This week I would like to summarize some actions and policies that were not taken or instituted by the Council during 2008.  Keep in mind that I have a much different perspective than the other members of the Council. At the same time, several share some of the disappointments.

The most recognized failure lies with the lack of development and return from the major investment in the vacant land between 120^th and the recreation building.  Two years ago, as a resident, I said that the firms the City engaged for the development were incompetent and did not have the horsepower.  The City Manager and Attorney did not insert an end date in the contract. 

What about the recreation building?  Council hired the same company to analyse the building’s conditions for the third time.  We’re still looking at over ten million dollars with no funding source available except voter approval of long term debt.  The North Metro’s Fire Chief reviewed our report and issued a compliance order that will divert over $1.5 million from the general fund. More debt.  An additional disappointment is that we haven’t even discussed what the long term plan is for the building.

Code enforcement still remains inconsistent and ineffective.  We have a staff larger than either Westminster or Thornton and still, the big issue for years, remains.  Staff works with residents in an effort to alleviate violations.  Extension after extension has only led to frustration and anger from the neighbors.  Council does not want to interfere with staff but when staff is ineffective, who can the residents turn to?

The Federal Community Development Block Grants are to be used for low-moderate income areas and individuals.  The City receives $200,000 per year.  During the last two years and this year we spent $100K in housing rehab with Brothers Redevelopment, a similar amount was used to pay salaries for code officers by the former city manager and $191K was given to NNDC for rehab work but returned.

The returned funds and balance of this year’s funds will be used to make elaborate improvements ($262K) to the Malley Street crosswalk and Highline Dr even though the traffic count does not even justify the passed over, $50K solution similar to what you see at the crosswalk on Huron, south of 112^th.  The last $150K will be used to hire a business to purchase and rehab one “empty” home for resale with the theory being that the process will be repeated from the profit.  I offered several suggestions for the CDBG funds that directly benefitted low income individuals and neighborhoods to no avail.

All city charters, just like state constitutions, are adopted at a time that a particular body of thought exists with regards to its provisions.  As the years pass, amendments are to be expected in order to address new issues and influences.  Per State law the charter is created by an elected body of twenty-one residents.  Last year we created a small review committee of half that number to evaluate provisions that might need revision and then sent them afloat without a compass or paddle.

Moving forward with a street side recycling program has been doomed thus far because it has been tied in with the quest for a one-man, polycart only refuse collection program.  I tried to separate the issues by suggesting that the best way to evaluate resident usage and to get the program moving was to retain a private hauler to operate a city sponsored test program.  With no real consensus I did not force the issue by scheduling it for a formal meeting and should have.

If I send you to Washington, what are you going to do for me and the country?  Well, I’ll listen to all sides, interest groups, lobbyist, and federal employees and make the best decision on your behalf.  The only real difference between that and city government is that we generally only hear from the employees, friends and a few motivated residents.  The Council was forced to make some cuts last year to meet our minimum fund balance.  As I stated in my last posting, we have many more cuts to now.  All of the cuts we made were suggested by the employees.  Council did not have any ideas of its own advanced.  It appears that the employees’ interests and yours are the same.

Other Disappointments:  Staff is still determining what issues will be considered by the Council and when with rare exceptions.  Rough service and program priorities have been established but the budget has not been changed to reflect them.  Council’s operational oversight of operations has only increased from non-existent to minuscule.  The only answer to our capital and maintenance needs is new debt and lots of it instead of limited debt repaid out of current revenues.

Know that your Council members are working together to address municipal issues and problems even though we have different values and perceptions of what YOU want.  Remember what and who we listen to and don’t be afraid to let all of us know your priorities.  Neither the employees nor you have a trump card but each has part of the deck.

After one year as a member of the Northglenn City Council, I would like to summarize a few actions taken by Council that I feel are a positive change from the culture that has existed since 2001. With the addition of Ervin Baker and me, the three existing members who frequently called for change now had a majority on some key issues. 

In January we reduced the City Manager’s unilateral spending authority in half and prohibited the hiring of a new Deputy Manager.  The latter decision saved the city $138,000 per year and the first required the Manager to obtain Council approval for expenditures over $25,000.

A couple months later the Council shook up the staff when some members read and questioned the staff’s recommendation to rehabilitate the shoreline of Webster Lake.  Staff had received a sealed bid in the amount of $47,558 in early December but recommended awarding the low bidder a contract for $183,943 for a greatly enlarged project.

When I and others questioned the staff’s recommendation on new financial software purchase, a very public debate incurred in the press and blogs.  We were successful in obtaining new bids.  Staff got their vendor and Council’s actions saved over $300,000.

