<![CDATA[Bruce Stahlman <br />Littleton City Council At Large Representative - LittleBlog]]>Sun, 27 May 2012 06:11:40 -0800Weebly<![CDATA[2011-2015 Area Plan on Aging]]>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:42:13 -0800http://www.brucestahlman.org/1/post/2012/04/2011-2015-area-plan-on-aging.htmlAttached is a copy of the Denver Regional Council of Governments ("DRCOG") 20111-2015 Area Plan on Aging that City Council reviewed at our annual Tri-Cities (Littleton, Engelwood and Sheridan) breakfast in January.  It's replete with a variety of statistic and resource references.
12_drcog_area_plan_on_aging_1.0_04.13.pdf
File Size: 2965 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
]]><![CDATA[Historic Preservation Benefits vs. Obligations]]>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:27:06 -0800http://www.brucestahlman.org/1/post/2012/04/historic-preservation-benefits-vs-obligations.htmlCouncil recently considered various proposed modifications to the historic preservation code in general and the Main St. Historic District in particular.  Attached is a synopsis of benefits vs. obligations attached to properties that opt in to the Main St. Historic District that I thought was informative.
12_historic_preservation_benefit_vs._obligation_comparison_1.0_04.13.pdf
File Size: 26 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
]]><![CDATA[C-470 Corridor Coalition Update]]>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 12:22:25 -0800http://www.brucestahlman.org/1/post/2012/04/c-470-corridor-coalition-update.htmlThe following material concerning future C-470 expansion alternatives was presented to Council in March, 2012.  While still several years off, the most likely projects to alleviate congestion involve adding one or more toll lanes to the expressway.  The C-470 Corridor Coalition is a group of County and Municipal representatives and traffic engineers engaged to study and recommend viable capacity options to meet increased demand.
12_c470_corridor_coalition_update_1.0_04.13.pdf
File Size: 1479 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
]]><![CDATA[Economic Development Primer]]>Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:05:09 -0800http://www.brucestahlman.org/1/post/2012/04/economic-development-primer.htmlOne of Council's objectives is to enhance economic development within Littleton.  Unfortunately, economic development means different things to different people, and not being development professionals, Council has an incomplete understanding of the range of possible needs and tools that could effectively promote such growth.

In an effort to level set the conversations, Chris Gibbons, Business & Industry Affairs Director, presented the following material at Council's Study Session on 27 March 2012.  The documents provide an overview of economic activity in Littleton, past efforts aimed at economic development broadly in other communities and information on the history and impact of the City's Economic Gardening Program that supports local businesses with marketing and demographic data base analytics.  In addition, Council took a road trip to view major parcels of undeveloped land around the City (e.g., Marathon, Ensor, etc.) to better understand their respective opportunities and challenges.  I'll post updates as additional information is collected and we debate this important topic is debated in the near term.
12_economic_development_review_1.0.1_10.04.pdf
File Size: 11604 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
12_economic_development_review_1.0.2_10.04.pdf
File Size: 2336 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
]]><![CDATA[Sewer Plant Nutrient Regulation Update]]>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 09:48:34 -0800http://www.brucestahlman.org/1/post/2012/04/sewer-plant-nutrient-regulation-update.htmlAttached is a synopsis of the latest information re: State water quality nutrient regulations under consideration.  Council and staff are keeping a close eye on this issue because of the potential exorbitant compliance cost that may be potentially imposed on the Littleton / Englewood Waste Water Treatment Plant.  Our principal concerns are that such costs represent an unfunded mandate by the State; the regulations are being selectively applied; and, ultimately, a cost / benefit analysis should be applied to make sure that significant costs are being aligned with substantive benefits.  There will certainly be more to follow as new information becomes available.
12_sewer_plant_nutrient_regulation_update_1.0_04.09.pdf
File Size: 277 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
]]><![CDATA[Improvement Districts from A to Z]]>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:37:53 -0800http://www.brucestahlman.org/1/post/2012/04/improvement-districts-from-a-to-z.htmlHere's a compendium of everything you wanted to know about improvement districts but were afraid to ask as presented by the Colorado Municipal League.
12_cml_summary_presentation_1.0_04.04.pdf
File Size: 216 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
]]><![CDATA[Tri-Cities Presentation on Aging]]>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:32:49 -0800http://www.brucestahlman.org/1/post/2012/02/tri-cities-presentation-on-aging.htmlCouncil's Tri-Cities (Littleton, Englewood and Sheridan) breakfast meeting on 27 January 2012 featured a presentation by the Denver Regional Council of Governments ("DRCOG") on the challenges faced by the region to effectively provide services that meet the needs of seniors as the percentage of seniors in the population continues to grow over the next 20 years.  Following is a copy of the presentation along with information on senior services and programs as well as the Community Assessment Survey that DRCOG provided.
12_drcog_aging_challenges_presentation_1.0_01.27.pdf
File Size: 8373 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
12_drcog_senior_resource_directory_1.0_01.27.pdf
File Size: 424 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
12_drcog_senior_programs_1.0_01.27.pdf
File Size: 671 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
12_county_community_assessment_survey_1.0_01.27.pdf
File Size: 628 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
]]><![CDATA[Littleton Community Health Snapshot]]>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 09:09:05 -0800http://www.brucestahlman.org/1/post/2012/02/littleton-community-health-snapshot.htmlFollowing below is a Tri-County Health Department summary snapshot of health related issues for Littleton.  Thought this was an interesting compilation.  For example, for the period 2007-2010, 61% of deaths in the City were from the top five categories including cancer (27%), heart disease (18%), chronic respiratory disease (7%), accidents (5% - be careful out there!) and Alzheimer's (4%).

