|
|
|
 |
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 Murphy 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 Bob Murphy, Presiding
Adam Paul
Debbie Koop
Karen Kellen
Doug Anderson
Ed Peterson
Diana Allen
Tom Quinn
Sue King
Vicki Stack
Cindy Baroway
Others in attendance: Mike Rock, City Manager
Tim Cox, 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 and a moment of silent prayer was observed.
Mayor Murphy welcomed Boy Scout Troop #342 from Glennon Heights Elementary School.
ITEM 4 - RESOLUTION 2008-1 - APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE LAKEWOOD ADVISORY COMMISSION FOR AN INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY
Erma Steck, Advisor Coordinator for the Advisory Commission for an Inclusive Community, stated there were 53 commissioners being appointed to the new commission. The first meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. on January 16, 2008 and will be held the third Wednesday of each month thereafter at City Hall.
Councilwoman Allen made a motion to adopt Resolution 2008-1 as revised January 14, 2008, appointing members to the Lakewood Advisory Commission for an Inclusive Community. Councilman Peterson seconded the motion.
Vote: 11 Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 5 - PUBLIC COMMENT
Eric Eikenbary - 2037 S. Ogden, Denver, CO stated that he is the head coach of the Foothills Swim Team based out of the Carmody pool and is also representing the Mile High Diving Club, the Underwater Hockey Club, the Jefferson County High School Swim Coaches and the Dogs Masters Swim Program out of Lakewood. He proposed advanced improvements to the Carmody pool to expand the facility to sixteen short course lanes and eight long course lanes to accommodate a number of groups and expand the identity to state and regional levels. He cited economic increases that would occur due to the additional improvements. He suggested a joint project with the City of Lakewood to accomplish the project and asked for a month delay to pool his resources.
Mayor Murphy commented that Council is scheduled to look at the proposal on
January 28, 2008.
Kathy Hodgson, Community Resources Director stated that there had been almost
a complete failure of the plumbing system at Carmody Recreation Center and the
50-meter pool, which was built in 1974. The study indicates that renovations
need to be done underneath the pool and significant funds are required. After
meeting with the City Attorney, the Finance Director and Purchasing Staff, a
plan will be presented on January 28, 2008 in the form of an ordinance which
allows for an appropriation of General Fund Reserves to be transferred to the
CIF program and allows for the purchasing requirements to allow us to enter
into an expedited process so the work can get done, hopefully, at the end of
October.
Because of the soccer fields located behind the pool, there is parking issue so there is hesitation to add additional features or amenities to the pool, but the proposal will be considered.
Mike Rock, City Manager reminded Council that what we are dealing with emergency plumbing repairs that will keep the pool closed until at least October and cost between one and two million dollars which fits under the emergency use of reserves provision. A major expansion of the aquatics program wouldn't fit under the same provisions to allow you to make emergency repairs and appropriation to use reserves. In addition, instead of the pool reopening in October, you could see a delay of an additional year to year and a half.
Councilwoman Allen added that she's received several calls about this issue and, knowing how important the pool is to the Community, she reiterated Mr. Rock's comments about the amount of money and time that will be required to make the repairs without additional renovations.
Ralph Bashor - 391 N. Harlan expressed his appreciation for moving the public comment to the front of the meetings. He stated his displeasure of the receipt of an official nuisance notice for graffiti removal. He added that he believes his neighborhood is becoming the deteriorating inner-suburb of Lakewood. He expects the City to follow it's own requirements and provided two locations on West 5th Avenue where graffiti has been there longer than five days.
Walt Heidenfelder - 13095 W. Ohio, Lakewood, CO spoke about the 2008 campaign season and his disapproval of Tom Tancredo.
Mike Muller - 868 S. Owens Court, Lakewood, CO spoke about the "three great lies" and added that number four was about the RTD program not costing the City "one red cent." Now we're going to give RTD 500,000,000 red cents. The fifth great lie is about the projected City revenues from Belmar. He read from a letter he stated was from Continuum Partners dated 2008 and cited a difference in what was projected and what the City is expecting. He cited a list of 1,900 blighted and rezoned properties for urban renewal.
Public comment was closed.
