|
|
|
 |
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 Pro Team Debbie Koop, Presiding
Jackie Herbst
Cheryl Wise
Ed Peterson
Ray Elliott
Tom Booher
Bob Murphy
Carol Kesselman
Barbara Martin
Mike Stevens
Absent: Mayor Steve Burkholder
Others in attendance: Joni Inman, Director, Mayor and City Manager's Office
Roger Noonan, City Attorney
ITEM 3 - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Public Comment item on the Agenda was moved to follow the vote on the Consent
Agenda.
ITEM 4 - PUBLIC COMMENT
Newt Vaughn - 8663 W. Hawaii Dr - Lakewood, CO
Mr. Vaughan spoke about Medicare and urged seniors and those with eligible parents
to do their due diligence in regards to researching supplemental health care
plans because costs can be cut in certain areas.
Tom Carllon - 9597 W. Ohio Avenue - Lakewood, CO
Mr. Carillon spoke against the Ballot Issue 2A, proposed sales tax increase.
Ralph Bashor - 397 Harlan Street - Lakewood, CO
Mr. Bashor spoke against the Ballot Issue 2A , proposed sales tax increase.
Roice Horning - 1811 S. Harlan Cr - Lakewood, CO
Mr. Horning, representative of the Lakewood Senior Citizens Advisory Commission
(LSCAC), read a resolution from the LSCAC supporting Ballot Issue 2A, proposed
sales tax increase, which was unanimously endorsed by all members of the LSCAC.
Dorothy Wisecarver - 8655 Meadowlark Dr - Lakewood, CO
Ms. Wisecarver spoke against the Ballot Issue 2A, proposed sales tax increase.
She asked several questions which she asked for an answers.
Newt Vaughan - 8663 W. Hawaii Dr - Lakewood, CO
Mr. Vaughan spoke against the Ballot Issue 2A, proposed sales tax increase.
Mike Mueller - 868 S. Owens Ct- Lakewood, CO
Mr. Mueller spoke against the Ballot Issue 2A, proposed sales tax increase.
Jerry Burton - 10710 W. Exposition Dr - Lakewood, CO
Mr. Burton spoke against the Ballot Issue 2A, proposed sales tax increase, which
would not tax Wal-Mart, Mills, and picking and choosing who gets the tax increase
and who doesn't.
Michael O'Beirne - P.O. Box 260313 - Lakewood, CO
Mr. O'Beirne asked Council to define "food" as it relates to the proposed
Ordinance regarding Ballot Issue 2A. He also asked why pharmaceuticals were
left out of the reading. He voiced concern over small businesses not getting
the same treatment as large businesses.
Madeline Menton - 1755 S. Carr St - Lakewood, CO
Mr. Munson spoke against the Ballot Issue 2A, proposed sales tax increase. She
questioned why the use tax was also exempted from the PIF districts.
Vicki Stack - 8890 W. 13th Ave - Lakewood, CO
Ms. Stack spoke against the Ballot Issue 2A, proposed sales tax increase.
Rita Bertolli- 13484 W. Oregon - Lakewood, CO
Mr. Bertolli stated she was a member of the Lakewood "T" Party and
invited the public to view Lakewood Forum.com to express their views regarding
Lakewood's budget issues.
Public Comment was closed.
Councilman Murphy stated that pharmaceuticals would be taxed and prescription drugs would not be. Items bought over the counter would be taxed. Prescription drugs would not be taxed. An example of "take home food" would be the hamburger you buy at the grocery store would not be taxed. The hamburger you would buy at McDonalds would be taxed per the sales tax issue. He stated that he has not heard anyone on Council state that there would be any more attempts for a tax increase after this election. There are three areas in town where the public improvement fees are applied. Councilman Murphy explained the investments made in public improvements by the developers of Mills, Belmar, and Wal-mart.
The following Consent Agenda items were read into the record by the City Clerk:
ITEM 5 - RESOLUTION 2005-46 - ESTABLISHING CERTAIN BUDGET POLICIES
ITEM 6 - ORDINANCE O-2005-26 - SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD AT THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2005, A BALLOT ISSUE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO INCREASE THE SALES AND USE TAX RATE FROM TWO PERCENT TO THREE PERCENT, EXEMPTING FOOD FROM THE INCREASED SALES AND USE TAX RATE, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND THE REVENUES FROM THE SALES AND USE TAX INCREASE AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING A TEMPORARY WAIVER OF SAID TAX INCREASE WITHIN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO
ITEM 7 - ACCEPTING MINUTES OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Lakewood Victim Assistance Compensation Board Meeting June 21, 2005
Public Comment: None.
