|
|
|
 |
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.
ITEM 4 - PUBLIC COMMENT
Gerald Lopez - 1257 Allison, Lakewood, CO, stated he has been a Lakewood resident for forty-two years and he is here to represent Galen and Kim Foster. He added that RTD has come into the City of Lakewood to run everyone's lives and take everyone's property and that is wrong and needs to be stopped.
Galen Foster - 1398 Wadsworth Boulevard, Lakewood, CO, stated that another week has gone by and he hasn't heard anything from RTD or the City of Lakewood. He claimed that the people on City Council are not people of their words. He doesn't know how "things will play out" but guarantees that "the citizens of the City of Lakewood will prevail."
Duncan Phelp - 305 W. Magnolia, Ft. Collins, CO, stated that Lakewood voters voted for light rail, but did not vote for them to take property, pay fifty cents on the dollar and sell it to private developers. RTD is being sued because of a state law that prevents this sort of thing. He hopes the City of Lakewood stops what they are doing and distances themselves from RTD and takes another look at eminent domain and state law to avoid being caught up in the same kind of law suit which is costly to the taxpayers. He added that about twenty years ago he became a civil rights activist and became interested in Mr. Foster's issue and offered to support him. He joined a concerned citizens group on police matters in Ft. Collins in 1988 and became involved with the Ft. Collins police department. In 1989, there was an incident in Loveland where there was a hostage situation at the River House Restaurant and two innocent people were killed by police officers. Due to circumstances, the City Manager was also acting as the Police Chief and that City Manager was Mike Rock. The City lost two million dollars. He recommended that City Council get rid of Mike Rock before more money is lost and the City gets more bad press.
Brian Wareing - Applewood, recited poetry and stated his thoughts on statements made by various council members at previous meetings regarding property takes related to RTD as well as Mayor Murphy's campaign contributions. He wonders when the newspapers and media will begin reporting the truth so that people can judge how these justifications should not be taken as moral crimes.
Kim Snyder - 1398 Wadsworth Boulevard, Lakewood, CO, stated that she had a letter that was written by Karen Kellen in 2005 referencing the floodplain in the Colfax West Redevelopment Area. The letter says the plan gives the City the ability to use eminent domain, but established guidelines for its use that will protect well-maintained properties. Government abuse of eminent domain is well documented and Lakewood's guidelines are intended to avoid these abuses of power. While these guidelines are not legally binding upon the Council, they do clearly establish the will of the people in placing limits on the use of this power. Much of the heated rhetoric comes from people who are generally distrustful of government. City Council should heed the concerns of these citizens and the guidelines for the use of eminent domain and the intention to provide financial help for small business. The City Council has the ability to prove that government can work for the good of all of it's people and oversee this process with wisdom and respect for property owners.
Ms. Snyder added that Lakewood facilitates RTD and RTD facilitates Lakewood and the taxpayers pay for it all. It would be much appreciated if you would not plan our lives in private and behind closed doors and then hold public hearings to give the illusion of cooperation and compassion. You continue to say 'this is what the voters voted on" but they voted on transit and not redevelopment and saying it over and over again does not make it so. She thanked Councilors Stack and Anderson for always being true to form in asking the substantive questions knowing they will never receive a complete answer and that they will always be overridden and outvoted.
Referring to a January 28, 2008 meeting and a discussion about the Colfax and Simms property, Snyder commented that Councilor Baroway said she was voting a certain way because of the message that it would send to the other ten property owners. If the Biekers choose not to leave or settle at this time, Snyder said, they should not be made to feel guilty or uncooperative because they want to exercise their right to due process. Snyder said she found the reason for Baroway's vote appalling and in the future she hopes Baroway will vote yay or nay because it's either right or wrong.
Dave Minshall - Greenwood Village, CO, stated that he is speaking on behalf of Brenda Petrovich to ask City Council for help. The Petroviches have put their house up for sale and are in that position because neither RTD nor the City of Lakewood will help them. They understand the legal dispute about what it means to have the right-of-way close off their property. They were told that someone from the City of Lakewood would be in touch with them to help them and that has not happened. They are pleading for help as they are being starved out, he concluded.
Natalie Menton - Ward 5, stated she was finishing Kim Snyder's concerns about Kacey Fine Furniture (Kacey). Kacey has spent a tremendous amount of money in the not-to-far past and no one from the City gave them any indication that there would be the complications that exist right now where the access would be cut off to their business. She asked if any consideration could be given to working with Kacey, because they have invested a lot of money in the property and they employ local citizens and provide for our economy through tax revenue.
