ISSUE # 32 ... EXPOSE: THE BURLINGAME BACK STORY

by Marilyn Marks

"If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed." - Mark Twain

The shameful Burlingame "back story" is one that the local papers did not weave together to give the citizens a complete picture of the wrongs against the taxpayers, the housing fund, and the community support for affordable housing. It is a distressing tale of:
-falsified audit findings
-dishonesty
-likely election law violations
-phony cost studies
-corruption
-elected officials' purposeful misrepresentations
-abusive treatment of private citizens
-cover ups
-reckless squandering of tens of millions of taxpayer funds
-cronyism
-incompetence, and
-gross mismanagement.

Apparently, this was acceptable behavior to our current City Council, which has failed to denounce these unacceptable standards of governance. Burlingame is an embarrassing story for Aspen. Most citizens have no idea just how ugly this scandal is-partly because we as a community don't want to believe that it is true.

If you are still in Burlingame Burnout Mode -- scroll to the last paragraph for the 3-Minute Summary, which is supported by the facts specified between here and there! (or click here:3 MINUTE SUMMARY)

As the election season begins, it seems the appropriate time to consider the leadership culture in Aspen. The untold story of Burlingame is one place to start to offer some spotlight on problems that we cannot continue to ignore.We are frequently told, "move on, look forward, not backward," which to The Red Ant is code for "don't hold people accountable." We believe that accountability is key to democracy - so we will always seek to shine a bright light on the truth.

The Burlingame story is our own little Aspen Watergate. Just as Watergate was not the story of a petty break-in, Burlingame is not the story of affordable housing budget overruns. The public has had only spotty and disjointed exposure to the bits and pieces of this hideous puzzle. I write this detailed account for those who do care to consider more information -- although this is far from all of it.

Watergate, like any complex government scandal, can't be thoroughly explained or exposed in 10 paragraphs -- and neither can Burlingame. The local papers were hesitant to investigate or report too fully, particularly when Burlingame burnout began to affect the public. And perhaps Mick Ireland's and Jack Johnson's outrageous temper tantrums were just too vitriolic to bring upon the pressroom.

So, having had a little break from the Burlingame story, and when Mick and Jack's emotional outbursts are likely to be controlled by election season considerations, perhaps now's the time to tell the "back story." I will tell the story from my perspective as one of the chief critics of the government's handling of this governance and financial disaster. Obviously, I have my personal biases, but you can easily check all of the facts for yourself. The reference materials are footnoted and linked at the bottom of this article. If you have a question or concern about any of the facts, please let us know.

The First Clue There Was a Problem
Having been appointed to the Citizen's Budget Task Force Housing Subcommittee, I became involved in March 2008 with our first goal of advising City Council on the proposed $50-$100 million Burlingame II/III bond issue which was to be put on the November 2008 ballot. As a logical first step, we decided to use the Burlingame I budget and spending to-date as a benchmark. And THAT was where the trouble began...

After repeated requests over the course of a month or more, City staff could not produce a budget for Burlingame I, the total actual spending records, reasonably accurate cost per square foot numbers, or even the number of square feet built!! Suspicions and frustrations finally rose to the level that I met with Mayor Mick and followed up in writing, mentioning that something looked improper since staff could produce no logical numbers. (1) (Throughout this story, you will learn that on many occasions, at every major disappointing discovery, I first attempted to inform Mick and offer assistance to him, the City's leader, before the information was made public.)

While the clock was ticking towards our committee report deadline, I was frustrated by the City's lack of response to nailing down a starting point for the Burlingame I budget and spending. So I began to search the newspapers' on-line archives to find any reports on the adopted Burlingame budget and subsequent reviews of actual spending. If the City didn't have a record of the budget, maybe the papers did.

