|
|
|
 |
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
ITEM 3 - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
ITEM 4 - PUBLIC COMMENT
Mayor Burkholder stated that some citizens were falsely informed that there is an item on tonight's agenda regarding alarm response.
Commander Williams, Lakewood Police Department, stated that the Police Department reviewed the manner and method in which they deployed their dwindling resources. Alarm response and differential police dispatching were approved. Over 6000 intrusion alarms are received annually by the Police Department. It amounts to 10% of the calls generated by citizens for service. 98% of the intrusion alarms are false alarms. That rate is consistent nationwide. The verified alarm response policy was initiated. In the first two months, the Police Department received 1,132 alarms, total. 1,033 are intrusion alarms. 98.56% of those alarms have been false alarms. The policy is very clear that the Police Department will and have responded to alarms. 320 of those were responded to. The statistics have already proven out. Copies of the policy are available for the public. Commander Williams explained the difference between a simple alarm and verified alarm. He explained when and how the police responded to verified alarms.
Helen M. Garrett - 14179 W. Center Drive - Lakewood, Colorado
Ms. Garrett, resident, spoke against the city's alarm response policy.
Michael Dorsch - 12860 W. Cedar Drive - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Dorsch, alarm system business owner, spoke against the city's alarm response
policy.
Bastha Spear - 1204 S. Newland Court- Lakewood, Colorado
Ms. Spear, resident, spoke against the city's alarm response policy.
Bobby Erskime - 7790 W. Woodard Circle - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Erskime, resident, spoke against the city's alarm response policy.
David Linke - 800 S. Field Street - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Linke did not wish to speak at the podium, but stated that his concerns
had already been stated.
Andrea Van Dyke - 9525 W. 11th Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
Ms. Van Dyke, resident, alarm company owner, spoke against the city's alarm
response policy.
Larry Green- 3333 S. Wadsworth Blvd. - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Green, resident and business owner, spoke against the city's alarm response
policy.
Dick Aldrich - 12112 E. Amherst - Aurora, Colorado
Mr. Aldrich, alarm company owner of Littleton, spoke against the city's alarm
response policy.
Bob Zachman - 13182 W. Jewell Circle - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Zachman presented a portion of the annual activities of the Lakewood Heritage
Culture and the Arts Commission.
Zach Mataya - 7389 W. Kentucky Dr., Apt. C - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Mataya presented a portion of the annual activities of the Lakewood Heritage
Culture and the Arts Commission.
Carol Berry -5826 W. 8th Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
Ms. Berry stated that she would call the Police Department for an explanation
on how the new alarm response policy affects her personal home security system.
George Gornik - 961 S. Kipling - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Gornik, Lakewood business owner, spoke against the city's alarm response
policy.
Steve Holben - 3343 S. Nelson Court - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Holben stated that Mike Rock has apparently still banned Lakewood employees
from talking to him about the subject and asked that his comments be put in
the minutes verbatim. "As I've always expected, no one representing Lakewood,
not even City Attorney Roger Noonan, is able to explain policy, planning and
zoning compliance of the outhouses that Lakewood has erected in the summit view
corridor of Mt. Carbon in Bear Creek Lake park; a park Mayor Burkholder refers
to as the crown jewel of Lakewood. As it is clear that the Lakewood Latrines
are not in compliance, and reflect poorly on the community image, identify,
appearance and design, 203 Comprehensive Plan Chapter Title, of the city, and
per ordinance the city is obligated to comply with its own laws, I expect steps
to be undertaken immediately to correct this oversight by relocating these eyesores,
and restoring the view corridor of Mt. Carbon that visitors had enjoyed for
years. Also I expect the Ward 5 counselors Stevens and Kesselman and Mayor Burkholder
to champion this task in execution of their fiduciary duties to residents, and
show Lakewood residents and Colorado that Lakewood respects its own laws, the
city's residents and the scenic capital that it is steward to as much as do
other communities. Now, another facet of the Lakewood Latrine's Saga that stinks
even more than the outhouses, and I don't want any argument over this as I am
able to document this statement, is the fact that absolutely every public comment
about the outhouses made by anybody representing Lakewood has been to date an
absolute, bald face lie. Everyone of them from Mike Stevens, Mike Rock and Roger
Noonan to Dan Nickle and all the way down to Kathy Hodgson and Bill Jewell,
all absolute lies. These individuals, personally, and the city collectively,
should be ashamed. As your employer, I believe that everyone here representing
or employed by Lakewood has to ask themselves if the fact that the city feels
that lying to the world to try to cover up what, in this case, was really nothing
more than a simple mistake is a practice in which the city can take pride."