Ms. Menton questioned how many more citizens would be affected by poor planning. She asked that the City pay special attention when people are investing money and dealing with the Planning Department so that things we know of, like light rail, don't come into play and citizens lose a lot of their investment.
Jerry Burton - Ward 4, spoke about public comment and stated that people should be responded to.
Sarah Lindhorst - 13238 W. Jewell Place - Lakewood, CO, stated that she received a letter in response to the letter she submitted last meeting. She added that the situation with the police is continuing and she has to wear something over her head to block out the noise from the police radio. She asked if any action would be taken.
Mayor Murphy responded that the police department would be getting back with her.
Public comment closed.
Mayor Murphy commented to Mr. Burton that public comment should be just that and, if there is any misrepresentation of the facts or anything of that nature, we do try to clear that up, but people are entitled to their own opinions.
He apologized to Ms. Snyder and stated that the verbal instructions that he gives will be changed to indicate that we don't allow time to be ceded from one person to another.
Regarding specific comments about the issues between RTD and various property owners in Lakewood, he stated that due to a notice of proposed litigation between RTD and those property owners, we are going to be very careful about any comments that we make. In terms of what Lakewood City Council can do, we are going to discuss a resolution that will strongly urge that RTD do everything they can to be as fair as possible in working with our citizens and property owners in Lakewood.
Mike Rock, City Manager discussed Kacey, saying it was not included in the notice of litigation. Community Planning and Development Director, Becky Clark has been in regular contact with Leslie from Kacey. Kacey has been using RTD right-of-way for parking since they bought the property. While he is not familiar with the details of the transaction, when they acquired the property their lack of parking and use of RTD property presumably would have been reflected in the price. It is his understanding that RTD is not taking any of Kacey's property; it is simply using property RTD already owns. It's a little disingenuous to suggest that the City of Lakewood either shouldn't have allowed Kacey to operate or go through any expansions because those didn't change the parking requirements. If the City had not allowed Kacey to use their property, they would have very legitimately pursued a legal claim against the City. In addition, we have had discussions with Kacey looking at whether or not that property would be considered for evidence storage use.
Regarding BJ's Jeep, that is under pending litigation. However, after the last meeting, we did ask Traffic Engineer Dave Baskett, our liaison with RTD, to review RTD's drawings, to the extent we had access to them, to confirm that the original plan was still the same. In the original plan, the only thing RTD was using was the right-of-way it already owned. In addition, we asked staff to look at what alternative rights-of-way might be available to access that property and they are still researching whether or not RTD's plans are final.
Councilman Anderson asked if the people at BJ's Jeep expect anyone from the City of Lakewood to come out and talk with them.
Mike Rock answered that we are trying to get all of the information from RTD so that we can have a meaningful conversation. We are also looking at alternate access, but as he understands it, the alternate access crosses a gulch, The City wouldn't build that structure, but we're trying to look at what the costs would be for the property owner if they wanted to utilize that additional access.
Councilman Anderson asked if a time period was anticipated.
Mike Rock responded that there is another meeting tomorrow to look at the access question and once completed, they should be able to have follow-up discussion so they should have something later this week.
The Acting City Clerk announced that Item 11 was inadvertently placed on the agenda under Second Reading Ordinances and Public Hearings, but belongs under the Consent Agenda as a first reading ordinance. The Acting City Clerk read the following Consent Agenda items into the record:
ITEM 5 - RESOLUTION 2008-24 - CONTINUED FROM 1/28/2008 AUTHORIZING AN AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (RTD) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BIKEPATH BRIDGES OVER KIPLING STREET AND WADSWORTH BOULEVARD
ITEM 6 - RESOLUTION 2008-27 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FOSSIL RIDGE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT NO. 1 RELATING TO MAINTENANCE
The Acting City Clerk noted that Exhibit A of the attached agreement was not in the packets but was left at Council members' places this evening.
ITEM 7 - RESOLUTION 2008-28 - AUTHORIZING A UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT (URA) WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (RTD) FOR CITY OF LAKEWOOD (LAKEWOOD) OWNED UTILITY FACILITIES IMPACTED BY RTD'S WEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT) PROJECT
ITEM 8 - RESOLUTION 2008-29 - A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (RTD) WEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL PROJECT
The Acting City Clerk noted that a revised version of this resolution was left at Council members' places this evening.