The "$62,500 per Unit" Taxpayer Subsidy
The Aspen Times repeatedly reported in 2005 that the Burlingame subsidy was estimated at $62,500 per unit by the City and INCLUDED ALL infrastructure, fees, design and construction costs. (2) They reported that Phases I, II and III would only cost taxpayers $14.7 million for a total of 236 units. These figures had been gleaned from interviews with City officials. One article mentioned a "voter education" campaign of "just the facts" (such as those above) would be supported by a City-produced brochure. (3)

Ah-ha, I thought! Finally, a starting place for the budget. I was naïve. No such budget --- or ANY overall budget for Burlingame could be located. After searching 2005, 2006 and 2007 Council minutes for Burlingame updates, as well as other public records, it became obvious that the taxpayer cost was far more than the $62,500 per unit previously estimated. And that neither City Council (2005 or 2007) had bothered to appropriately monitor the unchecked spending spree called "Burlingame."

After numerous inquiries of staff went unanswered, I met briefly with City Manager Steve Barwick who was quick to tell me that the Aspen Times was in error, as the City would have never used a figure as low as $62,500 per unit in estimating Burlingame costs. He brushed it off to "sloppy journalism" by the Times (4), but and had no answers on why, if the papers were so incorrect, he had not requested corrections from The Times, given thatvoters were relying on this information in the May 2005 election.

Oops! The Burlingame Brochure Surfaces
The Times had reported that a "voter education" brochure was to be developed, but in his conversation with me, Barwick initially denied the existence of this piece (4) and later claimed that the brochure had no financial data, only concepts and renderings. That worked, until a staff member answered my inquiry with a copy of the brochure that extolled the $62,500 "average per unit subsidy" and $14.7 million "total subsidy." (3) Those were the same numbers previously given to the Times in an interview. Further, the brochure implied that no debt would be needed to finish all three phases of the project, given that $14.7 was readily available from a few years' RETT collections. Barwick, Council and staff had always known that those were impossible numbers. Barwick's denial that the City had promoted them was simply astounding, especially in the face of the overwhelming evidence.

Mick's Website Appears, Then Disappears
Struggling to piece together a budget vs. actual spending schedule for Burlingame I, when City Staff could not provide documentation, I searched on-line for the puzzle pieces to develop my own cost estimates. I ran across a 3-year-old website, created by a tax-exempt Issue Committee promoting a positive Burlingame vote in the 2005 election. GoBurlingame.com, reportedly driven and created by Mick Ireland, had even more puzzling Burlingame financial information designed to persuade voters of the benefits of Burlingame. (Don't bother to google it. Once I started asking questions, it suddenly disappeared from the web. But there are saved screen shots of its once-existing pages.) (5)

The website claimed that the "$62,000" unit subsidy was the result of a "City study conducted to determine if Burlingame was the most cost effective means of creating housing." Terrific, finally we were going to get some information -- I'd ask for a copy of "the study." Turns out, the "study" was a figment of Mick's imagination. No such study was done, according to City Staff. (6) Hmmm. Yet, the website claimed that the results of that (phony) study showed that the $62,000 was "much less" than alternatives.

In fact, the website claimed that the alternatives in town for affordable housing "cost 5 times the per unit subsidy that Burlingame will require." (5) Staff states that there are no studies with such findings. Again, an apparently fabricated claim by then County Commissioner Ireland. (Not so funny that Burlingame I cost 5 times the subsidy that the proponents claimed it would require!)

Had a private citizen made these claims in election materials, it would be shameful as well as a violation of election law (7). But for the elected BOCC official leading the Issue Committee to do this -- it is beyond comprehension!

And What about Burlingame Density?
While I'm on the subject of Mick's website-- in 2005, he was promoting to voters the benefits of the "improved Burlingame plan" where up to 330 units could be built. (5) Despite the evidence to the contrary on his own website, Mick consistently told voters in the November 2008 "density vote" on Burlingame that 236 had ALWAYS been the agreed-upon number in the 2005 vote. He and Jack Johnson refused to acknowledge his earlier position that was part of Mick's own Burlingame campaign platform.

