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

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.

ITEM 2 - ROLL CALL

Those present were: Mayor Steve Burkholder, Presiding

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

Absent: None.

Others in attendance: Mike Rock, City Manager
Paul Kennebeck, Interim 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.

ITEM 4 - RECOGNITION - JEFFCO DESIGN EXCELLENCE AWARDS RECIPIENTS

Gail Spencer, Administrative Manager for the Community Planning & Development Department was introduced to present the Jefferson County 2007 Design Excellence Award recipients.

H. McNeish represented Opus, Northwest who was the recipient of the Commissioners Award runner-up and honor award in the category of Sustainable Development. The General Services Administration office and Department of Transportation building on Green Mountain is a three-story, energy efficient professional office building that includes state-of-the-art energy conservation features and provides a healthy work environment for 400 employees. They also received the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEEDS) silver certification.

Troy Deppey represented GAMBRO who received an honor award for Industrial Development in the Coke Sterilization Unit that houses the supplies and equipment as well as providing the processes needed to provide completely sterile medical supplies. The building is a 46,000 sq. ft. industrial building on 5.35 acres.

Tami Fischer of the Lakewood Housing Authority accepted the honor award for multi-family development at Creekside which is an affordable housing opportunity for adults 62 years and older. The building has an innovative exterior framing design to create a sense of depth, highlights the scale of the building and has a 25,000 watt solar collecting system installed on the roof to reduce the building's electrical load.

Greg Stevinson represented Denver West Realty was recognized for Montre-Chez, a multi-family development, which has 24 freestanding structures with 252 apartment units, that sits on approximately 24 acres. The architectural details and materials that complement the colors and feel of the natural environment are what this development was recognized for. In addition to this, Denver West Realty received the merit award for the Colorado Mills development project under commercial development which is a 1.2 million sq. ft. retail and entertainment center which exhibits exceptional design quality in building interiors, exteriors and landscape and site design.

Councilman Murphy discussed the outcomes of the chase involving an unmarked Denver Police truck that traveled through a Lakewood community and resulted in a near-tragic crash near Molholm School shortly after school let out. The victim of the crash, who was seriously injured, was a volunteer English teacher at the school. Joan Chavez, the Principal of Molholm, asked for help in getting folks together to discuss the situation. At her behest, and with the cooperation of Denver Mayor Hickenlooper, a meeting was convened on Friday morning that involved the Denver and Lakewood Police Departments, Jeffco Schools and representatives from each of the Mayor's offices. During the discussion, we restated our position on chases in the community and discussed communication and coordination issues. The protocols on elementary school lockdown are in place and have been reviewed.

ITEM 5 - PUBLIC HEARING - THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED SERVICE PLAN FOR FOSSIL RIDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1, FOSSIL RIDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 2 AND FOSSIL RIDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 3

Kristin Baer of White Bear & Ankele gave a history of the service plan. In August 2005, the firm came before Council with respect to a service plan that was proposed for four Metropolitan Districts in the Solterra Development. Because of the stage of development, a comprehensive service plan was not presented at that time. In September 2006, the first amended and restated service plan was presented to Council and as part of that service plan, authorization was granted to move forward with 60 million dollars in general obligation indebtedness and 21 million dollars in revenue debt that was payable from sources such as reimbursement from adjacent property owners as well as potential service providers that serve that area. Since then, the Developer has taken title to 2 additional pieces of property and, therefore, we are trying to obtain an amendment to the service plan to recognize the increase in assessed valuation. We are requesting an increase in the total authorized general obligation limit for the districts in the amount of 70 million dollars. Also being proposed is increased flexibility for district funding for an increased amount of revenue debt which is a separate and distinct type of revenue debt payable from a Developer Capital Fee, which is paid at, or prior to the point of building permit, and is the sole source of revenue for this type of bond. The sizing of that fee is based on the total amount of revenue bonds that would be issued through the district and the flexibility is given through the service plan in that either the general obligation debt or the new category of revenue debt, up to 70 million dollars, or a combination of the two, up to an aggregate amount of 70 million dollars. We are also asking for an increased amount of time available for District #4, a commercial area that is immediately adjacent to Solterra, to come before Council. This area is not ready for development and, therefore, no projections are available for public improvement details or financing.

Public Comment: None

Council Questions:

Councilwoman Stack requested clarification on the General Debt Bond asking if it was within the boundaries.

Kristin Baer confirmed that the general obligation debt is payable from property taxes that are assessed against the property within the boundaries of the three districts.

Councilman Elliott asked if, in the Mt. Carbon bankruptcy settlement, there was a limit allowed on the property taxes that could be assessed within the portion that some homes would be paying back and not increasing the amount of the mill levy on the property taxes in the area.

Kristin Baer stated that the Solterra property has been excluded from the boundaries of Mt. Carbon, adding that according to Colorado law, the debt associated with the district and the bankruptcy plan carries with the property so this property is subject to the debt service mill levy associated with the Mt. Carbon debt but is not subject to the operational mill levy.

Councilman Anderson questioned if the servicing district is different from the three financing districts and if the servicing district is a one-acre area that operates the district and does the financing districts provide the income for the servicing district? If the project continues on to some home building, but does not go to the extent where all of the homes are being built and there is some delay in the remainder of the construction, do the existing homeowners have a vote in the mill levy and debt responsibilities that they would have to pay or would they remain with the Developers servicing district?

Kristin Baer explained that the bonds that are issued by the districts for the General Obligation Debt would be issued within the financing districts. The bonds will be issued based on reasonable projections of building permits already in place or those that are projected in the future. Potential investors will make determinations based on the market risk associated with future projected assessed valuation. Part of the protection in the service plan relative to the homeowners is a limited mill levy component so the bond holder will make the market risk analysis and will take the debt subject to the limited mill levy which is 50 mills associated with the service districts in the service plan.

Councilman Anderson asked if the homeowners are electing the leadership or the elected officials of the district?

Kristin Baer indicated that as development progresses, property owners that purchase property within the boundary of the financing districts will be eligible to vote in those elections and will be eligible to run for the Board of Directors in those districts. Elections are held in May of every even-numbered year for vacant positions and the positions are usually staggered between 2-3 positions that are up for re-election every other year in May.

Councilman Anderson asked if, of the five positions on the Board, at what point would the homeowners elect all of them?

Kristin Baer stated that there isn't the kind of turnover as is associated with an HOA; rather, as one homeowner moves into the boundaries of the financing district, they are eligible to vote and are immediately able to run for a vacancy on the Board of Directors. Conceivably, financing districts could be taken over immediately as homes start to sell.

Councilman Anderson asked about the mill levy and the 50-mill cap, questioning if the Mt. Carbon mill levy responsibility is 20 mills on these properties and then there is an initial estimate of 30 mills. Is the 50-mill cap over the 30-mills and not over the existing Mt. Carbon debt?

Kristin Baer clarified that the 50-mill cap is applicable to the Fossil Ridge Metro Districts and is separate from the Mt. Carbon levy.

Councilman Anderson wondered if a person's initial tax could go from a total of 50 mills up to a total of 70 mills, including Mt. Carbon.

Kristin Baer stated that the financing plan assumes a much lower mill levy for the districts but conceivably could go up to the 50 mills, if necessary.

Councilwoman Stack asked about reimbursement of on-site regional improvements and the park inside the district; asking if this is an existing park or a park that will be dedicated to the City in the future.

Kristin Baer responded that it is the Iron Springs Park, which is an existing park.

Councilwoman Stack inquired if the citizens of Lakewood would be liable or have to vote on bonding with it being within the district.

Kristin Baer indicated that they would not be liable; further stating that included in the service plan, is an ability for the City to petition for exclusion of the property.