The following Consent Agenda items were read into the record by the City Clerk:
ITEM 6 - RESOLUTION 2008-4 - DESIGNATING THE PUBLIC PLACE FOR POSTING NOTICES OF PUBLIC MEETINGS DURING 2008 PURSUANT TO C.R.S. 24-6-402
ITEM 7 - RESOLUTION 2008-5 - APPROVING METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT SERVICE TO APPROXIMATELY 148 ACRES OF LAND NEAR C-470 AND ALAMEDA
ITEM 8 - RESOLUTION 2008-6 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD TO REVISE AN EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE WEST METRO FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, THE WHEAT RIDGE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, THE PLEASANT VIEW FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE LITTLETON FIRE DEPARTMENT RELATING TO THE SHARING OF RESPONSIBILITIES DURING A HAZARDOUS MATERIALS INCIDENT
ITEM 9 - RESOLUTION 2008-7 - ACCEPTING A COMMISSIONERS DEED, FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD FOR THE SOUTH SHERIDAN FIELD PARK LOCATED AT 5370 WEST OHIO AVENUE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD
ITEM 10 - RESOLUTION 2008-8 - FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE ADDENBROOKE/BELMAR PARK NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAKEWOOD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
ITEM 11 - RESOLUTION 2008-9 - ESTABLISHING PROJECTS AND PROJECT FUNDING LEVELS FOR THE 2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT AND PRESERVATION PROGRAM (CIPP) NEIGHBORHOOD PARTICIPATION PROGRAM
ITEM 12 - RESOLUTION 2008-10 - AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A SETTLEMENT OFFER BETWEEN SEGURA INVESTORS VIII, LLC, SEGURA INVESTORS IX, LLC AND THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD FOR PARCEL 4 FOR THE COLFAX AT SIMMS STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATED AT 1495 SIMMS STREET
ITEM 13 - RESOLUTION 2008-11 - AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS ACROSS 11501 WEST COLFAX AVENUE AND 1485 SIMMS STREET FOR THE COLFAX/SIMMS STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ITEM 14 - RESOLUTION 2008-12 - AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF THE GRANT AGREEMENT REGARDING THE RAY ROSS PARK PHASE II DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
ITEM 15 - RESOLUTION 2008-13 - AUTHORIZING A MASTER PROPERTY CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT AND SUBSEQUENT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENTS WITH THE ONE HORSE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
ITEM 16 - RESOLUTION 2008-15 - ADOPTING THE 2008 CITY COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
ITEM 17 - RESOLUTION 2008-16 - AUTHORIZING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE LAKEWOOD EMPLOYEES MONEY PURCHASE PENSION PLAN AND TRUST AGREEMENT
ITEM 18 - RESOLUTION 2008-17 - AUTHORIZING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE LAKEWOOD EMPLOYEES MONEY PURCHASE PENSION PLAN AND TRUST AGREEMENT
ITEM 19 - RESOLUTION 2008-18 - AUTHORIZING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD POLICE MONEY PURCHASE PENSION PLAN AND TRUST AGREEMENT
ITEM 20 - RESOLUTION 2008-19 - AUTHORIZING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD POLICE MONEY PURCHASE PENSION PLAN AND TRUST AGREEMENT
ITEM 21 - RESOLUTION 2008-20 - AUTHORIZING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD AMENDED AND RESTATED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN AND TRUST AGREEMENT
ITEM 22 - RESOLUTION 2008-21 - AUTHORIZING THE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD CAFETERIA PLAN DOCUMENT
ITEM 23 - RESOLUTION 2008-22 - AUTHORIZING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE CITY MANAGER DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN AND TRUST AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD
ITEM 24 - RESOLUTION 2008-23 - AUTHORIZING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD CITY MANAGER'S EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
ITEM 25 - ORDINANCE O-2008-1 - AMENDING MUNICIPAL WARD BOUNDARIES FOR THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD, COLORADO
ITEM 26 - APPROVING MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Regular City Council Meeting December 10, 2007
ITEM 27 - ACCEPTING MINUTES OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Lakewood Liquor and Fermented Malt Beverage Licensing Authority October 11,
2007
Lakewood Housing Authority September 24, 2007
Lakewood Housing Authority November 13, 2007
Mayor Murphy indicated that items 17 through 24 relate to new IRS regulations that go into effect January 1, 2008 and changes are administrative.
Public comment was opened.
Peggy Phillips - 1061 S. Independence Court, Lakewood, CO thanked Jonathan and his group for their Herculean project with the Addenbrooke/Belmar Park plan and recommended Council approval.
Madie Martinek - 1830 Allison Street, Lakewood, CO represented the Morse Park Neighborhood Organization and stated that they are in support of the neighborhood participation project for the Whitlock Center. She thanked the staff that was involved with the project.
Leland Bieker - 1485 Simms Street, Lakewood, CO expressed his concerns about the lack of communication and the values placed on the property that the City is taking for the improvements along Simms Street.
Joan Bieker - 1485 Simms Street, Lakewood, CO stated her apprehensions on what is going to happen to the remainder of her property during construction. She added her concerns about losing her front yard and the mature trees that provide shade as well as the safety issues bringing things closer to the house.
Claude Dunmire - 1485 Simms Street, Lakewood, CO stated that he purchased the home in 1946. He is not convinced that Simms Street needs a double left turn lane.
Kim Hoyt - 8855 W. Cornell Place, Lakewood, CO expressed her gratitude for the adoption of the neighborhood participation program. She also thanked the Code Enforcement Officers, the Principal Planners and Project Manager for responding to the closure and sale of the property at 3033 S. Estes and the care and concern of the Rampart Station neighborhood.
Public comment was closed.
Councilwoman Allen made a motion to approve the Council minutes, for acceptance of the minutes of 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 Peterson seconded the Motion.
Councilman Anderson asked that items 13, 15 and 16 be pulled for further discussion.
Mayor Murphy pulled items 13, 15 and 16 for discussion under general business. He thanked staff and citizens for their participation and hard work on the neighborhood participation plan. He indicated that a study session had occurred where eighteen of the twenty proposals were accepted based on the budget.
Vote: 11 Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 28 - RESOLUTION 2008-14 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD TO ENTER INTO THE WEST CORRIDOR INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD AND THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
Public Hearing was opened.
Dave Baskett, City Traffic Engineer made a presentation giving a project history to date, the technology to be used on the project, and the alignment of the corridor. He indicated that utility relocations have begun and the Kipling bridge construction is set to begin in late February. In April, RTD intends to submit a full-funding grant agreement application to the Federal government with construction to follow as early as May or June of 2008 with projected completion of the project in 2013.