Frank Lawrence - 2171 S. Grape Street - Denver, Colorado
Mr. Lawrence, alarm company owner, spoke against the city's alarm response policy.
Tim Howell - 2171 S. Grape Street - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Howell, stated he did not wish to come to the podium and agreed with previous
speakers.
Larry Helpern - 3640 Walnut Street - Boulder, Colorado
Mr. Helpern, representing Safe Systems and the Colorado Burglar and Fire Alarm
Association, spoke against the city's alarm response policy.
Ben Bargelt - 1850 Glen Dale Drive - Lakewood, Colorado
No comment.
David Myers - 8500 W. Colfax Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Myers, Director of the Metro Community Provider Network, extended an invitation
to participate in "Back to School Week" assuring that children that
need school supplies to start school next week get the supplies. He stated that
immunizations and school physicals will be done for all the children from 4-7
years old who need the service. He stated it was an important collaborative
within the community.
G.M. Slinkerd - Lakewood, Colorado
Ms. Slinkerd spoke against the city's alarm response policy.
Olen Crockett - 1345 Wadsworth Blvd. - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Crockett, Lakewood business owner and resident, spoke against the city's
alarm response policy.
Patti Smith - 1430 S. Jay Street - Lakewood, Colorado
Ms. Smith, resident of Lakewood, employee of alarm industry, spoke against the
city's alarm response policy.
Brian Kakoc - P.O. Box 261035 - Littleton, Colorado
No comment.
Jim Warren, Jr. - 747 Sheridan Blvd, #2D - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Warren, Lakewood business owner, asked the city to open the policy up for
discussion.
Keith L. Padgett - 13690 W. 7th Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
No comment.
Lloyd Vandenberg - 2479 South Zephyr - Westgate
Mr. Vanderberg spoke against the city's alarm response policy.
Warren Pressler - 8008 W. Jewell Avenue - Lakewood, Colorado
Mr. Pressler, Lakewood business owner, spoke against the city's alarm response
policy.
Bill Cooper - represents the alarm industry
Mr. Cooper spoke against the City's alarm response policy.
Flora Russell - 6800 W. Ellsworth - Lakewood, Colorado
Ms. Russell, resident, asked for clarification on the verification process for
alarm response.
Commander Williams stated that letters were sent to all the Lakewood alarm companies regarding the change to the policy. He explained the verified alarm response policy. Problems with the alarm systems should be addressed to the alarm companies. Response from the Police Department will happen if there is a secondary verification.
Councilman Stevens stated that the City is being expected to a great degree, to subsidize the alarm company service. Resources are not available to respond to every false alarm. The sales tax rate has not been increased since 1971. There are fewer resources available. The alarm industry may have a different perspective as to what the Police Chief and his top captains believe to be a priority for using the limited resources.
Councilman Elliott stated that the Police Department did not make budget cuts in their patrol division. Those are the people that would respond to the burglar alarm. There is evidence and proof that letters did go out to the alarm companies regarding the changes in the policy.
Councilwoman Martin asked what exact changes were made in the policy.
Commander Williams stated that the only change is that the Police Department requires a verification by a witness or secondary alarm, in most cases, before they will respond.
Councilwoman Koop asked when the alarm companies were notified of the policy change.
Commander Williams stated that they were notified in April or early May.
Mayor Burkholder stated that the City Council has reviewed this Police Department decision and feels it is appropriate.