BOY SCOUT/GIRL SCOUT INTRODUCTION

Mayor Burkholder introduced Boy Scout Troop #748 who was present in the audience.

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

ITEM 6 - RESOLUTION 2007-46 - APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED SERVICE PLAN FOR FOSSIL RIDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1, FOSSIL RIDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 2 AND FOSSIL RIDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 3

ITEM 7 - RESOLUTION 2007-47 - AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD AND WIDNER & MICHOW LLP TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES TO THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD

ITEM 8 - ORDINANCE O-2007-28 - AMENDING SECTION 1.16.080 OF TITLE 1 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PENALTY FOR VIOLATIONS, AMENDING SECTIONS 5.24.010 AND 5.24.360 OF TITLE 5 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 9.32.260, 9.43.030, 9.43.040, 9.50.080, 9.60.010, 9.60.020, 9.63.020, 9.64.010, 9.64.020, 9.65.010, 9.65.020, 9.65.030, AND 9.70.010 OF TITLE 9 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO PUBLIC PEACE AND SAFETY

ITEM 9 - ORDINANCE O-2007-29 - AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENT TO PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY FOR ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION LINES AND RELATED APPURTENANCES ACROSS TRACT B, DANIELS PLACE SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NELSON STREET SOUTH OF THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY OF WEST 13TH AVENUE AND NELSON STREET, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO, FURTHER DECLARING AN EMERGENCY

ITEM 10 - APPROVING MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Regular City Council Meeting July 9, 2007
Regular City Council Meeting August 13, 2007
Special City Council Meeting August 13, 2007

Public Comment: None

Councilwoman Wise: Made a motion for approval of the Council minutes, for acceptance of the minutes of the Boards and Commissions, order all Ordinances introduced on first reading to be published in the Rocky Mountain News with Public Hearings set for the date included in the Ordinance and for adoption of Resolutions, all of which are included in the Consent Agenda items introduced into the record by the City Clerk. Councilman Murphy seconded the Motion.

Mayor Burkholder stated that Item 7 from Resolution 2007-47 was amended. After 28 years, our City Attorney retired at the end of April 2007. A subcommittee was formed consisting of Mr. Stevens, Mr. Elliott, Ms. King and Mr. Murphy. They conducted several interviews and have reached their final decision. Another committee was formed, consisting of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Elliott, who reviewed the contract.

Councilman Stevens stated that it was a very thorough selection process and three very qualified candidates were brought before full Council and, at that time, the contract was negotiated with the winning firm.

Councilman Elliott further explained the process adding that a number of meetings were held between May and August and a list of 40-50 applicants (individuals and firms) were reviewed. A Special Session was set up with the remaining members of City Council so they could meet the three candidates that the committee felt were the best qualified. Once general agreement was reached, the contract was negotiated in conjunction with Employee Relations, Mike Rock and several other individuals. The contract continued to evolve up until the meeting tonight.

Councilwoman King added that there were very good candidates and we were fortunate to have so much interest.

Vote on the Consent Agenda. 11 Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried and the Consent Agenda was adopted.

Tim Cox, from Widner & Michow, LLP, was welcomed as the new City Attorney.

Councilman Elliott additionally thanked Paul Kennebeck, Interim City Attorney, for his assistance and work during the transition.

Second Reading of Ordinances and Public Hearings

ITEM 11 - ORDINANCE O-2007-26 - ESTABLISHING VESTED RIGHTS BY APPROVING A SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN, INCLUDING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 18 OF THE LAKEWOOD ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE SOLTERRA SUBDIVISION, LOCATED AT 2600 SOUTH MCINTYRE STREET, AN AREA GENERALLY DESCRIBED AS A PART OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 70 WEST OF THE 6TH PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, CITY OF LAKEWOOD, COUNTY OF JEFFERSON, STATE OF COLORADO

Tom Ragonnetti - 950 17th Street, Denver, CO, Lawyer for Applicant, Carma Colorado
The Solterra Subdivision was recently approved by the Planning Commission and has been zoned for many years. Within the last year, an amendment to the official development plan was approved for the subdivision. Vested rights have been around for almost as long as zoning and basically means that when someone makes an investment in a building or project, in reliance with the rules that are in effect, those rules can't be changed during the process or later to render that investment meaningless and worthless. For nearly a century, we have been vesting rights on a building-by-building basis and everyone who owns a home has vested rights in that home so someone can't change the zoning and ask you to remove your home from its site.

The system worked very well until about 30 years ago when development began to change and no longer were people building on a building-by-building basis or on a small subdivision basis where homes or office buildings were all started and finished about the same time. Instead, the owners and builders of huge, very complex master-planned projects of a scale that would take many years to develop were asked to plan for them as a unity and to provide the infrastructure for them virtually up front and then carry them out for many years. Some of the first characteristic projects that raised this concern were the Irvine Ranch in California and Highlands Ranch in Colorado. The concern was, that after you had a builder and owner investing millions of dollars and many years in planning, and then after approval, millions of dollars in infrastructure, that was done with contemplation that the project would be built to completion according to the approvals that were given and, if it stopped along the way, it was a financial disaster. It was not a problem that was lost on legislatures all over the country, including the Colorado Legislature who adopted vested rights laws that would change the law for merely affording building-by-building vesting to allowing the owners and builders of these large-scale projects to get vesting for a period of time that would allow them to finish what they completed without forfeiting their investment. Colorado's law was adopted in 1987 and the request tonight is being done pursuant to that Statute and pursuant to the Section of the Lakewood Municipal Code that allows for vested rights. The period being asked for is 25 years because this is a considerably large project and the result of Council approval would be to put this owner and builder on the same footing as any homeowner today with an existing home.

Chris Bremner, Carma Colorado, LLC - 188 Inverness Drive, Englewood, CO
(Gave PowerPoint presentation and showed the Lakewood portion of Rooney Valley) Filing 2 was taken to the Planning Commission on July 18, 2007 and is now fully approved. There is a different series of lots and blocks with different ownerships prior to finalizing the plat. Carma has acquired other properties shown on the presentation. In conjunction with the vesting, is a 50-foot corridor that is adjacent to the existing Hutchinson-Green subdivision, which is approved but needs to be dedicated via the plat. With the approval of this vesting, Tracts H & J will also be dedicated to the City of Lakewood via the plat for a total of approximately 6 acres.

Randy Funk, Sherman & Howard - 633 17th Street, Denver, CO
There is some uncertainty as to when vesting occurs. As Mr. Ragonnetti noted, when a property owner begins to develop property there is reasonable reliance upon some action by local government (i.e. a building permit). However, sometimes it was unclear as to whether the City Council had approved all aspects of the development with sufficient certainty to give some clarity as to what was intended to happen. In 1987, the Legislature adopted the Vested Rights Statute in Colorado to try to balance the interest of the property owner with the interest of local government.

"…The General Assembly hereby finds and declares that it is necessary and desirable as a matter of public policy to provide for the establishment, a vested property rights in order to assure a reasonable certainty, stability and fairness in the land use planning process and in order to stimulate economic growth, secure the reasonable investment back expectations of landowners and foster cooperation between the public and private sectors in the area of land use planning. The ability of the landowner to obtain a vested property right comes after the local government approval of a site-specific development plan that will preserve the prerogatives and authority of local government with respect to land use matters."