As the two examples demonstrate, staff is now aware that some members of the Council are reading and evaluating their recommendations or as otherwise stated; fulfilling their responsibility to the residents.  Some members of staff have embraced the new scrutiny and some have voluntarily left.  The quality of the recommendations and the thoroughness of review have made for better governance.

In the second quarter of the year the Council conducted a two day retreat that resulted in the subsequent adoption of a Code of Conduct and Protocols for our relationship with each other and with the staff.  I think the two most important and successful norms have been to not question each other’s motives and to debate, decide and move on. 

On August 28^th we unanimously finalized an ordinance that took back a delegation of authority that should never have been approved years earlier.  The Council is once again in control of employee wages and all benefits.  The question for tomorrow is whether we will use it or defer to staff’s recommendations.  Salary surveys and wage increases have occurred each and every year while the City’s ability to pay without adversely impacting projects and services has yet to be considered.

We were also dealt a few lemons that the Council and staff addressed in a positive manner.

The 2007 Council adopted a budget for 08 that intentionally over spent the general fund in the amount of $5.9 million.  In addition, (1) The finance staff forgot to account for the sales tax incentive payments previously committed that enticed three major retailers to the city.  (2) The finance staff over estimated 08 sales tax revenues. (3) The finance staff did not adjust the starting balance in the 2008 general fund to match the audited yearend balance from 2007.  The three errors by the former Finance Director and Manager amounted to an additional deficit of $2.0 million.

On the positive side, when Acting Manager Allen learned of the shortage he took immediate action with the concurrence of Council to cut 08 expenses successfully.   With his and then Acting Manager Hayes’s help Council was then able to draft and approve a 2009 temporary budget that only over spends the general fund in the amount of $876,649. Even with this deficit we will remain above our self-imposed minimum of a 25% fund balance. The third error was not known January 29^th and will be addressed, along with the recession during February and early March.

On October 23^rd Mayor Novak and I sponsored a resolution recognizing the uncertainty of the economy and its potential impact on the City. With the recession at hand, the majority of Council members knew the budget we would be approving would require substantial modification in early 2009.  In the resolution the employee pay plan and individual pay steps were frozen. Additionally, all hiring was frozen pending Council exceptions for budgeted positions and Council agreed to revisit the soon to be adopted budget during the first quarter of 2009.

We will be addressing the third error of $646,800 in the immediate future. A truly balanced general fund is only $1,523,449 away assuming the recession does not deepen and revenue projections hold. The Council and City Manager Simmons are poised and determined to make 2009 a successful year.  Meanwhile, next week I’ll look back on the negative side of 2008.

Three weeks ago Rosie Garner attacked some of us on Council in the Sentinel and I responded two weeks ago.  Now we have more.

I’m not going to argue over the vacant city positions I discussed two weeks ago in response to her.  I stood before the residents of Ward Four, including her, on the 6th, and stated the same information.  I will respond to her new allegation in the Sentinel concerning the departed city engineer.

I am not going to use his name for a reason as you will soon see.  For several years I have criticized his judgment and common sense in developing city construction projects including the “park” along west 104th avenue. 

On August 13th I was surprised to receive an email from him in which he proposed leaving under two conditions.  I agreed to them personally and relayed his request to the Council.  The Council found the nature of the requests out of the ordinary and referred them to the Acting City Manager without recommendation or prejudice.  They came to an arrangement without any interference, Rosie, and you knew that.

My part of the personal deal related to my various blog postings over the years.  I agreed and subsequently took his name out of all of them in order to protect his career from the search engines.

Rosie’s letter mentioning the engineer’s departure really shocked me because he and she have been very close for years.  She abused their friendship and put him into the spotlight just to attack me.  What a friend.

Would you intentionally plan on over spending your annual salary by 23% percent each year just because you had the money in the savings and didn’t want to give up any of your “feel good” activities?  The City of Northglenn has for years.  I’ll finish up with some surprising numbers; but first.

The City Council experienced a change in direction during the first six months of this year.  I hope those of you who follow city activities are pleased with the progress thus far.  There were several five to four and six to three votes early on but the consensus building continues.

There will be more split votes as we face some hard financial decisions.  Individual members, just like residents, have their own set of core values and differences will continue, but we will be professional in our deliberations. Whenever there is change there is generally conflict but we will continue working through it for the good of the residents.

Here are some decisions that I feel are in keeping with your wishes.  Term limits on the members of the appointed, advisory commissions and boards was killed.  Council increased it oversight of expenditures by decreasing the manager’s unilateral spending authority from fifty to twenty-five thousand dollars per purchase.  A ballot issue was authorized for this November which will eliminate further controversial decisions by lame-duck councils as happened last November.