He discussed the number of agreements between RTD and the City of Lakewood that need to be consummated. The Local Agency Contribution Agreement talks about what the City's share of the project is and how we intend to receive credits for that share. A resolution related to bike bridges will be brought forward in a couple of weeks. Grants have been received from the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) process to add on to RTD's light rail bridge bike path bridges over Kipling and over Wadsworth. We are also looking at Wadsworth bridge betterments.
Along 13th Avenue, the City has right-of-way and the railroads (going back to the 1800's) were given the right to operate a railroad within that right-of-way. We are also looking at a tree replacement program, another Oak Street Station to have betterments made by a yet-to-be-determined party, and a utility relocation agreement for the Lakewood utilities.
He discussed the division of the local match, how Lakewood will get credit for their share, and the utility relocation credit estimate for invoking franchise.
Tim Cox, City Attorney gave a detailed presentation of the articles of the cost-sharing portion of the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA) as presented at the Study Session held on January 7, 2008. An important note is that the separate Property Exchange IGA is in early draft form. Any land acquired by RTD for the purpose of replacing Lakewood public rights-of-way shall be conveyed to Lakewood at no cost, provided it is dedicated as public right-of-way.
The property at 1290 Harlan Street is being looked at for City acquisition. This property borders the rail corridor and, in order to complete the Harlan/Dry Gulch drainage improvements, RTD needed a piece of that property, first as a temporary easement for construction to do drainage improvements and then a permanent easement so that they could complete and maintain the improvements. Because the City was interested in potentially acquiring that property, this agreement says that if Lakewood acquires it, it will give the temporary easement to RTD so that the Dry Gulch improvements can be constructed. If the City does not, for whatever reason, purchase 1290 Harlan, it is agreed that the City will pay for RTD to construct the drainage improvements.
Mike Rock stated that nothing in the IGA makes the City party to, or gives control over, the acquisition of property for the light rail project.
Tim Cox added that this is addressed in Article 5.
Public comment was opened.
Steve Fesch - 15714 E. 11th Avenue, Aurora, CO stated that his property at 2750 W. 14th Avenue is subject to eminent domain. He feels he has been lied to and there is other land available to take that won't be as disruptive as taking it from private landowners. He stated that Go Fast Sports rents his building on this property and they are threatening to pull out of Denver if this goes through and that he also intends to build a bar on his property. He asked for a two-week postponement.
Brian Wareing - Applewood stated that he is concerned about what is going to happen when the next rolling flood comes through Colfax and wipes out RTD FasTracks since the blighted and condemned area is on the floodplain.
Tom Wambolt - 6035 Garrison Street, Arvada, CO stated that he is the President of the Colorado Property Rights Coalition and represents the businesses along Colfax that have been under Urban Renewal. He is concerned about how these people are going to learn about how it's going to affect their properties if they don't have advanced notice. He asked for a two-week postponement so that the affected residents can review and better understand the 49-page document that was posted on Friday, January 11, 2008.
Dave Minshall, Greenwood Village, CO stated that he is representing those who are affected by eminent domain by RTD, specifically Kim and Galen who own the shop at 14th Avenue & Wadsworth. He added that they stumbled on the IGA by accident on Thursday. He was concerned about the 24-hour notice of posting resolutions for a Monday meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Friday and then having the doors locked all weekend so the information isn't accessible. He proposed that Council and Staff make interested parties aware of contentious items that are going to be discussed. He suggested that the public become a third party in the discussions between the City of Lakewood and RTD. He asked for a postponement to allow the involved parties to review the document to see what it means so they can have input.
Max Tyler, 755 Vista Lane, Lakewood, CO stated that the information in question has been available to the public and he has read it and has gone to the study session and heard discussions about it. He encouraged Council to pass the agenda and stated that this agreement has to do with finding value for the RTD and a way of Lakewood paying its share.
Frank Lay, 2030 Newton Drive, Lakewood, CO indicated that he has a problem with trusting RTD not to privatize any of the line. He stated that over fifty percent of RTD is privatized at taxpayer's expense. He asked if, in the agreement, there is anything allowed so that they do not privatize this section of the line.
Randy Little, 10590 W. Dakota Avenue, Lakewood, CO stated that he has attended several meetings over the last few months and has done a lot of research and wonders if there is a reason for not going forward with light rail. He encouraged Council to vote for this tonight.
Jimmy Helton, 852 S. Vance, Apt. E-105, Lakewood, CO stated that RTD couldn't be trusted because they've had too many accidents and they aren't paying attention.
Chris Heisman, 12711 W. 6th Place, Lakewood, CO stated that he lived overseas for three years and had a chance to visit a lot of cities that have good light rail systems and Denver needs light rail. He added that he is very much against eminent domain in anything other than a last resort for a public works like mass transit. He is concerned about RTD later turning over these properties over to privatized development. He questioned the 1.9 million in the IGA coming from a fee credit for building permits, etc. He asked for clarification whether it was more of a loss of income on those fees rather than a cost to the City.
Mayor Murphy responded that it is staff time.
Chris Heisman added that if light rail weren't being built, the City wouldn't have that income anyway so it's not really a cost to the City. He also questioned the 1.8 million that is being asked for drainage and understands that this is money that the City of Lakewood was going to spend regardless of light rail.