The Applicant is requesting and the City is considering whether to grant a vested property right in those documents as they have been reviewed and approved by the various processes of the City. That vested property right simply means the right to undertake and complete the development and use of property under the terms and conditions of a site-specific development plan. Both the City Ordinance and the State Statute provide that it does not exempt the developer or the development from other regulations of the City or changes that might occur. The Statute points out that "…the establishment of a vested property right shall not preclude the application of Ordinances or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all properties subject to land use regulation" and this would include building codes. In the City Ordinance that was adopted last year, which was an amendment of the Ordinance that was adopted right after the vested right statute, it provides for that same type of limitation, thus the property owner obtains a vested property right but the City still has the ability, as building codes are updated and other things change, to apply those the same way that they would apply other things. If you vest property rights, they cannot change those items that are spelled out in detail on that site-specific development plan.

In 1994, Sherman & Howard negotiated with the Stevinson family to annex land into the City of Lakewood. On September 12, 1994, the City approved the initial annexation and development agreement for a large area of the Stevinson family property that now constitutes Colorado Mills for which an award was given tonight. The attorney we were negotiating with at that time was one that helped draft the State Statute. On September 11, 2001, Sherman & Howard negotiated the agreements related to the financing of the infrastructure necessary to build Colorado Mills prior to getting the mall built. Seven years had passed since the time the City approved this and the time that it began to move forward with an actual development, which was partially due to some economic cycles. Last month, Sherman & Howard came to Council with the annexation, zoning and vesting for the Federal Center, which enables us to move forward with the acquisition of property and selling of some property to St. Anthony's Hospital and RTD. It was of interest and concern to them that there be some period of time for them to build out as the hospital is buying two parcels of land and they don't yet know what they want to do with the 2nd parcel but they want to have the zoning in place so that they can build the kind of medical office uses that they anticipate will be appropriate in the future.

Kara Mueller - Associate Planner City of Lakewood
Entered the staff report, all attachments, all Ordinances and such Amendments for Case VS-07-003 into the record.

Councilman Murphy asked Mr. Ragonnetti if, given the current market conditions, he could go through an anticipated build-out schedule for the project.

Tom Ragonnetti gave an example that, if you had vested rights and were having a major office building approved in downtown Denver in 1982 or 1983, there hasn't been an office building opened since 1984 and we're almost 25 years from the date that the last one was started (Republic Plaza). He added that Park Meadows was approved in 1981 and, although it was intended to open in 1984, it opened in 1996. The Solterra project is a residential project, by and large, and in optimum terms it could be built out in 15-20 years. If there is a cycle that intervenes, it could make it very difficult as Mr. Funk mentioned.

Councilman Murphy asked about the bond paybacks and the anticipated schedule for that.

Tom Ragonnetti stated that he could not tell him the districts bond payback but all of the projections on which bondholders rely, for the build-up of assessed value, are based on a regularized accretion of assessed value. More buildings are being built and being added to the tax rolls as well as public improvements for this project, including the interchange plan. All of those improvements are predicated on this project moving a pace and adding tax value as the building occurs.

Councilman Murphy asked if it is conceivable that in 15 years time that a critical mass of this project could be built-out given no undue circumstances.

Tom Ragonnetti said the developer would tell you that it's not only conceivable but it would be desirable. Delay beyond that would mean that there were cycles that were intervening and causing problems.

Councilman Murphy added that Denver West/Colorado Mills has a 35-year vesting cycle; Belmar has a 25-year vesting cycle; St. Anthony's/Federal Center has a 25-year vesting and all of these are very complex, mixed-use projects. It is agreed that vesting is appropriate for these projects. Given the residential-only nature of this project, 15 years might be something to offer as an amendment.

Charley Able - 7707 W. 4th Ave., Lakewood, CO Candidate for Ward 1 City Council has no problem with the Solterra development adding that having a few highly paid new residents and pricey houses will not help with the growing tax burden. Council can't peer 25 years into the future and, even if they could, they shouldn't bind future Councils. Some of those Councils that will have to observe this 25-year deal will be serving when some of us are dead. He questioned if Council would let him build today based on 1982 regulations or if they would allow a homeowner with an extra lot get approval today based on the infrastructure and conditions that exist today for a house that he's not going to build until 2038? He stated that granting this vesting right would be giving rights to a developer that wouldn't give to a citizen. He asked that Council think long and hard before doing something that will bind the City for 25 years.

Carlo Spano - 2277 S. Holman Circle, Lakewood, CO Ward 4 President of Hutchinson's Green Mountain Village Civic Association strongly urged Council to vote against the proposed Ordinance and identified 5 reasons why:

1. The land in question is already zoned PD and an approved ODP is in place. Additionally, there is a master plan in effect meaning the Developer has their rights. Vesting only ties the City's hands with respect to change of land use regulations which is a position that the City should not put itself into. Vesting puts all of the control into the hands of the Developer and this is clearly not in the best interest of the public.
2. A vesting with property rights for 25 years is excessive and far beyond the norm for the already uncommon practice. There is no bona fide reason for the Applicants to ask for this - at best, vesting for a period of 3-5 years would be reasonable. Re-vesting could occur by review of Planning Commission and City Council in the future.
3. Vesting with property rights would affect the City's ability to get future easements on the land, which may be required for water or erosion control, and would put the City at a disadvantage as such needs arise. Vesting also creates a position of liability for the City if the Developers see the City involvement as an infringement on their rights.
4. There is no way to gauge the needs of the City or the environment for the next 25 years. Lakewood has experienced tremendous growth in the previous 25 years and no one can predict what the next 25 years will bring or how the freezing of land use regulations will affect an environmental sensitive area like Rooney Valley.
5. The Ordinance that is being voted on tonight is not the same proposal that the Planning Commission approved. During a Planning Commission hearing on this issue, it was made clear that, if the vesting was granted, the Applicants would grant to the City an area of approximately 6 acres to be used as open space between their development site and the existing homes which was referred to tonight. This promise that the Developer has made before at public meetings but has yet to deliver on. Now they want to make that promise contingent on this Ordinance. However, the language of the Ordinance makes no mention of any land grant to the City. The Applicants want to get the Ordinance passed without having to legally commit to what they have promised both publicly and to the Planning Commission. This Ordinance is materially different from what was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission and this fact, by itself, warrants that this Ordinance, as it is written today, should not be passed. Without the land grant being incorporated into the Ordinance, what guarantee does the City have that the Applicants will deliver on their promise, and more importantly, what recourse will the City have if they don't?

Brian Wareing signed up to speak but had no comment

Rita Bertolli - 13484 W. Oregon Court, Lakewood, CO Spoke in opposition to the Ordinance stating that Mr. Funk failed to read Article 2468, Item 1 - he only read Item 2, which explains what is precluded. She gave her opinion and stated that vesting means that for the next 25 or 15 years, this developer does not have to participate in the same planning process as everyone else - that any future obligations may change for the rest of the community and that do not apply to him. Colorado law has determined that 3 years is a good compromise to vested companies development plans, if necessary to give them reasonable security that their project can be built without making modifications that could destroy the conceptual design. It makes sense in 3, 5 or 7 years the world in our planning codes don't change dramatically but in 25 or 15 years, they most certainly do. Tonight, this Council is making decisions for the public interest in the year 2030 or the year 2015 binding their hands to grant a favor to the chosen developer that didn't get his land swap. The City is signing a contract tonight that will place the community in extreme circumstances of liability. Not only is it broadly a poor decision for our future but the contract itself is incomplete and I would wager intentionally vague to benefit the developer. The contract talks about specific performance in the Remedy Section of Article 3 without any definition whatsoever what specific performance is as it applies to this agreement. Apparently, this is the only Out Clause for the Developer not to pursue damages against the City and yet it's not even defined within the contract.

O'Dell Orr - 1301 Nelson St Lakewood, CO Spoke against the Ordinance and believes that what the City is being asked to do is to insure this project. You must appease the bondholders at any cost to make sure the bondholders do not lose. He felt it would be best for Lloyd's of London to insure this project - not the City of Lakewood.

