|
|
|
 |
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
Diana Allen
Doug Anderson
Cindy Baroway
Sue King
Debbie Koop
Adam Paul
Ed Peterson
Tom Quinn
Vicki Stack
Absent: Karen Kellen
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 - PRESENTATION - BELMAR OPTIMIST CLUB PRESENTATION TO ALAMEDA HIGH SCHOOL
David Weichman (722 S. Beech Street, Lakewood, CO) along with Randy Little,
members of the Belmar Optimist Club, made a presentation to the students at
Alameda High School for hard work and participation in their fund raising projects
(pancake breakfast and fish fry). The students do all the work with support
from the Belmar Optimist Club. He noted the students raised $6800, and in recognition
of this, he proudly presented to Dr. Shirley Algiene, Principal, Alameda High
School, a check in the amount of $6800.
ITEM 5 - PUBLIC COMMENT
Newt Vaughan, 8663 W. Hawaii Drive, Lakewood, CO, said he wanted to appeal to
the listeners of Channel 8 and the citizens of Lakewood. He said whether the
listeners agreed or disagreed with his comments, he encouraged them to convey
this to their City Council Representative and the Mayor's Office. Approximately
three weeks ago at the budget hearing, citizens voiced their opinions about
credit card purchases by city employees. He noted that $250,000 (some of this
amount may be justified) was the total just for food purchases in the City of
Lakewood. He does not believe that justification or power lunches, so person
can do employee evaluations, is in order. He feels that employee evaluations
should be part of an employee's salary and his/her job. Items for baby showers
should not be charged on the company's credit card and onto the taxpayers. He
urged listeners to call the Mayor and their City Council representative to let
them know that such spending needs to be investigated. It's o.k. to use credit
cards for company business, but we have to watch what we use them for.
Ann Johnson, 10350 W. 13th Place, Lakewood, CO, said she's angry that she had
to be here tonight to plead to the City Council Members to do their jobs. She
said as a citizen of this community, she has not received any help, support
or advocacy from the Council in dealing with RTD and the light rail behind her
home. At every step of the light rail process, RTD has mislead us, reneged on
their promises to us, manipulated us, withheld information from us and taken
advantage of our powerlessness. She expected better from the Council, but it
appears that they have done little but placate and patronize the citizens who
live along the tracks, while allowing and encouraging RTD to do whatever they
please. She feels the Council has chosen to overlook and belittle the situation/rights
of the citizens affected by the light rail, and these citizens stand to lose
a lot. She wants to receive fairness and equality and so see Council take action
on behalf of the homeowners affected by light rail.
Jack Barnett, 10370 W. 13th Place, Lakewood, CO said he's present tonight to
formally request that City Council step to plate and help the citizens of Lakewood
who reside along the west corridor to get a fair deal from RTD. Through the
entire process the citizens have been misled, misinformed, had promises broken,
etc. He talked about the noise wall and the promises RTD made to assure that
the neighbors would receive them. The neighbors still want the wall. He noted,
too, that in a letter from the City of Lakewood dated February 13, 2008, he
was told that a six-foot sound wall would be constructed behind his property.
RTD is now saying that there will be no noise walls constructed behind the property
of citizens living on 13th Place, along with trashing the $90,000 worth of appraised
landscaping that currently exists. He and the citizens would like the City Council
to get directly involved with RTD and stop the abuse.
Carol Tarpley, Lakewood, CO, said Cox (Tim Cox, City Attorney) has refused to
fulfill his obligations to the people by refusing to answer questions regarding
probable criminal activities perpetrated on behalf of the City. He claims immunity
from questioning because he answers to the City and/or City Council. This ignores
the fact that both of these government entities are subordinate to the people,
but that the actions of these entities in their official capacities are supposed
representations of the people-she is a people. She lives in Lakewood-probable
criminal activities are not representative of her. She stated that to cause
the people, in general, to albeit probable criminal activity is another in a
litany of government abuses against the people, the constitutions and the Declaration
of Independence. As perpetrators and/or collaborators in these activities, which
your lawyer has not denied and refuses to defend on a constitutional basis,
she demanded that the City Council acknowledge unconstitutional illegal activity
against her and the citizens of Lakewood, rescind the lien on her home and make
compensation to all the injured parties. Further, she wants the resignations
of those who engaged in betraying their oath of office, official government
oppression and/or official misconduct. She wants City Council to act responsibility
while there is still time to do so and before further damage is done. The Council's
obligation to the people far outweighs their inclination towards cover up.
Daniel Bernt, 10405 W. 13th Place, Lakewood, CO, said he wants to support his
neighbors, (Ann Johnson and Jack Barnett) who spoke earlier regarding RTD. Citizens,
who have to contend with the light rail lines being behind their back yards
are continuing to give to RTD and the City, but RTD is not giving anything in
return. RTD wants to continue taking property and to remove trees (that have
been there for 75-100 years), tearing down privacy fences and destroying landscaping
that's been there for many years. RTD has said because of budgetary constraints,
there will be no walls, and now the residents won't have anything to reduce
the noise from the trains, nor will they have any privacy.
Randy Little, 10590 W. Dakota Avenue, Lakewood, CO, spoke about some of the
processes the City goes through. Recently, he attended a meeting with the Council
at the Permit Department as they reviewed the permitting process in the City
of Lakewood. In going through the permitting process, he was not pleased with
the response he received. He spoke to several Council Members about his recent
experience, and as of this date, he still has not received any information/response
from the City regarding the permit he requested. He feels the Council should
be aware that there are quite a few issues with the permitting process and further
investigation is needed.