Mike Muller - 868 S. Owens Court, Lakewood, CO stated that we are not getting what we paid for with RTD. He stated that he asked Council to go to the light rail station at Alameda and Broadway to see what we are going to have - he claims it will be an eyesore and a dangerous situation. He claims it is not what RTD promised the City of Lakewood and he asked that Council hold them to what they promised.
Natalie Menton - Ward 5, Lakewood, CO stated that since they will be co-petitioners in the eminent domain proceedings, she wanted to make sure that everyone is aware of the state law enacted in 2005 where RTD, when they take a portion of someone's property, may only have to pay a person fifty percent of the value of the property if they feel the remaining portion, that wasn't taken through eminent domain, has increased in value. She wanted to know if that formula would be used with these partial properties that will be used for the right-of-ways.
Public Hearing was closed.
Councilwoman Allen made a motion to adopt Resolution 2008-14. Councilman Peterson seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Allen commented on the statements made at the podium and the process that Council has, is, and will be going through with FasTracks to improve transportation in the metro area for hundreds of thousands of people.
Councilwoman Koop reiterated Natalie Menton's question regarding whether RTD will be giving the property owners full value for their property.
Mayor Murphy added specifically in relation to the rights-of-way and easement that are covered under the IGA.
Tim Cox answered that RTD is required to do what the IGA and the law require. There is nothing in the IGA that addresses any specific requirements and nothing that exempts RTD from any obligations under State or Federal law. We use eminent domain when it's necessary to condemn property for the City's purposes. To the extent the City was going to be involved in any of those processes, those attorneys will be representing the City's interest. RTD will have it's own people advising them.
Councilwoman Koop asked if we are not talking about this because it's not a part of the IGA that we are working on but we can't promise that RTD won't go back to that new ruling from 2005 as long as they follow the law.
Tim Cox responded that for any eminent domain petition, they need to follow the law that is in effect at the time that they apply.
Councilman Anderson asked for clarification about eminent domain proceedings and how it relates to the City being co-petitioners. He asked how is the property going to be valued between the City of Lakewood and RTD?
Tim Cox replied that the agreement requires RTD to be responsible for the cost of acquiring any property interests so the City wouldn't be paying fair market value as a co-petitioner. It would be an administrative process that the two parties would petition together using the City's eminent domain counsel for this agreement but RTD is the one that pays for the cost. As for what that cost would be, that's a question that gets flushed out during the appraisal and court processes.
Councilman Anderson asked if the City's attorneys that will be used in this process will be allowed to raise in court, or anywhere else, this argument that the enhanced value leads to a smaller fair value for the property.
Tim Cox answered that per the agreement, the attorneys representing the City would be jointly representing the two parties in any of the co-petitioner arrangements. If there turned out to be any conflict in the interest of those two joint petitioners, then each has to get separate counsel to advise them of their positions and their interests. If the question is "Would our attorneys say RTD should pay more?" , the answer is "No", because they are representing both parties and their obligation would be to take the City and RTD through the process in accordance with the law as its in effect at that time. The individual property owners would also be represented and would have the opportunity to make sure the law was applied correctly.
Councilman Anderson added that if our attorneys go into court, would they be allowed to put forward an argument, that says, "your property check will be reduced because your property is gaining some value from some other aspects of this project"?
Tim Cox responded that the obligation of the attorneys representing the City and RTD in any joint petition, as a last resort, if no negotiated agreement can be reached, is to represent the best interest of both parties that the attorneys represent.
Mike Rock added that under any eminent domain taking, the court has to make a decision whether that acquisition renders the remainder of the property valueless and, if so, you have to pay full value of the property. If it does not, then the court has to make a determination of what the value of the remainder of the property is and that is individual-to-individual assessment. If there is a disagreement, the court brings in a three-member panel to determine valuation.
Councilwoman Kellen asked for clarification of the provision regarding acting as a co-plaintiff, asking if we are not going to be a co-plaintiff in the general acquisition of the right-of-way, only when Lakewood needs to acquire right-of-way back.
Tim Cox reiterated that RTD shall be responsible for the cost of acquiring
any property interests owned or controlled by persons other than RTD or Lakewood
that are necessary to replace Lakewood public rights-of-way conveyed to RTD
for the project.
Councilwoman Stack inquired if RTD already has the authority for condemnation,
what is the purpose of the co-petition with Lakewood?
Tim Cox answered that RTD has the authority to condemn property for transit purposes. If there is a condemnation that becomes necessary to give the City back right-of-way, the theory is that this is not a transit purpose and the City has to be a petitioner on that because the City is the one acquiring the land for right-of-way purposes.
Councilwoman Stack asked if there was any history with the other lines as co-petitioners with other municipal governments or governmental entities.
Tim Cox responded that he didn't know.
Mike Rock added that it is in all of the IGAs that are being considered.
Councilwoman Stack clarified that she was asking about past history, such as in Littleton.
Tim Cox answered that through T-REX, there was a similar process used through the Colorado Department of Transportation.
Councilwoman Baroway read Article 5(C)2 stating that that was the only time that Lakewood would become a co-petitioner in an eminent domain proceeding.
Councilwoman Stack inquired about Article 4(C)2 asking if there is there any potential for it to deny compensation at all or to lessen the full value for other right-of-ways which would be something not directly aligned with light rail.
