Comments are not verbatim transcription but rather an attempt to capture the intent of the speaker by the City Clerk

ITEM 1 - CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Pro-team Cheryl Wise called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Lakewood Civic Center South, 480 South Allison Parkway, Lakewood, Colorado.

ITEM 2 - ROLL CALL

Those present were: Mayor Pro-tem, Cheryl Wise Presiding

Vicki Stack
Debbie Koop
Bob Murphy
Sue King
Ed Peterson
Doug Anderson
Diana Allen
Mike Stevens
Ray Elliott

Absent: Mayor Steve Burkholder

Others in attendance: Joni Inman, Acting City Manager
Roger Noonan, City Attorney

Full and timely notice of this City Council meeting had been given and a quorum was present.

ITEM 3 - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.

The following Consent Agenda items were read into the record by the City Clerk:

ITEM 4 - ORDINANCE O-2006-17 - REPEALING AND REENACTING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF TITLE 14 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE INCLUDING ADOPTION BY REFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2006 EDITION; THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL INCLUDING APPENDIX CHAPTER H, 2006 EDITION; THE INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2006 EDITION; THE INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2006 EDITION; THE INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, INCLUDING APPENDIX CHAPTERS B, C, D, E, F AND G, 2006 EDITION; THE NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE OF THE NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION ASSOCIATION, INCLUDING ANNEXES C AND G, 2005 EDITION; THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, INCLUDING APPENDIX CHAPTERS B, E AND F, 2006 EDITION AND THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL, 2006 EDITION, AND ESTABLISHING THE PENALTIES THEREFORE

ITEM 5 - Moved to General Business

ITEM 6 - APPROVING MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Special City Council Meeting August 7, 2006

ITEM 7 - ACCEPTING MINUTES OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Board of Appeals Special Meeting, July 11, 2006
Liquor and Fermented Malt Beverage Licensing Authority Meeting, May 25, 2006
Liquor and Fermented Malt Beverage Licensing Authority Meeting, June 8, 2006
Housing Authority Special Meeting, May 18, 2006
Housing Authority Meeting, May 22, 2006
Housing Authority Special Meeting, June 1, 2006
Housing Authority Special Meeting, June 8, 2006

Public Comment: None.

Councilman Peterson made a motion to approve the council minutes, accept 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 adoption of resolutions, all of which are included in the Consent Agenda items introduced into the record by the City Clerk. It was seconded by Councilman Stevens.

Councilman Anderson - Removed Item 5 for a separate vote. (It was placed under General Business on the Agenda.)

Councilwoman Stack - Questioned a portion of Ordinance O-2006-17, stating that it takes away power from Council for appointments of the Appeals Committee. She stated that minutes of the Board of Appeals stated they voted to reduce the number of members on the board. Stack stated that is something that should come from Council.

Dan Nickle - City of Lakewood Codes Administrator
Mr. Nickle stated that the issue with the Board of Appeals has to do with the number of vacancies that are consistently on that board. There are currently four vacancies out of a total authorized of seven regular and four alternate members. Through discussions with the City Clerk's Office and others, it seemed to be appropriate to simply reduce the number of members on that board. They meet on an average of about once every two years. There is simply not a lot of work for them to do; there are not a lot of appeals for them to hear. The primary reason is the inability to keep members interested and keep a full slate of board members. This comes as a recommendation to City council to reduce the number of board members. It is Council's decision as to whether or not they accept that recommendation.

Roger Noonan - Stated that City Council is the one that is going to pass on this ordinance. If you accept the ordinance, as written, then they have in fact deleted those four alternates. It is not something the Board of Appeals has already accomplished. It is before Council for consideration. Council can either accept or amend as they see fit.

Councilwoman Stack - Asked for clarification about the verbiage on page 7, item 3, changing six dwellings to six sleeping units.

Dan Nickle - Stated that with the change in the 2006 International Building Code, group R-2 occupancies now contain more than just all the family dwellings. There are things like group homes. So it was appropriate to identify the number of sleeping units as compared to the number of apartment units in multi-family dwellings.-

Councilman Elliott - Stated that the change in the number of board members on the Board of Appeals was significant enough that it should have been reflected on the Request For Council Action.