City Manager Mike Rock stated that one of the industry representatives said that they had a contact with the City Manager and no one from the industry had had a discussion with him. It's unfortunate that so many people came to the podium with misinformation or fears because it is not the city's intent for the community to be afraid about their safety. Commander Williams is available now and in the future to answer questions about the policy as is Division Chief Camper. This is a very carefully orchestrated industry event tonight. They contacted the City Clerk to make sure they would be on because the person who contacted the City Clerk said they were in charge of coordinating the media coverage for this event. This is planned by the industry. This policy did not happen overnight. The Metro Police Chiefs Association has adopted this policy, after two and one-half years of study. That study did involve industry representatives. This policy has been adopted in Aurora and Arvada. Arvada received a Denver Regional Council of Governments' award for this alarm policy. Westminster, Broomfield, Summit County, and a number of other communities are on the verge of adopting it. It is neither unique nor capricious in the way it was adopted. In addition to that input, our two council officers, our Mayor Pro Tem and our council president also met with industry representatives, heard their concerns, and didn't really hear alternatives that didn't involve the city carrying the burden. One of the people that came to the podium asked why she was paying her alarm company. That's between them and their alarm company. This is a unique industry in that citizens pay a fee to a private company. The private company provides them equipment and the city is expected to provide the service. That doesn't work very well for us and it particularly doesn't work very well for the 90+% of Lakewood citizens who do not have an alarm, yet whose police service is at time disrupted due to responding to false alarms. We have had a fine system in place for over five years. Just in the last two months period, 98.56% of the alarms were false. We had 1132 alarms. We responded to 320 of those. Six were verified and of the six, three were broken windows. That is not the best use of police resources, because every time that agent is responding to that, they are not responding to other concerns, other activities going on in the community. I will offer the alarm companies an option and it is a very straightforward option. If the alarm companies would like to place in escrow sufficient funds to cover $100 for the first five false alarms and $500 for the fifth alarm and beyond, then, I think we can resolve this. Then it would be up to the alarm company to collect that amount from their customers, but the city cannot be in the position of trying to chase people who are not our customers around the community and collect. We have cut our budget dramatically. We have eliminated 101 positions from the city. We've eliminated 101 jobs since 2001. For every $1000 someone pays in property taxes, a little less than $50 goes to the city to cover everything from snow plowing to police services to park maintenance. In addition, people also pay sales taxes, but they pay sales taxes where they shop. Our sales tax has not been increased in 33 years. I looked up on the website and in comparison, one of the alarm companies, the other one I could find on the web, ADT, which is a subsidiary of TYCO, just in the last quarter, their revenues were up 11% to $10.5 billion. Within the security of the alarm division, revenues were up $123 million in that quarter. So I think there is a disconnect for the city to be providing the expensive part of this business service to a small percentage of our citizens. From the American Society for Industrial Security, the alarm company industry's newsletter dated January 2003, referring to verified response, it reads, "With false alarm rates remaining above 95% for the last three decades, it's no surprise that law enforcement agencies are now considering the move…" "Many alarm industry representatives have misled clients on their systems capability and, furthermore, for relying on the government to support it." Finally, "Those false activations involve significant costs. In 2000, the total cost for responding to 36 million false burglar alarms was $1.8 billion. If the false alarm profit did not exist, at least 35,000 officers nationwide could be shifted to other duties. Under current conditions, police response to false alarms yields no benefit to the community." This is an industry newsletter. I think we have not been capricious or arbitrary in the way we have implemented this. It's a model policy. If the policy doesn't work, we'll change it. If we have problems, we'll do something different, but to suggest that the city has been irresponsible in their efforts is simply not true. To suggest that we're not responding to alarms at all is in direct contradiction to what the policy actually says. As Council member Martin pointed out, the actual change is relatively small.
The following Consent Agenda items were read into the record by the City Clerk:
ITEM 5 - RESOLUTION 2004-78 - AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS ACROSS 1391 FENTON STREET, 5880 AND 5890 WEST 14TH AVENUE FOR THE WEST 14TH AVENUE, HARLAN TO FENTON SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ITEM 6 - APPROVING MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
• Regular City Council Minutes July 26, 2004
ITEM 7 - ACCEPTING MINUTES OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
• Lakewood Planning Commission Meeting June 16, 2004
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 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 8 - ORDINANCE O-2004-24 - TO REZONE LAND LOCATED AT 10020 WEST COLFAX AVENUE, CITY OF LAKEWOOD, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO
Mayor Burkholder opened the public hearing.
Olga Mikhailova, Planner III for the City of Lakewood, stated that the rezoning request is to change from 2C, Neighborhood Commercial and Office to 3-C, Community Commercial, for development of a 14,560 square feet Walgreens Store. The property is approximately 2.2 acres and frontages on West Colfax Avenue, Kipling Street, and West 14th Avenue. All landscaping improvements were designed to have minimal impact on the existing neighborhoods. The site was designed to create a unique and appealing commercial center at a high profile intersection. Traffic mitigation and improvements will be done. On June 16, 2004, the Planning Commission reviewed the findings and recommended approval of the rezoning.
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-24 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Councilwoman Martin stated that a public art committee of the HCA was established a year or two ago to preview the type of art that would be submitted and asked that the proposed public art be submitted to the correct committee for approval.
John Kohler, Semper Development, stated that the art would be submitted to the correct committee.
Councilman Murphy asked for Mr. Kohler to list the changes that would take place on that corner.