Mike Muller, Lakewood, CO, read a few excerpts from the Fair Campaign Practices
Acts for the State of Colorado, and noted that every time there is an election,
the City of Lakewood is in violation. He noted that there's no law against individual
Councilpersons expressing their opinions, but when they take taxpayers' money
to endorse any position, any ballot, (i.e., putting it on television, using
staff time to write it up) it's against the law. He said if the Council votes
on the issues tonight, he would take all of them to court at one time. He noted
that Councilpersons should not be supporting bond issues with tax money nor
should they support referendums with tax money. He said Council has broken the
law in this regard five times. He further noted that according to the Declaration
of Independence, 'whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish this government and
to institute a new government …' He further said Council has lied to the
people, taken their private property, broken the law - what use is Council to
the people who elected them?
Brian Wareing, Applewood, CO, said the only purpose RTD has for confiscating
the rightful property of citizens is to better their position and not that of
the people. They fully intend to flip those properties after they have made
it so un-habitable for the people who live there, that they can take it and
make it into a commercial zone. To him, it seems ironic that City Council would
ignore the citizens of Lakewood who have a great deal to loose in this particular
situation. He feels this confiscation (imminent domain) will continue on way
beyond the rail lines, it will go for many, many blocks. While at the same time,
involving the citizens themselves in confiscation and illegal invasion of Mrs.
Tarpley's home. You cause the people to aid in the illegal invasion of Mrs.
Tarpley's home by virtue of the fact that they (the people) are owners of this
City; they are owners of the government. He said Council is breaking the Constitution,
i.e. Articles 4-8 of the Bill of Rights are being broken. He noted that on one
occasion, he challenged the City Attorney to tell him something different. How
can a "code", which is subordinate to the Constitution, which is a
personal and continuous restraining order on the abilities of the government,
therefore, "trump the constitution" and allow you (Council) to abuse
the people? How is that possible?
There were no more public comments.
Mayor Murphy asked Tim Cox about the legalities of Council voting on a resolution
to support an initiative and amendment or ballot issue that's not a City of
Lakewood issue.
Tim Cox, City Attorney said presumably, Mr. Muller had reference to the Fair
Campaign Practices Act at 14.5.117 of the Colorado Revised Statute, which generally
prohibits any political subdivision, board, agency, commission, etc., from using
public resources to make a contribution to any campaign for candidate to be
in favor of or against any ballot issue. However, if you keep reading down to
Sub-section 3, one of the exceptions to that prohibition, it states very plainly,
"Nothing in this Sub-section 1 shall be construed as prohibiting an agency,
department, board, division, bureau, commission, or council of any political
subdivision from passing a resolution or taking a position of advocacy on any
issue described herein." So, one of the clear exceptions, and it's been
recognized by administrative law judges in cases since the adoption of the Fair
Campaign Practices Act, is that a City Council can formally adopt a resolution-take
a formal vote in favor of or against any ballot issue, such as the ones before
Council tonight. He assured Council that Staff would not encourage or allow
such matters to come before the body if legally they were not allowed to vote
on them. The only restriction is that the resolutions may only be promoted-the
adoption of the resolution may only be promoted or publicized in the usual and
customary manner for such things, i.e., if Council normally publish all adopted
resolutions in newsletters, such as Looking At Lakewood, it's o.k. to do that.
You cannot, however, take out a paid ad in the Lakewood Sentinel indicating
that the City has adopted a particular resolution, unless that is the normal
course of business, which it is not. Other than that, there is no illegality
with adopting a resolution in favor of or against a ballot question.
Councilman Anderson asked if there was anything in the Fair Campaign Practices
Act (Item O) requires that it (resolution) has something to do with the City
of Lakewood or can we simply make pronouncements on any of the items on the
ballot?
Mr. Cox said he has not read the case recently, but there was a decision from
Federal Court some 15 years ago, that discusses what is and what is not a matter
of official concern. He recalls that it deals with whether there is any prohibition
at all for a local government to make a contribution to the matter. He would
have to look at this more closely. There is a fairly broad discretion in deciding
what is a matter of public concern for the body that's adopting the resolution.
Councilman Anderson said he received a mailing from the Colorado Municipal League,
and one item he recalled was a requirement that if any facilities (if there
is a policy on use of facilities) it has to be the same for both proponents/opponents.
He asked if it would apply in this case- Channel 8 and other facilities involved-
are there any limitations as to speaking in front of this podium from those
in favor of or opposed to - is there any fairness requirement?
Mr. Cox said if there is not an equal time provision like we're accustomed to
hearing about on television stations, it has been the practice of the City Council
to allow public comments on virtually anything, regardless of the size, and
he does not think it would apply in this instance regarding the adoption of
the resolution because that is an exception to the Fair Campaign Practices Act.
As far as who can speak in favor of or against a resolution, as he understands
it, the City Council will hear from whoever wants to speak.
Councilman Anderson said he was asking about the time limit given to speakers
- if one side is given five or three minutes, the other side is given the same
time limit.
Mr. Cox said there is no policy on that. If everyone gets three minutes and
if three people came to speak in support and one person spoke against - each
would get three minutes.