It took some split votes and shocked a few staff members but we’ve saved a few dollars. Three examples:  The prior Council’s $500,000 budget to beautify the soon to be reconstructed 104th Ave. bridge and approaches was cut in half.  By directing that the position of Deputy Manager not be filled, a $100,000 was saved.  Temporarily blocking the staff’s request to purchase Springbrook’s Software until Innoprise Software was fairly evaluated saved $440,000. 

The Council has also taken some major steps to upgrade staff performance in the procurement process.  Last November staff obtained a low bid on a project for $49,000 and asked Council in March to use the bid to award an expanded contract amounting to $180,000.  Council thought it was unethical and sent it back to staff for rebidding.

On another project, the specifications were so loose that one company bid $87,919 using one technique for cleaning and sealing arterial fences and another bid $217,615 using different techniques.  Both met the staff member’s specifications.  Council sent it back to staff for new specifications and bids.

Deficit Spending:  The 2008 budget adopted by the old Council shows general fund revenues of $21,466,156 and expenditures of $26,478,933.  The deficit of $4,932,987 is covered by the year-end fund balance.  At the end of 2001 the fund balance was just over $17.1 million.  At the end of last year it was down to $9.5 million.  If the budget is followed, it will be $4.6 million at the end of this year.  Next year? Help!

The Council Members spent two days together in early April for the purpose of discussing their working relationship and a joint approach addressing various municipal issues.  For the last two months you have seen one result; meeting decorum.  This last Saturday we met with staff and shared our priorities from the April retreat.

TOP PRIORITY
120th Development—Recreation Center—Street Funding—Water Rights and Services—Empty Grocery Stores

HIGH PRIORITY
Comprehensive Master Plan—Solid Waste Collection and Recycling—Prioritization of City Services—Code Enforcement—Water and Sewer Infrastructure—Financial Software

MODERATE PRIORITY
Northglenn Neighborhood Development Corp—Foreclosures—Marketplace Long-Term Strategy—City Cost Reduction Plan

For the Top and High Priorities the Council has already identified Key Issues and Work elements to be pursued.  It should be kept in mind that the prioritization was based on current circumstances and thought at the time.

While members of the Council will differ on the ways and means of accomplishing the desired outcomes, I believe we will do so in a collaborative manner.  You will see the above information, with more detail, on the City web page in the very near future.

On the evening of May 22nd the Council met in two executive sessions for the purpose of discussing two unrelated subjects.  The following morning AJ Krieger agreed to submit his resignation effective that day after a settlement agreement was negotiated.  The two previous managers resigned in early 2001 and February 2006.

Former Council member, Rosie Garner, was a participant in the 2006 resignation and directly involved in issues surrounding Mr. Krieger last fall. In a letter to the Northglenn-Thornton Sentinel and in a mass email, she is back on the campaign trail again.  This time she is evidently claiming a bad memory.  Let me help.

Come on, Rosie, you are summoning residents to the June 12th Council meeting to object to an action that you, yourself, took in February 2006.  Then as it is now, the Council united in a super majority for the purpose of requesting a resignation from a sitting manager.

On the 12th the Council will listen to residents; some of which you have incited to heap accolades on Mr. Krieger while condemning us. Questions: Would you have formed an opinion after discussing all the details in private and then break faith with the other eight because of an orchestrated public protest?

Would you have taken the confidential information at your disposal and made it public? You didn’t and We will not either.   Your current mudslinging is no different or anymore accurate than it was last fall so keep pitching into the wind.  The members of this Council want to move forward together.  Try helping instead of campaigning.

From what I’ve read, Rosie has a good idea of why Mr. Krieger is resigning. Since she personally fought to increase the amount of severance pay that can not be the reason she is rallying people to attend the meeting.

Due to her admiration for certain members of the staff, including Mr. Krieger, she cannot be encouraging him to withdraw the resignation. It makes no sense for him to take a termination without health insurance.  Since she voted for Nelson’s resignation package in 2006, it can’t be that she doesn’t understand the process.

Less than a month after the residents turned her out of office, and a month before I took office, she started her public campaign to regain it through a recall election.  She needs to distort the record and create justifications for the petition. She also needs to demonstrate her power to motive residents while testing the waters.  The shoe does fit.

Questions on any subject?  gwieneke@comcast.net or (303) 457-0858

The issue of purchasing new software for the City is coming to a conclusion following some vicious, inaccurate attacks in the blogosphere and some discussions at meetings of the City Council.  Some of the attacks contain blurbs of information known only to the Council and staff. Is Innoprise the lowest responsible bidder as required by the Charter?