Dorothy Wisecarver - 8655 Meadowlark Drive, Lakewood, CO Spoke against the Ordinance stating that Lakewood continues to try to bestow gifts to one of its favorite developers at the expense of Lakewood citizens and the City as a whole. The agreement for vesting is a 25-year special privilege to the developer while the individual property owners in the West Corridor area of Lakewood are being subjected to Legislative rezoning whether they like it or not. City Manager, Mike Rock, described vesting as a means of providing predictability. The only predictability guaranteed the residents of the targeted West Corridor Rezoning Area is that their lives and their property status will change. The City agreement states that the Developer shall be entitled to monetary damages if their vesting rights for 25 years are revoked, deprived, diminished or impaired. This places a 25-year liability to Lakewood taxpayers. Twenty-five years takes this property out of the jurisdiction of future City Councils and future planning for the City. If you grant this 25-year vesting tonight, you must accompany it with a reserve fund set aside to take care of the liability for the tax payers this vesting creates just as you've set aside money to take care of Mike Rock's contract. A 3, 4 or 7 year vesting wouldn't be considered unreasonable but anything past that is so outrageous. It can only be that you're favoring again your favorite developer. Although the Ordinance tries to justify this by saying that relevant circumstances such as size and phasing of the development, economic factors and market conditions make the 25 years an appropriate vesting period, the duty of the City is to protect its citizens from harm and liability. They are not here to guarantee the developer perfect economic factors and market conditions. How can you justify providing the means for Lakewood to be sued and agree to it and sign an agreement? Twenty-five years is disgraceful.

Joe Sanchez - 13248 W. Montana Place, Lakewood, CO
Running for City Council, Ward 4 and is opposed to the 25-year vesting. What we see is an Ordinance between the City of Lakewood, Carma, a foreign developer, Richmond Homes and We Win LLC and they will win if this vesting passes to give them vesting rights for 25 years or even 15 years, which is ridiculous. This will tie the hands of future Council members. It will tie the hands of residents to be able to institute any type of change, any sort of things that need to be changed for safety reasons, any sort of new technologies that come aboard, any new building technologies, any sort of water issues and this is totally wrong. Again, this is exactly why I am running [for Council]. Question to the Council members and the Mayor: Have you taken a look at the site-specific development plan? Does it address issues like grading plain, traffic issues, utility issues, soil and geological reports, future issues? What does our future hold for 25 years?

Steven Sumner - 2297 S. Holman Circle, Lakewood, CO
Opposed to the 25-year vesting saying there is a human element that has to go with Lakewood "present." It's fine to speak about Lakewood "future" but there are those of us who are living adjacent to this project right now who understand the complexities of the a project like this and who have lived with the noise early in the morning and on weekends, the dust, the silt, the having to clean our patios everyday. The thought of having to endure this for 25 years is an awfully long time to subject residents who are already here. He thinks the project is going well and thinks Carma will go on and develop that whole area over time but still thinks that a 25-year margin to let a project progress at the developers pace is an injustice to the citizens who do live close or adjacent to this project.

Jim Spaanstra - 2451 S. Holman Circle, Lakewood, CO
Spoke in favor of the project. Serves on the Jefferson County Planning Commission and felt he brings a somewhat unique perspective in that this project is in his backyard as it is adjacent to his property. He has also been working for a number of years from the Jeffco side on the development in Rooney Valley. He strongly urged Council to pass this Ordinance in some form tonight, as he believes Solterra is absolutely a great flagship to begin the Rooney Valley process. From his perspective, Solterra has, from the very beginning, been very respectful of the Rooney Valley Master Plan, the plans that several of us have been working on for over a decade even when the election in January turned it somewhat on it's head. They came to us and worked through the buffer and the 6 acres that was discussed earlier tonight. Regarding the issue of vesting, there's another human element and that is the fact that those of us who live adjacent to the property have been on an emotional rollercoaster for the last several years and it will be very valuable, not only psychologically in terms of what we're going to do with our property, to know that there's some certainty about what's going to occur in back of us. I think that Councilman Murphy raised the issue of 15 vs. 25 and, I'm sure Mr. Ragonnetti will respond to that. Certainly having material certainty is something that I think many of my neighbors would like to see. In terms of whether 25 is "outrageous", certainly from the Jefferson County perspective, vesting in over a 25 year period is fairly common. I don't recall it ever being applied to a purely residential development but certainly in the range of 15 years would absolutely give us, as adjacent homeowners some certainty as well so I would very much urge that you proceed and pass the Ordinance tonight.

Michael Bloomingthal, Manager and one of the owners of We Win wanted to explain why the company is named We Win, since it came up tonight. The LLC property is called West Wind, LLC and it was abbreviated for West Wind. We believe that investing and purchasing land in the City of Lakewood is a "win-win" situation. This is a wonderful City with many opportunities for citizens as well as landowners. WeWin has developed over 30 communities in the City [of Lakewood], Cherry Hills Farms, Green Valley Ranch, Saddlerock, North Creek and many, many other developments and we're proud to be part of this Solterra Development and you couldn't ask for any better developers than the Carma Group. Of course, we would urge that you go forward and vest this property.

Public Hearing was closed.

Questions from Council:

Councilwoman Allen: Question about vesting being about zoning and accepting the ODP - if they built buildings 25 years from now, would they be subject to codes that are applicable then?

David Kendrick: Explained that every approval is going to have to come back before the City. There are 9 or 10 large blocks in the Solterra subdivision that will have to come back before the Planning Commission and if they are appealed, will have to come through Council. Additionally, when those plats are approved and the development proceeds, all of the drainage, roadways and site plans have to be approved and all of the building permits won't be issued until they meet City requirements. All of that will occur in the future and will all have to come back through the City approval process.

The question was regarding whatever regulations are in place at that point in time and those regulations are applicable to this project. Vesting does not freeze the evolution of regulations; it simply ensures that this property is subject to the same regulations as everybody else whether it changes in Federal, State or City environmental laws or building codes, easement requirements. All of those have to be complied with at that point in time.

The issues that came up in discussion by the citizens was that there didn't appear to be any commitment by Carma to make that transfer to Richmond Homes, if the property exchange goes through, to have that extra added buffer. On the Planning Commission approval of the subdivision plat that occurred July 18, 2007, that's mandated in the plat notes and reads "Tract H and Tract J are intended to be conveyed to the City of Lakewood contingent upon City Council approval of this Ordinance for vesting of property rights such Tract shall be conveyed to the City for municipal purposes by separate instrument as outlined in the Ordinance" - there is a written commitment to make that additional buffer.

Councilman Elliott: Is it true that any modifications that would happen potentially in our building codes in the City of Lakewood to properties that had not yet been built as long as the approval process had not yet happened - any development of any land owner in building would have to comply with what those regulations are?

Mike Rock, City Manager: That's true, vesting doesn't change that.

Councilman Elliott: Is the vesting really vesting the underlying zoning that was approved by City Council and by the Planning Commission?

Mike Rock: That's correct. It ensures that you have the ability to build the number and density of units that were previously approved but it's still subject to any applicable codes that exist at the point of construction.

Councilman Elliott: Any landowner that had gone through the process of zoning or rezoning when they bought that land, they intend that that would stay the same unless they would voluntarily agree to have it rezoned.

Mike Rock: That's correct - and even in the case of TMU zoning, TMU zoning did not take away any allowed uses. It, in fact, allowed additional uses for those properties.

Councilman Elliott: There was a comment made that what we are seeing tonight is materially different than what was given to the Planning Commission.

Mike Rock: I believe that was a comment that applied to whether or not there is going to be a transfer property for the additional buffer.