Councilman Anderson asked if there are plans to publicize the proposed resolutions
in Looking At Lakewood.
Mayor Murphy said, as noted by Mr. Cox, we can utilize our First Amendment Rights,
individually and collectively as a body, and vote up or down on ballot measures.
What we cannot do is go beyond our usual standards, i.e. if our usual standards
are to announce the results of voting on resolutions and/or ordinances in Looking
At Lakewood, we can do that. What we cannot do is take out a full-page ad. We
do not plan to place the resolutions in Looking At Lakewood, based on the publication
schedules.
Mr. Cox followed up and noted that the publication part of the statute is another
exception that says "nothing in the Fair Campaign Practices Act prohibits
a local governing body from reporting the passage of or distributing such resolution
through established customary means other than paid advertising by which information
about other proceedings of the agency is regularly provided to the pubic."
This is the precise language that governs what the Council can do with the resolution
after it (Council) acts on it (resolution).
Councilwoman Allen said in the court case that involved a former Councilperson
as referred to by Mr. Muller, her recollection of the outcome from this case
was different. She said it was before Mr. Cox's term, and she asked if he (Cox)
was familiar with it at all?
Mr. Cox said it was a year ago during the election season, and the allocation
was the use of public resources in the form of this forum where the former Councilperson
made comments regarding candidates to replace her. There was a complaint filed
by an organization called Colorado Ethics Watch. There was a hearing in front
of an administrative law judge and the City of Lakewood did prevail on a number
of grounds-one was that there was no contribution made, nothing of value was
given to one candidate over another; the purpose of broadcasting or televising
the meetings (showing them on the web) is to give maximum public access to the
proceedings regardless of what goes on, and the purpose was not to advance one
candidacy over another.
Councilwoman Allen said to recap, the former Councilwoman shared her opinion,
there was a complaint filed, the City defended it, and she was found to have
done nothing wrong.
Mr. Cox indicated that was correct.
Councilwoman Stack said she recalled that the former Councilwoman she did not
tell people how to vote. She questions what the Council is doing tonight, basically
endorsing or advocating for something, which she feels is the same thing.
Mr. Cox said there is a difference. If during public comments, someone spoke
about one of the ballot issues and members of the Council, universally or the
majority of the members spoke out and took a position in favor of and encouraged
people to vote on the matter, would be problematic. But taking the action of
adopting a formal resolution is expressly allowed under the Statute as an exception,
recognizes the right of governing bodies to comment on and express an opinion
on and encourage voters on matters of public interest. So, the fact that Council
is doing it in the form of a resolution is o.k., whereas, arguably there might
be an issue with someone who goes to the podium to speak and use that opportunity
to advance their opinion on the matter of public interest.
Mayor Murphy asked about Council members ability to comment individually on
the resolution.
Mr. Cox said it's within the normal course to take comments from Council members
on matters that they are to vote on. He said there's no prohibition against
that. He urged good discretion on the part of everyone.
Councilman Paul asked if past Councils did anything similar and if so, has there
been a challenge? He said a comment was made that this was done five times,
we've been taken to court five times, and we've lost five times.
Mayor Murphy said that is not correct.
Mr. Cox said there have been previous challenges to certain actions taken, but
he's not aware of any arising from the adoption of a resolution.
Mayor Murphy said other concerns were noted during Public Comments, i.e. Mrs.
Johnson and Mr. Barnett regarding sound walls. He said there has been an issue
with RTD who at one point said there would be a sound wall on a stretch of property.
He added that the ability for Federal funds to go towards sound walls is based
upon noise level measurements, etc. At one time, based on aerial photos, RTD
thought that a structure appeared to be a home was actually an out building
and, therefore, is no longer eligible for a sound wall. That is their interpretation
based on Federal guidelines, and he feels this is part of the issue at hand.
As a City, we, this Council, as part of the budget process a few weeks ago,
has allocated a fair amount of additional monies for raising the height of the
sound walls for properties that are eligible for sound walls. Additionally,
we are in partnership with RTD in mitigating some of the sound/noise factors
through some other means, i.e. berms, installation, windows, etc. We've also
allocated a fair amount of additional money for any business that would be relocated
as a result of the light rail construction. As part of the 2009 and beyond budget,
we've agreed to add additional money as an incentive if said businesses decide
to relocate in Lakewood. These funds would be above and beyond the money that
RTD, via Federal guidelines, already offer. We are extremely sensitive to the
what's going on along the line and we're trying to do everything we can.
Also, there have been discussions in regards to opt-out as referenced by those
who spoke. Property owners eligible to receive a sound wall are given a choice
as to whether or not they want the wall. There is a formal process- if 75% (3
out of 4) property owners along a stretch decide they do not want a wall, there
will be no wall. This is within Federal guidelines.
In regards to comments that were made last week and this week about procurement
cards, he had the opportunity to review our procurement guidelines and the use
of purchasing cards guidelines, and compared them with the City and County of
Denver, Jefferson County and the State of Colorado, and he is extremely comfortable
that the City of Lakewood policy is at par and in certain cases, much better
than some of the other entities in comparison. He noted a few specifics that
were mentioned at the last meeting, things such as $94 for a floral centerpiece
at a funeral, which was for Larry Sidebottom, a 20-year employee at Lakewood's
recreation centers. What persons did not see in connection with the $94 charge
were contributions amounting to $9600 from city employees and members of City
Council. He cited another example of $500 that was for the purchase of toys
for kids. Said $500 was collected in cash from city employees and deposited
in a procurement card used to purchase said toys. Two points/lessons to be noted:
(1) he is very comfortable with the city's policy; (2) persons should look at
everything in context.