A Little Exaggeration for a Good Cause or An Election Law Violation?
It appears that Mick, and some other proponents of the 2005 Burlingame vote, with the assistance of the City Manager, fed the voters information that officials knew was materially misstated with the hopes of getting the controversial vote in favor of Burlingame. There had been no "study" to compare the $62,500 subsidy to other locations. There was not a "study" estimating the total subsidy at $14.7 million. In fact, the internal documents eventually produced showed that $14.7 million was merely a small portion of the construction cost. Even Barwick knew early on that "$62,500 per unit was a ridiculously low number -- we would have never used it." (4) (Except that they used it in formal voter education materials to mislead voters!)

Bentley Henderson, former Assistant City Manager, told the press and the Housing Subcommittee that the Burlingame brochure was merely "a marketing piece with no basis in reality." (9) Never mind it was used to inform voters. He, Barwick, Jack Johnson and Mick then took the position that the public didn't really care about the cost, but rather the density -- limiting Burlingame to 236 units!! If so, then why were Mick, Council and staff promoting the great value of the "$62,500 subsidy" and "up to 330 units" in voter materials???

The Numbers Begin to Emerge; Mick and Barwick Deflect and Deny
After a series of document requests, city staff stonewalling, and discovering numerous ill-fitting puzzle pieces, I roughly estimated the anticipated "total taxpayer subsidy" to be $360,000 to $400,000 per unit (nearly 6.5 times the amount promoted to the voters). I offered to meet with Mick to discuss this with him before it was made public so that he could be prepared to deal with this bad news.(10) He refused to meet with me. Perhaps he knew that his game was beginning to be discovered. This was the first of the four times over the next several weeks I asked to meet with Mick to give him a "head's up" before more bad news was made public. (11) He continually refused to meet with me, or failed to show up at scheduled appointments. He refused to take the leadership role to announce the bad news to the public and develop an action plan for correction. Instead he deflected and denied the facts. During the report to the full Citizen's Budget Task Force in late April 2008, Barwick angrily decried my estimated numbers as "inaccurate allegations," and claimed to have the "right numbers" available for review by the Task Force, which he disingenuously requested that they review. But he had no numbers for them to review. Repeated requests did not produce any response from Barwick for those "right numbers."(11 a)

Mick, feeling the increasing scrutiny and need to deflect attention, declared to the press that the Housing Subcommittee of the Citizen Budget Task Force had "sinister motives," and continued to defend the original Burlingame project numbers. (12) Despite repeated Task Force member requests, no numbers were forthcoming until mid-May 2008, when a "reconciliation" was produced, finally showing a pre-financing cost estimate of $372,000 per unit. (13) Staff claimed that the $62,500 voter education number had excluded land, infrastructure, architecture, design and a myriad of other costs. (8, 15) Instead, the total taxpayer subsidy estimated in May 2008 was over $85 million, before millions in financing costs were considered! (13)

Rather than giving explanations to the public, Council and staff circled the wagons and claimed that voters "should have known" that the cost was more than the City's information had indicated, AND that the taxpayers really did not care at the time of the vote what the cost might be!

Unbelievably, staff defended this as a "language error" stating that the $14.7 million number should have been communicated to the voters as a "total construction subsidy," as though the taxpayers should not have been informed of the real TOTAL costs! (15)

"But It Was Solely a Brochure Error" -- And More Falsehoods
Despite Barwick's denials that the City had ever used the "$62,500 subsidy number," the physical production of the brochure undercut his position. So, then, ignoring the press articles, he claimed to the public and on the City's website that the "error" had been used only in the brochure and nowhere else. (8) Barwick refused to address why the newspapers reported interviews with staff who stated that number, and their interviews on TV and radio also cited that number. Council and staff had a public responsibility to ask for media corrections of the number when they read those articles in the local newspapers, and instead continued to look the other way and promote materially understated numbers. To imply that Council and senior staff did not read the newspapers or hear the TV interviews on the Burlingame numbers building up to the election is preposterous. They should have clearly stepped forward to correct the errors. But they seemed to have their own reasons to shirk that responsibility.

So What WAS The Budget?
Turns out that there NEVER was a comprehensive budget for the Burlingame, only contracts for some of the infrastructure improvements and Phase I construction costs. Placeholder amounts for all project elements outlined in the City's Asset Management plan were never substantiated in any reasonable way, as is now painfully evident.