ITEM 9 - APPROVING MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Regular City Council Meeting January 14, 2008
Regular City Council Meeting January 28, 2008
ITEM 10 - ACCEPTING MINUTES OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Lakewood Housing Authority Special Meeting, December 10, 2007
Lakewood Housing Authority Regular Meeting, January 7, 2008
Lakewood Liquor and Fermented Malt Beverage Licensing Authority Meeting, October
25, 2007
Lakewood Liquor and Fermented Malt Beverage Licensing Authority Meeting, November
8, 2007
Lakewood Liquor and Fermented Malt Beverage Licensing Authority Meeting, December
13, 2007
ITEM 11- ORDINANCE O-2008-3 - AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1290 HARLAN STREET, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO FROM ROBERT A. FULCHER, SICO LLC, DIANA S. FULCHER, ALLAN E. BEAVERS AND NEVA BEAVERS FAMILY TRUST, FOR FUTURE STORMWATER DRAINAGE AND OTHER CITY USES, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Public comment: None. 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 Acting City Clerk. Councilman Peterson seconded the Motion.
Mayor Murphy called attention to Item 8 stating that the purpose of this resolution is to codify in the strongest possible language a number of issues with RTD and their dealings with Lakewood citizens. It includes expressing, as strongly as possible, that RTD should take only the property that is necessary for the rail lines, stations and parking, and that they need to communicate with our citizens as early as possible and should seek to negotiate first, pay fair market value, and use eminent domain only as a last resort.
He explained that Item 7 is a resolution on the utility relocation.
Tim Cox, City Attorney, indicated that this is a standard agreement that is used with other utility providers and RTD. The "guts" of the agreement with Lakewood is set forth in Exhibit J where some of the terms of the standard agreement are modified.
Mayor Murphy reminded Council that in their role as policy makers, they direct the staff and attorneys to write the various reports and Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs); it's not our job to dissect them and rewrite the legal language, he said.
Councilwoman Kellen asked for a correction on one of the public commenters in the minutes of January 14, 2008. On page nine, the first person listed should be Frank Lay.
Mayor Murphy stated that this would be corrected.
Councilman Anderson stated that he would like to pull items 5, 7 and 8 and ask that item 8 be placed ahead of 5 and 7 so that it can be first in discussion.
Mayor Murphy clarified with Tim Cox that nothing in the procedural rules prohibits Council from taking the items out of numerical order. Mayor Murphy stated that the motion is for adoption of the Consent Agenda absent items 5, 7 and 8.
Vote: 11 Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 12 - ORDINANCE 2008-2 - AUTHORIZING THE RENOVATION OF THE CARMODY RECREATION CENTER AQUATICS FACILITY INCLUDING A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION TO THE 2008 ANNUAL BUDGET [AND THE TRANSFER OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND], FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE USE OF OR WAIVERS FROM VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE PURCHASING ORDINANCE AS NEEDED FOR THIS PROJECT, AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY
Public Hearing was opened.
Kathy Hodgson, Community Resources Director, explained that item 12 is an action to authorize the renovation of the Carmody pool, which was built in 1974 and closed in December 2007 due to a complete failure in the drainage system. The pool was acquired as part of a voter-approved merger with the Foothills Park and Recreation District in 2000. As soon as Lakewood took over the facility, a complete renovation occurred with the recreation center but nothing was done to the pool.
Kit Botkins, Recreation Manager, provided background on the pool and its user groups.
Bruce Peoples, Planning and Construction Manager, provided an overview of how the pool system works and the pool failure.
Kathy Hodgson added that the same system exists in the outdoor pool that is experiencing the same failure. She indicated that the replacement system would run along the gutter system of both pools instead of the drainage grid that is much more efficient, using today's technology.
She indicated that the total cost was estimated between 1.6 and a little over two million dollars with a small contingency added so that during the digging, we would be able to give the contractor the authority to continue without having to come back to City Council. In the event there is money left over, it will go back into the General Fund. As soon as we get approval, we will start the work and hope that the pool will be open again in October 2008, she concluded.
Public hearing was opened. No public comment. Public hearing was closed.
Councilwoman Allen made a motion to adopt Ordinance 2008-2 on second and final reading. Councilman Peterson seconded the Motion.
