|
|
|
 |
Although these minutes are not transcribed verbatim, they do
represent, as closely as possible, the intent of each speaker.
7:00 P.M. July 12, 2004
ITEM 1 - CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Burkholder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Lakewood Civic Center South, 480 South Allison Parkway, Lakewood, Colorado.
Full and timely notice of this City Council meeting had been given and a quorum was present.
ITEM 2 - ROLL CALL
Those present were: Mayor Steve Burkholder, Presiding
Jackie Herbst
Debbie Koop
Cheryl Wise
Ed Peterson
Carol Kesselman
Ray Elliott
Mike Stevens
Tom Booher
Bob Murphy
Barbara Martin
Others in attendance: Mike Rock, City Manager
Roger Noonan, City Attorney
Mayor Burkholder invited members of the Jefferson County 4-H to speak to the public about the Jefferson County Fair being held July 30-August 1. 4-H members spoke about the many programs and projects they are involved in throughout the year that are being highlighted at the Jefferson County Fair. They invited everyone to attend the Fair. Mayor Burkholder thanked the members for attending and wished them good luck.
ITEM 3 - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mayor Burkholder presented a Proclamation to Councilwoman Barbara Martin for the work she performed on the Heritage Culture and the Arts Commission (HCA) and in particular for chairing the fund raising efforts which allowed HCA to purchase the "Three Generation" bronze statue for the city. Bob Zachman, Jennifer Sylman, and other members of the HCA Commission joined the Mayor in thanking Councilwoman Martin for her hard work and dedication by presenting her with a letter of thanks.
ITEM 4 - PROCLAMATION - Honoring Scott Tucker, Retiree - Urban Drainage and Flood Control District
Mayor Burkholder presented a Proclamation to Scott Tucker, the retired Executive Director of the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District. Mayor Burkholder thanked Mr. Tucker for the great working relationship Lakewood has had with him over the years and wished him best of luck in his retirement.
ITEM 5 - PUBLIC COMMENT
Newt Vaughn - 8663 W. Hawaii Drive - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Vaughn stated that a couple of weeks ago he made a comment about 54% of
our income is in some form of taxation and another citizen of Lakewood said
there was only 37%. 37% is close if you just count what is withheld from your
paycheck by the federal, state, and local governments. If you take into consideration
the 15% of Social Security that is withheld from your check and also is paid
by your employer for you, there is now 45% with Social Security and Medicare.
You take into consideration all the use taxes you pay: ownership taxes on your
vehicles, your homes, federal excise tax on tires, gasoline taxes, of which
the city gets a portion. Then you have sales taxes on top of it. Instead of
the city all the time screaming about how little sales tax they have, they ought
to be bragging about it and saying this is a good place to shop because we do
have a lower sales tax. You can save 1% and maybe as high as 2% in some areas.
We ought to be using it as a positive note instead of a negative one. The problem
is, it's not that we're not sending too much money to government; we are. We're
sending entirely too much of our paychecks to government today. Our problem
is our ownselves. We're asking our government to do too much. We're telling
our government that we want things like childcare for our kids. Since when did
that become the responsibility of the taxpayer? Since when did it become the
responsibility of the taxpayer for mass transportation or any other thing that
comes up, other than public protection. Since we have the invention of the automobile,
maybe the roads and public works. We've had comments, as I ride along as a volunteer
with the Police Department; and the reason I do that is to try to help offset
the expense. We're worth about $17-$18 an hour to the Police Department for
the work we do and I enjoy doing it, it's a lot of fun. I would encourage more
citizens to get involved in volunteering. I have no problem with private enterprises
funding arts, humanities, cultural, or anything else, but I'm trying to figure
out why in the world 100% of the people are paying for what 3% of the people
do. We ought to be paying 100% of what we all take advantage of and that's Police
Department, roads, and public transportation. All the rest of it should go.
In our own private lives, the first thing that leaves our budget is our entertainment
when things get tight. That ought to be the first thing that leaves the ity
budget. Thank you.
Steve Holben - 3343 South Nelson Court - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Holben stated that in April and again in May he stood before City Council
and made what he thought were pretty strong comments questioning the veracity
of the city regarding its compliance with its own policy, plan, and laws and
the matter in which it relates to citizens' concerns about such. Frankly, I
consider the comments insulting, yet necessary to properly convey my opinion
over the way my very real and valid concerns about Mount Carbon have been handled
by the city. I honestly expected the strength of my remarks to have drawn the
cCity forth to explain to its owners how, with the many stated policies and
ordinances mandating view corridor preservation, the eyesores that greet visitors
to Mount Carbon Summit are in compliance. Disappointingly, no one from the city
has ever offered to come forth. Instead, I have had to undertake calling the
individuals I challenged in April and find that even the ones that have written
to me to say the Lakewood latrines are in compliance, have no basis of understanding
of the policy, plan, or implementing ordinances to be able to make that kind
of remark. I find myself batting zero for two and feeling again, stonewalled.
City Manager Mike Rock is next on my list. Yet, he has never felt any need to
return calls. Indeed, he has others return his calls and tell me he will not
return my calls, and he has them send me letters of dismissal. Since Mr. Rock
was next on my list, and this seems to be the only forum available to me in
any way to communicate with him, I'm taking advantage of his proximity, lack
of phone lines, or employees to divide us, to ask him directly here and now,
whether or not he can explain the chapter and verse of the outhouse compliance
to me. Mr. Rock, can you do that?
City Manager Mike Rock - I believe during public comment, your comments are directed to Council.
Steve Holben - I understand that. I've heard this course go on before during public comment period. I will put it on public record that I do expect him to communicate with me and if he can explain how these are in compliance. I expect an explanation. Otherwise, I expect an admission from him that he has no knowledge, just like the other people I've spoken to. Thank you very much.
Sarah Howell - 1030 Emporia Street - Denver, Colorado
Hello. I'm the daughter of Ferrill and Beverly Howell, who are currently Lakewood
residents. They came here through the Bureau of Indian Affairs Relocation Program
back in the 60's, where they bought their first house in Green Mountain. I grew
up in Green Gables. They currently live on the ridge in Park West. My name is
Sarah Howell. I am a Pawnee Indian, currently a Denver Public School's math
teacher. I did grow up in Lakewood and graduated from Bear Creek High School
in 1984. In April, my father was diagnosed with terminal cancer, and when I
first asked him what he wanted done with his body after he died, he suggested
that his ashes be spread at Bear Creek Greenbelt Park. He has changed his mind
because of his service in the military and plans to be buried at Fort Logan
Cemetery. When I found out my father was going to die, I had three wishes. The
first wish was to help him write his second book. The second wish was to raise
a totem pole. The third was to make him understand what a great man he was to
me. With the help of any of the members of this Council, I am hoping that my
second wish could be fulfilled. Four years ago, for a final project of my Masters
Degree, I created a totem pole. I followed the traditions of the Northwest Coast
indigenous people called "The Tlingit." I took five figures from their
culture, and matched five figures from my culture, and created an 8' sculpture
called "The Pawnee Chief Tlingit Totem Pole." The pole, to me, represented
pride in education, respect for culture, and the way to honor current American
Indian artists. I would like to donate that totem pole to the Bear Creek Greenbelt
Park to represent the pride in my education because I grew up at that park.
Respect for culture because Pawnee Indians were native to Colorado, and to honor
both of my parents, parents of a current American Indian artist. I have given
the Chair of the Council a journal that documents the creation of the totem
pole and I'm hoping that the rest of the members have a picture of the sculpture
and some contact information. I do thank you for your time and dedication to
this city and hopefully, for your future assistance in helping me make this
donation possible. I would like to finish with my story of the pole that I'm
hoping my father can raise at the ceremony.