Relying heavily on the assumptions of a dated and generalized study referred to by City Staff as the "NPS Report" as a surrogate for genuine project based budgetary planning, no project specific efforts for estimating Burlingame costs were ever undertaken by the City to validate any numbers for reasonableness.

When challenged by APCHA Housing Board member Ron Erickson in a 2005 public meeting about the lack of a project budget for Burlingame, then Asset Manager Ed Sadler infamously stated that the project budget was "right here," as he pointed to his forehead, inferring that his personal knowledge of the project was sufficient for its successful implementation.

On another occasion in early May of 2005 when pressed by a local newspaper reporter for the Burlingame project budget, Sadler attempted to channel Arthur Laffer by sketching a five line summary on a McDonald's napkin. Rounded to the nearest million dollars it estimated the TOTAL Burlingame project cost at $39 million. May, 2008 estimates placed the total project at over $140 million. Neither Council nor Barwick stepped forward before the election to correct this gross deception being perpetrated.

The City's largest construction project in history was implemented without a comprehensive, thoroughly researched and documented budget, apparently with Barwick's and Council's tacit approval. (Jack Johnson was serving on that Council.)

A prevalent rumor has the previous City Council directing Barwick to remove Sadler from his position in the summer of 2005 due to his unsatisfactory performance. If true, it is amazing that Barwick continued relying on Sadler for primary management of Burlingame for approximately 12 more months, between August 2005 and July 2006 -- while he was essentially being paid by the City of Aspen to seek employment elsewhere. How could a low-performer with no stake in the success of the largest and most complex project ever undertaken by the City continue to be given broad authority and almost total control over its management??

Apparently such management decisions are acceptable to the City Manager, and the former and present City Council. Mayor Mick has made no apparent effort to change this negligent management style.

Where Was Council?
One mysterious puzzle piece was Council's decision in March 2008 to prioritize Burlingame II and III which would require bond financing on the November 2008 ballot. Staff presented a "total subsidy" cost of $18.1 million for phases II and III, and a per unit subsidy of $159,000, based on March 2008 numbers.(16)

During Mick's administration, Council not once asked for a report of Burlingame I financial results or comparisons to budget. Nor did anyone ask why the March 2008 $159,000 subsidy differed so much from the voter information 3 years earlier.

Staff defended their $159,000 per unit numbers for two months until May 2008's "reconciliation," when their anticipated subsidy jumped to almost $400,000 per unit. Never once did Council step back to reassess whether Burlingame II/III was still viable or the best housing priority. Mick and Council had their minds made up to push Burlingame forward -- facts and taxpayers' money be damned.

How About an Audit?
Over the objections of Barwick, who was citing an audit as a waste of taxpayer money (can you believe it??), two fairly limited audits were finally agreed to at the request of the task force: one by management consultants on the business practices of Burlingame, and another by CPAs to review the proper compilation and categorization of Burlingame expenditures.

The audits were rather high level and did not attempt to audit for inappropriate spending, overspending or fraud. (Stay tuned for the mischief with the audits.)

Time for a REAL Investigation
After Barwick and Ireland had announced 3 different "investigations" (17) which all proved to be just talk to quiet the public, I approached City attorney John Worcester to ask who would be conducting these investigations, their credentials and experience, and to whom they would report.(18)

He was aware of no investigations, since there were none underway at that time.. I inquired as to whether he, as City Attorney and responsible for upholding Aspen's Municipal Code, would be engaging independent counsel to investigate the 2005 potential violation of election law by public officials when they mislead voters with false information. Former Mayor and current BOCC Rachel Richards had just written the public with the confession that she had thought at the time of the election that the subsidy numbers looked questionable in the brochure and had not received satisfactory answers from Ed Sadler, but did no further work to stop the voter misinformation! (19) And, Mick had promoted fabricated information on his website. Worcester was unaware of the existing Aspen Municipal statute and the more comprehensive Colorado election laws regarding purposeful false statements made in voter information.