Councilwoman Allen commented that she has received several inquiries regarding the pool. She sent out an e-mail to a good cross-section of citizens to ask whether we should repair the pool quickly, expand the pool, or do nothing to the pool. Only one person wanted to expand the pool; everyone else wanted it repaired quickly. No one responded saying that we shouldn't spend the money.
She asked if the outdoor pool would be done first so that it could be open this summer while the renovations to the indoor pool were being done?
Kathy Hodgson responded that the hope is to have the outdoor pool open for the summer.
Councilman Quinn added that he had also received a number of e-mails, primarily from parents of children who use the Carmody pool for swim practice. They are overwhelmingly in favor of fixing the pool as quickly as possible.
Vote: 11 Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
ITEM 13 - GENERAL BUSINESS
A (ITEM 8) - RESOLUTION 2008-29 - A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (RTD) WEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL PROJECT
Councilman Anderson stated that he is concerned that the resolution might not go far enough to address the loss in respect to properties along the light rail line. He asked if words could be added to make it more specific when we talk about issues along RTD and the light rail line and the taking of property.
Mayor Murphy discussed procedure for amendments.
Councilman Anderson stated that he was surprised by the resolution and hopes in the future that we look toward giving Council as much notice as possible about written resolutions.
He read the resolution and stated that he wanted to express to RTD specific concerns, including the partial taking of property, a fifty percent compensation for those properties, a compensation for properties that are taken in whole, and compensation for those who lose their only means of access to that property.
Mayor Murphy mentioned that the motion was drafted with state statute in mind.
Mike Rock stated that all RTD is doing is using property it already owns; it has no obligation to provide anyone an access. In some cases, individuals either had a signed license agreement to trespass for a limited period of time, which says clearly that they understand that they are utilizing RTD property, or, are encroaching on property. The last item doesn't fit anywhere under the purview of the City at all. When they own property, if someone has a license agreement or is otherwise using RTD for access, RTD has a compensatory obligation.
Malcolm Murray, Attorney for the Lakewood Renewal Authority, stated that the measure of compensation in the event of a partial taking is governed by state statute (Sec 38-1-114). What is says is that if you are taking a portion of a property for a highway or transit use, the property is valued before and after the taking. It's valued before the taking as if there were no public project and then you value the part taken on that basis. Then, you value the remaining property after the taking and you look to see whether there have been damages to that property as a result of the public project or whether there have been specific benefits that are generated by the public project. In each case, the value of the property is based on comparable sales. The measure of compensation then is that first, you offset the damages with the benefits and if the benefits exceed the damages, they can offset the value of the part taken up to fifty percent of the value of the part taken.
When E-470 was being constructed, there was recognition that as you built E-470 out on the plains, you were going to create a lot of value in the property that E-470 was going through. Particularly in areas close to interchanges, what had been prairie that wasn't going to be developed for many years into the future, all of a sudden became very valuable because of the public project and the public investment in that project. The E-470 Authority went to the legislature in 1986 and asked for an offset of the property that is being taken by the additional value that we are creating in those properties as a result of building E-470. The legislature in 1986 agreed as to highway projects. After the construction of the southeast rail line, it became apparent that the construction of the light rail line and, most specifically, where the stations were, created an enormous amount of value for people who owned property immediately adjacent to those transit stops.
In 2005, RTD went to the legislature and said they had adopted FasTracks and were going to have a significant public investment and were going to create value in certain instances so they asked the legislature if they could be included in the same statute as the Highway Department, E-470 and other highway authorities were. The measure of compensation is dictated by state statue so that the benefits (the increased value that's being created by the public project, in this case, the west rail corridor, if that exceeds the damages, then those benefits, that additional value that is being created) can be used to offset as much as fifty percent of the value of the property actually taken. If any land owner goes to court, that's going to be the definition that the court utilizes in measuring compensation and will be a result of appraisals on both sides, persuasive evidence to the court that there has in fact been an increase in value on the remaining property before it is ever offset.
With respect to full takings, the valuation is based on the fair market value of the property absent any consideration of the project (you ignore the project). But, when you acquire the property, you are acquiring full-fee interest and everything associated with the value of that property from the center of the earth to the limits of the atmosphere, is considered the fee value.
RTD is empowered to acquire property for transit purposes, which has long been interpreted to mean parking and ancillary small-scale retail operations; they cannot take the property for redevelopment purposes. To the extent that any of the air rights are interfered with, they are going to be part of the compensation. When you value a piece of property, you value it based on all of the rights that are being acquired that are necessary for that public acquisition.