The totem pole represents the story of how to live in harmony with yourself, others, and nature. Just as how the wolf taught the Tlingit to be great hunters, he also shared his hunting prowess with the Pawnee, helping the Pawnee to survive on the Great Plain. The box that contains the sun lets out the light to make the world a better place. It shines into Pawnee homes bringing the Morning Star shimmer of light and good blessing. The red painted on the bear represents how all species need to find ways to allow each other not to become extinct. All types of life, human groups, included, all have reasons and purposes on this earth and should be given the right to flourish in harmony. The eagle represents the greatness of all birds; thus, the feathers and the figure also represent the greatness of my grandfather, Chief of one of the clans of the Pawnee Indians. Finally, just how the beaver gave the Tlingit superior weapons, the beaver gave Pawnee the ability to build superior homes called "earth lodges." This pole is meant to honor my and other cultures of the past. Thank you.
Mike Mueller - 868 S. Owens Court - Lakewood, Colorado
I brought a little friend. His name is Mr. Bobble. Mr. Rock wanted to build
a new city center, a new cultural center, two new golf courses, remodel all
the rec centers, and purchase two ugly signposts for Sheridan and Colfax. Mr.
Bobble said that was okay. The citizens say no. Those pesky citizens. Mr. Rock
wanted a tax increase. Mr. Bobble said that's ok. The citizens say no. Those
pesky citizens. Mr. Rock does all of this anyway without voter approval. Mr.
Rock wants to put sex offenders in our neighborhoods. He wants light rail. He
wants an agreement with the City of Morrison without showing it to Council.
He wants another raise. Mr. Bobble says yeah, yeah, that's ok. Now the ,ity
is in financial turmoil and Mr. Rock wants another tax increase. But what about
those pesky citizens? Solution, we cut back the Police Department, scare single
mothers that the police won't answer their alarms until they give us a tax increase.
Mr. Bobble says that sounds like extortion. But I guess that's ok. That'll teach
those pesky citizens. Mr. Rock wants a 67% tax increase even though it won't
help congestion or pollution. Mr. Bobble says that's ok. Doesn't that mean that
after the train goes through, that the property values along the track will
decline and you can use urban renewal to stomp on the personal real property
rights of the citizens along those tracks and sell those properties to a developer
at a reduced price to fatten your developer friends' wallets? Mr. Bobble says
I guess that's all right. They are just pesky citizens.
Frank Burcik - 2010 Bell Court - Lakewood, Colorado
I have a comment on a recent incident in front of my property on 1690 Vance
Street. A neighbor from that street came in and dumped on my property branches
and lawn clippings and so on. I caught him and I found where he lives and I
called the police. I was advised by a police officer that he did not file a
report because I did not have a sign that said, "no dumping" on the
property. They decided there is nothing I can do about it. Later on I called
again, and I talked to a different officer who wasn't sure if the code said
"yes" or "no." I asked him what would happen if I take that
garbage that was dumped on my property, if I take it back to his place and dump
it on his property and if he called police, if I would be arrested or written
up in the report on it. My question is are the police aware of the code and
do they know just what the rules and regulations are. It's been 10 days and
I still don't have any answer from police except Bob Murphy was the fastest
to respond to me. Now I have garbage and maybe I can get an address of each
of you, and maybe bring something on your property. I'll bet none of you have
a "no dumping" sign. I understand the police have a difficult job
to do. They have hard work to do. I had in my apartment complex to call them
several times. When I called them one time in February, for a broken window;
seven squad cars show up. An officer told me she just wanted to get her stuff
out of the apartment, but she already moved. Then when I pointed to each officer,
and I told them I wanted them to write a three page report ,and I want a copy
of that, some of the officers started joking and some get upset about it. There
was another tenant that had a bruised arm and she was also in the eviction process
and I talked to her and was in her apartment. About two hours later, two officers
came and served me assault charges. I asked the officer if they could take her
to a hospital or doctor to see anybody to look at the bruises and how old they
might be. They flatly refused to do so. The case was dismissed because she admitted
the bruises were three to four days old. I understand that police officers have
a difficult job, but we don't have enough of them, but any time you drive around
the city, minor incidents, you have five or six different squad cars. I think
there are plenty of police and the budget does not need more.
Johann Cohn - 1208 S. Brentwood Street - Lakewood, Colorado
I'm President of Lakewood's Citizens for Open Space. I'm here to hearken back
to your May 24th meeting which I did not attend. Your agenda for that evening
reflected a presentation for proposed changes to the 2004/2005 City Budget and
it was placed under General Business. Your minutes do show a summary of the
City Manager's PowerPoint presentation. I guess somebody found out about it
or knew they could talk at that time because you did have a very limited public
input. I believe it had to do with one of the daycare centers that receive city
funds. Then you approved the PowerPoint presentation by simple motion. Other
than the minutes of the PowerPoint, there appears to be no other formal document
that reflects Council's actions. I'm not saying that you broke any rules, after
all I do have a line of figures in front of me to refer to, but when you want
to reduce a budget by $5.5 million, I suggest you might want to do it just a
bit more formally. It's this very sort of thing that I'm talking about when
I say that when you want to sell Lakewood's citizens the need for a higher sales
tax rate, as I think you should, you need to rise to a higher level of candor.
I recognize that it is not always easy. You have to listen to more presentation,
more difficult people like me. In your budget hearings last fall, I pointed
out to you that you had too many FTE's in Resource Development. The Department
of Community Resources took a hit, $426,000 worth; but the FTE's are still there
from our point of view, planning fake firehouses in the park and perhaps still
another space for wedding receptions. Members of Council, I'd much rather, speaking
only for myself at this point, I'd much rather have another police officer or
two; especially one to help an identity theft task force like Wheat Ridge than
people who are writing grants. I think you ought to revisit it and revisit with
more public input in terms of your $5.5 million budget reduction. Thank you.
City Clerk Margy Greer stated that Mr. Cohn had called her and talked to her about the minutes of the May 24, 2004, meeting and under General Business tonight, I will be asking for a motion to amend those. We did have an 11-0 vote to approve those budget reductions. However, she did not get them into the written minutes and asked to approve the amended minutes.
The following Consent Agenda items were read into the record by the City Clerk:
ITEM 6 - RESOLUTION 2004-67 - REGARDING RTD'S FASTRACKS PLAN (This item was pulled from the Consent Agenda and placed under General Business.)
ITEM 7 - ORDINANCE O-2004-24 - TO REZONE LAND LOCATED AT 10020 WEST COLFAX AVENUE, CITY OF LAKEWOOD, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO
ITEM 8 - ORDINANCE O-2004-25 - DISCONNECTING FROM THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD CERTAIN PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, AND IN THE NORTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF LAKEWOOD, JEFFERSON COUNTY, STATE OF COLORADO
ITEM 9 - ORDINANCE O-2004-26 - AMENDING SECTION 17-15-3 OF THE LAKEWOOD ZONING ORDINANCE
ITEM 10 - ORDINANCE O-2004-27 - TO REZONE LAND LOCATED AT 5991 WEST COLFAX AVENUE, CITY OF LAKEWOOD, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO
ITEM 11 - ORDINANCE O-2004-28 - AMENDING SECTIONS 17-2-2, 17-5-15, 17-5-16, 17-5-17, 17-5-18, 17-5-19, 17-5-20, 17-5-21 AND 17-6-4 OF THE LAKEWOOD ZONING ORDINANCE
ITEM 12 - ORDINANCE O-2004-29 - AMENDING SECTION 5.39.020 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO OPTIONAL PREMISES LIQUOR LICENSES; FURTHER DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
ITEM 23 - ACCEPTING MINUTES OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
• Lakewood Housing Authority Meeting May 24, 2004
Councilman Elliott requested that Resolution 2004-67 be pulled from the Consent Agenda and be placed under General Business for a separate vote.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to approve the Council minutes; to accept the minutes of Boards and Commissions; and ordered all ordinances introduced on first reading to be published in the Lakewood Sentinel with public hearing set for the date included in the ordinance; and ordered the adoption of resolutions, all of which were included in the Consent Agenda Items 7 through 23 introduced into the record by the City Clerk. Councilwoman Martin seconded the motion.
