduct one or more Study Sessions before moving forward.

Because I flagged certain sections, some of our Council members and the City Attorney took a look at the proposals and influenced the Building Official to remove the atrocious licensing of homeowners. There are many more “difficulties” to be addressed in the ordinances but we all will now have an opportunity to participate in some thoughtful consideration of the nine ordinances. I thank the Mayor and Council for their action.

The future and condition of the Recreation Center building is back on the Council’s table. The initiated ordinance I wrote which forced the January 18th election in 2005 has come into play again. The Council wishes to move forward on some rehabilitation and additions to the building but knows that public input is going to be necessary. In the near future they will be discussing exactly what type of projects they wish to put before the voters. Pay attention to their agendas and give them your advice.

Last summer I urged them to conduct a detailed, comprehensive and accurate survey of residents and we offered to assist in the process. That idea hit a brick wall. On this go around they will be seeking input but you will have to come to them. They are still not going to come to you through a survey. I guess that this does represent some progress.

When they are ready to move forward I hope they will not try to be “clever”. By this I mean bury some hot buttons projects in with some questionable projects and force you to vote yes or no on THE package. You know, something for everybody. Take the good with the bad. Take it or leave it. I hope they will give us multiple choices in the ballot on all free standing projects.

Lastly, I would like to discuss the 120th and Grant development. Over the last couple of years the Council has acquired a lot of property between Webster Lake, the Recreation Center and 120th Avenue. They have used the General Fund’s revenues and a million and a half from NURA to finance the purchases to the tune of $7,386,983. It is expected that another undisclosed sum under one million will be used to acquire the Sinclair station. Add to that the $1,391,713 now being used to reconstruct the intersection of 120th and Grant plus other street work in the area. The total investment thus far is just over $9,500,000.

Because Century Theater remains on the table as of today, the land lease approved in 2005, needs to be factored in to the overall development. Incidentally, the work that is about to begin at 120th and Grant is required to meet a commitment the City made in the ground lease. As part of the deal, the City agreed to make up the difference in parking requirements for the theater; several hundred spaces. The construction of a parking structure WILL be necessary or else too much land will be unavailable for the desired satellite retail stores. To the nine million above, add in another $6,000,000 per City estimates. The total thus far is $15,500,000 and this does not include the cost of borrowing the money to repay the General Fund, the remaining yet to be determined costs required by the land lease and the $100,000 plus to demolish the station and shopette.

Friday, August 04, 2006

A Proposed Licensing Requirement on You

In late July the Building Inspector presented nine ordinances related to building activities to the City Council for its consideration during August. One of them is titled “Licensing of Contractors”. It requires that all contractors working in the city be licensed in order to obtain building permits. This includes YOU unless you qualify for an exemption.

If you have the skills and wish to personally make any structural improvements to your home or building, you will not qualify for an exemption and you will need to test for and obtain a license. That applies regardless of whether or not you are an occupant or the owner.

For non-structural alterations or repairs, you can avoid the licensing requirement if the “value” of the improvements does not exceed the total of $1,000 per calendar year. What are non-structural alterations and repairs? Here are a few to get you thinking about your own situation: Replacement of a storm door, shingle repairs after a storm, installation of window awnings, insulation of a garage, construction of a shed or improvements to a patio, painting, re-installation of a hardwood floor, installation of new rain gutters, etc.

Here is the actual paragraph which establishes the criteria exempting you from the licensing as proposed by the building inspector. You are exempt if you are:

“An owner or occupant making alterations or repairs totaling less that $1,000 in any one calendar year to the building he or she owns or occupies, which repairs do not involve the structure of the building, if the owner or occupant furnishes all the materials.” [Section 10-18-2 (b) (2)]

For comparison, here is the exemption provision in effect in the City of Thornton: Section 10-116 (b) in part, “An owner performing work on such owner’s personal residence shall not be considered a contractor.” Note that there is no dollar or non-structural limitation.

Let’s say that our City Council adopts the ordinance and you have no choice but to obtain a license. Here are the requirements: Class B license, Annual fee of $100, Liability insurance policy in the amount of $500,000 and a passing score in a knowledge and skills examination yet to be devised by the Building Official. In addition, the Building Official may require you to furnish additional information with respect to your financial status. [Section 10-18-5 (c)]

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Concerned about leaving a comment?

Comments are always welcome and are read by myself and others. You will have an opportunity upon opening the comment entry screen to enter your name or chose Anonymous. The only way you will give your identity away is by using so many details that readers who already know you will be able to make an educated guess.

Please feel free and safe to leave comments at your pleasure.