Mayor Murphy stated that Councilman Anderson had made a couple of suggestions, one regarding the fifty percent rule and one regarding air rights, and asked if these are matters that are governed by state statute. Does it make sense to put them in this resolution because it's not something we can control?
Malcolm Murray stated that in the event of a partial taking, that is set by state law and there isn't anything that the City of Lakewood can do to change that. With respect to the air rights, that's not specifically addressed in the state statute but there is a body of case law that determines what's being taken and how you value that.
Mayor Murphy asked if the fifty percent rule applies to rights-of-way and narrow strips of land (bike paths, bridges, etc).
Malcolm Murray responded that it would be difficult to see how that would happen because an appraiser would have to say that because of the public project, that property has become more valuable. It is very easy to see in the instance of E-470 but in his experience, he has never seen a bike path, street widening, etc., ever be a situation where you have somehow increased the value of property. The situations he is specifically aware of have been construction of new highways where development didn't exist before.
Councilwoman Stack stated that because they are putting light rail within our communities, the purpose doesn't fit, which is why there is a lot of concern here.
Malcolm Murray answered that the amendment in 2005 was that RTD could point to some very specific instances in the southeast rail line where property values close to stations increased substantially as a result of the presence of those stations. The legislature accepted the argument that, in those instances where this public project or a light rail project is creating value that would not have existed before, they should be entitled to offset and use those specific benefits that increase in value to offset the value of the property taken.
Councilman Quinn asked if a governmental entity is seeking to apply the fifty percent offset statute, would the burden be on that governmental entity to prove increased value?
Malcolm Murray stated that was correct.
Councilman Anderson made a motion to amend Section 4 to read: "The City Council further encourages and requests that RTD fully and fairly compensate any property owners whose property is either partially or fully acquired by eminent domain including for air rights, where appropriate" and Section 5 to read: "The City Council further encourages and requests that RTD fully and fairly compensate any property owners who lose their only existing access to a public road by virtue of RTD's right-of-way use or transit facility development." Councilwoman Stack seconded the motion.
Mayor Murphy indicated that he felt the amendment was unnecessary as it is covered by state statute.
Councilman Peterson asked Mr. Murray for his legal opinion on Section 5.
Malcolm Murray indicated that whether it is RTD or any governmental entity, the rule is that if they acquire property such that the remainder of that property has no legal access to the public street system, the condemning agency is required to pay one hundred percent of the value of the property. Every property owner is entitled to at least one access to the public street system and if they are deprived of that by any governmental entity, then that is a hundred percent taking of the property and they are entitled to full-fee compensation for the property.
Mike Rock stated that the proposed language said something different. This is specific to the Jeep property and in that case, RTD is not condemning anything, they are using right-of-way that they own, presumably when that property was acquired. The access issues were in the original acquisition price and I don't believe you could require any entity to pay for something that they are not taking or to provide something that they have no obligation to provide.
Malcolm Murray responded that that was correct.
Councilman Anderson stated that it really doesn't matter how the access right came into existence, it is unacceptable under our system of government to shut down someone's property by limiting their access and making it economically unusable.
Councilwoman Kellen stated that there is a difference in the access piece when it's an issue of not having any way to get to your property versus having to spend your own money to build access to it. The public entity does not have a responsibility to pay for property owners to build access off the property. We have to protect the public taxpayer dollars that are going towards building this route as well and although paying full and fair price makes sense, we have an obligation to guard public money as well.
Councilwoman Allen added that Council is neither a court nor a jury in land-use issues, unless it is Lakewood's land and we are changing zoning. With RTD's property and the properties that they are dealing with, our job, on behalf of the City of Lakewood, is to be broad policy makers. The original resolution states our position and reflects that we are policy makers and the majority of these issues are decided by state law and will be decided in the courts and politically, we are not helping anybody, whether it is the public in general, other citizens, or even these particular citizens, if we antagonize RTD. These are tough situations and there are two sides to every story. The best that we can do is state our position, try to put on pressure for people to be treated justly and fairly and that's as good as it's going to get.
Councilman Paul asked if Councilman Anderson would be willing to pull number five from his amendment.
Councilman Anderson indicated that he would and re-read his amendment to only include Section 4.
Malcolm Murray stated that state statute now requires that a property owner be fully and fairly compensated in accordance with state statute. They are compensated for all of the rights that are taken. In the case that RTD is going to acquire all of the use and value of that property then the courts will consider only valuations of those rights that are taken.