Public Comment: None.
Vote on the Consent Agenda: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 14 - ORDINANCE O-2004-18 - AUTHORIZING THE TRADE OF FIVE (5) SHARES OF MERRITT DITCH COMPANY STOCK AND A 3.6 PERCENT INTEREST IN THE WARD LAKE ASSOCIATION OWNED BY THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD FOR TWO (2) INCHES (TWO FORTIETHS OF ONE SHARE) OF THE AGRICULTURAL DITCH AND RESERVOIR COMPANY OWNED BY ARNOLD L. GREENBERG
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-18 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 15 - ORDINANCE O-2004-19 - APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO FUND THE CONVERSION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL LIGHTING AND LIGHTING OF ARTERIAL STREETS TO A MORE COST AND ENERGY EFFICIENT SYSTEM
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-19 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 16 - ORDINANCE O-2004-20 - AMENDING SECTION 5.47.110 AND REPEALING SECTION 5.47.115 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF ADULT BUSINESSES
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-20 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 17 - ORDINANCE O-2004-21 - AMENDING CHAPTER 2.52 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PROCEDURES
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-21 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 18 - ORDINANCE O-2004-22 - TO REZONE LAND LOCATED AT 8090 WEST MISSISSIPPI AVENUE, CITY OF LAKEWOOD, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO
Applicant was available to answer questions.
Planning Dept. was available to answer questions.
Public Comments:
Johann Cohen - 1208 S. Brentwood Street - Lakewood, Colorado
I live across the fields from the project. I have very little to add to what
I stated at the Planning Commission Meeting. I would only point out to Council,
and of course, I favor the project, and it is a very necessary part of this
project, that a street be punched through to Mississippi. This will add another
street that will come into Mississippi. I would point out to Council that there
is a traffic light at Wadsworth. There is a traffic light at Garrison and nothing
in between and we have been adding streets over the years. So, while I think
you should approve the project, I would call your attention to this and hope
that Traffic Planning might come up with a solution on the increasing traffic.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-22 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Councilwoman Herbst asked about the traffic planning on Mississippi Avenue. The update given to Council stated that the traffic study was waived. She asked for an overview of the traffic planning.
Dru Siley, Planner III, stated that the development being proposed does not generate the traffic which would warrant a signal as laid down by the traffic criteria at this point. Additionally, because this is only a nine single-family lot subdivision, it does not require a traffic study at this time either. That was the decision made by our Traffic Engineering Dept. Sufficient traffic would not be generated to meet the warrants that require a signal.
Councilwoman Herbst - What would warrant a signal? Because of the properties that are all in that area, there are still quite a few that are one-acre properties and it seems as though they are turning over rapidly. I'm looking to the future and would like to know what would warrant a signal, because it is true; there is nothing between Wadsworth and Garrison.
Dru Siley - We are probably just now approaching that threshold. Any future developments of those vacant properties to the west would most likely require traffic studies and staff would take another look at the amount of traffic to be generated by future development to the west of this project. Currently, this project is still underneath that threshold, but I think additional development would exceed that threshold.
City Manager Mike Rock - Warrants are a technical term used by traffic engineers that don't mean anything to anybody else. Maybe you could explain when you use the term "warrants" in discussing the traffic generation; you might explain what that means.
Dru Siley - I apologize for using jargon. Warrants are essentially just criteria that establish a threshold that a certain number of trips generated by a development create a need for traffic mitigations such as signals, improvements, things of that nature.
Councilwoman Herbst - Along those same lines, I realize there are two different sides of the issue when it comes to the sidewalks along Mississippi and the curb and gutter and I'm wondering if that has been taken into account along with the drainage issue. Are there any plans for sidewalks because some neighbors want them and some neighbors do not want them in that area. Are there plans to put sidewalks in along Mississippi because they are doing all of this development work in there?
Roger Wadnal - Along Mississippi, it is part of the functional plan, whether this development triggers the requirement that the developer put that in is up to the individual development. It's in the long-term functional plan and it's addressed in the corridor plan. So, long term, it would be included but this particular development may not trigger that.
Dru Siley - In the Planning Commission Staff Report, sidewalks are required as part of this development along Mississippi.
Councilwoman Herbst - Would you mind just touching on the drainage issues. It was stated in here a couple of different times in the reports and the Planning Commission minutes.
Anne Heine, Civil Engineer, Public Works Department - Is your question related to the drainage ditch that runs along Mississippi?
Councilwoman Herbst - It is, but also the report talks about drainage running along south of the subject property.
Anne Heine -The ditch along Mississippi is a Saulsbury lateral and there is a proposal to pipe that ditch along this property frontage, but the proposal is preliminary at this point and the Saulsbury lateral will need to approve of the plan. We do have preliminary approval for the piping. The overall drainage for this development drains to the south into the existing detention pond that was built with Allison Filing No. 2 and the volume will be expanded by modifying the outlet structure to accommodate the drainage from this filing.
Councilwoman Herbst - When did you say the drainage from Saulsbury Ditch would be approved?
Anne Heine - The applicant was not required to submit final street construction plans with the rezoning proposal, but they will be required to have final approval of street construction plans before building permits are issued and the applicant is preparing those plans now. The Saulsbury lateral approval will be required with those plans.
Councilman Stevens - In the Planning Commission hearings, there was one gentleman who talked about accidents occurring as a result of the fact that no one maintains weed control in the ditch from Butler Way to Ammons. He said you cannot see off Brentwood onto Mississippi Avenue. Whose responsibility are these weeds? Has there been a plan to deal with them?
Roger Wadnal - That did come up in the Planning Commission hearing. It is beyond the scope of this particular project and that's something that we would have to work directly to deal with that particular issue, but it is beyond the requirements of this particular development.
Dru Siley - The weed issue at 8090 Mississippi will be resolved with this development. Further to the west, we will continue to work with the individual property owners through our Code Enforcement Division and things of that nature to actually have that issue resolved.
Councilman Stevens - Is it the city's responsibility or is it the ditch company or is it a private concern who is responsible for these weeds? And, in fact, are there accidents being caused as a result of no visibility?
Dru Siley - Not according to our traffic department. There is no significant number of accidents along that section of Mississippi at this time. As far as who is responsible, I believe it would be the ditch company and we'll continue to work with them to mitigate any kind of weed issue that might be in that area.
Councilman Elliott - Are we retaining any rights of way along Mississippi Avenue? There are no street improvements planned at this time other than curb and sidewalk, but one of the issues is that in the wintertime we've got those large trees and there is no ability to turn left. It's a two lane road, are we reaching any sorts of right-of-way so that if development does happen in the future, we will be able to potentially put in a center lane for right and left turns, similar to what we've done east of Wadsworth on Mississippi Avenue?
Dru Siley - Along this area of Mississippi, I don't think there is going to be any requirement to do any kind of widening. The curb, gutter, and sidewalk that is required with this development is within right-of-way.
Councilman Elliott - As we continue to increase volume along that, that's a fairly significant east/west corridor throughout Lakewood.
Dru Siley - At this time, I don't think there is any such plans for a median of that kind, but potentially with future development, we may assess that.
Roger Wadnal - There were some recent improvements to Mississippi and those reflected the right-of-way and the width of pavement for some time to come. Those should accommodate a future lane along Mississippi.
Councilman Elliott - So that will be able to accommodate a center turn lane at some point without us having to acquire any additional rights-of-way along Mississippi.
Roger Wadnal - We would have to take a look at how that would work, but the improvements were developed and completed in conformance with the functional plan to accommodate future growth along Mississippi and within the existing right-of-way. That engineering has really been completed to accommodate future growth along there.