See my correspondence with Worcester regarding my concerns (20)

Mick and Jack Throw Temper Tantrums
That meeting with Worcester took place 90 minutes before a planned Council work session where two issues of broad public interest were on the agenda - the November 2008 Burlingame bond issue and potential restrictions on scraping and replacing older private residences. Given the important agenda, I had requested that the City tape and broadcast the work session. They declined, so I decided to privately finance the broadcast of this worksession, as I had done for selected previous work sessions. I sent a courtesy request/notification letter to Council (21), which was discussed at the Council meeting the day before. (22) The Grassroots TV Manager personally confirmed with Mick and Jack prior to the meeting that the meeting filming was being privately funded. (23)

However, Mick and Jack entered Council chambers in a tirade over the fact that the meeting would be filmed, although they had been notified of this the previous week and earlier in the day. They feigned surprise and claimed that they did not know of the filming, despite the prior full Council discussion, the notification in writing and in-person by the station manager. (Since it was a public meeting, there was NO requirement under Colorado Sunshine Law to notify them, and the multiple notifications were merely courtesies.) They simply lied about their lack of knowledge of the taping, and used this as an excuse to explode. I believe that they really just hoped to deflect the real issues of Burlingame being exposed at the meeting.

Council Intimidates Grassroots
Keeping the public waiting for the Burlingame meeting, Jack, Mick and Steve Skadron began a series of tirades against me -- raising their voices, attempting to intimidate me, and making a 20-30 minute series of nasty, untrue accusations while allowing little response from me. They intimidated the GRTV cameraman into keeping the cameras turned off, although GRTV was under contract to me! City Hall is the largest funding source for Grassroots TV, and these three wielded their power to interfere with my contract to have the entire public meeting filmed. That alone is reason for concern about the iron-fisted control this government has over the public process and local TV government news coverage in Aspen. (Are we facing a future of "state run media" at Grassroots?)

Observers said that they had never seen public officials behave so out of line with the public.(23) People who had come to the meeting to speak left, saying that they would never take the risk of such abuse. The Daily News called it a "tongue-lashing" (23) but had initially bought into the Council's falsehood that they were surprised by the cameras.(24) Subsequently, the ADN confirmed that Mick and Jack had been dishonest with them as well, and were indeed faking their surprise. (23) During the temper tantrum, Mick accused me of illegal fund-raising, running a 24/7 political campaign, and using Burlingame as a "political wedge." (25,26) He somehow failed to mention that by this time, I had requested four meetings with him as new Burlingame discrepancies were being discovered.. My attempt was to ask him to lead, as he should have, in the information releases and be in the position to propose solutions. Hardly a political maneuver on my part.

In the most bizarre accusation of the decade, Jack accused me of being a "bully," and stated that I only wanted the filming and broadcast of the meeting so that I could later "misquote" him. (27)

Public Reaction and Mayor Mick's Bizarre Emails
Brave members of the public came rushing in to admonish the Council and Mick in particular. When I resigned from the task force after the Council's abusive behavior, it triggered a series of group emails pinging through cyberspace. I watched quietly in disbelief what Mayor Mick was blogging into the public record. (8) (By copying all of Council, Mick knowingly made this libelous email exchange an "electronic meeting" of Council.)

Mick lashed out, accusing me of "Swiftboating" him, running a political campaign to unseat him and certain Council members, raising illegal campaign contributions, again claiming surprise at the Grassroots filming, exclaiming that it was Council's right to permit filming (regardless of the Colorado Sunshine laws), and all sorts of strange, paranoid-sounding accusations. He claimed that I would soon be having him investigated, and was prying into his personal life, just as he had done during his meltdown at the worksession.

I was not engaged in this correspondence; I just watched from the sidelines. Numerous members of the public who read these diatribes thought Mick was irrational and paranoid. I wasn't so sure. Irrational? Yes. Paranoid? Well...

Paranoid or Appropriately Worried?
Those who called him paranoid were likely not aware of his suddenly-shuttered website, his role in the misinformation campaign during the 2005 election, nor the fact that he had just become aware that I had discovered his "fingerprints " all over this election malfeasance. Mick was likely appropriately nervous that he would be exposed, and was attempting to intimidate me and halt any potential investigation.

