Rivera floats strong-mayor concept for November

As talk of a strong-mayor form of government builds momentum in Colorado Springs, Mayor Lionel Rivera is offering his own concept for consideration.

“I’ve been doing this mayor’s job for seven years, and I know how time-demanding it is to be the mayor and also have a full-time job,” Rivera, who is term-limited, said Friday.

“My thoughts were, as I leave office, I would propose what I think would be a better structure for the mayor,” he said.

Rivera’s nine-page outline comes as Citizens for Accountable Leadership, a group started by local developers, is proposing a November ballot initiative asking voters to change the city’s system of government.

The mayor’s proposal includes a provision that Rivera calls “critically important” but that will likely turn the discussion from a strong-mayor form of government to Douglas Bruce and Issue 300.

The voter-approved initiative effectively ended the Stormwater Enterprise, but it also requires payments from enterprises, such as Colorado Springs Utilities, to the city to be phased out over eight years.

The provision included in Rivera’s proposal states that the city is entitled to a payment in lieu of taxes and franchise fees from Utilities.

“There’s already a provision in the city charter that allows the City Council to appropriate surplus revenues from Utilities to the general fund,” Rivera said. “Nothing in 300 supersedes that.”

Then why did Rivera include it in the proposal?

“So there isn’t any doubt,” he said.

Bruce, who authored Issue 300, blasted the mayor for including the provision.

“He wants to repeal Issue 300, so he’s obviously not very serious about a strong-mayor form of government if he’s going to slip that,” Bruce said. “What does that have to do with payment in lieu of taxes? Nothing.”

Rivera called his proposal a concept and outline meant to be a starting point.

Under Rivera’s recommendation:

The mayor, who would earn about $96,000 annually, would become the city’s chief executive officer and be responsible for hiring — and firing — the city attorney, city clerk, police chief, fire chief, chief financial officer, airport director and a chief of staff or city administrator. The mayor’s hires, however, would be subject to council confirmation.

“The council would have to confirm those, and the reason I’d want the council to confirm is that I want to make sure in the future the mayor is hiring quality people, professionals that are qualified for the job, not someone who is a personal friend of the mayor,” he said.

The City Council would be a separate arm of government that would continue to approve the budgets of the city, Utilities and Memorial Health System. It would also continue to act as the Utilities board and hire the Utilities CEO and the city auditor.

The council would be comprised of nine members, including a council president, three at-large members and five district members. Under that scenario, several term-limited council members could seek election.

The council president, which would be a new office, would be paid about $25,000 annually. Council members, who get $6,250 annually now, the same salary as the mayor, would be paid about $20,000 a year. Utilities would pay 80 percent of council members’ salaries.

“Under my scenario, this coming election cycle in 2011 would be the normal election cycle for the mayor, the president of the City Council and the three at-large City Council members,” Rivera said.

Rivera’s concept would give the mayor veto power over ordinances and resolutions passed by the council, which would have the ability to override the veto.

“But one area where the mayor cannot veto the City Council is on land-use matters, and that’s because there’s been a public hearing, evidence presented. So if the council turns down a development plan, the mayor can’t do anything about it,” Rivera said.

“There’s plenty of checks and balances,” he added. “That’s what it’s all about.”

Rivera hopes Citizens for Accountable Leadership will consider his proposal.

“Frankly, I’m a little bit worried that they’re not allowing themselves enough time to develop a proposal if they’re going to (gather) signatures and get it on the ballot,” Rivera said.

Mary Ellen McNally, a campaign co-chair, said the group is developing the details of its proposal, which it wants to present to the community for feedback.

“Certainly we’d want to know what the mayor has to say about it,” she said.

McNally acknowledged that time is running out.

“We’re going to have to (hurry) because we have to start collecting signatures in May,” she said.

—
Call the writer at 476-1623