Councilman Elliott - Asked about the minutes of the Lakewood Housing Authority, referencing a May 22nd Authority meeting wherein, Chairman Sandridge stated the board was in the process of preparing a report to the public regarding questions raised by Councilman Peterson months ago about the review of the Lakewood Housing Authority. He asked if the report is a public document.

Joni Inman - Stated the report given to Council by the City Manager was marked confidential and she would talk to the parties and report back to Council regarding whether the report was a public document or not.

Discussion ensued among council members as to whether the public would receive a written report regarding review of the Housing Authority or not.

Councilman Peterson - Stated that it is the practice of Council to study a particular item and then comment on it and it would be best to place this topic on the next agenda. That way everyone will have a chance to research and do his or her review of the item.

Vote on the Consent Agenda with the exception of Item 5, which was removed for a separate vote. 10 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.

Mayor Pro-Tem Wise - Recognized Boy Scout Troop #166 who were in the audience.

SECOND READING ORDINANCES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS

ITEM 8 - ORDINANCE O-2006-16 - TRANSFERRING RESERVE FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND FOR PURPOSES OF FUNDING A CHANGE ORDER TO THE 2006 OVERLAY AND PATCHING PROGRAM, APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CHANGE ORDER; FURTHER DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

Public Comment: None.

Councilman Peterson made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2006-16 on second and final reading. Councilman Stevens seconded the motion.

Councilman Elliott - Stated that the City is increasing the street resurfacing for 2006 by $1,450,000. The reason is because the price of gasoline and asphalt will increase the cost by 25% next year. The contractor is willing to keep 2006 prices for these projects. Next year's resurfacing program will decrease by the same amount.

Vote on O-2006-16: 10 Ayes. 0 Nays. The motion carried.

ITEM 9 - GENERAL BUSINESS

ITEM 5 - ORDINANCE O-2006-18 - SUBMITTING TO A VOTE OF THE REGISTERED ELECTORS OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD AT THE SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 7, 2006, A BALLOT ISSUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF AUTHORIZING A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE FOR THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD

Mayor Pro-tem Wise - I want to just take a couple of minutes here just to talk about the background on this, and to address the general public. TABOR, which is the Tax Payer Bill of Rights, requires voter approval of all the revenue increases. TABOR requires advanced voter approval of any new tax, tax rate increase, or a tax policy change directly causing a net tax revenue gain for any government.

The issue here that we're going to be considering on second reading, is that this is not a new tax and it's not a tax rate increase. What is of issue with this, is that TABOR limits revenue collections. TABOR is referred to as spending limits in the State Constitution and TABOR effectively limits the amount of revenue that Lakewood City government can collect and keep by prescribing a very specific formula for growth. It prescribes a formula for growth in spending and requiring that all revenue in excess of that amount be returned to the tax payers. TABOR prescribes that local government cannot grow faster each year than the value of real estate plus the increase in inflation and that kind of government jargon goes over most of our heads. Revenue collected in excess of these particular limits must be returned to the tax payers in the following fiscal year by any reasonable means including refunds or temporary tax credits unless, and this is the point of all of this, unless voters approve the government keeping and spending that excess money.

What we are doing tonight is looking at the first reading of this issue. The issue, being a proposed ordinance to put this on the calendar for voters to vote on the issue. We're not here to discuss the merits of the ordinance. We will be doing that on second reading. The purpose of the ordinance that we are considering here tonight is to ask the voters whether they want to exempt certain sources of revenue from TABOR limitations and to approve the City to keep and spend these funds. If tonight's ordinance, on first reading passes and then subsequently passes on second reading on August 28th, voters will be able to decide in November in the General Election whether to exempt Lakewood from restrictions in the Tax Payers Bill of Rights. They will decide in November whether to free the City from revenue limitations that are instated by TABOR. Lakewood resident's approved this exemption in 1998 but that exemption expires at the end of this year. If the ballot question is not approved in November by the taxpayers, TABOR revenue limitations will be reinstated and the City will be hindered in accepting open space and highway street improvement grants.

