During last fall’s Westminster Mayoral and City Council campaign “season,” one of the hot button issues beyond the redevelopment of the Westminster Mall site was constraints on political activity of city employees. The issue had gotten its “legs” from approved state legislation earlier in 2013 whereby employees in fire departments and fire districts throughout Colorado could actively engage in local political campaigns. Westminster candidates heard the concern about restraints, reprisals etc. both from citizens and from some police and fire personnel. Some candidates promised to address the issue if elected.

A promise kept

To the credit of those elected officials who said they would address this issue, the Westminster City Council approved changes regarding city employee political activity at its April 14th Council meeting. Was it a wholesale re-write of the existing constraints? The answer would be “far from it.” Did the new law exceed the parameters set forth in the City Charter? No, the changes have to be within the intent of the City Charter. Did the aggrieved police and fire employees get everything they wanted from this “new” City Council? Again, the answer is “far from it.”

Clarification is key

However, as I see it, the new ordinance provided much needed clarification. For example, it was always unclear from the 1990 ordinance language whether or not the spouse of a Westminster City employee came under the tightly drawn prohibitions of political activity. The new ordinance makes it clear that the city government is not attempting to “limiting the political activity of a spouse or any family member of an employee.” Previously, employees were called on the carpet when the spouse had put out a political yard sign in the couple’s front yard. Also, if a spouse wrote a check on a joint checking account to support a city candidate, it could cause potential angst for the city employee.

A good start

Now, city employees will have a better set of “guides” regarding their activity in council, mayoral and city ballot propositions campaigns. Regarding this outcome, I say “thank you” City Council for pushing the issue with the City Administration.

Hot potato

It comes up in one form or another regularly at the state Legislature. It is a fundamental issue over sharing tax revenues in municipal urban renewal districts between the cities/towns and the county government. It has come up this year with a Bill sponsored by Senator Lois Tochtrop. Municipal officials call it “unfair” while County officials consider it “equitable.” Regardless of the label , the issue needs to be resolved. It has been around as long as I was in city government and still is unresolved today. It has escalated as cities have used tax increment financing (TIF) more in urban renewal projects. While I believe TIF financing is a much needed tool to RE-DEVELOP existing blighted sites/ buildings, it can and has been abused in the past by some cities.

Equitable formula needed

The present House Bill 1375 would mandate a sharing of increased property tax revenues between the municipality’s urban renewal authority and the taxing entities. Plus, it would mandate that at least one representative appointed by the county commissioners would sit on the local urban renewal authority. What’s missing in the proposed legislation is all the risk i.e., 25-year bond payments, falls on the municipality/urban renewal authority and the county “gets something for nothing.” There needs to be an equitable formula involving all involved governments. School districts are not involved here as they are made “whole” by the state government on what otherwise would be a lost opportunity to share in the increased tax revenues from the new development.