Councilman Peterson - With the Mississippi Corridor Plan and the improvements, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that take Mississippi from Wadsworth east? I think we are now talking about Mississippi from Wadsworth to Garrison and onto Kipling. There is a little bottleneck between Garrison and Wadsworth.
Roger Wadnal - We would have to take a look at this in a little more detail. We do not have the traffic engineers here tonight. We would need to look at that configuration exactly, but it didn't appear that this development would require that, but we do not have the engineering drawings here.
Dru Siley - The project currently does not generate enough traffic to actually require that. We would definitely assess it if a development came in along Mississippi to the west.
Councilman Elliott - The concern here is that this project in and of itself does not precipitate a need for an improvement along Mississippi, but I would hate for us to approve this plan at this point without having the ability, because that is the only section between Wadsworth and Garrison that does not have a center turn lane on Mississippi, and I would hate to see us do that and then wind up later on down the road, needing to do an acquisition for rights-of-way for improvements on Mississippi, because it wasn't built in. Really, without that answer, I guess I'm at the point and I apologize to the developer, but without knowing that answer, I don't feel like I can approve this tonight without knowing that we've got that future expansion right-of-way needed for this project taken care of. I'm just speaking for myself here, but it's a concern I've got, because if we have to go back later, it's going to probably be a whole lot more expensive to do something at that point and that really is the only area along Mississippi that doesn't have a center turn lane.
Dru Siley - The right-of-way along Mississippi at this section and going further to the west is 60 feet. So there is actually a significant amount of right-of-way along this entire corridor. That would allow for those types of improvements, should it be warranted by future developments.
Councilman Elliott - So, we should be able to put in that center lane with the current right-of-way along Mississippi and make it similar to what we have east of Wadsworth and west of Garrison on Mississippi.
Dru Siley - That would be correct.
Councilwoman Herbst - In regards to notification, I was noticing the Neighborhood Referral Meeting summary that was given to us this evening, and I don't see any neighborhood organizations or associations listed on here. I am familiar with the boundaries of 500' and 1000'. Does the Belmar Neighborhood fall within those boundaries?
Dru Siley - It looks as though what was listed on the Neighborhood Notification may not be complete. We actually notified a number of additional neighborhood groups for the public hearing for Planning Commission and for City Council, far exceeding what is listed here in the neighborhood summary from the meeting of August 13, 2003.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 19 - ORDINANCE O-2004-23 - AMENDING SECTIONS 17-2-2, 17-5-7, 17-5-8, 17-5-9, 17-5-10, 17-5-11, 17-5-12, 17-5-13, 17-5-14, 17-5-15, 17-5-16, 17-5-17, 17-5-18, 17-5-19, 17-5-20, 17-5-21 AND REPEALING AND REENACTING ARTICLE 17-8 OF THE LAKEWOOD ZONING ORDINANCE
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-23 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 20 - GENERAL BUSINESS
A. RESOLUTION 2004-67 - REGARDING RTD'S FASTRACKS PLAN
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Resolution 2004-67. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Public Comments:
Pam Feely - 10454 West Arkansas Drive - Lakewood, Colorado
I am here tonight representing the coalition of Jefferson County Business Organizations.
The Coalition's members include: the West Chamber Serving Jefferson County,
the Golden Chamber, the Arvada Chamber, the Conifer Chamber, the Evergreen Chamber,
and the Jefferson Economic Council. These organizations represent over 2800
businesses in the Jefferson County Area. The Coalition is in support of the
Regional Transportation District's Fastracks ballot proposal to build light
rail lines throughout Metro Denver. Fastracks is a proactive plan that responds
to the growing transportation needs of the Denver Metro Area by providing an
enhanced region-wide reliable and safe transit system. Fastracks will provide
residents improved transportation choices and options, increase mass transit
use during peak travel times and balance transit needs with future regional
growth. Fastracks will generate approximately 10,000 jobs; 8,000 of those in
the construction industry and 1200-1800 as permanent jobs. It also will provide
economic growth, especially near light rail stations for individuals and businesses.
It also will support air quality and energy conservation. The Coalition and
its member organizations actively support the Fastracks proposal. Thank you.
Edie Bryan - 1661 S. Kendall Street - Lakewood, Colorado
I'm very happy to be here supporting something. Some twenty years ago when I
was on City Council, a number of people asked me, "Edie, why don't we have
some trains running on those old tracks that are up near Colfax, approximately
at 13th. They are sitting there, why don't we use them for something? Why don't
we run some trains?" Well, it's taken awhile. Then about 11 years ago,
I was on the RTD Board and again, a number of people kept saying to me, "Aren't
we ever going to run trains on those tracks that are there in Lakewood? They
just run right through the middle of Lakewood. It would be so useful to go downtown
and different places." And, guess what, finally, now, in 2004, we are going
to get to vote on the package called Fastracks, which includes that project
together with a whole bunch of other things that don't affect Lakewood so directly.
I just want you to know that that light rail line will be the first one built
after Fastracks passes. Without Fastracks passing, it may get done, maybe and
maybe little pieces of it at a time. I have to say this, because I'm not an
official anybody anymore, but it will probably never go as far as the Taj Mahal.
That's the cold fact of the matter. If we want the line to come through Lakewood
as soon as possible, the first line to be built, and we want it to go all the
way to the Taj Mahal, we need to vote yes on Fastracks in November and I would
ask everyone of you and everyone whose watching TV at home to please vote yes.
I have some brochures that give details and this is hot off the press.
Spencer Swalm - 7250 South Ivy Court - Centennial, Colorado
I am here on behalf of Taxpayers Against Congestion tonight. I would like to
make a couple of points about this proposal. I think the Fastracks proposal
is being sold primarily on two points. First, that it will help with congestion
and second, that it will help in dealing with air pollution. I think, when you
look at the DRCOG studies, that exhaustive research the whole proposal, both
of those claims are dubious at best. When we look first at congestion, I think
the main issue is what happens to congestion and highway speeds in the corridors
that Fastracks is focusing on. According to the DRCOG study, current average
speeds in those corridors are about 27 mph. If we do not build Fastracks, if
we do not raise our RTD sales tax by about 67% and we don't spend about $8 billion
including interest costs on this project, speeds in those corridors are going
to go from 27 mph down to about 15.4 mph. That's a pretty bad result. On the
other hand, if we build Fastracks, spend $8 billion, corridor speeds are going
to go from 27 mph average down to about 15.9 mph. So $8 billion is going to
get us ½ mile improvement in highway speeds and congestion. I don't think
it's worth it. The second thing is air pollution. According to the DRCOG study,
the most pollutants are going to decrease by about ½ of 1%, particulates,
carbon monoxide and things of that nature. The reason is that according to the
DRCOG study, automobile traffic will decline by ½ of 1% in the year 2025,
if we spend $8 billion on Fastracks. That's why it has a very minimal impact
on pollution. The one pollutant that is affected dramatically by Fastracks is
ozone. Ozone is going to go up by about 3% and when you net it out again by
about ½% reduction of the ozone because ½% of the cars are coming
off. The net effect of ozone is to go up about 2-1/2 %. As you all know well,
ozone is the one pollutant in the area that we are not meeting federal standards
on. So, I think on both counts, congestion relief and pollution, Fastracks fails
the test, and so I urge you and everyone who is watching this to vote no on
Fastracks.
Mike Mueller - 868 South Owens Court - Lakewood, Colorado
A lot of the talk about Fastracks is the gosh wouldn't it be nice that we can
just jump on the train and go downtown and see a movie. For the amount of money
that all of this fluff and polish and shine is going to cost each one of us,
we will never get it back. It will not solve congestion. It will not solve any
of the environmental problems we have. It will damage numerous neighborhoods
that will never be the same again. That is the real problem with this. I've
been working on this since it was an MIS and I've explained to a lot of you
that with the MIS, following it all the way through, it never has come out to
pay for itself. It is a waste of taxpayer money and that's your money and my
money. It will not improve our situation at all.