I pulled item number five, or I was going to if Councilor Anderson had not. I would have wanted to pull item number five from the Consent Agenda for two reasons. We need to get a general idea from Council if the language reflects the direction and guidance that we gave the staff; did it come back to us generally with what we wanted. Aside from that I have received a multitude of calls. I have not received as many phone calls on an issue as much as I did on this one from an automated phone message that went out to many voters in all of Lakewood, not just in my ward. They were generated from Councilors Vicki Stack, Ray Elliott and Doug Anderson. It raised some questions. First and foremost, I was at a little bit of an awkward situation when I didn't know what the message had said and I'm not sure that all of Council have seen it. I do have a copy of this so you can refer to this. I would really have appreciated knowing what the message was since the message encouraged citizens to call their council members and I didn't have a clue what the message had said. I thought it would have been common courtesy to have shared that with us but, probably aside from editorial comments that people shared with me I was asked who paid for this, that is the number one question that people asked, who paid for this message. So I would put that out there, I would like for the public out there who is asking us, and I couldn't answer that question, I would like to ask that question. So that is my background on this and, on that I will open it up to discussion.

Councilman Peterson - Thank you Madam Mayor. I, too, have received numerous phone calls on the pre-recorded message primarily asking the question why the City of Lakewood is spending money for automated messages to ask for their comments on issues they know nothing about at this point in time. In my ward, which is Ward 3, the Council representatives are of course myself and Sue King and neither of us had any idea that a message was going forward or actually what the verbiage in the message was. One constituent was upset enough that she actually sent me a copy of it, a recorded copy, so I did find out what the message was.

This ordinance that we are now looking at on first reading, and if it goes to the electorate, and if it's Council's wish is that it go to the electorate in November. It's going to be up, once again, to the people of Lakewood, to make the final decision, and I really don't understand why anyone would have a problem with the citizens of this community making such a decision. I think it falls within the prevue of each and everyone of us to decide whether or not grant monies for certain operations within the City should be exempt from TABOR. I believe that is the intent of this particular question to the voters. I to would like to know, quite frankly, who paid for the automated message and also request, and I understand that Councilor Anderson and Councilwoman Stack are newly elected and probably didn't have all of the protocols or really everything under their belt so to speak. Councilor Elliott, since he is mentioned on here, has been on Council longer than I have, and once again I think it would have been common courtesy to let the rest of Council know that this type of message was going out so that when we did get calls from constituents and I got more calls from this message than I got on pit bulls, and to that date, that was the most that I've ever received. So I would request that in the future, if anyone on Council decides to represent an idea or put forth a question suggesting that an individual or constituent contact their elected representative, that they at least let the elected representative know that they were doing this so we wouldn't be totally caught flat footed, because I had no clue. I was sure that the City didn't pay for it, so it was easy for me to make that statement. With respect to the rest, and outside of clarifying some verbiage within the recorded message, that quite honestly, I felt was a little bit misrepresenting the fact and I did make clarifications to the best of my ability when asked about that. Outside of that I would concur with our Madam Mayor and request that it publicly be put forth who actually paid for this message because most of the responses I got revolved around funding, and if the City was doing this and if it was authorized by anyone. My response was "No" and "No".

Councilman Elliott - I would like to respond in relation to this message and some of the questions that you have asked. Number one; no, it was not paid for by the City. I personally don't know what the cost was or how it was paid for. Secondly; as I look over this message, I'm not sure who all it was sent to, to be perfectly honest with you. The message, if you hadn't heard says "Hi, this is Councilman Vicki Stack. Lakewood City Council is working on a City wide exemption to TABOR, Councilmen Ray Elliott and Doug Anderson have joined me in asking for your input on whether the City should keep more of your money. This is money that belongs to you the taxpayers, and it is important to us to make sure Council has citizen input. Please call or email your Council member with any questions or concerns you may have regarding this matter." I personally see nothing troubling in this message, I don't think there is any politicizing in it whatsoever, and as I said I am not sure who this message all went to. I do know if it went to the citizens in my ward, in Ward 4, but I don't see any issue. I don't think there is any politicizing whatsoever in the message.