I was surprised and disappointed that fellow Council members did not move to have Mick and Jack formally censured for their obscene behavior and false accusations against a citizen. Government watchers in other cities were shocked at our Council's lack of concern over this behavior and Council's refusal to censure their fellow members, and to leave these libelous accusations about a private citizen in the official public record.

Investigation Denied
Longtime local Jim Perry called for a formal independent investigation of the 2005 Burlingame vote which was promptly denied by the City Attorney and Council. (31) They wanted NO investigation, despite the clear evidence that officials knew that the City and Mick's tax-exempt Issue Committee had fed voters terribly misleading information.

A group of voters could probably have brought litigation to root out the perpetrators, but no one stepped forward to fund such a lawsuit. Council and staff had bilked City coffers out of scores of millions for Burlingame and it seemed no one knew enough or felt insulted enough to act. The "we're a small community and we shouldn't be divisive" excuse seemed to carry the day against getting to the bottom of the problem.

Mick, Jack and Barwick Falsify Audit Results
When the management consultants' performance audit and the CPA financial audits were complete, (31) the reports were released. And there begins the next chapter of deceit by our City officials.

In the most egregious audit report misrepresentation I have ever witnessed (as a former CPA and member of audit committees of large corporations), the moment that the audit reports were released, the City issued false statements in an attempt to exonerate themselves.

-They issued a press release stating that the audits found that the Burlingame project was "on budget" although there WAS NO BUDGET, nor were the auditors given any budget, and did not mention a budget in their reports. The press release was simply false, and terribly unethical. (32)

-Jack Johnson fabricated, in a letter to the public, the claim that the audits determined that there was "no fraud." Both auditors were quick to say that they did not test for fraud, and made no suggestions that they did. Johnson tried to cover up the sins of City by fabricating claims that appeared to exonerate his colleagues with completely fabricated assertions, which other Council members and the press did not challenge. (33)

-They claimed that both audits found that there was no "intentional misrepresentation" of the Burlingame cost numbers in the voter information materials. In fact, the CPAs came nowhere close to examining that subject as it was not in their scope of work. But Mick directed staff to make the claim that they had! (34) Again, a completely false statement in an attempt to exonerate himself and the City.

-The management consultants (hardly "independent auditors") surprised most of the informed observers by saying that there was "no intentional misrepresentation," which fell flat with those who learned that their "investigation" consisted only of asking a few City employees whether "they had intentionally misrepresented" the facts!! (Laughable and sophomoric at best! ) I was shocked that the consultants, who are not lawyers, would even pretend to undertake this specialized legal assignment, rather than deferring to independent counsel.

-The management consultants' audit became quite interesting in that its very damaging findings were not reflected in the summary and conclusions.

It was clear that the City had "negotiated" the opinion and executive summary for public relations purposes, despite the conflicting unsatisfactory findings in the detailed report. The newspapers, which initially wrote glowing reports exonerating the city in big headlines (36), later retreated after they read the full report, and reported on the shortcomings and disappointing audit findings. (35) But by this time, Mick and his machine had won the P.R. battle with their misrepresentations. The public believed that the audits verified that Burlingame was within appropriate financial and management guidelines, when the truth was anything but.

Again, I thought that other Council members would surely step forward to have Mick and Jack censured for this behavior -- behavior which would likely have had them recalled, at a minimum, in other cities more concerned about governance and ethics. But the community essentially accepted being lied to about something as important as audits and ballot information. And Mayor Mick further demonstrated his hold on the other Council members and the staff, and possibly the public.

