Paging Ted Stevens: Jeffco's Bridge to Nowhere

by: Jeffco Pols

Fri Nov 11, 2011 at 11:11:00 AM MST

Clark centers his story on the pedestrian bridge located at Wadsworth Boulevard and Bowles Avenue in South Jeffco, which links Southwest Plaza and Bowles Crossing shopping centers. We've seen that bridge before, but we've never seen anybody actually use it. Neither mall is really vibrant, and we have a creeping suspicion that the bridge will remain standing much longer than the shipping centers it links.

The most bizarre aspect of this story, though, is that Jefferson County can't even justify the $3 million they spent on the bridge. At least, they can't justify it privately.

From 9News:

As Jefferson County publicly defended a $3 million pedestrian bridge at Wadsworth Boulevard and Bowles Avenue as a "lasting asset," the county's engineer on the project privately acknowledged it was expensive and unnecessary, 9Wants to Know has learned.

Internal emails obtained by 9Wants to Know using Colorado Open Records Act show county officials struggling to justify the pedestrian bridge, completed in the spring of 2011 using a combination of federal and local tax dollars.

The bridge spanning Wadsworth just north of Bowles, connects two aging shopping malls, Southwest Plaza and Bowles Crossing. Some citizens, including resident Gary Michelson, have dubbed it: "The Bridge To, And From, Nowhere."

When Michelson wrote to county leaders calling the bridge a "terrible waste of funds," he received a stock answer from project engineer Brad Bauer that was similar to the two-page defense of the project sent to other concerned citizens. In one such response, Bauer writes the bridge will be a "lasting asset" that will "significantly improve the pedestrian safety at the intersection."

That is not what the county's point-man on the project was saying behind the scenes.

After an email exchange with Michelson, Bauer emailed his supervisor on June 22 saying he was "having a hard time coming up with any good response," adding that he could agree with Michelson's points about "the bridge being an expensive unnecessary expense."

Just to make it clear: the liaison for the project is unable to respond to constituent complaints about the bridge, because he agrees with them.

Clark interviews Kevin French, with Jeffco's Transportation and Engineering Department, and French is about as eloquent as Rick Perry in his most recent debate performance. You really have to watch the interview to get the full effect, but French doesn't really answer any of Clark's questions. When asked how French's department can justify, well, their justification of the bridge to concerned taxpayers, French responds "it's the best we have." That's the answer he finally comes to, at least, after first responding that he "wasn't sure he had a good answer to that." If you're a big fan of deer caught in headlights, it's a must watch.

This is one of the most asinine government decisions we've ever seen, and that's saying something for Jefferson County. $3 million for a bridge? The August 2009 resolution which Clark discusses is even worse: then Commissioners Kevin McCasky and Kathy Hartman voted for it, as did current Commissioner Faye Griffin.  They approved an "expenditure of an amount not to exceed $376,600.00 to Muller Engineering Company, Inc. for final design, and additional services as needed."

Nearly $400,000 for the "final design," huh? 400 grand for a couple of drawings of a bridge? We assume the "additional services as needed" are in case Muller Engineering ran out of graph paper or erasers.

This is an important story for champions of good, transparent government, of course. But it also carries with it political implications. The folks in south Jeffco - those who see this bridge during their daily commutes - historically support the election of Republicans to the Board of Commissioners. But this same bridge, this "monument of government waste," was approved with the votes of Republicans Kevin McCasky and Faye Griffin. If the vote on this bridge was before 2008's election, we're not sure if McCasky could've recovered.

Jim Moore Shown the Door

by: Jeffco Pols

Fri Dec 11, 2009 at 15:55:44 PM MST

Jefferson County administrator Jim Moore has been fired, weeks after the county paid out $766,000 related to age- and sex-discrimination cases involving him.

The three commissioners voted unanimously Wednesday night to oust Moore, who assumed his position four years ago and was on track to earn about $150,000 this year.

Commissioners declined to comment. Jeffco spokeswoman Kathryn Heider said the reasons for the firing would not be revealed because it is a personnel matter. The commissioners met in secret to discuss their decision, then voted in public on the firing, as required by Colorado law.

Moore's firing also came only hours after a federal jury delivered a verdict in favor of Mike Zinna, who sued former commissioner Jim Congrove for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights. Moore testified on behalf of Zinna.

Moore could not be reached for comment.

Ralph Schell, director of the county's open-space department, has been named interim administrator. He said Thursday that he "was looking forward to the new challenge."