Councilman Murphy - Again, just to recap what this ballot language is proposing. As it turns out, grant money, from things like open space and highway funds, is subject to chamber revenue limits. This is not asking the citizens for a blanket TABOR exemption. It is very specific in it's language. It is asking citizens to approve the keeping and spending of grant funds, again such as parks, open space and highway funds, funds that by the way, we all pay taxes into. Specifically with reference to the language in this robo call, there is a phrase in this call that says, "It is important to us to make sure Council has citizen input." What is a greater form of citizen input than the ballot box. If your asking for citizen input, please vote to move this forward and put in on the ballot.

Councilman Peterson - I have a response to Councilor Elliott's comment. Just so that you understand, the one section in the automated message that I found somewhat troubling was "Join me in asking for your input on whether or not the City should keep more of your money." That is not the question before us. The question is whether or not we should exempt grant monies for the City of Lakewood for specific purposes. If the citizens vote no then we don't accept the grant money. It's not about keeping more of the citizens tax dollars, it's about allowing the City to take advantage of matching grant's when they are available that may spike our three percent TABOR limitation over certain areas. If the citizens say no, if they do not want to exempt these grants, then the simple answer is we don't accept the grants because we're not going to accept a grant in one instance and turn around and refund an equal amount of money because it's over the TABOR exemption in another action. That would be silly. So just that verbiage alone "whether or not the City should keep more of your money" to me was misleading and quite honestly disingenuous and that's my own personal belief.

Councilman Stevens - I just wanted to comment that I too have a problem with the "more of your money" statement. What we are talking about here is that we don't have the power to refund these dollars to the citizens. In most cases we are talking about state grants. They are going to go elsewhere. They are certainly from the taxpayer but if Lakewood is unable to receive these due to TABOR caps, then they are going to go to Arvada or Westminster or somewhere else. Given that, I think that the citizens should have the right to say "Yes, we want to accept these for specific purposes" and that again being for parks and recreation, public safety, transportation and cultural or "No, we don't want to accept them". It is very misleading to me. The calls I got about this had things to do with people thinking we were going for a full TABOR exemption, which clearly is not the case. That was debated the first night, and was determined by consensus on Council that that wasn't necessary, but we could be putting ourselves at a disadvantage and our citizens at a disadvantage by not being able to accept state grants. I guess I am just very disappointed, I know we talked at a couple of retreats ago and, Mr. Elliott, this isn't to single you out, but you were Council president at the time. There was discussion about working through the Council officers and since that time there was a press release that came out with you and two other Councilors that are no longer on this Council, and I would have thought that perhaps that would have been a good example for you to learn a lesson. Perhaps at least bring this up to the Council officers for discussion or have them aware of what you were doing. I guess I'm a little personally disappointed that wasn't the case.

Councilman Elliott - I would like to respond. First of all, there is an implication here that we would not be able to accept grants that the City of Lakewood applied for. Regardless of whether a TABOR exemption went through or not, there is nothing that would stop us from accepting any grants, period. I'm sick of hearing the language that we can't accept grants. That's bologna. We can accept it to the extent the money that is included in the TABOR revenue calculation. That we were over that amount and may have to refund some of that amount, but you can ask where is that coming from. In this ballot language that we are talking about, and we're about ready to vote on, it doesn't specifically just state grants. It says open space revenues and grants. You may ask yourself where does the open space revenues come from. That comes from a half percent sales tax that everybody pays on purchases within Jefferson County that then is shared back with the Cities. In addition there are some funds that can be received by the Cities but that doesn't sound to me like a grant. Secondly, when it comes to communicating with my constituents, I don't think there is any protocol on anybody's behalf on the City Council that we go back through our Council Officer's to have communications with our residents. As I stated earlier, I was aware that my residents were being contacted in Ward 4 and I assume Vicki's were contacted in Ward 1. But to the extent that phone call went out elsewhere, I am not privy to that information. Thank you.