Mike Rock said two other policy level items brought up last week that merit
a response were: (1) How does the City bid projects? (2) Is it appropriate to
use grant funds to purchase food? He noted the bid requirements for the Ray
Ross Park development where each bidder had to review two documents and respond
to a 146 item spread sheet, addressing each item in the spreadsheet and present
a competitive bid. The bids were advertised in the Rocky Mountain purchasing
website (a private sector website available to all contractors), the City of
Lakewood website, and Rocky Mountain Government Purchasing Association. Seven
bids were received ranging from a low $3,788,00 to a high of $5,047, 000. After
an extensive review, the project was awarded to the low bidder.
In reference to using grant funds to purchase food items, he said the specific
item noted was for $83,145 in the family and children's programs grant fund.
That is a federal grant involving 130 students who attended a 40-week class,
and under the federal guidelines these students could receive either a morning
snack and lunch, or a lunch and an afternoon snack. Our nutritionist purchases
the food and brings it to the centers. The center supervisor takes the receipt
and checks off each item and measure the bags of groceries and that equates
to $3.15 per day per child, which is a relatively small amount to serve nutritious
meals to students. Not only is it allowed under the guidelines, more appropriately
and importantly, it's a very careful use of funds. City staff is always sensitive
to the fact that we're spending public funds and he feels that the best proof
of that is the fact that employees work very hard to under-spend budgets whenever
possible, and last year the City's General Fund Budget was under-spent by some
$2,120,000. He noted that city employees, i.e., the City Clerk's office, worked
during the holidays in 2006 because we had a "Special Election". He
mentioned that sometimes Council is asked to come in early and have a working
evening session, and likewise city employees are occasionally asked to do the
same. It's definitely an exception rather than a rule. City employees are good
dedicated people, we do find mistakes and if it's an honest one we correct.
If it's a deliberate mistake, we prosecute, and over the years we have prosecuted
people for the misuse of cards. On the other hand, when we find a practice that's
not working too well, we tighten up the controls.
Mayor Murphy said he wanted to acknowledge that there's been a lot of credit
market news lately and people want to know the City's financial position. He
asked Larry Dorr, Finance Director, to elaborate.
Larry Dorr, Finance Director, noted that as Lakewood City Treasurer, he's responsible
for making sure that all of Lakewood's deposits and investments are safe and
sound. He provided details of what's happened in the recent past in regards
to global investments and financial crisis, and stated that the City of Lakewood's
deposits and investments are safe and sound. He mentioned that one of the three
local government investment pools in the State of Colorado recently liquidated
all of assets and closed its doors, and that had a fairly meaningful impact
on some local school districts and local cities in Colorado. However, the City
of Lakewood was not involved in that or impacted in any way. A second local
government investment pool that began to have a "run on the bank"
where a lot of local governments were making withdrawals and as a result and
in order to prevent further losses, that investment pool froze or minimized
deposits, depending on the size of the customer. Again, the City of Lakewood
was not involved in that government pool and had no impact to those actions.
The third local government investment pool remains the largest. Once again,
Lakewood does have any investments with this pool. The City of Lakewood has
had a real conservative approach to investing/depositing. The primary bank deposits
are with The First Bank of Colorado (locally owned and operated) headquartered
in Lakewood. The balance of the City's investments is in huge government sponsored
agencies, i.e. Federal Home Loan Bank, Federal Farm Credit Bank, Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. He said the City of Lakewood's treasury is very well diversified
and has a simple approach to investing and has been very, very consistent for
a long time, and it is safe and sound.
Mayor Murphy added that the City of Lakewood has a healthy fund balance. Additionally
sales tax collections through three quarters are slightly above that of last
year.
Mr. Dorr agreed and noted that it is one that will assist the City in riding
out short term "ups and downs of the economy." Also, we are very carefully
monitoring income and expenses. He said in looking at the September year-to-date
numbers, receipts are up about 1.5% versus this time last year.
Councilman Paul asked if there was any communications with Ms. Tarpley.
Mr. Cox said he received a demand from Ms. Tarpley to meet in person to answer
some questions. It's been placed in an email and copied to the Council this
morning. We seriously considered having that meeting but did not for two reasons:
(1) Ms. Tarpley has filed a notice threatening litigation against the City.
Although no litigation has been filed, we typically take the position to not
enter into discussions of strategy and decision-making process with someone
who's threatening to sue us. (2) He (Cox) had a conversation with Mr. Wareing
who called on behalf of Ms. Tarpley a few months ago. The same questions were
asked at that time and he answered them as best he could. Clearly, the answers
were not accepted and we were not going to reach an agreement, and he could
not persuade them of the legality of the City's actions. He is preparing a written
response to the questions posed in Ms. Tarpley's latest email.
CONSENT AGENDA
Consent Agenda Items 6-10 were read into the Record by the City Clerk.