Kathleen Calongne - 2431 23rd Street - Boulder, Colorado
I am also a member of Taxpayers Against Congestion. I've come to share some
of the research that was done. I would like to point out that all of these figures
are directly from RTD and DRCOG. The number that you hear, $4.7 billion, is
the number of the capital costs. The number that you don't hear is an additional
$4-8 billion in interest. It will take eight years before the first train rolls
out of the barn. In that eight years, each person will have spent $640, before
they've had the first ride for the 4/10 of 1% tax increase. In 20 years, each
person will have paid $2000 in taxes for Fastracks. Let's talk about rail in
other cities, because we're being made to feel that we are a second rate city
because we don't have rail. Let's look at what has happened with rail in other
cities. From the Federal Transit Administration, rail use has decreased by an
average of 30,000 transit riders in every city that has rail. The only rail
line in the country that carries as much as one lane of traffic is the subway
system in New York. I have some figures of the actual number of people that
rail carries in different cities. We've all gone to Washington or whatever,
and we think it's great because we can leave our car, but the numbers show that
the people who live there and know where they are going don't mind driving their
car. In Boston, the rail carries 38% of one lane of traffic. Portland, we hear
about the success of Portland all of the time, 20% of one lane of traffic. Denver
is carrying 15% of one lane of traffic. Chicago, everyone thinks Chicago is
so successful, 14% of one lane of traffic. Portland which is the most successful
light rail system in the country, carries .75 of 1% of the total number of trips
made. It was mentioned that DRCOG states that only ½ of 1% of the cars
will be taken off the road, but what people are interested in is knowing what
the impact is at peak periods and that is only 1.4% of additional cars will
be taken off the road in 2025. The tax, which is only suppose to decrease up
to the amount that will still allow for RTD to pay for the operating costs,
the loans will last until 2048. So, it won't be until after that time that the
.4% on top of the .6% that they already have, might decrease. However, rail
is not forever and rail has to be replaced about every 25-30 years. That's about
the same time that the cars and the rails are going to have to be replaced.
So, it is doubtful that the tax will ever sunset and it is completely at RTD's
discretion, whether or not the tax sunsets. So, I encourage you not to support
this project. It's about benefiting a few people at the expense of most of us.
Thanks.
Susan Aldretti - 950 Wadsworth Blvd. - Lakewood, Colorado
I'm here tonight representing the 2200 members of the Jefferson County Association
of Realtors. Realtors believe that solving our transportation problems are crucial
if we are going to maintain the quality of life that we all enjoy today and
if we are going to have a viable economy in the future. Developing a first rate
transit system is an important part of solving our transportation problems.
As you know, Fastracks is a comprehensive proposal that's been developed over
seven years by the citizens of this community, the other communities within
the transportation district, neighborhood organizations, businesses, elected
officials, transportation officials, and all the communities have all had a
seat at the table and have brought forth a plan that will build 119 miles of
new light rail and commuter rail in twelve years. In addition, it will expand
our park-and-rides and suburb-to-suburb bus system. In the next 20 years, there
is going to be an additional one million people in the RTD district. That is
the size of Denver, Lakewood, and Aurora combined. If we don't act now and act
today to solve our transportation problems, we won't have a quality of life.
We'll have a declining economy and declining property values. We ask for the
unanimous support of the Lakewood City Council in support of Fastracks. Thanks.
Linda Morton - 423 S. Devinney Street - Lakewood, Colorado
This is the first time I've been in front of this Council since I had the honor
of sitting in the chair Mr. Burkholder is in tonight. But, this particular issue
has been so near and dear to my heart and I think to the hearts of the citizens
of this city, that to see us come so close to the opportunity to having a light
rail line, quality mass transit into this city, was the incentive for me to
come here tonight and say to you to please, tonight, make a statement to the
citizens of this city that you, as their council leaders, understand that Lakewood
is going to benefit tremendously from a successful Fastracks election. Yes,
we have been putting this program together for seven years, but quite honestly,
our transit corridor has been studied for many, many, many years before this
particular program was put into place. Over and over again, studies have confirmed
the needs for mass transit in the corridors that are so designated by DRCOG.
I'm just one of many many citizens who are anxious and imagine what it will
be like to leave my car, when I choose to leave my car, in my garage or in the
Cold Spring Parking Lot, get on light rail, to go to employment, to bring employees
out to the businesses in Lakewood. Yes, to go downtown for recreation and ride
relaxed to the Rockies and football games. To have that choice of taking our
car or leaving our car, for those of us who even have that luxury and many people
don't have the luxury of that choice, is exciting. Lakewood has always shown
strong leadership in the area of transportation. This state, right now, is woefully
behind in the funding curve for all kinds of transportation needs. We have the
opportunity through Fastracks to add miles of mass transportations to this Metropolitan
Area, and yes, indeed, make this a great metropolitan area to live in, by the
passage of this proposal this fall. But, very selfishly, Lakewood, who will
see light rail built very, very soon has an opportunity that, frankly, you as
leaders can't pass up. Please, tonight, send a very strong message to our citizens
to be part of the successful vote on Fastracks this fall. Thank you.
Newt Vaughan - 8663 W. Hawaii Drive - Lakewood, Colorado
First of all, I want to put an example out. The money that these people are
spending to get approval for this Fastracks. Nice flyer. We're obligating our
kids to pay for this thing. We're obligating our grandkids, our great grandkids,
and probably their great grandkids. Fifty years after this thing is outdated,
you are still paying for it. I have had the opportunity to be in all 48 states,
all major cities. Some of those states and cities have had some kind of mass
transit for years. It's the only thing that is subsidized by the taxpayer that
doesn't work. Quite frankly, I hear comments about how we subsidize roads, yeah,
we do. Every time we buy a gallon of gas, every mile we drive, we subsidize
roads. We pay for it out of our pocket. Now, you are asking me to pay for 3%
of the people that will finally get on this train and ride it. Quite frankly,
if you are not going to ride this train personally, everyday to work, you should
vote no. This city should not even get behind it. It is a cost boondoggle that'll
never be paid for. It will be worn out long before you ever see it. The studies,
they do on growth from 1990. I heard in 1980 how this would be a solid city
from the borders of Ft. Collins to the borders of Colorado Springs. It's just
barely getting there now. So they tell you, hey, you're going to grow by one
million, two million, three million, four million if we don't do something about
transportation, what are we going to do? Maybe we ought to build more roads,
that's what more people use. Until you can get people out of their cars, there
is no sense in spending $8 billion, $2 billion, $1 billion, any billion, in
obligating your children's great grandkids to pay for this thing because, quite
frankly, you are paying for what 3% of the people benefit from. Thank you.
Tom Graham - 6080 Routte Street - Arvada, Colorado
I just came from a Fastracks meeting and I attend all of the meetings, and all
of them last year. There is going to be 21 now in the next six weeks. I monitor
them all. I find a gross misrepresentation being put out to the public and it
is really blatant. I'm a professional transportation planner and I work with
a number of engineers and transit analysis and we all recognize this as having
no merit. We only use CDOT and RTD and DRCOG's statistics so we're not analyzing
our own or running any of our own programs. I'll try not to be redundant. I
didn't know what the other people were going to say. The cost is $11.7 billion.
The $4.7 billion project means nothing. During the 30-year bond period, RTD
will have $34.8 billion in revenues. What they are asking for, the long-term
debt, is only one-tenth of that. They couldn't pay that off without an extra
tax, then they should all be hung. Of all the major investment studies, the
prices now are averaging 60% over what they were selling to the public back
a year or two ago. As far as economic development goes, there is a federal report
sponsored by the Transit Administration that states that there is no net economic
development from rail transit lines. There is some development moving around
from one place to another that would have done that in any event without the
investment in rail. In my experience, I found some development around light
rail stations are things like tanning salons and that level of economic development,
no major economic impact on the community. The preceding speakers mentioned
the less than ½% reduction in traffic. The motivation for this thing
was to reduce traffic congestion. It's not going to have any effect. What wasn't
mentioned was that will only last from three months to eight months, depending
on the corridor, because of the natural growth in population and automobile
use. For $11 billion, you're getting ½% reduction for a few months. I
intended to address the pollution, but Mr. Swalm already did that. The subsidy
per rider annually to get new riders on transit will be $11,500 per person.