Commissioners Want to Limit Bicycle Access

by: Jeffco Pols

Wed Jul 22, 2009 at 16:04:32 PM MST

Amid the controversy over a proposed charity bicycle event on Deer Creek Canyon Road, the Jeffco commissioners will propose state legislation that would give them more authority to bar cyclists from some county roads altogether.

Conflict between motorists and cyclists is nothing new on the canyon roads west of South Jeffco in the foothills. But a recent battle over using a portion of Deer Creek Canyon Road for a September fund-raising event has spurred the commissioners to seek broader authority in making some roads off limits to cyclists. The county attorney's office will draft the legislation soon, and the county will try to get a legislator to sponsor it in the 2010 legislative session.

"This morning the board recognized that we have severe issues in Deer Creek Canyon and in other areas," Commissioner Kevin McCasky said June 30 at a hearing on whether the September cycling event would receive a special-use permit.

McCasky was the only commissioner who voted to approve the event, saying that denying the event was penalizing it "for the sins" of earlier cyclist-motorist squabbles. He said that the county would seek powers to "regulate authority over the behavior of cyclists and motorists (on county roadways) all year."

Commissioner Faye Griffin said after the hearing that the plan is in the idea stage, and nothing formal has occurred. But the debate over cycling on some roads showed the commissioners that they need more power, she said.

"We need to look at (laws) that make certain roads in the county (unusable) by bike traffic," Griffin said. "We're saying to our lobbyist to look at the possibility of having some discretion on what roads can have bike traffic and which cannot. Right now there's clearness for cities, but we can't find that the county can say that."

County Attorney Ellen Wakeman said state law gives cities and incorporated towns authority to regulate cycling on roads, but the law is unclear when it comes to counties. Legislation her office will craft in the coming weeks would add counties to the list of governments that can regulate cyclists and their road use.

Term Limit Extension Causes Internal Controversy

by: Jeffco Pols

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 12:49:27 PM MST

A ballot measure to extend term limits for Jeffco elected officials (except county commissioners) may be headed for the ballot -- but not without controversy. As The Columbine Courier reports:

An effort by Jeffco District Attorney Scott Storey to extend term limits for his office might be over before the question even goes to voters.

Storey, who began his second term in January, has been trying to get support to extend limits for his and the sheriff's office to three terms, or 12 consecutive years. Current law allows for two consecutive terms, or eight years, for all Jefferson County elected officials.

Storey needs voters' approval to extend term limits, and he could either get on the November ballot by petition, or the question could be placed on the ballot with a majority vote by the county commissioners.

But Commissioner Kevin McCasky is blocking Storey from getting on the commissioners' agenda to ask for a formal vote on the issue, as long as the ballot question pertains only to the district attorney and the sheriff.

"I sit here a frustrated and confused elected official," Storey said at a meeting of the county's elected officials May 14. He detailed his efforts to reach out to all three commissioners to discuss his proposal, and presented a May 10 e-mail he sent to the commissioners formally asking to be on an upcoming agenda for an up or down vote. He said he never got a response from the commissioners.

"I get the message that Commissioner McCasky refuses to allow the district attorney or the sheriff to be on that agenda," Storey said. "I'm obviously a little confused and frustrated by that."

"The feedback that I'm getting is that the only person who wants to be on the ballot is you," McCasky said to Storey. "I believe this is a matter of general governance. Any ballot question is going to include every (elected official)."

McCasky said that although he is the commission's chairman and has "great deference" in setting the agenda, the board rules by majority, implying that a majority of the commissioners didn't want Storey on the agenda.

Storey asked Commissioner Faye Griffin if she voted to keep him off the agenda.

"I did not understand what was going on," Griffin said. "I have no problem putting that on the agenda."

Why the animosity between McCasky and Storey? Because McCasky hasn't been shy about his desire to try to extend his own term limits, since he officially ends his second term in 2012 and doesn't have a higher-profile race that he could successfully run for after that. McCasky is desperate, and if they approve term limit extensions for other elected officials, he can't very well come back to the voters later to ask for commissioners, too.

At the May 14 meeting, McCasky told Storey that extending term limits is a question bigger than any individual.

"This isn't about you, and it isn't about (Sheriff) Ted Mink," McCasky said. "We all ran knowing we had term limits. If term limit extension is appropriate for one elected official, it's appropriate for all."...