Councilwoman Kesselman made a motion to approve the Council Minutes, Acceptance
of the Minutes of the Boards and Commissions, order all ordinances introduced
on first reading to be published in the Rocky Mountain News and public hearings
set for the date included in the ordinance and for the adoption of resolutions,
all of which are included in the Consent Agenda Items introduced into the record
by the City Clerk. It is noted that the Consent Agenda consists of Item #7 only.
It was seconded by Councilman Murphy.
Councilman Elliott requested that Items #5 and #6 be removed from the Consent
Agenda and placed on the Agenda under General Business.
Vote on the Consent Agenda Item #7 only: Ten Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 8 - ORDINANCE O-2005-23 - AUTHORIZING AN EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND WATER LINE AND RELATED FACILITIES TO GREEN MOUNTAIN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT ACROSS ADDENBROOKE PARK, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO, FURTHER DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Councilwoman Kesselman made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2005-23 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion.
Public Comment: None.
Vote: Ten Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 9 - ORDINANCE O-2005-24 - AUTHORIZING AN EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY AGREEMENT FOR UNDERGROUND WATER LINE AND RELATED FACILITIES TO GREEN MOUNTAIN WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT ACROSS WILLIAM FREDERICK HAYDEN PARK, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO, FURTHER DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Councilwoman Kesselman made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2005-24 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion.
Public Comment: None.
Vote: Ten Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 10 - ORDINANCE O-2005-25 - TO VACATE THE 25 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES ACROSS TRACT A, COLLEGE WEST ESTATES LOCATED BETWEEN WEST 2ND AVENUE AND ZANG STREET, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO, FURTHER DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Councilwoman Kesselman made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2005-25 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion.
Public Comment: None.
Vote: Ten Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 11 - GENERAL BUSINESS
RESOLUTION 2005-46 - ESTABLISHING CERTAIN BUDGET POLICIES
Councilwoman Kesselman made a motion to adopt Resolution 2005-46. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion.
Councilman Elliott stated that the draft which was reviewed at the City Council's Study Session stated that a supermajority vote would be needed to approve any budget that was presented in which expenditures exceed revenues requiring use of the fund balance. He asked why this was omitted from the final resolution being voted on tonight.
Councilwoman Kesselman stated that Councilman Elliott was not present at the Study Session in which it was discussed. It was by consensus that that item did not move forward.
Councilman Murphy stated that the reason for that is that after much discussion was the realization that a budget could in some future years, in effect, be held hostage simply by three or four councilors not showing up. It was felt that that was particularly good public policy. Under the City Charter, if a budget is not adopted, it automatically reverts to the prior year budget and again that didn't seem like thoughtful public policy.
Councilman Elliott stated that he liked the original draft of the Policy and has a concern about that. The resolution being looked at tonight states that the Budget Policies would only be adopted if a sales tax increase were to pass. If these are good budget policies, it should not matter whether a sales tax increase passes or not.
Councilman Elliott made a motion to amend Resolution 2005-46 to adopt the Budget Policies regardless of whether voters approve a tax increase or not. It was seconded by Councilwoman Herbst.
City Manager Mike Rock stated that the reason he identified it for a sales tax increase because he does not believe that all the policies could be met in the budget consideration this fall. He does not believe the City would be able to maintain a 10% fund balance or that the City could guarantee that now and in the future we would never use fund balance absent a new source of revenue. You could do it by making more dramatic budget cuts, but a substantial number of budget cuts of approximately $10.5 million have already been identified. Council can change that if they like, but the intent was to guide the Council in the future.
Councilman Murphy stated that this is a resolution, not an ordinance, so should the tax initiative not pass, we could certainly sit down and write out a similar set of guidelines. He stated he could not commit setting aside 30% of the general fund reserve for public safety and other commitments should the tax initiative not pass.
Councilman Peterson stated that he was in agreement with some of Councilman Elliott's concerns, but could not support the entire amendment.
Councilwoman Kesselman stated that she would support the policies in their present form as they reflect the current budget situation.
Councilman Elliott stated that budget policies should affect all budgets and a 10% general fund balance would be needed if the sales tax did or did not pass.