One ride for one person from Boulder to Denver, $18.79 subsidy. Tax increase
always hurts business. That's Economics 101.
I can't understand why the Denver Chamber gave a quarter of a million dollars
to Fastracks -Yes. Thank you very much.
Dave Ruckman - RTD Representative - 11615 Carmel Drive
I would like to offer you guys a vision. In 2025 when this is built-out, what
is now 7% of all trips taken during major peak periods in the JeffCo Central
Western Corridor will become 26%. The major difference is public transportation
offering light rail and offering seamless inter-modality buses coming to the
stops of light rail. We're going to have a tremendous transformation in the
way in which the West Corridor, including much of Lakewood, moves about during
Monday through Friday during peak congestion hours. That's what I think I offer.
For those people who say, build it no one is going to come, I think we know
that that's hockey, because we have a light rail system that completely overwhelmed
us with demand when we opened the Santa Fe Line, opened the Southwest Corridor
Line four years ago next Wednesday. I'm very delighted that we have the opportunity
to talk about this. You've heard a number of opinions. I'm asking that the Lakewood
City Council unanimously join with RTD as partners in suggesting to the voters
of the Metro Area, but particulaly Lakewood, that we ought to move ahead with
this. Why, why should we do this? I think RTD is going to be a very good partner.
Last year, we were voted the number one transit agency in the country by our
peers in the profession of public transportation. I can tell you that of the
15-person RTD Board, each one of whom represents roughly a 160,000 people; everyone
of us is focused like a laser in suggesting that we ought to move this forward.
It's not just the 15 of us that are doing this. Every time there has been a
poll in Lakewood, the poll has shown overwhelming public support from your citizens
and why do they want it? They want it because it is a significant transformational
advance in the way in which we move around in a city and in a metro area wherein
each year we're here, we see that the quality of life in terms of transportation
is going down. The last thing I would say about why you should join with RTD
as a partner is we have a very good and conservative record in terms of handling
money. We have built three corridors. We've built them on time. We've built
them under budget. So if anyone says blah blah blah cost overruns, I think they
really need to look at the record because the record bears out that RTD will
be a good partner with Lakewood and the other cities in the metro area. Let's
look at how we've worked with Lakewood. We began an EIS about three years ago
and I just want to detail how it is we reached out to the neighborhoods to listen
to what the neighborhoods had to say and why did we do that? We did it, one,
because we were working with Lakewood and we know that the citizens and neighborhoods
are important. But, two, we also knew that if we did this, the plans that resulted
would be much stronger for the effort. In working closely with Lakewood and
closely with the neighborhoods, I think the RTD Fastracks, specifically for
Lakewood, are much stronger for the benefit. How did we reach out? We reached
out with one-on-one calls. We reached out with one-on-one meetings. We reached
out with emails, a website, a drop-in center, small public meetings, large public
meetings, newsletters, and I think I'm missing two or three. The point is, we
really reached out and we listened to the neighborhood and how does Lakewood
benefit from this? I think Lakewood is one of the biggest beneficiaries in this
major capitol plan. The only way it goes forward is with taxes and money. That's
the only way you can pay for infrastructure. I appreciate your time.
Councilman Elliott - I think we've heard some dialogue tonight on some of the pros and cons regarding the Fastracks proposal or the Fastracks resolution that we are considering tonight. I had a chance today, there has not been a lot of time for this Council, they may have looked at it over time, but we have not had an open discussion. We talked about it a little bit on Friday and have not had an open discussion regarding the merits of Fastracks, whether it really accomplishes some of the things that have been mentioned tonight or not. I pulled up a report today that I would urge my fellow councilors to take a look at. I also encountered Susan Aldretti from the Jefferson County Association of Realtors who informed me that there is some information that may contradict some of the information that we have heard tonight. I guess, from my standpoint, being fairly new, I've looked over the information I have received and primarily the bulk of what I've received has been pro Fastracks, but not a lot in relation to any of the cons of Fastracks. Obviously, when you look at a proposal, not everything is wonderful and glorious as it may sound on some of the ads that we've been hearing. But, there are other alternative views. I think it was a good discussion tonight in what we had. I guess, I would like to propose, I can say for myself that I'm not ready to move forward with this resolution at this point and would like to propose a motion to table this Ordinance O-2004-67 to allow Council additional time to gain additional information and for additional discussion.
Councilman Elliott - My preference would be to continue it to a date certain. I move to continue the matter until the August 23rd City Council Meeting.
Tom Booher seconded the motion.
Mayor Burkholder - I would argue against the motion and I'll tell you why. Lakewood has been at the table for many, many years on transportation issues and as previous Mayor Morton mentioned, we've taken a leadership role in this. We've actually tried to find solutions. The realities are, we do have, in fact, 900,000 people estimated to move here within the next 20 years. Folks, that's not people moving in from California or Texas, that's us. That's births over deaths. We do have that issue facing us. We have listened to the neighborhoods. We have listened to the business community. The Economic Development Director and myself go out and talk to businesses on a regular basis. Unsolicited, the businesses of this community say, when are you going to put light rail in. This is something we need for our businesses to create more job opportunities and at the same time, create the ability for people to move forward on this. You know, I'm realistic. We're not going to get everybody out of their cars. But, at the same time, I think it is extremely important that we offer to the community a choice and those choices really involve, not only the car, but also buses, light rail, bus rapid transit. It involves choices that allow us to move forward. I think that it's important that we move forward. We do have that obligation to provide those choices to people. I also think that we have an obligation to expand those job opportunities within the Metro Denver Area. I will also say that we have a unique opportunity here in 2004 to plant the seeds that are going to really address this issue of urban growth and at the same time providing those chances for our kids and for our grandkids. Does it cost something? Yes, it does. It cost four cents on every ten dollars in purchase. I think that is a pretty darn good investment. I really feel that the West Corridor is so, so important. We are looking at 31,000 riders right now. 31,000 in a weekday. Where are you going to put them? There is no room to expand 6th Avenue between Simms and I-25. Talk about impacting neighborhoods, I think there would be a revolution if you went in and starting condemning all those homes and businesses along that particular area. I will also just say that there are over four pages and hundreds of organizations, businesses, cities, and elected officials. The City of Lakewood is the only city in Jefferson County that has not endorsed Fastracks. Every other city in Jefferson County has endorsed Fastracks. The Jefferson Economic Council has endorsed Fastracks. The West Chamber has endorsed Fastracks. The Jefferson County Association of Realtors has endorsed Fastracks and yes, the Metro Denver Chamber of Commerce has endorsed it. I just think when I look at the diversity of businesses on one side and on the other side we have the Sierra Club and we've got people that are really looking at providing a future for our kids, I think it is a mistake to wait. There are only two cities, Denver is looking at their proposal tonight and Lakewood. We purposely waited. We have allowed enough time for people to really look into this issue and I think the facts are certainly there and I think it would be a huge mistake to wait any longer on this particular issue. The facts are there, the public is supporting this, and I'll conclude by saying that today we just got a voter survey in from the citizens of Lakewood; 75% of the people of Lakewood approve or strongly approve the building of the West Corridor.
Councilman Murphy - The motion on the floor is to continue discussion to a date certain in August and I'm going to be voting against that motion. Most of us have been studying this for years. I don't need another couple of weeks.