ITEM 6 - RESOLUTION 2008-68 - FOR THE ENDORSEMENT OF STATE BALLOT REFERENDUM
"O"
ITEM 7 - RESOLUTION 2008-69 - FOR THE ENDORSEMENT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC
SCHOOL DISTRICT, BALLOT ISSUES 3A AND 3B
ITEM 8 - ORDINANCE 0-2008-27 - AMENDING CHAPTER 3.01 OF THE LAKEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SALES AND USE TAX BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW DEFINITION FOR QUALIFIED HOSPITAL ORGANIZATION AND CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS RELATING THERETO
ITEM 9 - APPROVING MINUTES OF CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Regular City Council Meeting August 25, 2008
ITEM 10 - ACCEPTING MINUTES OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Lakewood Housing Authority Meeting August 25, 2008
Councilman Peterson said he would like to pull Item 6 - Resolution 2008-68 - For the endorsement of State Ballot Referendum "O" and Item 7 - Resolution 2008-69 - For the endorsement of Jefferson County Public School District, Ballot Issues 3A and 3B from the Consent Agenda for further discussion and separate vote.
Mayor Murphy said Item 6 and Item 7 would be discussed under General Business. Also, he asked for any additional comments.
A motion was made by Councilwoman Allen and seconded by Councilman Peterson, to approve Council Minutes, accept all minutes for Boards and Committees, order all ordinances introduced on first reading to be published into the Rocky Mountain Newspaper for public hearing set for dates included in the ordinances, and to adopt resolutions, all of which are included in the Consent Agenda Items, for the record and introduced by the City Clerk, excluding Item 6 - Resolution 2008-68 - For the endorsement of State Ballot Referendum "O" and Item 7 - Resolution 2008-59 - For the endorsement of Jefferson County Public School District, Ballot Issues 3A and 3B.
VOTE: Ayes: 10 Nays: None Absent: 1 (Kellen)
ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
There are no second reading ordinances.
ITEM 11 - GENERAL BUSINESS
Mayor Murphy asked that Item 6 and Item 7 be re-read into the record.
A. Resolution 2008-68 - For the endorsement of State Ballot Referendum "O"
Councilman Peterson said as Chairman of the City Council Legislative Committee, it is his responsibility to take a look at issues--statewide and/or local--that impact or have an effect on citizens of Lakewood and decide whether or not to lobby or elect representatives at the state house or to take a stance on a particular issue in a general election. He said the Legislative Committee met and reviewed all of the issues to be brought forward on the current ballot and well as some that were dropped in the process. It was the consensus of the Committee that Referendum "O" and Ballot Issues 3A and 3B are items that qualify under the guidelines established for the Committee to review and request a resolution. He felt that a discussion by Council was in order in regards to these issues. He extended "thanks" to Mr. Cox for his guidance and valuable input.
Mayor Murphy opened public hearing on Resolution 2008-68. He explained that Referendum "O", would make requirements to get amendments on the ballot stricter. More signatures would be needed and a geographical distribution around the State of said signatures to be obtained from all seven Congressional Districts. Also, it would make it easier and lower the threshold to get non-constitutional initiatives on the agenda. He said the Legislative Committee look at 18 different initiatives and referendums on the ballot, but chose only to take a position on this one.
A motion was made by Councilman Anderson and seconded by Councilwoman Stack, to table Item 6 - Resolution 2008-68.
Councilman Anderson said there is a minimum threshold of what is required. He accepts what Mr. Cox stated, but feels that what he (Cox) was referring to is a minimum threshold-there is no maximum threshold as to the level of which we hold ourselves. He suggested that as a body, Council would do well to set an example, not simply for future Councils, but for other Councils in other political bodies around the State. There is something about that sacred right of individuals to vote that it is very separate from political bodies. He said an endorsement of anything by this Council would be used and manipulated in ways that we might not intend. He's not sure if any of the groups will put out a brochure that says "Endorsed by Lakewood City Council." Such an endorsement would hold a great deal of weight with the public, and he does want the power and/or prestige from any office to influence people. He wants Council to consider taking this off the table.
Councilwoman Allen wanted to point out that she's heard of Councils that were for/against the war in Iraq, endorsed certain holidays, etc. This Council does not do frivolous things.
This referendum, however, is not frivolous-the Legislative Committee reviewed this issue and how it would affect the City of Lakewood. Referendum "O" is trying to make changes that have caused changes to the Constitution that conflict with each other, and also making the appropriate way to make changes in our State government easier. This she feels will benefit the City in the long run and that's why the Legislative Committee is encouraging endorsement of this issue. She feels it is important for a City Council to endorse things that will ultimately benefit the City. While not all Councilpersons see things this way, that's why each of us gets a vote on the issue and represent our constituents to the best of our ability. Personally, this is a very legitimate issue for the Council to look at and decide whether or not to endorse it.
Councilman Quinn said it's very significant and as Mayor Murphy pointed out earlier, this is the only one of the ballot measures that our Legislative Committee voted to take a position on, and this is not in no way a frivolous amendment - it affects all the citizens of our City as well as the State. Councilman Anderson indicated that we should take a stand, and he (Quinn) agrees - we should take a stand on behalf of our citizens for some restoration of the integrity of the initiative process in this State, and that's what Referendum "O" does, and that's why he will support this action from the Legislative Committee.
Mayor Murphy pointed out that this has no effect on the Lakewood Initiative process - this is the State process.
VOTE: Ayes: 3 Nays : 7 (Murphy, Peterson, Allen, Quinn, King, Koop, Baroway)
Absent: 1 (Kellen) The motion failed.