Mike Rock answered that if you lost four feet out of the middle and you're acquiring the four feet to the side, that has to be compensated for. The impact on the property owner and the value of the property depends on the impact of that property. So, it isn't going to be a set amount. It's established in an appraisal and then there's a determination whether it diminishes the usability of the property. There is nothing in this that creates some special circumstance where the property isn't compensated for. All of the normal requirements the City has for acquiring right-of-way and street widening still exist.
Councilwoman Stack further inquired about whether "necessary to implement the project" is still the right-of-way, adding that it was just the street side of the tracks she is looking for.
Mike Rock added that as you move a rail over, you affect the turn radius, the crossing points if the require a gate, etc., but they are all related to track alignment. It's not related to the parking facilities or any of the full takes that have been discussed.
Councilman Anderson stated his concern was why some individuals were able to access the information and others were not because of the comments in public comment about the availability of information.
Tim Cox answered that he had not participated in any interactions with people who've requested the agreement. He added that the most recent draft was to have been posted on the web along with the agenda materials on Friday when it incorporated the change that was discussed tonight.
Councilman Anderson asked if there were any copies available to the public prior to Friday.
Tim Cox stated that he didn't know, that he hadn't received any requests for it, but other staff may have.
Mike Rock added that the document had been available since the Study Session last week and no substantial changes had been made since that meeting.
Councilman Anderson inquired if it was posted on the website for the Study Session.
Mike Rock answered that copies were available at the Study Session but he wasn't aware that it was posted beforehand but the agenda was.
Dick Plastino, Public Works Director clarified that for the Study Session, what was posted on the web was a copy of the cover memo, which said that the document was available through the City Clerk's office.
Councilman Anderson asked if the draft copy was available through the City Clerk's office through the entire week.
Margy Greer, City Clerk confirmed this.
Councilwoman Stack stated that she received three phone calls telling her that they had called the City requiring a copy of this and they were denied a copy because it was in draft form.
Mike Rock stated that that was not true and added that copies were available at the Study Session and were available to anyone who came to the office to ask for it. There were no requests that were denied.
Councilwoman Stack stated that the document posted at 7:25 p.m. on her computer but by 7:25 on a Friday evening the offices were closed for the weekend and there was not much time for people to actually read these documents and move forward on any questions. She spent all day on the phone and was confused as to what had happened because the packets didn't come until later. She realized it was a large agenda but not having the opportunity to review and comment when there is a potential for some of your land to be taken, it is nice to have that document in hand.
Mike Rock reiterated that there were no significant changes in the document that was available all week. It's within the last year that IGAs were made available at all. Historically, what the City has done is simply authorized the appropriate parties, either the Mayor or City Manager, to execute the IGAs. You had a massive agenda and when you have a massive agenda, they come out a little later but anyone who wanted to obtain the document could have done so.
Mayor Murphy added that Mr. Plastino stated that the document has been available since prior to the Study Session over a week ago.
Councilman Peterson inquired if there is anything in the document that either grants to the City of Lakewood or RTD any additional powers or authority or anything that either party doesn't already have with respect to acquiring interests for right-of-way purposes.
Tim Cox answered no.
Councilman Peterson asked if the document before Council tonight would not be the last document that we see with respect to IGAs between the City and RTD as this project moves forward.
Tim Cox responded that there are about a half-dozen contemplated and likely more that are not yet contemplated.
Councilman Peterson stated that he could not find anything in the IGA that substantially changes the position of any party with respect to how we handle acquisition or transfer of right-of-way at all. He added that this is between RTD and the City of Lakewood and if additional right-of-way, where the City has a substantial interest in maintaining these over time and RTD has a substantial interest in building it's rail line where these intersect or overlap, this is an agreement between these two parties to mutually respect the responsibilities and rights of each other for continued maintenance and acquisition.
Tim Cox reiterated that the conveyance of temporary or permanent easements and/or land between RTD and Lakewood is to be undertaken pursuant to the as yet undrafted IGA governing land exchange that is contemplated by the parties.
Councilman Peterson stated that that has to come before Council as well as the board of RTD. He made a suggestion with respect to those future documents stating that it be imperative that they be as open and public as possible.
Mayor Murphy added that this document has been a work in progress for many years and the work went on until the last minute so, while he supports getting the document out to the public as soon as possible, he doesn't want to get it out so soon to create expectations and then have substantive changes.
Mike Rock added that this agreement does what most people would wish would happen in every instance with RTD. It says that you don't take any more property than you need and you compensate for what you take.
Councilman Quinn asked if this agreement caps the City's total contribution at 5.166 million dollars.
Tim Cox answered that it does with the exception that the one million dollars that the City would pay for the drainage improvements IF the City does not acquire 1290 Harlan. That is not part of the credit towards the local agency contribution but is to pay for drainage improvements, not to pay for the light rail.
Councilman Quinn asked if the agreement does not allow RTD to come back and ask the City for additional money if conditions change for some reason.
Tim Cox responded that that was correct.
Councilwoman Allen asked for an elaboration on the public comment made about privatizing the line and asked what kind of influence would have on that, if any.
Tim Cox answered that he was unclear as to what the citizen meant by "privatization of the line" asking if that means the development of the property that RTD acquires.
Mike Rock responded that a number of years ago, Colorado put in place a requirement that RTD privatize a certain percentage of its bus operations and, by extension, its rail operations to try to create opportunities for the private sector to provide some of those services instead of strictly RTD employees. He is not aware if those requirements are going to extend to light rail or not.