According to the summary, "The built environment - our man-made surroundings - directly influences public health.  This means that Littleton’s transportation and utility systems, distribution of housing stock and retail/commercial services can encourage people who live, work or play in the City to stay physically active and eat healthy foods.  The City’s built environment can help keep people safe and help them prevent illness.

This snapshot is a compilation of data associated with a range of health-related measures within the City’s boundaries.  It is intended to give planners, local officials, developers and residents a broader understanding of the current health of the community and the factors by which it is affected.

The snapshot does not address every aspect of the built environment’s relationship to health. It includes relevant data that were feasible to collect at the local level. The snapshot is provided to inform discussion, and encourage adoption, of land use and other policies that will promote public health."

12_tri-county_health_littleton_snapshot_1.0_01.30.pdf
File Size: 324 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
]]><![CDATA[2011 Budget Update]]>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 16:06:05 -0800http://www.brucestahlman.org/1/post/2012/01/2011-budget-update.html_ Doug Farmen, City Finance Director, reports that the City’s preliminary full year 2011 General Fund sales and use tax revenues were over $24.8 million, an increase of approximately $1.4 million or 5.8% vs. full year 2010 and $1.2 million or 5.2% vs. the 2011 budget.  Additionally, Mr. Farmen believes it’s likely that General Fund expenses will be 3.0-3.5% below the final 2011 amended budget.  Note that both sets of numbers are not yet finalized for year-end closing nor have they been audited.  However, this is certainly good news and in keeping with Council’s well established priority of fiscal responsibility to the City’s tax payers.  The full revenue report is attached below.
12_dec._2011_revenue_report_1.0_01.24.pdf
File Size: 16557 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
]]><![CDATA[Fire Contract Agreement Approval]]>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:39:39 -0800http://www.brucestahlman.org/1/post/2012/01/fire-contract-agreement-approval.html_Council approved a revised contract with our partners, the Littleton Fire Protection District ("District") and the Highlands Ranch Metropolitan District ("Ranch") on 3 January 2012.  As liaison to the Fire Protection District, it was my privilege to serve at the direction of Council on the negotiating team with Chief John Mullin, Acting City Attorney Kirsten Crawford and City Manager Michael Penny at the conclusion of negotiations which spanned the better part of 12 months.  

The City's original agreement with the District dates to 1962 and the Ranch was added in 1988.  Of course, the ultimate intent of the agreement is to provide high quality fire and emergency response services to citizens at a fair price. In the fire business, economies of scale achieved by spreading large fixed costs (e.g., fire stations, fire trucks, emergency medical vehicles and other equipment) over a large population base makes the service more affordable to everyone.  The trick is to have the right numbers of equipment and staff in the right locations to minimize call out response times without overbuilding the system thus making it cost prohibitive.  I think it's fair to say that the District and the Ranch will acknowledge that they have received good value over an extended term from both the exemplary dedication and skill of the men and women of Littleton Fire Rescue ("LFR") at the cost of the services supplied by the City.

As well managed organizations should, the District and Ranch commissioned a study of fire and emergency service contracting options in 2010 as part of their fiduciary responsibility to their constituents.  Ultimately some of the elements of that study were seen as negotiating points by them, yet it was also apparent that both the District and Ranch viewed LFR as their preferred partner.  You can read the entire contract attached below.

Here's a quick synopsis of the principal changes to the agreement:
  • Should the City fail to deliver the agreed upon services including response times and unit equipment and staffing levels for each of five out of six months, the parties agree to fund a standards of coverage study to determine changes necessary to meet the service levels.
  • The City is committed to provide emergency medical services to the Advanced Life Support level from all front line emergency response units 95% of the time.  Previously this standard had been 90% of the time.
  • The formula for determining the expense distribution percentage for allocation of costs related to the operating budget is stipulated as being subject to each party's existing boundary limits.
  • The Agreement designates 2012 as a test year to determine what should be included in the administrative fee paid by the District and Ranch to the City.  During 2012, the fee will be set at 6.0% of the operating budget but the parties will determine and track which actual costs are to be reimbursed going forward.  Once there is mutual agreement in principal, any variances with the 2012 amount are to be trued up.
  • Any contract impasses will be resolved by providing a position statement to the elected body of the minority party for consideration.  The results of the consideration will be communicated back to the majority parties within 30 days.
  • In the event of a material dispute, the parties will submit the issue to non-binding arbitration.
  • There had been some concern over TABOR language and the intent and longevity of the contract.  The City cannot enter into multi-year fiscal obligations so the final TABOR language clarifies this point.
  • It was agreed to ratchet down the Fire Service Expense Distribution Percentage ("FSEDP") to 8.0% over four years from the current 8.25%.  The FSEDP for any given party will be 8.25% in 2012 - 2013, 8.125% in 2014 - 2015 and then 8.0% thereafter.
I want to commend the executive directors and Boards of the District and Ranch for their professionalism and willingness to negotiate in good faith as well as their commitment to maintaining the strong relationship amongst the parties that has stood the test of time.  Likewise, I am pleased the conclusion of the negotiations removes a distraction to the LFR staff, who as always perform at an exceptionally high level.  The Council anticipates moving positively forward with this new arrangement for many years to come.
12_fire_contract_agreement_approval_1.0_01.03.pdf
File Size: 671 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File
]]>