Public Hearing was opened for Item 6 - Referendum "O"
Mike Muller, Lakewood, CO, said he has taken the City of Lakewood and Mayor Burkholder to court and he won on the Fair Campaign Practices Act. He added that in the Sub-section, it says, ' nothing in this sub-section shall be construed as prohibiting a member, employee, or agent, department or division, bureau, commission or council of the State or any political subdivision thereof, from expending personal funds'. These are not personal funds - this is camera time-it costs. City employees wrote the Resolutions, and that's public funds, these are public funds - big difference. If you want to go out and campaign for Referendum "O", that's fine as long as you use your own money-don't use my money. He said, "We will rock and roll on this". The smartest thing the Council could do is to abstain on every vote.
Doug Campbell, 2124 Eldridge Court, Arvada, CO, said just because the law says you can do something, does not necessarily mean that it's right to do it. He asked Council to keep this in mind. He feels that Referendum "O" is the classical example of the proverbial solution in search of a problem. It's premised on three myths, which are easily proved false. First, too many citizen petitions have put things into the Constitution, which should have been made statutes instead, so that the Legislature could easily mess with them as it did with the Campaign Finance Reform Act. The facts are in the 98 years that we've had the power to change the Constitution by petition in 1910, there have been only 45 initiated measures to the peoples constitution that have passed. Of those, most were put into the Constitution by virtue of the subject matter of the measure, i.e., they had to go there because they dealt with matters of a constitutional nature. Some may argue, but a subjective analysis of these 45 measures reveals that 10 or perhaps 12 of them could possibly been done as statutory initiatives--12 in 98 years. He does not support Referendum "O".
Randy Little, 10590 W. Dakota Avenue, Lakewood, CO, said as a Board Member and representative of the Alameda Gateway Association, the West Colfax Association, and the Jewel and Wadsworth Area Business Association (JWABA), they have listened to several speakers regarding Referendum "O", but at no time has any Council member spoke in support or against this issue at these meetings. He said it is the general consensus of all three organizations to support Referendum "O".
Newt Vaughn, Ward 5, Lakewood, CO., feels that everyone should make their own decision based on their own values. He's disappointed that Council representatives for Ward 5 are in support of this issue, and to attempt to sway anybody in any election by approval, disapproval or endorsing or not endorsing any issue on the ballot, is a mistake by City government and an over exertion of power. He feels people put too much trust in government, and agrees with Council representatives Anderson, Paul and Stack to have this issued tabled, let people make their own decisions. He said it's not the Council's place to endorse or not endorse anything.
Janet Lennon, said she is in opposition to Referendum "O", and would like to know why the Council thinks it is so important that it should be made into a resolution. She feels the Council is not representing all the citizens of Lakewood-there are probably as many against it as there are those in support of it. As she understands the item, it is just a little bit more erosion of the people's power to speak--their voice will be diminished. It would be easier to get a statute with this referendum, but it would be harder to get an amendment to the Constitution. As she sees it, it would also be easier for the Legislature to amend, vote down, or change any thing brought before them by the people. She feels that government is increasingly ignorant or purposely ignores the will of the people, and this is another encroachment on her rights/voice as a person. She wanted to note for the record she opposes Referendum "O", and suggested that Council table the resolution.
Shawn Doughty urged Council to table this resolution and suggested that the Council consider a resolution to end all resolutions of this sort. He reminded Council that it is their job to serve the citizens of Lakewood and that when they become weary of their tasks, they need to make a decision as to whether all those who spoke were wrong in their testimony/suggestion and you've placed your judgment in place of theirs, or perhaps change what you're doing or look for a different job.
John Warnich, City of Lakewood, representing himself as a taxpayer, said Council members are for the City of Lakewood, and suggested that if they wanted to be councils for the State, that they resign their current positions and run for a State office. He stated that his tax dollars pay for the City Council and they should do business of the City-not the State. He added that his tax dollars does not pay for Council's salary and the use of the Chamber so that Council members can instruct him or his neighbors on how to vote. He urged them to vote against any recommendation for or against Referendum "O".
Natalie Menten, Ward 5, Lakewood, CO, said the action that the Council is taking is regarding Referendum "O" is inappropriate. She said Referendum "O" is restricting the right of the people to petition the government. She questions how appropriate this is even though State Statute may allow a resolution. There is a document that talks about campaign finance dos and don'ts, what employees are allowed to do and its very specific-'there is to be no use of copiers for candidate or a ballot issue.' Thus, regardless of what State Statute says, what about our City Policy-did you not learn in the past from the mistakes we made? We created a City Policy to direct us on this. Also, have we looked at the City Policy? Additionally, there was talk that the Legislative Committee for the City of Lakewood sponsored this. She asked if it was true that Councilwoman Vicki Stack was asked to leave the Legislative Committee and has not been invited back to serve on the Committee? Also, she wanted to know, in regards to the vote on Referendum "O" that one other member was unable to make the meeting and therefore, unable to vote, and asked that it be rescheduled because it was important to him, and his wishes were ignored? So, how many people are left on the hand picked Legislative Committee? She noted too, that the resolution at the beginning stated that this is a citizen-referred measure-there is no copy in the hallway where public notices should be, and she feels that this definitely is not a citizen-referred measure. She urged Council members to read the employees 'dos and don'ts' for campaign financing.