Dave Baskett added that currently all light rail has to be operated by RTD union. That's part of their union contract and none of the light rail services are privatized.
Councilman Anderson stated that in the Study Session we talked about the possibility of additional IGAs, as mentioned in the PowerPoint presentation. In the Study Session, he asked if it would be possible to look forward to an IGA for graffiti and security issues with RTD. Mr. Marsella from RTD assured us that graffiti was removed within 24-hours on any RTD property. Mr. Muller is correct that if you go to the station at Alameda and Broadway and ride that train downtown, you do see a lot of graffiti. The fact that it isn't on RTD's property is a technical point because it's a representation of the City to any visitor to it. Can we look towards an IGA that addresses the corridor alongside the rail line?
Mike Rock answered that the City could not make RTD responsible for cleaning other people's property but we could work out something where they would notify the City.
Councilman Anderson acknowledged that Lakewood has a very different situation than Denver regarding graffiti. Regarding the issue of the other IGA that was mentioned, property interest reconciliation/property exchange, this is the one that has invoked the most fear. What can citizens of Lakewood, or outside of Lakewood whose property might be affected, expect for this future IGA as far as posting? How far in advance will they be posted? How late in the process will a draft come down to a final language?
Dave Baskett stated that with competing interests within the 13th Avenue corridor, there are pieces that RTD owns outright that they purchased from the railroad but we have a road on it and have had for long enough time that it's probably ours from adverse possession. There are places where we have the right-of-way and there is a single railroad track that we don't believe necessarily that they just have the automatic right to put down two railroad tracks. Co-petitioning came up because at every at-grade crossing, where you have the gates as well as the light rail tracks, and you have the need for fire trucks to be able to make the turn at each one of those four quadrants, there is a need to move the street a little bit to get the turning radius to get the room for the gates. We have somewhere in the neighborhood of eleven light rail at-grade crossings. That means there are forty-four slivers of land that would need to be acquired to be able to make those turns. Each one of those will have to be described and included as an exhibit to the IGA as well as the Master Exhibit. This is why I use property interest as opposed to land exchange as we do not intend to give RTD land. We intend to give them an easement that they can have in perpetuity to operate a light rail line. We do intend for them to give us land so that we own the right-of-way underneath our street. That means it's going to be awhile before we get all of these things in any type of form. We are months away from being able to do that.
Tim Cox followed up that in Article 5(b) there is no provision for Lakewood to give land to RTD in this agreement. It's temporary easements and permanent easements as necessary. The specifics of any conveyances of temporary or permanent easements and/or land because RTD may be obligated to convey land to the City, but any of those exchanges/conveyances are going to be addressed in that agreement. There is no intention to make that property interest reconciliation agreement into some sort of eminent domain handbook. The acquisition is primarily, in that case, between Lakewood and RTD and not specifically for third parties.
As for the question about the process, there have been a number of items referencing RTD that may or may not have to come to Council. We've made a policy decision that those things will come to Council and as early as possible because of the obvious interest of the public in this process. We'll continue to bring these things to Council. We'll do our best get them to you as early as we can in a form that is suitable for public dissemination. There is no specific time frame we can adhere to, it's the best we can do under the circumstances.
Councilman Anderson asked if there would be a Study Session on this property interest reconciliation document followed by a vote from Council and thus there would be one week in which some sort of a draft would be posted on both the City of Lakewood website and available through the City Clerk's office in hard copy.
Mike Rock stated that Council would drive that process.
Mayor Murphy committed to Council that there will be a study session on that particular IGA.
Councilman Anderson asked if anything in the document that we are voting on this evening cause properties to be taken from individuals or handed over to the City of Lakewood without compensation. Will this be more than corner clips? Will Galen and Kim Foster's property on 14th and Wadsworth be any way involved with this document? Will this document be held up and said, "Here is the reason we are allowed to do this"?
Tim Cox answered no. He reiterated that this agreement, to the extent it discusses an exchange of property at all, addressed the need for Lakewood to receive right-of-way in the form that Dave described (corners and small strips), to replace land that had to be used by RTD for the rail corridor. It is for that purpose only. Any land that is to be conveyed to the City, that is not for right-of-way purposes, is not permitted under this agreement. That is the only circumstance which land can be taken for just compensation. In no circumstances will it be taken without compensation.
Councilman Anderson stated that he is relying on staff's commitment and would be supporting this and added that he is not a supporter of RTD and light rail.
Mayor Murphy recapped what the Resolution being voted on entailed emphasizing that it provides the specifics of the local match that is required by the Federal Transit Administration.
Vote: 10 Ayes, 1 Nay (Stack). The motion carried.
Mayor Murphy noted that to the extent possible, we would do our best to get this out as early as possible when it is a finished product. We believe we did that this time and we also understand that it's a lot of information. He stated to Mr. Minshall that he personally called Kim and Galen over a week ago to let them know about the Study Session and the IGA, and they were out of town.
ITEM 29 - ORDINANCE O-2007-33 - INCLUDING A PORTION OF THE ROONEY VALLEY WITHIN THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD WITHIN THE METRO WASTEWATER RECLAMATION DISTRICT SERVICE AREA
Public comment: None. Public hearing was closed.
Councilwoman Allen made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2007-33 on second and final reading. Councilman Peterson seconded the motion.