The Much-Delayed Disclosure of the Costly Density Restriction
To help address the public's concerns about repeating the tens of millions of dollars in mistakes made at Burlingame I, a task force of experts was convened in the summer of 2008 to make suggestions for construction efficiency for Burlingame II/III. One of the first questions they asked was whether there was any restriction on density. They were told that the contracts with the neighbors limited the density to 330 (a familiar number). They worked for weeks on plans which were intended to optimize the land and density. A couple of months into their work, the City belatedly and sheepishly admitted that it had granted the Burlingame I residents the authority to veto any density over 236 units! (37) The task force was appalled and shocked at both the mismanagement and the lack of transparency, especially given their repeated questions on this matter. This density error is estimated to have cost the taxpayers another $15 million!! (This, on top of the $85+ million surprise the taxpayers got in May.) (38)

There was some less-than- fully-honest excuse given that Colorado required a protection for homeowners in a development that limits the number of units that can be built. But what the City did not address was why they did not, as experienced developers do, file for upside contingency of the maximum number of units. More incompetence, inexperience in development, and cover-up of the incompetence.

In a very recent development, the City has entered negotiations with the Burlingame HOA to build 271 (not the 330 told the voters in May, 2005) units in total, in exchange for more HOA control, increased parking (2 spaces per unit!), and waiving of certain homeowner fees and debt to City.

In essence, the City is having to negotiate from a ridiculously weak position, offering incentives to the already heavily subsidized homeowners in order to get back a fraction of the rights the City should have never given away. (Council meeting to discuss this is Tuesday afternoon.)

What Else Has NOT Been Investigated
-It has been suggested by many long-time locals that the original Burlingame land purchase be investigated, and the details of the City's obligations on housing mitigation for the Zoline's private development be fully determined and disclosed. That work has not been done.
-The contract between the City and Shaw Construction has been suggested to need considerable review for fairness of its terms, which many believe heavily favor Shaw.
-Considerable outstanding construction quality claims still exist at Burlingame I without resolution. How much the taxpayers will have to foot of that coming bill is yet to be determined.
-And why is there a multi-million dollar increase between the proposal from Shaw at the time of their selection as the contractor and the contract negotiated a few months later?
-The questionable legality of the City publishing the brochure as a "pro" ballot issue piece, without a corresponding disclosure of negatives, such as the density limitations, and true estimated costs.

That is just a portion of the long list that a full investigation should include, if the true cost of Burlingame is EVER to be determined. Obviously, current Council has no desire to investigate those issues.

Where We Are Today
Despite the Burlingame bond being kept off the November 2008 ballot, plans for Burlingame II/III are moving forward, with almost $4 million in planning costs budgeted for 2009. (39) This is shocking to me given the unrealistic time frame for rebuilding the RETT-generated housing fund, which is still in debt. Additionally, we taxpayers will experience losses on the BMC transaction and other failed land-banking investments, further decimating our asset base for future affordable housing needs. Add to this the financial issue created by the information that 90% of our affordable housing complexes havegrossly inadequatecapital reserves and are beginning to need significant repair. In short, the affordable housing program is in financial shambles, and the public has not been fully informed as to the consequences to our workforce housing program and the impending impact on taxpayers.

Where To From Here?
Are these the actions of leaders who care about our workforce and their housing needs? Or are these leaders more concerned about their political claims of advocacy for affordable housing? Real advocates for employee housing would never defend this reckless use of housing assets. If the City had not squandered the tens of millions they did, we would be far better poised to address our workforce housing challenges in progressive and more complete ways.

I personally hope that as the May election approaches, voters will take a greater interest in how we want our City governed, get outraged at our out-of-control budget, and demand better leadership and stewardship from our leaders.

The 3-Minute Summary
-Mayor Mick, other elected officials and City staff purposely mislead voters in May 2005 with fabricated and false information in order to secure a vote in favor of Burlingame Phase I. These actions likely violated local and state election laws.

-When Mick's tax-exempt GoBurlingame.com website supporting information was questioned, the 3-year-old website was suddenly pulled down.

-City officials knowingly understated the anticipated taxpayer subsidy by approximately $85 million when asking voters to approve Burlingame.

-Barwick claimed that the City never used the $14.7 million or $62,500 subsidy numbers, and that those numbers were result of "sloppy journalism" by The Aspen Times. Then the City-produced brochure surfaced, exposing his misrepresentations.