Councilman Anderson - Thank you Madam Mayor. The call did go out to a number of Wards and I'm quite sure the call was received by a number of citizens. I again, go back to the language, there might be some on this Council that are concerned that the phrase "This money that belongs to the tax payers and is important to us to make sure the Council has citizen input." I guess that is frankly, is weak a toast of a comment as I tonight heard from Madam Mayor in her introduction to this item. There are different opinions here as to what the TABOR exemption is and how it should be viewed, and I respect that distinction but I don't see how asking for citizen input is in anyway a bad thing. As to Council protocol, I would just ask that we take this discussion offline, because if we want to get into the litany of times that I've been blindsided by items that have come up on the agenda, that seems to be created by staff and presented to me on Friday afternoon at about three o'clock, at my door to be voted on Monday night. The communication on this Council has often left me wondering if it truly is a Council. If there are some issues to be raised as to Councilwoman Stack, Councilman Elliott and myself having put out a request to citizens to offer their input to Council. First off I find absolutely no problem with that. I think that is what this Council should be doing more of, asking for input from citizens. Secondly, I just really take offense to the notion that there is somehow some protocol to discuss things with citizens. My goodness, I would call the question Madam Mayor because I did not take this off with the intentions of a full discussion. It would seem to me that in two weeks we would be having a rather long one.

Councilman Anderson - Called the question.

Councilwoman Stack - Second.

Vote: 5 Ayes. 5 Nays (Wise, King, Allen, Peterson, Murphy)- Motion failed.

Councilwoman Koop - We could go back and forth on what the words were in this message that went out to everyone and whether it was the right protocol or not with Council, but I myself am a little bit bothered that I was confronted by a couple of citizens in Ward 2 that did hear this message. I didn't get it at my home and I had no idea what they were talking about. They didn't remember it was about TABOR exemption. They just said "There was this message from Vicki Stack and they mentioned two other Council members, and they're saying you are doing something wrong and we have to tell you about it." So I said "What am I doing?" They couldn't remember what the message was all about so they said they kind of like tuned out or something. I still would've liked to have some type of heads up if you're going to give out a message like this. You could send us a copy of what's going to be sent out. I don't know if there is a specific rule about that but I just think it is only consideration for your other Council members and then I could've maybe answered their questions about it. I did receive probably two phone calls and someone else at the grocery store mentioned it to me but I, too, would like to know who paid for it.

Councilman Peterson - I do have a follow-up and I want to absolutely agree with Councilor Anderson on the fact that it says in this "And it is important to us to make sure Council has citizen input." That is critical to any City Council, any form of City government, when you are talking about an issue like this and as Councilor Murphy said, and I one hundred percent agree with Mr. Murphy as well, the best place to have that input is to put the question before the public and let the public make an informed decision as to whether or not they wish to pass forward on this. With respect to Mr. Elliott's comment about we can continue to accept grant monies, he is absolutely correct. There is absolutely no problem whatsoever in accepting grant money. I can also jump out of an airplane if I want to, but I would prefer to have a parachute before I did. So as long as those grant monies keep us below the TABOR spending limit that is fine. I think we have an opportunity, at least it has been presented to us that there is a high probability in the future to have substantial funds that might spike that. Once again it makes no sense to me to accept a grant on one hand and turn around and have to cut a budget somewhere else to refund the money on the other.

Again, I agree with Councilor Anderson's comment, it should be put to the people, that is who finally needs to make this decision and so that part of the recorded message, I would actually support and I think that is a good statement to make.

Councilman Stevens - I just want to answer Mr. Anderson and Mr. Elliott. I certainly don't have any problems with you communicating with constituents or asking for Council input. I would agree with both Councilor Murphy and Peterson that putting it on the ballot is the best way to get input on it. However, I would also say to Mr. Elliott that you have to admit that accepting grant money increases the chances of having to cut services in the following year. I think that is what the study session was about and I think what Larry Dorr brought forward. But, to purely clarify my problem with this, number one; it is unclear who paid for it; number two; the language by saying that "more of your money" is totally misleading in my opinion. That's my problem with it gentleman, and lady.

Councilman Murphy - Come November, just like every other citizen in Lakewood, each of the ten of us up here will have a single vote on this item, but I think right now our task is very simple and very clear. Our task is to vote whether or not to move this forward and put it on the ballot. As I said earlier, voting not to put it on the ballot is essentially saying no to open space revenues, highway funds, etc. without giving our citizens a chance to say yes. That is not our job.