Vote: 11 Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 30 - ORDINANCE O-2007-34 - DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY OF LAKEWOOD TO ACQUIRE INTERESTS IN PROPERTY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TRAFFIC SAFETY SIGNAL AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF KIPLING STREET AND WEST 20 AVENUE FOR THE S.H. 391 (KIPLING) AT WEST 20th AVENUE STREET TRAFFIC SAFETY SIGNAL PROJECT, AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROPERTY OWNERS, ACCEPTANCE OF CONVEYANCE INSTRUMENTS, AND CONDEMNATION OF REAL PROPERTY INTERESTS
Public comment: None. Public hearing was closed.
Councilwoman Allen made a motion to adopt Ordinance O-2007-34 on second and final reading. Councilman Peterson seconded the motion.
Vote: 11 Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 31 - GENERAL BUSINESS
The following items were pulled by Councilman Anderson from the consent agenda:
A (ITEM 13) - RESOLUTION 2008-11 - AUTHORIZING CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS ACROSS 11501 WEST COLFAX AVENUE AND 1485 SIMMS STREET FOR THE COLFAX/SIMMS STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mike Rock indicated that he's had some discussion with Staff and would be comfortable with deferring this item for two weeks. Staff has been in discussion with the family and will continue those discussions whether Council passes this or not.
Councilwoman Allen made a motion to continue Resolution 2008-11 to a date certain of January 28, 2008. Councilman Peterson seconded the motion.
Vote: 11 Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
B (ITEM 15) - RESOLUTION 2008-13 - AUTHORIZING A MASTER PROPERTY CONVEYANCE AGREEMENT AND SUBSEQUENT IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENTS WITH THE ONE HORSE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
Councilman Anderson stated that there are a number of references to the 1996 agreement that in describing definitions tended to refer back to this document and we don't have the document here and he wasn't on Council at that time and wasn't aware of this item until receiving the packet so his preference is to move this to a date certain in the future where we can talk about it at a study session.
Mike Rock stated that he had not envisioned that Council would revisit all of our existing agreements with various entities. This is a very narrow issue where an entity has acquired property on behalf of the City and is conveying it to the City. There is nothing in this that changes the various agreements we have with One Horse Business District.
Councilman Anderson clarified that he isn't looking to revisit the agreements with One Horse Business District; he is just looking to understand them prior to voting on them. He asked what the credits and future obligations of the One Horse Business District are.
Councilwoman Allen asked for an overview.
John Mullens - 1546 Cole Boulevard, Lakewood, CO stated that in 1994, the City of Lakewood entered into an agreement with the Stevinson family to annex a property that became the Colorado Mills mall. Part of that agreement was that the City would engage in a revenue sharing agreement and that there would be a District formed for the purpose of doing public improvements in the surrounding mall area. That was taken to a public vote and passed by seventy three percent of the people. One Horse is one of several districts that are responsible for public improvements in and around the mall area and is the lead agency that interfaces with the City of Lakewood. Several years ago, the property in question was purchased and was part of a contentious zoning along Colfax with several repeated attempts and recently bought the property to take it out of contention. The City said they have an interest in creating some real safety improvements on that property. We could sell it to the City but we decided to give it to the City and when there are necessary public improvements down the road that need to be done, we'll have a credit against those public improvements. What this agreement does is it allows us to go out and buy additional property and convey it to the City under the same mechanism. It's a complicated agreement but it's a fairly simple situation.
Councilman Anderson asked about the credits. You're giving the property to the City with no dollars changing hands but future credits anticipated. How many credits and what are those credits worth?
John Mullens stated that they paid around three hundred thousand dollars for it and would look at a credit that would be equal to three hundred thousand dollars. That is not part of this agreement. The actual details have to be worked out between the two parties.
Mike Rock added that this agreement creates the vehicle with which we negotiate the details.
Councilman Anderson asked if those details would come back to Council at some point to be voted on.
Mike Rock responded that not normally and added if Council wants them to come back, they can. Normally these kinds of transactions are pretty straightforward, there is a valuation established.
John Mullens added that they are recorded documents and there is nothing secret about what was paid for the property.
Councilman Anderson inquired about the three hundred thousand dollars asking what obligations the district has to the City.
Mike Rock answered that there are no obligations today. If the City, in the future, went to the District and said we want a road widened (or something) and it costs five hundred thousand dollars, the District is simply saying, "We have three hundred thousand that we've already given you so now we owe you two hundred thousand."
John Mullens added that the District's obligation is an attributable share based on the demand that they put on a facility. Most of the demand we put on facilities, we actually built the facilities for those. When we built the mall, we built thirty million dollars for road improvements out there. Should Denver West grow, there could be an impact down the road, but it's pretty theoretical at this point. Most of the growth is coming from background growth in the region and has nothing to do with Denver West.
Councilman Anderson stated that it spoke towards drainage improvements and asked if there are drainage improvements we're looking at doing on the property.
John Mullens responded that all of the regional drainage improvements have been done. They've cooperated with the City and with urban drainage on facilities, going back over fifteen years. Going forward, should there be a need for additional public improvements that might be an obligation to the District, there's a credit in the bank. That's all it is.