There were no further comments.
Mayor Murphy asked Mr. Cox to elaborate on City policy.
Mr. Cox said the City policy reflects the statutory prohibition against using public resources to endorse or oppose a ballot measure or candidacy. That's separate and apart from the exception for resolutions. There is nothing in the statutes, or in the cases interpreting statutes, suggesting that if the Council wants to adopt a resolution, members have to use their personal funds. In going-out-on-a-limb in this opinion, he feels that if Council is permitted to adopt a resolution one way or the other, it is implicit that City staff will prepare said resolution, make copies, distribute them, etc. There are two different provisions of the statutes-the City policy does not prohibit the use of City resources when preparing resolutions, which, by the way, would have been minimal to prepare and place in the packets. He does not feel this is an issue.
Mayor Murphy said the date the Legislative Committee met in regard to Referendum "O" , Councilman Paul could not attend.
Councilman Peterson, chairman of the Legislative Committee, noted that, yes, it was unfortunate that Councilman Paul could not attend. He (Peterson) spoke with Councilman Paul prior to and after the vote to get his opinion to make sure that his voice was heard, and as recent as this evening, he reconfirmed with Councilman Paul and he (Paul) reconfirmed his opinion.
In regards to Councilwoman Stack, when she ran for State Office, at that particular point in time . . .
Mayor Murphy inserted that it was an agreement with Councilwoman Stack, City Manager Rock and Mayor Murphy, that when Councilwoman Stack announced her candidacy for the State Senate, the seat Ms. Natalie Menten is now running for, it would most appropriate that she (Stack) step down from her position on the Legislative Committee. Councilwoman Stack agreed with that, and the appointment for the remaining of the term (this year) went to her Ward 1 Council mate - Karen Kellen. Next year there will be a reassignment of Council members to the Legislative Sub-Committee.
Councilman Peterson also added that there is a representative from each ward of the City serves on the Legislative Sub-Committee. Councilwoman Kellen replaced Councilwoman Stack for remainder of this term. Next year, it is the Mayor's prerogative to appoint/reappoint Council members.
Councilman Paul wanted clarification on "Whereas the Citizens of the State of Colorado" - does that need to be changed because it did not come through citizens initiative?
Mr. Cox said he thinks Ms. Menten is correct. The draft that was presented to the Council and reviewed by staff, does refer to a citizens referendum. He thinks it would be appropriate for Council to indicate that it is in fact a ballot issue rather than a referred measure. He does not feel it is fatally flawed if that change is not made, but it would be appropriate to set the record straight.
Councilman Paul said he wanted to clarify that he supported Councilman Anderson's motion to table because he feels that there are other things that were being reviewed and he did not get a chance to be a part of it that probably would have also benefited the citizens of Lakewood. This was the one that was chosen. His support of Mr. Anderson's tabling the issue was not a "NO" vote on this referendum. He feels it is important for the State of Colorado, and the main point of it is that it equalizes for the entire State, the number of signatures that must be obtained. People on the western slope can be equally represented and not have an initiative or constitutional amendment stem from the metro areas. There are seven districts and 7480 signatures from each congressional district, whereas right now you can go to Downtown Denver and get all the signatures. He feels the referendum represents the people of Colorado evenly and does not put the focus on one metro area.
Councilman Anderson said one of the speakers during public comment suggested that Council members abstain on this vote. He asked if this was a valid option for Council members?
Mr. Cox said generally speaking, Council members recuse himself or herself when they have some sort of conflict, bias, or personal interest in the matter. He would have to refer to the City's Charter to see if there is any specific reference (he does not recall there is one) discussing abstention from votes. It's not precluded-it can be done. Generally, elected officials are encouraged to take a position one way or the other on a matter. However, as far as he can recall, it is not prohibited.
Councilman Anderson asked if it would be something the Mayor would consider being a comfortable solution if a Council member abstained?
Mayor Murphy said he has and always encourage Council members to take a position to take a position for or against any issue as opposed to abstaining, which is different from saying he prohibits abstention-this he cannot do. He always encourages Council members to take a position.
Councilman Anderson said he's still mulling because he feels it is inappropriate for this body to be discussing it and yet, we are doing so. He feels the public is owed an explanation any time Council members vote in favor of or opposition to anything. He said he's not particularly fond of abstaining, while he does not believe this should be before the Council, he will vote "no".
Councilwoman Stack said she, too, would vote "no". She noted that Councilman Paul had a good argument, but she feels there are too many consequences involved.
Mayor Murphy said he would support the Resolution and he believes that the results of the system we have now speak for themselves in terms of some very contradictory measures that are now in our State Constitution, i.e. the Gallagher Amendment, Tabor versus Amendment 23 that mandates an increase in spending, whereas another mandates a limit on spending. There are too many opportunities for out-of-state special interests to come in and change our constitution. Also, if he thought this was a limitation on citizens' rights, he would not be in favor of it.
Councilman Peterson said he could sympathize with Councilman Anderson's stance. One thing that swayed him to support the resolution is that it talks about fairness and equal representation.