Councilman Elliott: Is this materially different? In the Planning Commission notes they talked about that transfer but is this Ordinance materially different than what the Planning Commission saw?

Mike Rock: No. The Exhibit that says Solterra Subdivision Filing No. 2 is what the Planning Commission approved on July 18, 2007. With it are 19 sheets of information about the plat and plat notes. On page 2 of that Subdivision Filing No. 2, notes 11 and 12, address the issue that the citizen was concerned about and this is exactly what Planning Commission approved on July 18.

Councilman Anderson: Asked Mr. Kennebeck if, on the same point as the acreage of the buffer zone, there is a statement that uses the word "shall." That word, by itself, is a guarantee that those acres will be transferred upon the Council vesting and if that for any reason the Developer should not perform that action of passing the ownership of that land, that that would in fact invalidate the entire…[cut off by the answer from Mr. Kennebeck]

Paul Kennebeck: I think at that stage, the City of Lakewood could go into court and ask for a specific performance and that specific performance being obviously that they transfer the land for the additional buffer.

Councilman Anderson: As to the 6 acres, if Council tonight were not to vest this property, would that acreage be part of the previous agreement that was spoken about at numerous meetings around town? Would those acres come forward as promised or not?

Paul Kennebeck: It's my understanding, and Mr. Ragonnetti may be better able to address this, that if there's not vesting this evening, there will not be an exchange of property between Richmond Homes to some other location in Solterra and that Richmond Homes is only going to have that 50-foot wide buffer on the east side of the property and they will build on remaining acres that would have become a buffer.

Councilman Peterson: This is a question for either Mr. Kennebeck or Mr. Rock. One of the issues that was brought up was potential liability, if any, that the City may have as a result of this vesting and it's my understanding and it's been very well documented…with respect to liability. If, at a future date, drainage requirements change, and, as a result of that, we would have to have additional detention ponds or additional infrastructure built within this that would be a requirement of that time period, the fact that we have vested this development and that the owners of that property at that point in time may lose a lot or may lose developable area, does the City have any responsibility at that point for that loss?

Mike Rock: You have no greater responsibility than today. Anytime you take someone's property, a lot or anything else, you have to reach agreement whether you acquire it through eminent domain or through a voluntary acquisition. Vesting doesn't change that; this is simply to protect the underlying use.

Councilman Peterson: So there is no additional liability as a result of future code changes or any other requirements that may be imposed on a particular development as a result of vesting?

Mike Rock: Code changes, as long as they are Citywide, the key is that you can't single out an individual development and apply changes designed to make that development no longer economically viable. If the City building codes change, if new drainage requirements are imposed, anything like that as long as it's done in a systematic City-wide basis, opposed to singling out an individual development, that does not create a new liability. Certainly anytime you take someone's property, you have liability but that liability exists today. The remedy under this agreement is "specific performance." What specific performance is, if the applicant applies for a building permit to build 20 houses and the City refuses to grant that because the City says they no longer will allow that density, the remedy that the applicant seeks is simply the building permits, not a financial remedy. There was also a question about putting money in reserve to deal with liabilities. There is no liability that requires a reserve and no financial liability, that either under the State or our guidelines, would require any reserve funds to be set aside.

Councilman Peterson: To be absolutely and perfectly crystal clear on this issue, the fact that we are vesting this property with respect to land use issues does not, in any way, tie our hands our future Council's hands with respect to implementation of changes either in building codes or in civil codes (i.e. Civil Engineering) and does not add additional layers of liability towards us that we wouldn't normally have with any such implementation with those codes?

Mike Rock: As long as we're not singling out this individual development for some punitive reason.

Councilman Stevens: There was another charge that was made tonight that this will bind future Councils and also there was some mention that, during this vesting period, this will be out of the jurisdiction of the City.

Mike Rock: I think we've pretty well covered it. The City retains its jurisdiction and you retain all the review authority that you have today. What vesting does is protect the underlying land use and it protects the landowner from being singled out. It's the opposite of getting special treatment; it protects the landowner from being singled out for punitive treatment in some fashion.

Councilman Stevens: So the only way that this would bind future Councils would be in the case of a downzoning?

Mike Rock: That's correct.

Councilwoman Stack: Can someone from Solterra expand on the information that we were given this evening? I was at one of the meetings that they were talking about giving land so I would really like to have clarification on that because there are a lot of people out there that think that whatever happens, they were given an opportunity to have that wide 6-acre open space behind them.

Chris Bremner: Carma gave a couple of public informational meetings about what is happening now that the land exchange was voted down earlier this year. Basically, Richmond American Homes owns the lot and block that goes up against the existing neighbors in Hutchinson, Green Mountain. Carma owns a portion and West Wind owns another portion. We had an agreement with Richmond Homes contingent on the land exchange happening that went to vote and failed. Since the land exchange did not happen, the contract with Richmond was essentially null & void. We subsequently entered into an amended contract with Richmond that was based on vesting. Basically, what Richmond wants with the guarantee, is that right now they have a zoned piece of property at 5 DU's an acre and there is another piece of property that is also at 5 DU's an acre. They are unwilling, mainly because of the very limited area that they have to develop, they are essentially unwilling to give up any additional land that they can for a buffer because they really can't spare it as they don't really have a lot of land to give away. On the flip side, Carma has 300 acres that we could make up throughout the Master Plan and it is less of an impact for us to do so. We got into agreement with Richmond that contingent on the vesting, which Richmond also needs, we will acquire a portion of the property, Richmond will acquire another portion and upon that land exchange, two additional tracts will be dedicated to the City of Lakewood as an additional buffer.

Mike Rock: I did attend one of those neighborhood meetings and that was made very clear.

Councilwoman Stack: It was contingent upon vesting?

Mike Rock: Right, that there had to be certainty that the buffer wasn't granted and then that the remaining uses were taken away so all there was was a buffer and no development to pay for it.

Councilman Anderson: I also attended the Ward 4 meeting and frankly, this was before vesting was allowed for 25 years in the City of Lakewood and I don't recall the phrase "contingent upon vesting" ever coming up in the Ward 4 meeting in which this was described by Chris Bremner.

Mike Rock: I did not attend your Ward 4 meeting.

Councilwoman Wise made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2007-26 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded the motion and offered an amendment to the motion to set the vesting period to 15 years. Councilman Elliott seconded the amendment.

Councilman Stevens: Asked Mr. Ragonnetti , is a 15-year vesting period acceptable to you and your client in this situation?

Tom Ragonnetti : Responded that according to his client, it is acceptable.

Councilman Peterson: With respect to the amendment, I agree with Mr. Murphy's position. This project is different than a commercial project. This is primarily a residential project, and as such, even though it covers a tremendous amount of area, can be more incremental in its development and its development processes and not quite so subject to a lot of the economic ups and downs as commercial office or commercial retail is, so I would support the 15 years and I also really strongly support a property rights issue that this has to do with vesting, particularly as vesting has been explained to me with the information that we received, not only from the City Attorney, but from consulting counsel on space and my own research into the Colorado Revised Statute. I think this is a perfect example of how and why we as a community should always be looking to balance property rights as opposed to public interest and area able to strike that kind of positive balance and think it's a win-win for the City and a win-win for the project and the Developer so I would support Mr. Murphy's amendment.

Councilwoman Stack: Asked Mr. Ragonnetti if the 15-year is better than the 25 year and would there be a problem if we added a 10-year review on the 15 years?

Tom Ragonnetti: It's up to my client but I think that my client is taking a chance on 15 years. I think he should have stuck firm with 25. This is a large, long-term project, you have headlines everyday about the devastation in the housing market, you don't know how fast you can move ahead and you don' t how far down you can go. My advice to my client would be to stay with 15 years.