Mike Rock added that the basic concept was that when the development occurred, the developer, through these Districts, built improvements to serve the development the day it opened and some projected period forward. To the credit of Denver West Village and Colorado Mills, it was really one of the only regional retail centers that opened with all of the improvements in place, drainage, other roadways and other obligations. We put in place a mechanism to say that if over time those two projects, in combination, created additional demands on transportation or drainage that we had the ability to go back and say we'd like you to participate. We didn't anticipate that they would be a hundred percent responsible. Let's say they were contributing twenty five percent of the additional traffic load that required an additional lane on Colfax, and we would establish a dollar amount to that, we would negotiate it as we do at a staff level routinely on those items and they would be obligated to do that. But there are no obligations today, they have no obligations to do drainage work, roadway work, anything and they may never have any obligations if the center doesn't grow in a way that creates new drainage or traffic demands. But, if they have obligations in the future, and if, instead of paying them for this property, we simply accept the credit, then that credit would be applied in the future.
Councilman Anderson asked if the property is in the boundaries of the City of Lakewood.
John Mullens answered that it is adjacent to the City border.
Tim Cox added that it is anticipated that at some point after this agreement is dealt with, that the City will go through the annexation process but that's not necessary for the conveyance to happen. The City can obtain title to the property without it being within the City.
Mike Rock stated that we could expand the roadway in theory but the County would be concerned if we expand our roadway without taking responsibility.
Councilman Anderson stated that he recalled a discussion about the reconstruction of the Colfax/Youngfield street and asked if there are any maps that show what this is going to look like. He further inquired if there has been any discussion on the anticipated plans.
John Mullens responded that they have not asked for any plans from the City and isn't any business of theirs what the configuration of that is.
Councilman Anderson asked how that process would go forward from here as to neighborhood involvement.
Mike Rock answered that the improvements to Youngfield and Colfax have been a point of discussion in that neighborhood and the City for a long time but we've never had it in our budget. Before we could even think about including it in our long-term capital improvement plans, we have to address the issue of right-of-way and whether we have the ability to build. They have the property, they offered to convey it to us, and we couldn't figure out any reason we wouldn't accept it. We are not approving any roadway design tonight.
Mayor Murphy stated to Councilman Anderson that any speculation about what a future interchange may or may not look like is outside the scope of this particular resolution.
Councilwoman Stack asked if it was transferable should there be a sale of current properties that are incorporated within the District.
Mike Rock asked that if, for some reason, the Denver West Village, Colorado Mills, or other properties associated with the One Horse District change owners, who owns the credit? Does the District own the credit?
John Mullens answered that the District owns the credit and the District and the City will last forever so the obligation lies with the two organizations that we know will be here.
Councilwoman Allen made a motion to adopt Resolution 2008-13. Councilman Peterson seconded the motion.
Vote: 10 Ayes. 1 Nay (Anderson). The motion carried.
C (ITEM 16) - RESOLUTION 2008-15 - ADOPTING THE 2008 CITY COUNCIL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Councilman Anderson stated that he had sent an e-mail to Council regarding his concern with the document that is strictly within the section on separation of powers discussing the three branches of government. He would like that removed and doesn't believe that City Charter divides Lakewood's governance into three things. The City Manager is the Chief Administrator and that is pretty clearly defined in the Charter. This language confuses the rest of what is a very good intent to say that City Council people shouldn't be trying to interfere on judicial cases.
Mayor Murphy asked Councilwoman Allen if anyone had commented on Councilman Anderson's e-mail.
Councilwoman Allen answered that no one had commented on the e-mail. She mentioned that she had a conversation with Councilman Anderson and brought it to the Executive Committee and since he was the only person who brought it up and there was no other support evident, we didn't decide to amend the policy and procedure manual.
Councilwoman Stack stated that she would have supported that because she believes in what Councilman Anderson is saying about adding that they contradict each other. She added that she didn't think she had to comment because she was in agreement with it and didn't see an e-mail response coming back.
Councilwoman Allen responded that she did not return the e-mail because she spoke with him personally.
Councilman Anderson made a motion that the Policies and Procedures Manual chapter on separation of powers remove the first paragraph of language and change in the second paragraph, the phrase, "legislative branch" to "City Council has" and then in the third paragraph, change the words "first to" to "Council and City Manager."
Councilwoman Stack seconded the motion.
Mayor Murphy clarified that this is a line in the Policies and Procedures Manual, which does not affect the City Charter in any way.
Councilwoman Koop stated that Council did not have a copy of this in front of them before they voted and suggested that the book be passed so everyone could read it.
Mike Rock stated that staff has no firm position on this issue.
Councilman Peterson stated that he was on the Committee that worked on the Policies and Procedures Manual and in order to decide how to vote, he polled the new Council members to find out if the wording was ambiguous or confusing.
None of the new Council members found the language ambiguous or confusing.
Joni Inman, Director of Mayor and City Manager's Office suggested that rather than taking everything out, as a compromise, take out the term "branches" and leave in the three areas of responsibility.
Councilman Anderson stated that he would be leaving the motion as it is.
Vote on amending the language: 7 Ayes. 4 Nays (Koop, Quinn, King, Baroway). The motion carried.
Councilwoman Allen made a motion to adopt Resolution 2008-15 as amended. Councilman Peterson seconded the motion.
Vote: 10 Ayes. 1 Nay (King). The motion carried.
ITEM 32 - REPORTS
Mayor and City Council reported their attendance at previous meetings and events and announced upcoming neighborhood meetings and events.
Mayor Murphy stated that Police Chief Ron Burns had resigned.
ITEM 33 - ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council; Mayor Murphy adjourned the meeting at 10:38 p.m.
Submitted by,
Margy Greer, City Clerk
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