Councilwoman King - Mr. Anderson mentioned being blindsided and I think a number of us on Council were blindsided by this. This is the first time I've seen it, this evening. I have received a number of comments both in person and on the phone. One was from a police person who was really quite upset about the whole thing. Part of the intent of TABOR was to give citizens the right to help make decisions. This is an opportunity we have to give our citizens, the right to voice their opinion. I think not to allow that is just short of criminal.

Councilwoman Allen - I would just like to take the opportunity to tell our viewers here in the audience and at home why this is issue was taken to the ballot. I sit on the budget committee, along with Mike and Ray. Ray said that we can still accept grants which is absolutely true but let me give you a hypothetical. We won a two million dollar open space grant, which would be great. Let's take the two million dollars. But, if that pushes us over our TABOR limit by one point five million dollars, we have to refund that to citizens. Well, where is that one point five million going to come from. I will give you a hint. Our biggest things in the budget are police and streets. We can decimate a bunch of other programs to try to make up that funding somewhere but it's really not going to work. I don't know about you but I wouldn't accept two million dollars in open space funding and have to take ten cops off the street. I would never ever do that. So, the question comes, maybe we should go to the voters and ask them if they would like to exempt any kind of grant monies that we can get for these kind of programs so we won't be forced to make those kinds of decisions. So whether you support TABOR or you don't support TABOR, going to the voters and asking whether this stuff should be exempted is what is on the table right now. Just in case people at home are getting confused.

To my fellow counselors, I would just like to say that some of us choose to talk about things on Monday night and bring things up then. Some of us, like myself, call staff. I have a good relationship with them. I know what's coming down the pipe and I don't feel blindsided by them. But I do often feel blindsided by some of my fellow counselors which, hey, to each their own. My only advice to them now is, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

Mayor Pro-tem Wise - Any further discussion? The question was, how was this funded. I don't know that we can force that but it certainly is what the public wants to know, I did not receive one phone call in support of TABOR. I have to say that everybody who called me was very supportive of the exemption and everybody that called me was extremely concerned about the City using funds to pay for these phone calls and so it is alarming.

Joni Inman - I can assure you that the City of Lakewood did not spend any taxpayer dollars on whatever the phone call was nor did the staff have any knowledge of it.

Councilman Anderson - The funding on it is this, it is a local phone call. There is effectively no cost to send a phone call within Lakewood to Lakewood. If we're discussing pennies here, I would like to just for a moment clarify for the future. Ms. Inman, will Looking at Lakewood be covering the TABOR discussion and, if they do, will it be a balanced discussion or will it be similar to the previous discussions we've seen in Looking at Lakewood that are very one sided as to the City's position. I recall, during the recent 2A election, out of the six issues that were put forward, three of them came within three or four months of the election. I recall specifically that the Lakewood Tea Party asked to be included in the discussion on the 2A question, they being the only organization specifically in opposition to the 2A. I also recall they were told that they were not allowed to have their opinion published because it was a biased opinion. In politics I know of no opinion that is not biased, I think every politician has a biased so I guess my question is, will we see both sides presented in Looking at Lakewood or will it be a one sided presentation as per usual?

Joni Inman - What you will see in Looking at Lakewood is a report of the action of the City Council. The City Council is voting to put an issue before the public. That will be covered as such.

Councilman Stevens - Mr. Anderson, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that there was no hard cash or monetary expense for this. But wouldn't that be an "in kind" donation then, and number 2, did the Libertarian Party have anything to do with this?

Councilman Anderson - Absolutely. It was their machine that I used in doing so and it was an in kind donation that will be reported to the Secretary of State's filing at the annual report.

Councilman Stevens - Thank you for clarifying that.

Councilman Anderson - And I might add, Madam Chairman, I'm quite proud of my party for stepping up to the plate and supporting TABOR. I think when citizens voted for TABOR many years back they were very frustrated to see the disappearance of TABOR over the last few years with one community after another destroying and disemboweling a very powerful and important part of our constitution.

Councilman Murphy - Wait just a minute, I have to respond to that. Let's remember Doug that one of the phrases that TABOR contains is the ability for communities to vote on these exemptions. That's all we're talking about here. Nobody's destroying TABOR. It's part of the amendment to vote on these exemptions.

