[bouldercouncilhotline] Hotline: FW: public hearing 5C comments--need lots more sunshine and transparency

[kohls at bouldercolorado.gov]

Sender: Lisa Morzel

From: lisa morzel [mailto:lisamorzel at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 2:13 PM
To: Council; Execs; Kohl, Susan
Subject: public hearing 5C comments--need lots more sunshine and transparency

Susan,

Please post on hotline.  Thanks!

Lisa

Dear Colleagues,

The events of the last few days with the surprise secret proposal from Xcel that was received by our staff on Thursday, May 26 is more than a little bit concerning given the process and transparency council has enjoyed with staff and our community over the past year.

I was called by Craig Eicher of Xcel late Friday afternoon to see if I had time to chat then or if I could meet with him/Xcel on Monday or Tuesday prior to our council meeting on Tuesday evening as he/xcel was trying to meet individually with all council members regarding their proposal.  To Tom Carr, would these proposed meetings be considered serial meetings under our charter?  Would it matter if our attorney was present, if these were considered serial meetings?  This needs to be discussed at CAC tomorrow and council needs to be advised as to what the charter allows regarding serial meetings, which I do not think is anything.

Council (at least to my knowledge) was first informed that something had happened on Thursday when we got our packets. Since I had heard rumors of some offer from Xcel, I had to ask our staff.  This should have been brought to our attention immediately, especially with regard to this project/effort that the Council has so involved itself as with citizen/public experts who have devoted themselves to this.

My concern is this process--we (the city) have worked very hard to keep it open and have encouraged Xcel to participate in our forums, etc.  And now at the last minute, Xcel comes up with a last minute proposal with the requirement that the discussion between Xcel and city staff be confidential because Xcel has a partner that doesn't know that the proposal they are doing with Xcel is for the city of Boulder-at least this is what Craig Eicher told me-I told him that should make the partner excited and confident that it is Boulder.   The discussion needs to be open and I agree with Crystal that Xcel be invited to come to our public meeting June 7 or 14th and publically discuss their proposal.  I prefer the June 14th as all council members will be present.  In fact, the decision to put the proposal as a placeholder should be made with all 9 council members present and can be since we have time in June.  In fact that decision can be made up to June 21 to allow 60 days should council want to place this on the ballot in August

I am also concerned as this is the same pattern Xcel has used repeatedly before.  When we decided to set the muni discussion aside in 2008, we knew less than 3 weeks before we voted and decided to pursue serious franchise negotiations--you know the history from there.  My point is that Xcel has had ample time to deliver the city a proposal and they are doing this now at the last minute wanting the discussion to be in private out of the public realm and we have been given literally 5 days to learn, consider, and decide whether to make a placeholder.  That is not enough time to make an informed rational decision.  Look what happened with Smart Grid-smoke and mirrors.

I guess I am wondering why Xcel is still calling the shots at this late date? Of course, they want all discussions to be confidential until a deal is struck. They also want to have two ballot issues: one purely a question of 20-year franchise-why would Council now change our position that 20 years is too long?  The second would be their proposal they have revealed to staff.    This is unacceptable and has been all along--that's been the uphill struggle we have argued for so long-Council has been clear in its desire to have this as open and transparent a discussion as possible--it's our future and it has to be done with the public.  As Council and staff are well aware, we have given Xcel more than ample time to give us various proposals and at each junction, they have failed to deliver.  This has to be an open and public process.  The city needs to be in the driver's seat and give up on some hollow hope that Xcel will deliver--they will not.  And then in about a month they want to pop something on us, which will not give us ample time to consider our options and next steps.  Xcel either does this in public or we do not talk.

I am also concerned that Craig Eicher of Xcel sits on the board of the directors of the Chamber of Commerce and accepted the 2011 policy agenda, which plans to heavily insert itself in the upcoming city council elections.  Their support for executive sessions goes hand in hand with Xcel's desire to meet behind closed doors.

If Xcel is truly concerned about not wanting to create expectations for the citizens of Boulder, they are a bit late. Xcel has created expectations full of promise left with little substance repeatedly to Boulder over the years, especially in the last three, generally failing to deliver.  Nothing is new here so Xcel isn't setting any new behaviors.  And who will do the negotiating and how does that staff person know whether the terms they are negotiating will be acceptable to the Council and the public?  The Council has never yet had a discussion of the terms council would want with Xcel or even forming a municipal utility so how would staff know.

I am not comfortable with any of this how it has unfolded.  Xcel has too long of a history of making promises and then not delivering what it promised.  Doesn't anyone else see this?  This is déjà vu-Xcel is basically asking the city to first on the dotted line first and negotiate later....

Then after the focus of other parties has shifted, Xcel then goes to the PUC and undoes whatever the "deal" was. Then the other party learns that what they thought the "deal" was and what Xcel intended are very, very different--and by now Xcel has all the power and the party that made the "deal" is out of luck and out of options...This is exactly what happened with Smart Grid.

Why have been given in our packet an agreement of where the city and Xcel were in August 2010-why do we have this?  This was not acceptable to Council in August 2010-why would it be acceptable now????

I feel the recent action of Xcel only serves to undermine the excellent efforts of our staff and public.

Let the sunshine in and, if we move forward with Xcel, it must be under very sunny conditions

thanks

Lisa


--
please note that my e-mail address has changed to lisamorzel at gmail.com<mailto:lisamorzel at gmail.com>