Mr. Kohler stated that the biggest change will be Dino's Restaurant. Dino will be retiring. His property will be purchased so he can enjoy his retirement. He is an institution there. He will be deeply missed. He stated that they have worked very hard with staff to try to produce a project that Dino has taken a great deal of interest in. He's very concerned that that site be developed into something that he, too, would like to see there.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 9 - 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
Mayor Burkholder opened the public hearing.
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-25 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 10 - ORDINANCE O-2004-27 - TO REZONE LAND LOCATED AT 5991 WEST COLFAX AVENUE, CITY OF LAKEWOOD, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO
Mayor Burkholder opened the public hearing.
Councilman Peterson stated that he has a professional relationship with the engineer of record, James T. Jones. He stated he does not have any financial interest, whatsoever, in this particular rezoning.
City Attorney Roger Noonan stated that Councilman Peterson should abstain since the applicant has a financial relationship with him.
Councilman Peterson stepped down and removed himself from participating in the discussion regarding this item.
Kara Mueller, City of Lakewood Planner II, stated that the rezoning was heard before the Planning Commission on June 2, 2004. Planning Commission initiated a continuation and directed the applicant and the adjacent property owner to resolve the placement of the manager's unit and office, fencing around the adjacent property, signage and parking. The hearing continued until June 16, 2004. Both parties met during that duration and it was found by Planning Commission that both parties worked together and developed a good design for that portion. Planning Commission approved the rezoning unanimously and is recommended it for approval to City Council.
Public Comments:
Jack Major - 1590 Harlan Street - Lakewood, Colorado
My residence is directly north of the proposed development. I have lived there
since 1972. Voiced a concern that he has gone through Trailerland, guard dogs,
burglaries, homeless people living in trailers, storage lots, and some kind
of a church for homeless people. Two concerns I have is that back in the early
60's, the property before it became Trailerland, all the earth was removed from
16th Avenue to Colfax because the property used to flood. Now, that property
is higher than parts of my ¾ of an acre. Any water off of that now drains
into the backside of my property. Lakewood brought earth in and raised the sidewalk
on Harlan Street. Now this property is lower than Harlan Street. Also, if I
wish to develop the other section of my lot, I will have to either build a house
approximately three feet out of the ground to be level with 16th Avenue because
all the earth was removed. This goes back prior to the City becoming a city.
This was addressed to Jefferson County back then. My second concern is the lighting
on the two-story building. I was never so relieved than to have the Trailerland
lights in their parking go out. They failed to replace them. I could sit in
my backyard without having lights shining on me. I have been out of town considerably
and I figured this was the place to voice my concerns.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-27 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Mayor Burkholder asked staff to address the issues Mr. Major brought up: the earth being removed and the drainage issue, as well as the lighting situation.
Ms. Mueller stated that regarding the lighting; the applicant will be required to go through an Article XV, full site plan. That means that a full review will be done of the aesthetics andwe will want to see all the lights that will be placed on that building. Those would be shielded and downcast and we would be more than happy to work with the gentleman on the portion that reflects on his property to see what kinds of concerns and issues he may have. As well, I have a copy of the Trailer Land PD so he can see what is being proposed.
Anne Heine, Public Works Civil Engineer, stated that she is not sure about the earth being moved. Sites are looked at from a historical perspective, but only from the previous development onward. In this case, we know that the Trailer Land site was ,basically, paved, but from the preliminary drainage plan that was prepared by the applicant's engineers, it appears that the drainage from the rear portion of the lot, the single-family lots, drain onto the Trailer Land site. The self-storage proposal includes onsite detention, so the drainage generated on site will be directed to two detention systems: one in the north part of the project and one in the south part of the project along the Colfax frontage. The drainage generated by the redevelopment will not impact the adjacent neighbors to the north. Once a final drainage plan is complete, we would be happy to show Mr. Major.
Councilman Murphy stated that in reading the minutes of the Planning Commission report, there was lots of attention spent on fences, retaining walls, and detention ponds, and zipper lines. Neither in the Staff Report nor in the minutes of the Planning Commission meetings did I see discussion regarding whether the use was appropriate for the site or not. Self-storage units by their nature are certainly better than what is there now. They are very low impact and they are certainly neighborhood serving. This particular one also has exceptional design qualities. However, they do not generate economic revenue and the structures cannot be re-utilized ten or twenty years from now.