Mayor Murphy stated that with what is already in the resolution and the language adjusted by Councilwoman Stack, we say, "the City Council further encourages RTD to attempt in good faith to reach voluntary acquisition agreements with property owners whenever possible, to use eminent domain only as a last resort and to provide just compensation to affected property owners in all instances."
Malcolm Murray added that that is what the state statute requires now in terms of attempting to reach voluntary acquisition of the property and to use eminent domain as a last resort and to provide just compensation to the affected property owners for all of the rights and values that are being acquired.
Dave Minshall praised Councilman Anderson for his efforts and said that Council should say something besides "pretty please, RTD, be nice to our people." He added that if Brenda were here, she would want Council to say, "RTD, we aren't going any further until you treat our people right." He stated that the people are reaching out to Council asking for their help and, though he appreciates the gesture, he feels it needs to be stronger though he doesn't know what the words ought to be. Instead of telling them what you have the right to do, they are encouraging you to do the right thing.
Mayor Murphy reiterated that this resolution is to encourage RTD to treat our citizens fairly and compensate them justly.
Vote on the amendment: 3 Ayes. 8 Nays (Murphy, Koop, Kellen, Peterson, Allen, Quinn, King, Baroway). The amendment fails.
Councilwoman Allen made a motion to adopt Resolution 2008-29 on second and final reading. Councilman Peterson seconded the motion.
Councilman Anderson indicated that he would be voting yes on the motion because he still has hope that the words are not simply intended to mask concerns and fears that are real among both members of the public and other members of Council.
Councilman Peterson stated that this is a rational and reasonable approach to this very intense debate and we are still governed by a set of laws and we all have to obey those laws. He added that he would be supporting this motion.
Vote: 11 Ayes. No Nays. The motion carried.
B (ITEM 5) - RESOLUTION 2008-24 - CONTINUED FROM 1/28/2008 AUTHORIZING AN AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (RTD) FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF BIKEPATH BRIDGES OVER KIPLING STREET AND WADSWORTH BOULEVARD
Councilwoman Allen made a motion to adopt Resolution 2008-24. Councilman Peterson seconded the motion.
Councilwoman Stack stated that in 2006 she recused herself and Council voted
for acquisition of rights-of-way along 13th Avenue. She asked that, for the
land that is necessary to put these bike paths in place, are we using any of
the land or right-of-way that Council had already given Lakewood the go-ahead
to use along with the corridor?
Jay Hutchison, City Engineer, asked if the rights-of-way she was inquiring about
are the rights-of-way that the City currently owns that might be used for the
bike path bridges.
Councilwoman Stack stated that was correct and questioned if this had been taken care of in 2006 when the City acquired the rights-of-way along the light rail corridor.
Jay Hutchison responded that RTD has not completed any of their acquisitions. He inquired where in the document it indicated that there would be no acquisitions.
Councilwoman Stack withdrew her question.
Tim Cox stated that there is contemplation in the agreement (the second "whereas" clause on page two) for acquisition for small pieces of right-of-way along the Kipling bike path bridge wall ramp to allow for drainage. The agreement doesn't address how that acquisition will be carried out but most likely it would be through the same process we use for any other acquisition.
Mayor Murphy indicated that the discussion refers to an IGA relating to the construction of bike path bridges over Kipling and Wadsworth. Several years ago, City Council decided that it was time to add on to the RTD bridges with elevated bridges over those two very busy streets.
Mike Rock added that if the resolution is not adopted, we are not punishing RTD; we simply don't get bike paths.
Vote: 10 Ayes. 1 Nay (Anderson). The motion carried.
C (ITEM 7) - RESOLUTION 2008-28 - AUTHORIZING A UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT (URA) WITH THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT (RTD) FOR CITY OF LAKEWOOD (LAKEWOOD) OWNED UTILITY FACILITIES IMPACTED BY RTD'S WEST CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT (LRT) PROJECT
Councilwoman Allen made a motion to adopt Resolution 2008-28. Councilman Peterson seconded the motion.
Vote: 9 Ayes. 2 Nays (Anderson, Stack). The motion carried.
ITEM 14 - REPORTS
Mayor and City Council reported their attendance at previous meetings and events and announced upcoming neighborhood meetings and events.
ITEM 15 - ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council; Mayor Murphy adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Submitted by,
Sharon Blackstock, Acting City Clerk
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