Councilman Peterson - Thank you and I appreciate Mr. Anderson volunteering information that his party, the Libertarian Party, actually paid for this automatic message to go out and I also appreciate the fact that he stated that. It will be part of the public record in due course when recording time comes. I appreciate that very much. Thank you, sir, for putting that on the table and it's kind of funny because this is kind of the same conversation except for in reverse that we just had about the Housing Authority, so thank you.

Councilman Anderson - There is a complete distinction between an illegal contribution, but an illegal contribution by the Lakewood Housing Authority noted and agreed to by them in the decision to remove the case. Yes, I'm sorry, the ten thousand dollar contribution from the Lakewood Housing Authority was an illegal contribution. Please don't shake your head, No sir, it was.
Councilman Peterson - Mr. Anderson, the question was, when was the report from our City Manager from the Lakewood Housing Authority going to be published or not. It had nothing to do with the contribution. There is no argument. The question was the report from the City Manager that was provided under confidentiality to Council and when would that be released, that's what I was referring to, not the fact that anyone either made or did not make a contribution.

Councilman Murphy - Called the question.

Councilman Peterson - Second.

Vote: 8 Ayes. 2 Nays (Stack, Elliott). Motion Carried.

Mayor Pro-Tem Wise - For approval of first reading of Ordinance O-2006-18, please cast your vote.

Vote on O-2006-18: 7 Ayes. 3 Nays (Stack, Anderson, Elliott). Motion Carried.

ITEM 10 - PUBLIC COMMENT

Karen Kellen - 675 Dudley Street, Lakewood CO
I moved to Lakewood about seven years ago and I moved here because I was looking for quality of life and I was looking for aspects of a City that I could live in a long time and that I could thrive in. I love the fact that we have the parks. I love the fact that we have the arts and I think all those things in Lakewood are very important and that we need to preserve them. That being said, I had originally planned to comment on the TABOR thing which was a first reading, and reading the rules here, I understand, I can't do that, so I will not ask to violate those rules. Instead I will make generic comments that a year ago the citizens of Lakewood voted. They made their will known and they decided that they wanted to invest in this community, that they wanted to invest in Lakewood and make this a great City to live in. What I ask of you today is that you continue to listen to the residents of Lakewood and that you continue to invest in the future of our community. As you go through your terms and do your work here, please keep in mind what we have said, that the citizens have spoken. We love this community and we want you to preserve it and protect it. Thank you.

Newt Vaughn - 8663 W Hawaii Dr Lakewood CO
There's been a lot of discussion about the Lakewood Housing Authority. Several months ago, I did bring up the fact that they did make an illegal contribution that was against the law in the State of Colorado; ten thousand dollars, which is the single largest contribution made by any individual for a "yes on 2A," which was a yes on a tax initiative. Unfortunately in the statute there is no penalty. Had there been a penalty, it probably would have just cost the taxpayers money. That was not what we were after. So far we have not gotten an answer to whether this practice is going to continue. I was privy several months ago, maybe years ago, that I sat at a study session and listened to the Housing Authority make a presentation to the Council bragging about how they did not require any City funds to operate. It was all grant money. Grant money is just another use of the word taxes because it is tax money that is usually responsible for a lot of the grants that the Federal government and State government makes available to you. Example; highway funds that you pay forty-four cents a gallon for every time you buy a gallon of fuel at the gas station. That's a grant, folks. That's not your tax dollars at work, I guess. Being a little facetious here but I pay for gas at the pump and I pay that tax. Now if the Housing Authority depends on grants and federal funds then why did they feel compelled to the need to put money forth to ask the citizens of Lakewood for more money. They don't need it. They operate separately from the City, from what I understand, from what I'm hearing tonight. If they're so separate from the City, why did they feel compelled? I think there should be an answer to that question. I have not received a phone call from anybody on the Housing Authority, anybody on this Council. I heard Councilor Peterson ask for an investigation, I have not known what the progress of that investigation is or any part of it.

When I found out these minutes were to be approved tonight it brought this to my attention. I thought two months ago they had a meeting and were approving the minutes. How come it takes so long for these minutes to get to the Council. I think these are questions that ought to be asked and these board members and these representatives of the Housing Authority because it is your tax dollars, folks, not the City's. It is your tax dollars that are being spent here.