Councilman Elliott stated that these are strictly budget policies that are being adopted. In the draft version it required a supermajority if the expenditures were going to exceed revenues, which would then require 8 people. If Council felt that the general fund reserve of 10% was too high and it would eat into that fund balance, it would take a simple majority vote. If we are uncomfortable with 30% being set aside for public safety purposes, a simple majority would be all it takes to override that decision on a resolution. He stated it is something we ought to ensure we are providing to our citizens regardless of the budget.
Vote on the Amendment: Three Ayes. Seven Nays (Stevens, Wise, Murphy, Kesselman, Koop, Booher, Martin, Peterson).
Vote on Original Resolution: Eight Ayes. Two Nays (Herbst, Elliott).
ORDINANCE O-2005-26 - SUBMITTING TO THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD AT THE REGULAR MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2005, A BALLOT ISSUE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO INCREASE THE SALES AND USE TAX RATE FROM TWO PERCENT TO THREE PERCENT, EXEMPTING FOOD FROM THE INCREASED SALES AND USE TAX RATE, AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND SPEND THE REVENUES FROM THE SALES AND USE TAX INCREASE AS A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING A TEMPORARY WAIVER OF SAID TAX INCREASE WITHIN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO
Councilwoman Kesselman made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2005-26 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion.
Councilman Elliott stated that the actual ballot language in Section 2 does not mention Section 4 which is the tax increase being waived on properties with public improvement fees that are currently being assessed. He asked why that was not included.
City Attorney Roger Noonan stated that the waiver of the tax is a separate step or a different action than putting a question on the ballot asking for a sales tax increase. The fact that you are going to waive it as to certain entities was not appropriate within the ballot question. Secondly, the actual waiver itself as it's proposed is one that City Council can withdraw annually, so trying to put that kind of language into the ballot question was difficult and probably would have been confusing as well.
Councilwoman Herbst asked if that was true for Belmar or if they have a specific exemption due to the financing agreement.
Roger Noonan stated that the ordinance applies to all three.
Mike Rock stated that each of the public improvement fees in each of the financing agreements is different. Belmar has language relating to the combined public improvement fee and sales tax shall not exceed the average sales tax rate in the Metro Area. So to impose the increase in Belmar would require an amendment to that agreement. No such amendment would be required for either Mills or Wal-mart. The discussions and comments heard earlier would be that an increased sales tax combined with the public improvement fees would be unusually high, therefore this temporary waiver addressed those concerns.
Councilman Elliott stated that he had not seen the wording until this week when he got back in town. He stated he is concerned about the definition of public safety as it relates to the 50% and is the current level of funding for public safety going to stay intact. He asked if the money being currently spent on public safety could be moved to other components and only the 50% be earmarked for public safety. He did not see that wording anywhere in the ordinance.
Mike Rock stated that he was not sure how ballot language might be written that would address existing funding. City Council controls the budget, but to try to tie to existing funding levels, would it be in the 2005 adopted, 2005 revised, 2004 audited figures, or just how that would be reflected. He stated he believed the Council's intent, after many budget discussions, was to include school resource officers, special enforcement team, street maintenance, matching funds for the Kipling expansion, etc. Guidance was given to staff on what Council wants to see included in that budget and it would well exceed the 50% requirement. Ballot language is pretty precisely prescribed in terms of the way you define it and it's a question of trying to write ballot language that meets that constitutional requirement.
Councilman Elliott stated that the public needs to be aware that it may be
the intent of this Council to incorporate the current funding level in addition
to the 50% additional, but that does not necessarily have to remain that way
in perpetuity. It can change, and very possibly, will change in the future.
In two years, half of this Council will no longer be here and there will be
a new Council and he encouraged the public to look at the budget and be
sure Council is bringing their priorities into the budget process.
Councilman Murphy asked Councilman Elliott if there was any specific ballot language that could be written that would allow Councilman Elliott to vote to put this on the ballot.
Councilman Elliott stated, that at this point, probably not. He stated he has concerns about our ability to live within our revenues no matter where we are today or where we are in the future. If we cannot demonstrate our ability to live within that revenue stream on a permanent basis, it is a matter of time before we are back doing exactly what we've been doing over the last several years.
Vote: Eight Ayes. Two Nays (Herbst, Elliott).
ITEM 12 - REPORTS
Mayor and City Council reported their attendance at previous meetings and events and announced upcoming neighborhood meetings and events.
ITEM 13 - ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council; Mayor Burkholder adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m.
Submitted by,
Margy Greer, City Clerk
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