A month before I became a member of the Council, a resident informed me that Innoprise had some serious issues with city staff. In a phone conversation, Mr. Harward said that he was told that he would lose the contract on the Sales Tax software if he talked to anyone about why he was not being considered further for the entire package.  On February 4th, Brent Worthington cancelled the purchase as threatened in an email.

The second allegation is far more serious. I have verified the following from two separate, unrelated sources.  A department head member of the team selecting the software company stated that, Innoprise will not be considered for the contract if Scott S. comes anywhere near the City.  He made the statement to staff before the selection process began. Who is Scott S.?  He is an employee of Innoprise who formerly worked for the City.

Not surprisingly, during the selection process, the team members compiled over thirty “concerns” they developed during Innoprise’s demonstration.  Many of them were misleading and inaccurate and others begged for the question to be asked.  Nevertheless, they were submitted to the Council without review or correction.  I personally verified with the staff’s consultant this last Friday that the compilation had inaccurate and false allegations and that she had so informed staff members of the same at the time.

On April 17th Innoprise had an opportunity to demonstrate the software at the request of Council in a study session. The staff sat almost at a right angle to the screen and showed their disinterest. The Council had, after all, ordered the demonstration after they had submitted their recommendation.

Several days earlier I asked the City Manager if the staff was going to participate in the demo by asking questions or for clarifications.  He said they would only be in attendance and it turned out that they were bumps on a log.  It was a shame because Innoprise demonstrated programs that refuted many of the false staff “concerns” one by one.

Is Innoprise the lowest responsible bidder as required by Charter? Based on information submitted by the City Manager to the Council on May 1st; he stated that Springbrook had the lower price.  WRONG.  In reality Innoprise is lower by over a hundred thousand and that does not include the $105,000 discount offered by Innoprise earlier in the week but not detailed to Council in the email or a separate email hours after the details were received.

Furthermore, the Innoprise proposal is one all inclusive price.  The staff’s recommended vendor’s contract (Springbrook) has a slew of additional charges and limits that have not been shared with the Council.   Additionally, Springbrook could not provide the required sales tax module but the Manager did not take that into consideration in his email. 

What was staff’s reaction to the missing module?  We’ll go without a new one and let the present program “stand alone.” In his email, the Manager did not inform the Council he was comparing apples to oranges or include the additional costs required to maintain a dual system of servers. That cost alone is over $15,000 per year until the sales tax software is replaced.

Is Innoprise the lowest “responsible” bidder?  The one module that Innoprise did not have ready last November, and which was not required by staff until February (Award Date), was Payroll/HR.  Starting in February the complete software package, including Payroll/HR is or has been purchased by the Councils of Broomfield, Erie, Greenwood Village, Loveland, Louisville, Sheridan and Cheyenne. Brighton is following suit.

The Councils of the following neighboring cities have also purchased individual modules: Boulder, Littleton, Lone Tree and Greeley.

The Council has leveled the playing field for Innoprise and now we will debate the merits and true costs of both bidders.

At the meeting of March 13th, the City Council unanimously agreed to partially restart the selection process for new financial software.  While not all members agreed, the action was taken in order to address an alleged conflict in the selection process and a disagreement over the age of the software architecture.
 
The company recommended by the staff, Springbrook Software of Portland Oregon, was challenged by several members of the Council, including myself, due to the outdated eighties software platform and the lack of city clients in the State except for Fruita.  Springbrook’s software uses “.net” or what is commonly called client server based architecture.

This means a copy of the programs must be physically present on every desk top running the applications.  They try to overcome this limitation by introducing “thin-clients” using terminal servers or Citrix servers.  The City spent close to $250,000 trying to implement a thin-client solution previously but the strategy was abandoned in December of 2005.

The software company that was not carried through the entire process by the staff, Innoprise Software, Inc. of Broomfield’s package runs on Java (J2EE), which is the latest and greatest thing in client server software. They also use My-SQL as their database engine. Both of these technologies are state of the art. My-SQL is open source and that could save the City a considerable amount of money.

Neighboring Cities using Innoprise software include:  Broomfield, Louisville, Lone Tree, Greenwood Village, Loveland, Littleton, and Erie.  Cities seriously considering some Innoprise software besides the Northglenn Council include Brighton, Lakewood, Englewood, Sheridan, Greeley and Cheyenne, WY.