Councilwoman Herbst - I would support the motion that is on the floor to continue this. I guess my question is that we've waited this long, what is the sense of urgency in passing this resolution tonight instead of waiting one month when the vote isn't until November?
Councilwoman Kesselman - From my perspective, we have had ample opportunity to study this issue. The entire City Council has been invited to attend EIS sessions, to identify issues, to discuss the problems, to be part of the neighborhood meetings, and in addition to that, RTD has done a presentation to us previously and has provided CD's and written materials to us about the program and I would suggest that that is more than ample opportunity for each of us to have taken the responsibility of finding out the issues and moving forward. I will oppose this motion.
Councilwoman Martin - I, too, will vote against this amendment because I am quite certain that the minds won't be changed in a month from those who will vote against it this evening. I also feel that I would like to have that unanimous vote, but I doubt we will get that tonight or a month from now. So I think we have the votes to support Fastracks. Many of us up here have grandchildren and I don't want my grandson 20 or 30 years from now saying "Why in heck did you not let this go forward?" Look how bogged down everything is. Where would we put more highways? No one has addressed that fact. Where will you continue to spread that concrete out there. There is no room for it. No one also has considered the cost of continuing to repair the concrete and the highways. It seems like every summer all of our roads are torn up most of the time. Light rail will not cost that much in maintenance. I do think we need to look for the future and I certainly will support the Fastracks proposal and vote against the amendment that is on the floor right now.
Councilwoman Wise - I will be supporting the Fastracks initiative. I want to 100% agree with what Councilwoman Kesselman has just said. We have had ample opportunity to study this issue. As Councilors, we have repeatedly been invited to public hearings, meetings, presentations, and I, 100% agree that the Councilors on this diase should have taken the responsibility earlier to educate themselves and not to put that sense of urgency on themselves. I will not be supporting the motion to continue discussion.
Councilman Peterson - I, too, will not be supporting the postponing of this decision. I started looking at this long before I was ever elected to City Council. I have been quite impressed with the way that RTD has moved this proposal forward. It is multi-model, it is a choice issue. It is probably one of the few real legacy issues that we can establish as elected officials in this city and I am particularly impressed with the way the EIS process went through the City of Lakewood. I served on the Planning Commission for several years while this was in the process, and I don't see how another month would affect my vote and I will be supporting the motion for support for Fastracks.
Councilwoman Koop - I, too, will be supporting the resolution for Fastracks. We have had several chances to attend community meetings and neighborhood meetings and they have been out there talking to the community. I really think that each councilor should take it upon themselves to go to the meetings and find out as much as they can. We've had months and months to do that. Also, I feel like there aren't just a lot of good reasons to oppose this project, but there sure are plenty of reasons to go for it. I'm looking out for my children and their children and I want the Denver Area a better place for all of us in the future. I will be supporting the resolution and will not agree to the continuance.
Mayor Burkholder - Let me remind Council that what we are talking about now is not the adoption of the resolution, but we're talking about the motion to table to a date certain of August 23rd. Is there any more discussion on the motion to table to a date certain of August 23?
Councilman Elliott - Thank you. I find it interesting. I have been on this Council and have been in all the meetings in relation to Fastracks that this Council has been privy to. I know there have been a number of neighborhood meetings and every single one of those meetings has brought forth what the positive of Fastracks are. It really wasn't until a report called "The Full Truth About Fastracks" came out, which is dated June 2004, that there was any concerns related to the Fastracks and once again, the information from this report is coming directly from the DRCOG review and also from the RTD Fastracks Plan. It takes the information, it takes a look at that information and makes you question, makes you take a look at "Is this really going to be and accomplish what everybody here thinks it will?" What I would urge the citizens to do is you're going to hear a lot of information related to Fastracks. Do your homework before you approve of this motion. Take a look at both the positives and negatives. There are a lot of organizations supporting this. I understand that, but don't let those organizations do the thinking for you. Take a look. I was on this issue. I actually thought I was in support of it and after I took a look at this report over the last 24 to 48 hours, I saw a lot of information that, frankly, has me very concerned about what this plan offers, about what the improvements are going to be in this area. If we are thinking that this Fastrack plan is going to eliminate our need for additional lanes of highway, we are fooling ourselves. We have over a million people moving in and if you look at the I-25 corridor, people would ask how are they going to add more pavement to that. Folks, they have, at a much less cost that will do more for traffic congestion than any light rail system will. I hear it said that we can't pave our way out of gridlock, that might be so, but we certainly can't light rail ourselves out of gridlock either.
Councilman Stevens - As far as the motion before us, I don't think that we're going to get any new information, so I think it's time to make a decision and take a stand.
Councilman Booher - I seconded and supported Mr. Elliott's motion. I believe that he has cause for that. I believe within an hour of this meeting, we received two reports. The arguments are deep and conflicting and I would like time to study those. I don't see the rush into this. I don't see the argument that everybody else has done it. That's the argument that my five-year-old son gives me when he doesn't like what I want to do. I would like for the extra time. I would ask our councilors for that to move into this. We talked about the study. We heard before this meeting that 70% of our citizens support Fastracks, yet at the same study, we found out that 86% of our citizens believe that there is great ease of travel in our city. The numbers I've seen are in direct conflict of each other and I would just ask our Councilors to give us a little more time.
Mayor Burkholder - The motion before us is to continue to the date certain of August 23rd, please cast your votes.
Votes: 3 Ayes. 8 Nays (Burkholder, Stevens, Murphy, Wise, Martin, Koop, Peterson, Martin, and Kesselman)
Councilwoman Herbst - I only spoke to the last motion, but I guess it's time for me to speak on the resolution. There has been a lot said tonight and I want everyone to know that I have spent five years, long before I was on Council, studying this issue. I've walked the corridor. I have spent time with the neighbors in Lakewood, so I am very familiar with this issue and I have struggled with this issue on whether or not I support this. Up until all through the day today, I have struggled with this and I have had numerous phone calls, numerous emails trying to lobby me on both sides of the issue. Bottom line, I will not be supporting this resolution tonight. The choice word has been used a great deal tonight. I choose not to in debt my children to this project. I choose not to pay this additional tax. It is an indefinite tax. It doesn't go away and the facts that I've been given at this point in time, another month, possibly could have changed my mind or swayed my vote because of the reports that I received late in the day and the information that I received today from both sides of the issue. It isn't that I haven't done my homework. I have spent many hours with many, many people on both sides learning and listening to every argument made. In saying that, I will be voting against this resolution this evening.
Councilman Stevens - I would agree with Councilor Herbst on one point, and that is that I've been studying this issue before I was on Council as well. I think most of us up here have. The thing that I find very very confusing is that, in so many cases we have statistics that tend to contradict both sides. One side says that economic development will benefit from light rail and the other side says it won't. We've heard the statistics on congestion and pollution. Bottom line, I think citizens want a solution to congestion. The citizens have generally said in the public opinion polls that have not only been taken by RTD, but by our city, that they favor light rail. I think what we have seen personally, being on Council, is that Lakewood as a city will benefit from light rail. Another thing I've found in five years on Council is that everybody wants solutions and everybody wants services, but you know what, nobody wants to pay for them. Guess what? You can't get it both ways. Bottom line, we're talking about four cents on every ten-dollar purchase. That to me isn't mortgaging anybody's future. I think that to answer Mr. Vaughan, that you're not going to get people out of their cars until there is a viable alternative and I think that this is a viable alternative. I will be supporting it tonight.
Councilman Peterson - As I stated before, I too, have studied this issue long and hard. I would strongly agree with Councilman Elliott's recommendation that everyone this fall, spend the time, take energy, look into this issue. This is a legacy issue. When you move forward, you'll find that there are a lot of persuasive arguments on both sides. This is the first RTD proposal that I will have supported. I did not support the others because I didn't think that they had the broad base that this does. In looking at the issue of transportation, congestion and growth within the Front Range, and particularly, within Lakewood, this multi-model proposal, I believe, for the first time, really addresses some of the major issues that can drive and sustain economic development and if we do not face those difficult questions today, they will only be more difficult tomorrow and ten years from now. When we begin to see loss of jobs and movement of economic opportunity from our area, we can take a look, at my opinion, at two issues and that is education and transportation. I would like to congratulate the RTD Board for putting this together. I think it really is a viable proposal to answer the first of those two issues.