...After the meeting, McCasky said voters should be able to decide about extending term limits in "one fell swoop" for all elected officials, and that he's not backing down from his position. He said he'd support a ballot question that has three questions on extending term limits: one for the district attorney, one for the commissioners, and one for the rest of the elected officials. As of right now, many of the elected officials don't want their offices listed on a ballot question to extend term limits, McCasky said.

Colorado voters established term limits for all local elected offices by approving Amendment 17 in 1994. Since then, 53 counties have successfully removed or extended term limits for one or more offices, according to Colorado Counties Inc., a lobbying group. All term limits remain in place for Jeffco officials.

Efforts Continue to Raise Developer Fees

by: Jeffco Pols

Mon Jun 22, 2009 at 12:43:21 PM MST

A plan to increase Jeffco's development fees is moving forward after a June 9 hearing that highlighted county leaders' different philosophies on who should be paying development-related costs.

Tim Carl, the county's development and transportation director, has been trying since March to persuade the county commissioners to raise the fees. He has said the county's development-related fees rank 13th out of 15 metro area counties and cities, and that his department is spending more money on development than it brings in. Without any change, county taxpayers would have been paying $2.2 million annually in costs related to development. Taxpayers already pay $1.7 million.[Pols emphasis]

But starting July 1, fees will increase 9 percent for developers, and then between 2 and 3 percent annually until 2014. Fees will then jump another 6 percent, for a total increase of 25 percent by 2015.

County residents will still bear 75 percent of development-related costs, but it marks a change from the current rate structure, which leaves taxpayers paying about 85 percent.

"County fees have remained relatively low," Carl said at a June 9 public hearing.

"I do believe general government activity is to be funded by general government revenue," Commissioner Kevin McCasky said June 9. McCasky has been the most vocal opponent of raising fees, citing bad economic timing and the fact that because the county requires developers to adhere to guidelines, the county should pay for enforcement. McCasky voted in favor of the fee hike June 9.

Commissioner Kathy Hartman said her yes vote on the proposal doesn't mean she's OK with taxpayers funding development.

"I'm going to vote yes because I think 25 percent is an improvement over 7 percent," Hartman said June 9. "But I don't feel 25 percent is adequate." She said that when the economy improves, the county should further raise fees on development to get more of the burden off taxpayers. "(The taxpayers' 75 percent burden) is inappropriate, but it's better than where we are today."...

...Carl and his staff have been trying to get the fee increases approved since March, when the original plan to hike fees was presented to the commissioners. The original plan called for raising fees an average of 25 percent per year through 2011, after which fees would be frozen for three years. In 2014, the fees would then be set according to the consumer price index.

Carl said the county subsidizes the vast majority of costs associated with development. A few examples: The current cost for a preliminary residential plat under the county's subdivision guidelines is $300. Carl originally wanted to boost that fee to $400 in 2009, $600 in 2010 and $1,200 in 2011. Carl said the county's actual cost, in terms of staff salary and benefits, is $3,301.

Wow. Just...wow. Jefferson County ranks 13th out of 15 Metro Counties in the amount of fees that the public is forced to pay for private development (Denver, for example, makes developers pay 100% of the fees), but the developer-controlled Commissioner McCasky won't back down.  

Denver Post: Turn off the Jeffco Cash Spigot

by: Jeffco Pols

Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 10:37:49 AM MST

A pool of bonus money without strict rules on how to award it sounds to us like a slush fund. Jeffco ought to take a cue from Denver, which awards bonuses and merit pay for initiatives with specific and measurable goals - projects the mayor approves ahead of time.

Jeffco officials say they use the term "bonus pay" as a catch-all. It could include compensation for taking on additional duties or a one- time lump sum. Nomenclature aside, as we mentioned before, this country has been in a recession since December 2007. No matter what you call such adjustments, they're tough to justify in this environment.

And the county has been aware of issues with the bonus pay system. In 2005, Jeffco hired a firm to do a compensation study - a task the company failed to complete. For the record, the county did not pay the firm a dime. Another firm was hired, and a new study is in under way.

At the end of 2006, then-treasurer Paschall allegedly offered a $25,000 bonus to a top aide with the promise that she split the post-tax proceeds with him. Two juries deadlocked on a charge of compensation for past official behavior and prosecutors declined to try Paschall a third time. At the time, officials said they were considering bonus policy changes.

We hope the county follows through this time and puts into place a unified and justifiable system. In the meantime, it might help if officials turned off the cash spigot.