Councilman Anderson: Would this motion, moving it to 15 years, be inclusive of all of the other items that are in the document as we read it and thus would include the six-acres shall be passed upon vesting?

Paul Kennebeck: The development agreement and the Ordinance itself lists the documents that are forming the basic foundation for the development and one of those documents is Solterra Subdivision Filing No. 2. So the specific Ordinance and the specific development agreement is being approved this evening even though the change has gone from 25 years to 15 years mentions this specific document and references it and this is the document that contains language about the land transfer and the buffer.

Councilman Anderson: On the 6 acres, I recall that I saw that the wording "for Municipal purposes" would be the stated use. Does that imply in any way that it would be used for a City Hall or some future other City use. This is to be passed as a City park, am I correct?

Paul Kennebeck: Lakewood City Attorney's office has used the term "Municipal purposes" to give us leeway in case something comes from the…if we name it for a pedestrian pathway or a horse trail in the future, a different use came along, we might be prohibited from using it so we specifically used the term "Municipal purposes" to give us a wide variety of uses. I think the best I can tell you, under common sense, we're not going to build a City Hall on this narrow roadway.

Mike Rock: It's the City's intent, and I believe the intent of all of the parties, both the neighborhood and the landowner, that this land be used for park purposes, not for roads, not for Municipal facilities and I certainly have no problem if the other parties don't, for the Council to specify that. What was uncertain was whether when and how ownership might transfer - would this property become immediately the property of the City - those details, but certainly have no problem with the intent and be glad to state for the record that the intent is that it would be used for park purposes. Now whether it might have a trail or something like that, I think is up to, this and future City Council but not for any structures, not for any public roadways, not for anything like that - but for a buffer.

Councilman Anderson: Could I ask Mayor, that the City Clerk be directed to place Mr. Rock's verbatim comments into the minutes so that they memorialize it instead of changing any of the documents, it would be much easier to simply put those words into the minutes - is that acceptable to the Mayor?

Mayor Burkholder: Not a problem whatsoever.

Rebecca Clark, Director of Community Planning and Development: Under the Parkland Dedication on the first page of the plat, it does refer to Tracts K and L, two of those tracts, and it does dedicate it for park purposes.

Mike Rock: I am fine with Councilor Anderson's request that my verbatim comments be made as well.

Councilman Elliott: I'm fine with proposing the amendment with allowing 15 years from what I've heard tonight and what vesting stands for. It is giving the property owner the right to build on the property based on the zoning that's been approved by the City Council and the Planning Commission. I think anyone who has a piece of land, goes in, once they have that land zoned the way that they want to and they've gone in with the understanding that that underlying zoning is going to remain on that land really in perpetuity. I realize that there are things that do come up and change that but to me 15 years is a good compromise but realistically, this is a private property right issue and once you have that piece of land and it's zoned, unless there is something that's an imminent danger to the citizens in the City, I don't see any reason why somebody couldn't build on the way that it was zoned.

Vote on Amendment to ORDINANCE O-2007-26: 11 Ayes. No Nays. The amendment is adopted.

Vote on discussion of the motion as amended.

Mayor Burkholder: This was our homework over the weekend, and I can assure you that staff was working on it over the weekend also, I think that this really boils down to, after reading all of this, it boils down to property rights and if you believe in property rights, you should believe in vesting. If you stop and take a look at this, what you're doing is assuring the property owner and their creditors that we, as government, can't come in and change our minds - it's just as simple as that. The zoning is approved; all we're asking tonight is the vesting of the property to assure them that we can't sit up here and change our minds. They are investing millions of dollars and I support 100 percent moving forward on this vesting agreement at 15 years.

Councilman Stevens: I would agree with that. I asked Mr. Rock to confirm the painfully obvious and that is that the only way this binds future Councils is through downzoning or government takings of private property and I agree that it is a personal property rights issue and I do support personal property rights. The complexity of this project makes a 3-5 year timetable absolutely absurd so to support this type of development clearly a longer vesting period is necessary and I think Mr. Bloomingthal clearly explained his position on that and so I will be supporting it at the 15 years.

Councilman Murphy: I just want to say that this is just another example of what kind of a community partner Carma is when the proposed Parkland exchange did not work to create what the Master Plan called for in terms of an open space corridor, Carma worked hard for a long time to find a way, again in partnership with Richmond Homes, but to find a way to create some sort of an open space corridor in some sort of buffer for the neighbors that already live there. Now, tonight, when they understand the sense in the community that maybe a vesting term for a complex mixed-use type project is slightly differently perceived than vesting for a residential project they understood that too so I just want to thank Carma.

Councilwoman Stack: After about 2-3 weeks, I think I've worked every night about 3-4 hours trying to learn exactly what vesting laws are and studying the different aspects of it and there were several things in vesting that I'm not sure of and even today I'm a little skeptical about it but I do believe in property rights and I believe that you should be able to develop your property without having to have a vesting law and a statute that has to ensure somebody that they can develop property as is, you know, that doesn't say much for us as citizens. I would never agree to a 25 year vesting, ever, but with the good will of what you did this evening and going down to 15 years, I can accept that as well with 15 years at least we're not tying the hands of Council which we are doing for 25 years but I plan to vote in favor for this this evening. I walked in here planning to vote against it but with everything that you've brought forward, you have changed my mind.

Councilwoman King: As a Realtor with a lot of experience in the Lakewood area, I certainly understand private property rights and I think we are very fortunate to have a developer with the qualifications of Carma and we appreciate you working with us on this.

Councilman Anderson: I felt, this evening, that we were heading into a hornet's nest and having had some experience with those in my own backyard, I know that that's not fun. I want to touch just briefly on what Councilwoman Stack talked about the time period that she spent regarding vesting and I think as we talked about it with regards to two weeks ago at first reading on this, I expressed a great deal of ignorance regarding vesting; I appreciate the multiple memos that have come forward and the efforts on behalf of staff to take these two weeks and I appreciate the efforts of Councilwoman Stack who, along with myself, have talked quite frequently over a variety of points. I appreciate the number of individuals from within the community who have called me and asked very specific questions about what this means? I emphatically believe in property rights as Councilwoman Stack noted without vesting, I think vesting is putting rubber gloves on over mittens - it's kind of an absurdity. If you own property, you certainly have the right to develop it. There have been some things that might have created the need for vesting but I think it's mostly a moral issue and I don't know that we're well served by it in the future. The unfortunate reality is I think that we're going to see more of it come forward because we've essentially broken the balloon. Here in Lakewood we have two projects that have received vesting so I have a feeling that we're going to see lots more of it come along with projects with the TMU district and the uncertainties that go with long term projects there with the blighted areas along Colfax so I would ask that the education process for Council continue and I appreciate the politics as compromise that though I might believe in the most extreme forms of property ownership and others might believe in the most extreme form of social ownership of property that the neighborhood is well served. Jim Spaanstra said the issue of certainty is important to that neighborhood up there and putting this issue in a light of 15 years gives certainty to the neighborhood and I think that's a good thing. I will be voting in favor of it this evening and like Councilwoman Stack, I wasn't sure when I came in here.

Councilwoman Koop: I also will be supporting this this evening. I am glad it's going to be 15 years, I feel better about that than the 25 years. I thank Councilor Murphy for suggesting it. I think it was a great idea and I, too, was going to mention Mr. Spaanstra and how he wanted that certainty of what was going to happen in his backyard and so I'm glad that we're able to give that to him and his neighbors. I do also agree with property rights and everybody should secure that they'll be able to develop it how they planned when they purchased the property so I will be supporting this and voting yes for it. I think we had a good discussion and I appreciate staff for answering the questions over the last couple of weeks and making us understand what vesting is a little better.