-In anticipation of the Burlingame ballot measure, City officials gave interviews and were quoted numerous times in the media claiming the total cost to taxpayers would be $14.7 million in preparation for their votes in the May 2005 election.. Despite the considerable written and electronic evidence to the contrary, in May 2008, the City falsely claimed that the misstatement was made "only" in the City brochure.

-City officials defended their lack of responsible financial disclosure claiming that voters did not care about the cost of Burlingame, only its density!

-In March 2008, Council selected Burlingame II/III as the best value, highest priority affordable housing opportunity available, based on staff reports that per unit subsidies would be $159,000. 45 days later, under public pressure to disclose the facts, the staff estimates increased to approximately $372,000 per unit. Council never reviewed the original Burlingame priority decision after the new cost information was delivered.

-I informed Mick of my concerns in March, April and May 2008, requesting personal meetings to go over the controversial information so that he could announce it to the public and provide leadership to find solutions. He refused to meet with me or to discuss the troublesome data, and shirked his leadership responsibility.

-Mick now claims that the maximum number of units at Burlingame was consistently stated to be 236 during the 2005 campaign, despite the fact that his website shows that he was promoting up to 330 units for the May 2005 vote. He purposely misrepresented the facts again for the November 2008 ballot question on Burlingame density.

-From 2005 to 2008, apparently neither Council ever asked for the complete budget or actual spending report on Burlingame.

-The City's senior manager, who had almost complete financial and development authority over Burlingame, was simultaneously being terminated, and retained his Burlingame authority for months until he found other employment. City Manager Barwick was so reckless with this $140 million project that he assigned it to a manager in whom he had little confidence.

-There was no budget to control Burlingame spending, which was later estimated to be over $140 million. City Council and City management saw no problem with this obvious lack of fiscal control. There is still no final number for Burlingame I.

-Mick and Jack verbally attacked me for arranging the filming of a pertinent public Council work session. They feigned surprise at the filming, although they had been previously informed several times. 20-30 minutes of personal, outrageous and false accusations ensue. No Council member ,or the City Attorney intervened to stop the personal attacks, or correct their obvious misrepresentations about not being informed.

-Mick and Jack claim that public has no right to film without their approval, despite the Colorado Sunshine laws, which specifically provide for this.

-Mick engaged in series of bizarre emails, fabricating charges against me of illegal fund-raising, political motives behind Burlingame disclosures, surprising him with Grassroots TV filming, and a host of absurd attempts to deflect scrutiny of his unethical behavior. (He then puts his false accusations and personal attacks into the public record.)

-Council makes no attempt to censure Mick or Jack for their unethical behavior, the verbal tirades or the false accusations in the emails.

-Council refuses to open an independent legal investigation despite the clear evidence of known misrepresentation to the voters.

-Mick, Jack and Barwick falsified reports of the Burlingame audit results in formal public communications.

-Council did not move to censure Mick for falsifying audit findings, or discipline Barwick for his egregious attempts at a cover-up.

-City belatedly discloses that they granted Burlingame I homeowners a density veto costing approximately $15 million,(my estimate), despite previous promises to voters that the development could be expanded.

-Council approves a $4 million budget line item for Burlingame II/III planning in 2009, without addressing the underlying management issues of credibility and competence that created the mess that is Burlingame I.

These are CLEARLY not the actions of leaders who care about employee housing. Hardly. The fiasco of Burlingame I is the result of bloated egos, corruption, the perception of a bottomless pot of housing money, reckless decision-making, a lack of leadership and ethics, no oversight and despicable behavior. Aspen, its workers and its taxpayers deserve far better. A certain way to get more is to demand more. Make your opinion known and your voice heard at the polls. The next City of Aspen election (for Mayor and two City Council seats) is on May 5, 2009.

(1), (2)....
Reference and Footnotes:
Footnotes at: http://theredant.squarespace.com/storage/BgamFootnotesEM315.pdf

Also, www.AspenMatters.com has a compilation of news articles and letters to the editor written when the Burlingame story was in the news.

Comments

[Chicago and Aspen Guy]

Keep up the excellent work. Being from Chicago/Illinois I should be numb to this by now but one cannot make this up.