Roger Wadnal, Manager, North Lakewood Planning, stated that Colfax Avenue in Lakewood has been a redevelopment challenge since the city was incorporated. He discussed the history of Colfax Avenue and its steady decline. A committee is currently looking at the revitalization of West Colfax. Within that context, we have to look at the very constrained corridor and particularly the area between Sheridan and Wadsworth. The Colfax Plan was adopted in 1993 and the area west of Wadsworth has experienced fairly good to excellent redevelopment in some areas. The area between Sheridan and Wadsworth where this particular project is mid-point has been a real challenge. There have been a lot of sights that have been vacant and remain vacant. Without the city's assistance, the whole K-mart site remained vacant for ten years. This particular use was determined to have more pluses than minuses from a staff standpoint. Mr. Wadnal showed the drawing of the layout of the project showing that it sets back off of Colfax Avenue and does not have a large number of residents surrounding it. The configuration would be very difficult for a commercial or retail site. The site would be developed. It would have significantly high architectural quality. It may be an incremental improvement that can be built upon. Staff felt it would be a benefit to the community. It is a neighborhood serving use. It meets and exceeds the Colfax design standards. It's a tight fit and a difficult site to work with and with those considerations, staff could support the use.
Councilman Murphy - I will be supporting this vigorously and I appreciate the developer working with the neighborhood and with their attention to the design details. I think this whole land use issue, particularly with self-storage units, is something we need to be aware of as applications come in and place them appropriately.
Councilwoman Koop - I will be supporting this. I haven't heard from the neighborhood at all regarding it. I, too, am very appreciative of their design of the place, how you are keeping the Colfax Corridor art deco design and neon lighting. I think that will enhance the Colfax Corridor. I will be supporting this.
Councilman Elliott - I would like to say thanks to the developer. Reading through the minutes, it was nice to see you working with your neighbors, rather than against them, to try and mitigate the impact of their building and their site. That was duly noted in the information that we received. It looks like it is a nice use of a difficult site. Thanks.
Vote: Ten Ayes. No Nays. One Abstention (Peterson). The motion carried.
Councilman Peterson returned to the meeting.
ITEM 11 - ORDINANCE O-2004-29 - AMENDING SECTION 5.39.020 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO OPTIONAL PREMISES LIQUOR LICENSES
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-29 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 12 - ORDINANCE O-2004-30 - AMENDING SECTION 14.16.030 AND SUBSECTION 14.16.070E. OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATED TO PARK AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-30 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 13 - ORDINANCE O-2004-31 - AUTHORIZING THE VACATION OF PORTIONS OF SOUTH VANCE STREET, WEST BYERS AVENUE AND WEST BYERS PLACE ALL IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 11 RANGE 69 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF LAKEWOOD, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO, FURTHER DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-31 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 14 - ORDINANCE O-2004-32
- VACATING A TEN FOOT WIDE UTILITY EASEMENT LYING ALONG THE SOUTHWEST PROPERTY
OF 2540 SOUTH GRAY COURT AND FURTHER LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST ONE-QUARTER OF
SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 69 WEST OF THE SIXTH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
CITY OF LAKEWOOD, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-32 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 15 - ORDINANCE O-2004-33 - AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY BY THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD OF A FIRST AMENDMENT TO LEASE PURCHASE AND SUBLEASE AGREEMENT; RATIFYING ACTION PREVIOUSLY TAKEN IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-33 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 16 - ORDINANCE O-2004-34 - ADDING CHAPTER 5.41 TO TITLE 5 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-34 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 17 - ORDINANCE O-2004-35 - AMENDING SECTION 1.16.080 OF TITLE 1 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS, AMENDING SECTIONS 9.08.010, 9.10.030, 9.12.010, 9.20.050, 9.70.020 AND 9.70.025 AND ADDING SECTIONS 9.50.090, 9.92.020, AND 9.92.030 OF TITLE 9 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-35 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 18 - ORDINANCE O-2004-36 - ADDING SECTIONS 9.50.120 AND 9.50.130 OF TITLE 9 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-36 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 19 - ORDINANCE O-2004-37 - AMENDING SECTION 3.11.020 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO REVENUE AND FINANCE
Public Comments: None.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2004-37 on second and final reading. It was seconded by Councilwoman Martin.
Vote: All Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
Mayor Burkholder thanked Deputy City Attorney Janet Young for the work she has done on the ordinances involving the code changes.
ITEM 20 - GENERAL BUSINESS
None.
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 9:34 p.m.
Submitted by,
Margy Greer, City Clerk
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