Councilman Elliott: I've already made some comments a bit prematurely but, again, I think this just shows the complexity of the issue we were dealing with. Once again, politics is the art of compromise and I think we've reached a good medium there. I appreciate the work that our staff and legal team have done. I know a few weeks ago we had Councilwoman Stack and Councilman Anderson concerned about the vesting issue and I have to say that I've learned a lot more about it. I thank Randy Funk as well. I appreciate all of the information we were provided and once again, I think this reaches that balance between the neighborhoods interest and also the developers interest in getting this project done so I will be voting in support of this.

Councilman Peterson: I, too, just want to echo my appreciation to the developer for actually putting yourself on the line with a 15 year vesting right. I think that the project is good enough and I think the area is good enough so that that was a wise choice. I think, once again, demonstrates the willingness of Carma to work with the community in general and I'd like to close by complementing the rest of my Councilors up here. This is a very complex issue that has no simple answers and it's very site specific and project specific and I have to commend all of us for that matter for the work that has been done. There were requests that were made for our staff and for legal counsel to really understand the root issues that are involved around vesting and I think that speaks very well for this current Council and its members. I'd like to thank my colleagues for all of the work that you all have done on this very complex issue and I will definitely be supporting this amendment.

Councilman Anderson: I wanted to thank some anonymous individuals who clearly made this compromise come about, I don't admit to knowing all of their names and those that I do know, I'd like to thank publicly and very much great appreciation for the fact that hornets nests are just not that much fun.

Councilwoman Allen: I moved here in 1999, I had a bigger, newer house in Aurora and came to Lakewood because it really seemed like a community on the upswing and a great location on the west side of town. I bought an older, smaller house because I really wanted to live here and I was under the impression that we weren't going to live with a status quo of 1970's buildings surrounding us. I know change is hard and a lot of people came up here upset about things being changed and I don't really see myself as a real business kind of person and this wasn't really a complex issue to me. Rather, it was about good faith negotiations. These companies are willing to come in here and invest millions of dollars in our community and all they are asking is for us not to pull the rug out from underneath them for 25 years, so it didn't seem like a big leap to me. I think vesting in our community and continually revitalizing our community is key to giving the quality of life that we have here in Lakewood. I wanted to point out that I'm happy that we negotiated and came up with a good compromise but, from my point of view, anybody who has shown up in these Council Chambers this many times, it's not a walk in the park to get projects of this size and scope to pass in Lakewood. It's pretty tedious, so if they're willing to go through all of that to me means that they're good people and good developers. I know a lot of people like to make big investors bad guys all the time but without them, you don't have quality communities so just to kind of take a different kind of perspective from this I thought I would put that out.

Mayor Burkholder: A motion has been made and seconded for the adoption of Ordinance O-2007-26 as amended: 11 Ayes. No Nays. The Ordinance is adopted.

ITEM 12 - ORDINANCE O-2007-27 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY (A FACILITY LOCATED AT 1290 HARLAN STREET, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO) FROM ROBERT A. FULCHER, SICO LLC, DIANA S. FULCHER, ALAN BEAVERS AND NEVA BEAVERS FAMILY TRUST; TO LEASE THE FACILITY TO A LEASING COMPANY UNDER A FACILITY LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY, AS LESSOR, AND THE LEASING COMPANY, AS LESSEE; AND LEASING BACK THE FACILITY FOR POLICE EVIDENCE STORAGE SPACE BY ENTERING INTO AN ANNUALLY RENEWABLE LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE LEASING COMPANY, AS LESSOR, AND THE CITY, AS LESSEE; AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, A FACILITY LEASE, A LEASE PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND DOCUMENTS RELATED THERETO; A SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET APPROPRIATION AND PROVIDING OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO

Public Hearing Opened

Councilman Anderson: Requested a point of order as he has a conflict on this matter that is going to preclude his ability to vote on it and stated he would be leaving the room prior to public comment. Confirmed with Mr. Kennebeck.

Public Hearing Re-Opened

Police Chief Burns: Requested the purchase of property at 1290 Harlan for the purpose of evidence and property storage. In 1998 we moved to current facility in the area of 8th & Quail about 5,000 sq. ft. in size and we projected that to be about a 10-year life. Our lease is up at the end of December 2008. Essentially, we are out of space. In 1998, we had about 27,000 pieces of property and today we have about 65,000 pieces of property and, with the complexity of criminal trials, the introduction of DNA evidence and the request from the District Attorney's office, we're under a lot more mandate to keep and retain many of these pieces of evidence. We do dispose of them as quickly as we possibly can but we are essentially out of space. We looked at leasing and our lease is for about 38,000 dollars per year and we looked at leasing at adjacent warehouse area next door and were given a price of about $102,000 per year. At that point, we began looking for other alternatives and identified this piece of property at 1290 Harlan. Our Finance Director, Larry Dorr, has put together a package to basically purchase, instead of leasing a warehouse that we could purchase for about $120,000 a year over a 15-year period and that should add the necessary improvements that we need to make.

Mayor Burkholder: Asked if the improvements included security improvements.

Chief Burns: Confirmed that they did.

Public Comment: None.

Public Hearing closed

Councilwoman Wise moved for a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2007-27 on second and final reading. Councilman Murphy seconded.

Council Discussion:

Councilwoman Stack: Asked for clarification of the current location.

Chief Burns: Stated the location is in the location of 8th & Quail.

Councilman Murphy: Chief Burns and Division Chief Tovrea made a presentation to the affected neighborhood Board and they are unanimously in favor of it.

Councilman Elliott: Asked Mr. Dorr to explain the financing and why we're doing it over 15 years versus purchasing it outright after the sales tax increase.

Larry Dorr, City of Lakewood Finance Director: At the last Study Session, I provided an overview that was provided by Piper Jaffray & Company who are the external advisor to the City that was retained in 2006. They were asked to their opinion if it made better sense for the City to use the reserve funds and thereby taking money that 's invested in CDs and government bonds and those kinds of things at a yield and using those funds to purchase and equip this property outright. Their analysis examined the rate of return on investments versus the overall cost of borrowing funds. We're on a very low interest borrowing environment today particularly at this time horizon for borrowing and their very clear advice to Council and the City was that it made sense to take advantage of the difference between what the City can earn on investments versus what it would pay in interest and as they examine it and look at the effective net present value and those types of analyses, they believe that it's a net positive to the City of nearly $100,000 over that period of time. This is something that's happening very frequently in the private sector - leasing and borrowing versus paying cash for items but the City reserve is one, that a few years ago, the reserve wouldn't have been there in order to pull from investments to make this acquisition.

Councilman Elliott: If it is more expensive to borrow the money than it is for the earnings that we get, we would then look at using the reserves or the surplus that we would potentially have to buy the property.

Larry Dorr, City of Lakewood Finance Director: Yes, and that is present in the Ordinance - the Ordinance calls for a financing to occur at an interest rate of no more than 6 percent - that's really the threshold where it starts to make more sense to use monies that are invested in CDs, government bonds, those types of things. Piper Jaffray's current estimate, and a few informal quotes that the City has received, is that the City should be able to borrow well below 5 percent in this current environment. Of course interest rates are always subject to change and are changing everyday but it appears as though that gap could be as much as a percent to a percent and a half between investments and borrowing.

Councilman Stevens: Asked if Piper Jaffray is receiving any type of compensation under this financing.