Councilwoman Martin - I would like to second what Mr. Peterson just said. The word "multi-model." Fastracks is not just light rail. It's all the connections that go with light rail: shuttle buses, improved bus services, park 'n rides, and stations. It's the whole package and I really think we can look forward to seeing what will happen when we finally update ourselves. I don't know whether we are behind the other cities or not. I personally don't care. I just know that we need this and that we can't keep paving our way out and maybe the light rail won't solve everything, but it's certainly going to help. Then at some point, maybe we'll all have little helicopters that buzz us around through the space, but right now, we need something else that will be better than pavement.
Councilman Murphy - I think at the end of the day here, you've heard a statistic many times tonight,that 75% of our citizens in a survey that we looked at just this evening, do support light rail. I think at the end of this evening, probably 75% of your Councilors will also support light rail. I submit that that's probably not a bad thing. That's representative democracy. That's fine. I, too, think light rail is critical to the future quality of life in the entire Denver Metropolitan Region, but I would like to speak specifically to its benefits here in Lakewood. First, Colfax Avenue, as many of you know, I have a vested interest in Colfax Avenue. I live near it, my business is on it, and I have the privilege of chairing the Mayor's Committee on the Revitalization of Colfax Avenue. There is an old axiom that development follows transportation and that was true in the rivers of the 18th century in this country, the railroads of the 19th century, the highways of the 20th century, and I submit back to the future, the railroads of the 21st century. The gentleman who said there will be nothing but tanning salons has obviously not been down to the Hampden Avenue Stop at the Englewood Civic Center on the Southwest Line. He probably should go check that out. It is a fabulous transit-oriented development down there. I think the West Corridor Light Rail will be extremely beneficial to West Colfax Avenue. Secondly, let's talk about the neighborhoods. I believe it will have an impact on the neighborhoods through which it passes. These are neighborhoods that I represent. Many of us have served on the political action committee through the EIS. We worked very hard with RTD to listen to residents' concerns and at this 30% design stage, many of those concerns: noise, safety, etc., have been mitigated. Work will continue through the rest of the design and engineering stage. I thank RTD for their outreach and response during this whole process. In the end, I think neighborhood impacts will be far, far more positive than negative. I think it'll be positive in terms of new investment, positive in terms of vitality infused into the neighborhoods, positive in terms of property values, and just positive in terms of convenient access for residents to work, shopping, and entertainment, wherever they may wish to go in the Denver Metropolitan Area. I will be supporting the resolution for Fastracks.
Councilman Booher - Thank you Mayor. As I mentioned before, the arguments are deep and conflicting. People I respect highly are on both sides of this issue and have very different views. Much of the studies I've looked at are conflicting. They run in the range of being visionary to saying it's a boondoggle. We've heard a lot of talk about legacy and that's very important. I've tried to find information as balanced as possible. Information given to me by one of our current state representatives, I have placed a lot of stock in, and that's the Regional Economist, done by the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis. They have no dog in this fight. They simply approach light rail from a business and economic standpoint and that's how I've come to much of my decision. We've heard lots of debate over the benefits of Fastracks and I believe there are benefits. I believe they will come at a high cost. At a 67% tax increase, a rate increase for the rest of our lives to pay off a capital expense, which, as near as I can tell would be better financed through a bond issue. No reasonable business would approve a capital expense this way. We also hear a lot of talk about four cents. It doesn't sound like much, but when we start to look at the studies, each ride will be subsidized at $12-$20 per day. I don't see this as cost-efficient government, but more as government out of control. I don't believe any privately-owned company could operate with such a dismal balance sheet. I'll give you an example from the economist's article. It states, "It would be less expensive if we bought each rider a Toyota Press over a 60-month period and paid for every expense of that vehicle." That's what we're talking about. While I believe there are great benefits, I am concerned that this is a financial disaster, and I believe that if I were to vote in favor of this 67% tax increase, I believe it would be supporting the arrogance of government and that I could never make the claim to anyone about being a fiscally responsible representative. Thank you.
Councilwoman Kesselman - I guess as a fiscally responsible member of Council, I feel very strongly for us to support this movement. We must support the growth of the economy in the City of Lakewood. This is one way in which we can do that. As a member of the Denver Regional Council of Governments, I reviewed the fiscal notes attached to that report that Mr. Elliott referred to, and based on some of the discussions that we had at the Denver Regional Council of Governments, RTD changed some of their proposals to make sure it was more fiscally responsible. I feel very good about the outcome of that decision. This is a multi-model system that is being proposed by RTD which can enhance this region for many, many years to come. The citizen's MIS, which I participated in many, many years ago, was part of my education about this and I've kept abreast of this through a variety of means. Although I didn't involve myself directly in the EIS, I followed all the results and with the Denver Regional Council of Governments, I am the representative of Lakewood, and voted to support the move forward. The four cents on ten dollars for me is worth the benefits that I see coming out of this for the City of Lakewood and for my grandchildren. I will certainly be voting for this. I believe the economy will benefit with more jobs and I, for one, am excited about being able to take the train to the airport. Thank you.
Councilman Elliott - I only have one comment. I think the City Council is in agreement on one specific issue. We all realize that we do have a transportation dilemma facing us, facing the city, facing the metro area. We may differ as to how that should be solved. Some will support Fastracks, others may not. I think we've also found the problem and the problem is us. We are very much tied to our vehicles. We like the convenience of it. We like the ability to be mobile with those cars and being able to get to places quick at a 55 mile an hour speed limit. I guess I do not agree with the proposal, Fastracks, because it is a social engineering project that will make people, force people, to use their cars less, use the train system more and I think the voters really need to take a close look at this proposal, what are the pros and cons to it. Once again, you'll hear a lot of pros, but make sure you do look at the other side of the issue and make sure you are willing to support something that may not relieve the congestion that we are talking about, that may not solve the air pollution problem. It's going to cost a bundle with a tax that doesn't go away. Even once the bonds are paid for, it still continues on to continue to pay for the operations. This is not a project that will pay for its operations once it's built. If it did, that would be something I would be more inclined to support, if the operations could pay for themselves. But it doesn't. There are other choices for mass transit. Light Rail is one of the proposals. There is bus rapid transit. There is commuter rail. Those are being used in different areas for the Fastracks plans. Have all of them been looked at? Have all the alternatives and solutions been resolved? I don't think they have. That's part of the reason why I think if there is additional information that contradicts what I have, I would have loved to have heard it. Unfortunately, I'm forced into a situation, where I do have to vote on this tonight and I will not be supporting it. Once again, I urge the taxpayers who will bear the brunt of this, to take a look at the issue, get yourselves educated. Don't just listen to one side, but look at both sides. See if it makes sense to you and if it does, vote your conscience.
Vote: 8 Ayes. 3 Nays (Herbst, Booher, Elliott). The motion carried.
B. Amend May 24, 2004 Meeting Minutes
City Clerk Margy Greer asked for a motion to amend the May 24, 2004, meeting
minutes as presented. Councilman Elliott made a motion to amend the minutes
of the May 24, 2004 City Council Meeting to reflect the vote of 11 Ayes and
0 Nays under Item 15. General Business - Changes to the 2004 Budget. It was
seconded by Councilwoman Martin. Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 21 - REPORTS
City Council reported on their attendance at various meetings and events and announced upcoming events and meetings.
ITEM 22 - ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council; Mayor Burkholder adjourned the meeting at 9:19 p.m.
Submitted by,
Margy Greer, City Clerk
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