James Mace - Ward 2
I'm here tonight because I have heard that Lakewood is not doing anything about the issue that I brought up on July 10th, 2006. This Council needs to do something to help the Police Department with this issue because I'm about to go crazy on Colfax. On to the point, I'm tired of every time I walk from the bus stop I get prostitute city. I have two questions, if I may ask those questions. My questions for one, when was the last study session done on this problem, and two, I heard from Bob Murphy that there was an ordinance that was supposed to be done. Denver was passing an ordinance and I'm wondering if there is an ordinance for Lakewood.

Mayor Pro-tem Wise - I do know that I have spoken to some of the police officers and this issue has been addressed with them so I'm sure that we'll be passing on this concern to them again.

Councilman Murphy - As I said on July 10th, Janet Young, the advisor to our Police Department, is working on an ordinance modeled after a Denver ordinance that will certainly address the prostitution issue on Colfax Avenue.

Roger Noonan - That is correct. I spoke to Janet on a number of items last Thursday, one of which was the status of that particular ordinance. She is working on it, I can't give you a definite date on when it is going to come to Council but I think there is even some thought that there would be a study session as well. That is yet to be scheduled, obviously.

Councilman Stevens - In response to Mr. Vaughn's questions, Newt, you stated that you had not received an answer as to whether this practice, referring to the contribution, was going to be continued. If I am not mistaken, I think the Lakewood Housing Authority stated when they came before Council that they would not be making any further political contributions. That was my understanding and that had been answered. As far as the question about why do they feel so compelled to make the contribution, I had nothing to do with the 2A campaign but my understanding from that again, what their own statement was, was that they wanted to continue to see a strong and viable economically viable City and they felt that without the passage that might be in jeopardy. Perhaps Joni, you could explain why sometimes some of the boards and commissions take a little bit longer to get minutes back.

Joni Inman - Actually the City Clerk might be best to explain that they come from the boards and commissions to the Clerks office and then she puts them on your agenda immediately. I personally don't know what the hold up is from the various boards and commissions and I don't know if the City Clerk has any more information or not.

Margy Greer - I don't know specifically, the only insight that I can give you is that I believe the Lakewood Housing Authority meets once a month. We don't present their minutes to you until they've been approved so that takes another month and at the next meeting they are approved and some time after that they are given to you. As you know from minutes from City Council meetings, sometimes we're behind on those. It honestly depends on the workload, absences in the offices, etc. They are pretty ordinary events that cause us to be late with minutes.

Councilman Anderson - Just a small clarification. We were not talking about boards and commissions but as to the Lakewood Housing Authority, whether the City of Lakewood handles the creation of the minutes or the copying of minutes. What is our involvement with the Housing Authority for their minutes?

Margy Greer - In regards to the minutes, the Housing Authority simply gives us their copies to include in your packets. That is the only involvement my office has at all.

Councilman Anderson - So we simply copy following the approval of their minutes and as soon as they are provided to you, they are provided to us.

Margy Greer - Correct.

Jerry Burton - Ward 4
I wasn't going to talk tonight but I've been blindsided too by a lot of you Council members and Mr. Peterson. It has been a year since we voted on this tax increase and I think it's almost been a year since you asked for an investigation on the Housing Authority. Make it public so the people of the City of Lakewood would know what's going on. I mean, this investigation takes this long? I mean this was serious stuff. It should have been handled within a month, maybe two months but we're going on a year. To me, that's bad. As Council people up there you let it go on for a year before an investigation comes out for us people to know and you can sit up there and say you were blindsided. How about us people, us citizens. We're blindsided all the time, especially on an investigation taking a year. I'm glad our Lakewood Police Department doesn't take a year to do their investigations or this City wouldn't be here, I think you better step up to the plate and quit blindsiding us to.

ITEM 11 - REPORTS

Mayor and City Council reported their attendance at previous meetings and events and announced upcoming neighborhood meetings and events.

ITEM 12 - ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Council; Mayor Burkholder adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.

Submitted by,
Margy Greer, City Clerk

	Home | Search | Contact Us | Privacy Policy Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice © City of Lakewood, 480 S. Allison Pkwy., Lakewood, CO 80226, 303-987-7000