Larry Dorr, City of Lakewood Finance Director: The contract that the City has with Piper Jaffray would call for Piper Jaffray to receive a fee for providing advice and reviewing documents and so forth but that contract is contemplated to really compensate Piper Jaffray on really large, substantial and complicated deals such as the financing of City Hall and the City's golf courses and recreations centers. Those financings tend to be in the tens of millions of dollars. Because of the size of this one, their agreement with the City is that it won't take a lot of time and analysis so they will not be compensated in this particular deal so it really adds even more independence to their advice and opinion.

Councilwoman King: At our Study Session, I think there was some question as to whether or not the trust (property owners) would even accept a cash payment and that they would probably prefer something over time.

Larry Dorr, City of Lakewood Finance Director: I think that question was related to tenants that are presently occupying the building and those tenants will remain in there but the owners will receive a full cash payment and that is what is desirable to them as opposed to the current owners leasing it to the City - that will not occur.

Mayor Burkholder: Vote on O-2007-27: 10 Ayes. 0 Nays. Councilman Anderson recused himself. The motion carried.

ITEM 13 - GENERAL BUSINESS

Brian Wareing: Signed up to speak but had no comment

Benjamin Herrera - 1380 S. Depew, Lakewood, CO: Reported that the neighbors at 1365 S. Depew have an inoperable vehicle in their garage and it's full of trash inside. They have also built a dog kennel along the fence line next to an elderly lady's home, and they haven't cleaned up their dog feces (photos available) and it "stinks like blank." He stated that he couldn't talk to them because they get upset. Also, he called dispatch in reference to one of the kids that lives at this address that has a powerized scooter that sounds like a chainsaw engine and the dispatcher said that it was legal for them to use the scooters on the sidewalk but not the street. His wife is handicapped and is in a wheelchair and "there is no way in hell that he's going to let that kid use that scooter up and down the street and if he happens to run into his wife, he'd better be attending church because he wanted it to go on record that "he belongs to me." He also stated that as a Board member of Bancroft-Cloverdale Homeowner's Association, he strongly recommend and endorsed Bob Murphy for Mayor.

James Mace - Ward 4: Read arrest statistics for prostitution. He did not have 2007 statistics but the questions that he has are what's being done through the City because when he goes down Colfax, he's still seeing the same offenders over and over even though the City has passed the Ordinance. He says he is and has been taking pictures of these offenders for the last few years even though Council has passed that Ordinance. What's going on? He also mentioned that there's a child molester in Belmar Park and, even though he lives in Arvada, he says he's still strongly a part of the City and would fight for this City in any way possible.

Joe Sanchez - 13248 W. Montana Place, Lakewood, CO
Asked questions related to agenda items.

Public Comment closed

ITEM 14 - PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

ITEM 15 - REPORTS

Mayor Burkholder expressed his sincere personal appreciation to Paul Kennebeck for the hard work he's done since Roger retired and welcomed Tim Cox who will join the City on September 10, 2007 in the City Attorney's office.

Councilman Murphy thanked Councilwoman Allen and everyone involved with Lakewood on Parade, stating it was a really fun event this year. He had the privilege of judging a first-ever sandcastle-building contest, which was sponsored by Engineering Without Borders. Ten different firms paid $500 each and the Engineers spent several hours in the hot sun building very intricate, ornate sandcastles under very prescriptive rules.

Councilwoman Wise discussed an the 4th annual Colorado Police K-9 Challenge where some of the top drug dogs competed against each other. There were over 32 dogs and their handlers from across the state participating at the Pepsi Center. There were 5 different categories that they were judged on: building search; area search, obedience, agility, overall challenge and apprehension. Of those 5 categories, Lakewood took 2 of those first place prizes. She congratulated Ringo and his dedicated, devoted handler, Lakewood Police Agent Patrick Lone. Ringo is a 2-year old Malinois who weighs 80 pounds and his specialty is patrol and narcotics. One of Ringo's major accomplishments is that he caught two burglary suspects in a car after a one-mile trek. His personality quirk is that he won't give up his toys to Agent Lone.

Councilman Anderson mentioned four websites: Lakewood.org - in reference to reporting graffiti stating that kids are still causing graffiti to happen and this website is a wonderful opportunity for any citizen who sees any graffiti anywhere in Lakewood to report it - it's very easy to do - click on "crime reporting" and it's something you can do to make Lakewood a little better.

Secondly, the Cub Scouts are going to be trying to build their organization and will have a get-together for any young members of the community, who would like to join Cub Scouting at Glennon Heights Elementary School, on August 30, 2007 at 7:30 p.m. If you don't live near Glennon Heights Elementary, log onto www.denverboyscouts.org and you can find a similar school or church that is sponsoring a scout troop.

Family Tree is an organization that deals with domestic violence and finding solutions for those caught up in it and finding ways to solve the problem. Their website is www.thefamilytree.org

www.kiva.org deals with microlending worldwide - Muhammad Yunus won the Nobel Peace prize for this. It is a way for individuals and businesses to loan an individual, in a far off land, a very tiny amount of money that has a spectacular ability to bring about good works by allowing the person a hand-up instead of a handout. They are limiting donations to $25.00 per person because they have such a limited number of people who need a micro loan at this time, which is good news because so many people have signed on that there is a scarcity of need.

Councilwoman Koop had a fun weekend participating in Lakewood on Parade and offered her congratulations to Councilwoman Allen and the rest of the Lakewood on Parade Board and thanked all of the volunteers at Lakewood that helped out at the event. On Sunday, the Lakewood High School Tiger Prowl, Mayor Burkholder and Councilman Murphy were also in attendance taking part in the race and the tour of the new school. She thanked everyone for their part in supporting Lakewood High School. Also wanted to remind her O'Kane Park neighbors that Tuesday evening at 7:00 p.m. will be the next meeting for the O'Kane Park neighborhood association at the Washington Heights Center.

Councilman Elliott mentioned that Lisa Marpergo was scheduled to appear at the Ward 4 meeting on September 8, 2007, however, her schedule will not allow her to be there so instead the Mayoral candidates, Bob Murphy, Jack O'Dell and Rita Bertolli will be at that meeting so come prepared with your questions. The meeting will be held from 9:00 until 10:00 at Green Mountain Presbyterian Church across from the Safeway off of Mississippi and Alameda.

Councilwoman Stack had no report but stated that the Tiger Prowl ran down her street and it was exciting to see that number of people running for a great cause.

Councilman Stevens mentioned that there will be a forum Tuesday night, August 28, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. for the Westgate Improvement Association at Horan McConaty on South Wadsworth. Mayoral Candidates will be asked questions and meeting with voters. He offered thanks to Paul Kennebeck for his work filling the City Attorney's shoes especially for the work he did reviewing the contract for our new City Attorney and welcomed Tim Cox to the City. He closed by congratulating Patrick Lone & police dog, Ringo.

Councilwoman King had no report but mentioned that she and Councilman Peterson would not be having a meeting on Monday due to the Labor Day holiday and wished everyone a happy holiday.

Mike Rock congratulated Tim Cox stating that his firm was the first and foremost on the list as they only do Municipal Law and are the best in the business. He thanked Paul Kennebeck for his patience in responding to everyone on a constant basis. Noted for Councilmember Wise that he has a Malinois Shepherd named Sarge who closely supervised Lakewood on Parade and whose specialty is eating. Asked Councilwoman Stack if she'd publicly noted the accomplishment that her husband had?

Councilwoman Stack added that her husband caught the State record for Cutbow fish in Lake Antero and the girth was 28" which was as round as it was long. It is being mounted now and hopefully will be a National record.

Mayor Burkholder described his experience last week when he attended the Naturalization Ceremony in Council Chambers. There were 18 individuals who became U.S. Citizens. He showed the introduction video on adjournment.

ITEM 16 - ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to come before the Council; Mayor Burkholder adjourned the meeting at 9:30 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