The top three software companies were contacted to participate in additional demos this last week.  Springbrook declined in as much as they have appeared before the Council on two occasions.  Munis/Tyler declined.  Innoprise accepted. Arrangements are being made for a demo at the present time.  The software purchased will be expected to serve the City for ten years. With a total cost of over half of a million dollars, we need to get it right.

I would like to acknowledge the technical expertise of Tom Pond for information previously received that I have used in this article.

A meeting of the City Council was held at one o’clock pm on Sunday in City Hall on February 10th.  Notice of the meeting was posted Friday and the local newspaper received personal notice.  The Sunday meeting was agreed to, publicly, at the meeting held Thursday evening.

The meeting was held to receive legal advice on an urgent personnel matter resulting from the executive session of the Council scheduled for the 7th.  Upon returning from the private meeting, Mayor Novak and two members of the Council refused to reconvene the public meeting; choosing instead to leave City Hall.  With two other Council members absent for the evening, the refusal of the three to participate left the remaining members without a quorum.

I was one of the two members required per Charter that called for the executive session on the 7th to consult with the attorney concerning several matters; one of which occurred the previous week.  With only thirty days under my belt as a member of council, my participation was a difficult decision.  I felt that circumstances in city hall required action before incidents occurring in 2007 and continuing to this date escalated.

The agenda for the Sunday meeting was, “Consideration of action regarding City Manager Employment Agreement with miscellaneous follow-up items.”  The meeting was packed due to the calls “to save the city manager” from some members of the Council and their residents.  All of this was not new to the City Manager because he faced the same public conflict while serving the city he left to come here.

One of the members, Susan Clyne, revealed some of the reasons the meeting was being held and chastised the Manager for his past behavior.  She then offered an amendment to the main motion to establish a corrective action program instead of termination.  Neither the Manager’s supporters nor detractors were willing to compromise at the last second.  As a result, the motion to terminate was defeated five to four.  Due to the nature of the strife in city hall I was one of the four.

As a new member of the City Council, I now know the motive behind the manager’s increase in severance pay that was rammed through in December by the old Council.  They should have addressed the issue rather than providing him with additional severance, looking the other way and putting the yoke on the new Council. As it stands now, the City Manager has heard the very public comments and warning about future dealings with the staff and public.  Let the peace begin in the seat of our local government.

The Council has made a decision and it is necessary for all parties to move forward.  We have much to do and are years behind in taking a new, progressive path.

Let’s recall Gene right now.  Darn, we can’t even file a recall petition until after July 10th.  I guess it’s time to build a case on “what he is going to do” and let’s start before he is sworn in.

What’s our strategy? I know, create a monster in people’s mind and then tear him down.  Exaggerations, fabrications and even total lies are acceptable because no one will be able to track down the source.  The outcome of the election was a big mistake and we need to right the ship as soon as possible.  Any technique to accomplish our goal is acceptable in hard-ball politics.

There is another thing we could do between now and July utilizing the old saying about separating the kernel from the chaff.  We have seen his campaign issues on his web site, wardfour.info.  We can take his positions and allege that they will lead to alarming conclusions.  To that we will make up some additional predictions.

When he actually votes for one of the issues he does support, we can then say, I told you so.  We have proof that he will do all the things we have alleged.  The residents will never take the time or be able to separate the kernel from the chaff.  This hard-ball technique will also have another benefit; blackmail.  If he doesn’t back off from pursuing his goals for the city, we can use our fabrications in the recall election.  We’ll get him.

I have been reading other blogs, comments and taking phone calls for several days now trying to get to the bottom and source of the campaign that has been leveled at me.  I criticized the council for their lame duck actions using three examples.  All of the sudden it was turned into something entirely different for future political gain. 

In this posting I tried to put a spotlight on what has been going on, and what to look forward to in the days ahead.  Like anyone else would, I ask for three things.  Please wait until I get in office and then judge my voting record.  Second, Ward Four residents have my email and phone number so just ask.  Third, separate the kernel from the chaff. Thanks

Because the City is conducting a Mail-in Ballot with Adams County there will be no polling places this election.  As of July, 1467 registered voters in Ward Four will not receive a ballot in the mail.  They will have been disenfranchised do to one of three reasons.

One:  They did not vote in last year's state-wide election at their present address.  Two:  They received a card in February from the County noting that they had not voted, and did not return it.  Three:  The card was returned by the postal service because they had moved from their registered address.

Before October 12th, an inactive voter can go to the County's Westminster election office at 1865 w. 121st Ave-Suite 600 to reconfirm their active status.  They will then receive a ballot through the mail. For questions, call (303) 654-6030.  After the 12th they will required to go to one of the County's election offices, reconfirm their status, and pick up a ballot.