Councilman Quinn said Councilman Paul makes the most persuasive argument regarding Referendum "O", that it equalizes this process and does not allow an a special interest group (in or out of Colorado) to come in and gather all of its signatures in one area without considering the interests of all the other Congressional Districts in the State. He added that we would do well to revisit the origin of this initiative provision the Constitution that dates to 1910. He said over the years, special interest groups have been able to come in and throw anything they want out and gather enough signatures to get it on the ballot. He feels that reasonable limitations should be done, and he sees nothing intrusive about Referendum "O", and he will support this resolution.
Mr. Cox noted that after a brief online research to verify the origins the referendum, he speculates that the confusion is caused by the fact that it is labeled "REFERENDUM O", but it is in fact a legislatively referred measure - not a citizen referred measure. Therefore, he suggests, for the simplest modification to the resolution would be in the first 'Whereas' clause - to substitute the 'General Assembly' of the Colorado Legislature has referred to the voters, an amendment to the Colorado Constitution.
Mayor Murphy read the suggested correction: "Whereas the General Assembly of the State of Colorado has referred . . ."
A motion was made by Councilwoman Allen and seconded by Councilman Peterson, to adopt Resolution 2008-68, as amended, changing "Citizens of the State of Colorado to the General Assembly has referred to the voters".
VOTE: Ayes: 8 Nays: 2 (Anderson, Stack) Absent: 1 The motion passed.
Resolution 2008-69 - For the endorsement of Jefferson County Public School District, Ballot Issues 3A and 3B
Mayor Murphy asked for public comments.
Cindy Stevenson, Superintendent, JeffCo R-1 Schools, Lakewood, CO extended "thanks" to Council members for the work they do in unselfishly giving for the betterment of the students. She feels strongly the public employees should follow the law, and statute does clearly say that 'as long as I am in my time of employment, I cannot speak to ballot issues.' In regards to Ballot Issues 3A and 3B, she's present to represent hundreds of parents, community members, and thousands of children who live in Lakewood. She explained that 3B stands for buildings and bonds and Lakewood would benefit by over $90,000,000 to be invested in the city's established schools to improve their physical environment, infrastructure, and matching the 21st Century learning needs for our students. Also, 3B will not result in a tax rate increase. She stated that 3A is a tax rate increase--$4.4 mill that results in an increase in property taxes of $2.92/month per $100,000 home market values. This equates to approximately $8.76/month for homes valued at $300,000. She said funds from 3A goes directly into operating funds.
Linda Sasenick, 181 S. Deframe Way, Lakewood, CO, said paradoxically, she supports excellent education for children, but that does not mean throwing more money into JeffCo schools. She said before the Council individually decides to endorse 3A and 3B, she asked that they consider the following: Voting for 3A and 3B, the total school mill levy increases to $52.4 mills or $1,042/year in school property taxes for homes valued at $250,000. A vote against 3A and 3B would decrease the total school mill levy to $36.75 mills, a difference of $311/year in school property taxes for homes valued at $250,000. In reference to 3A, she said JeffCo Public Schools is not "a lean mean educating machine". One out of four JeffCo students do not graduate; 20% of JeffCo schools are rated below state-wide average on state accountability reports; the number of high performing schools in state accreditation has dropped by 30% (from 109 in 2006 to 67 in 2007); and JeffCo employees--one staff person for every 6.6 full-time equivalent students - less than 40% of those staff positions are teachers. She compared these statistics with those of the Cherry Creek School District and noted higher percentages. She asked that the Council also consider not endorsing 3B because the district's capital requests are not creditable. The District would have spent almost one billion dollars on capital expenditures from 1999 to 2010 and this does not include the $350,000,000 requested in this new 3B, nor does it include annual operating expenses during this period. She feels there is no capital needs crisis--they (JeffCo Schools) has been given approximately one billion dollars for improvements and they have some $72,000,000 in reserves stashed away, and until the taxpayers have a real voice in what's being spent, she will not vote in support of any new bond proposals.
Jeff Sacco, 181 S. Deframe Way, Lakewood, CO, said he is pro-children and pro-schools. However, he is voting "NO" on 3A and 3B because he feels JeffCo does not need a 'blank check for their wildest dreams wish'. He said no one has shown him if funds collected for a 2004 bond have gone where they asked it to go. When JeffCo becomes more 'transparent' we all would agree to provide money if it is necessary. He added that the 2004 bond was to cover the years from 2005 thru 2010 - this is only 2008-two years before the funds should run out. He wants to see the need with transparency, and feels that 'throwing money at education just doesn't help'. He noted that the schools have received money from various funding sources and it makes one wonder, how can they (schools) be falling behind?
Mike Muller, Lakewood, CO asked where does all the money go for JeffCo Schools? He said this year, Cindy Stevenson spent $3500 on lunch, and if you were to divide that amount by the number of school days, 'somebody lives high on the hog - very, very, high on the hog--similar to Lakewood City Council'. He wanted to know why Amendment 54 was not presented for support.
Randy Little, 10590 W. Dakota Avenue, Lakewood, CO said he was again speaking on behalf of/representing the business community. Recently, he spoke with Dr. Cindy Stevenson, and they both agreed that in regards to technology, there are not enough funds to keep up with technology because it changes daily. But we have to keep up with the world itself. JeffCo Schools is the number one school district in Colorado and they need to stay that way-in classes and in size. In representing the business community, he is in support of this proposed endorsement, and he pointed out that this is not a debate - either you support it or you don't.
Newt Vaughan, 8663 W. Hawaii Drive, Lakewood, CO, said he's neither in support of or opposition to the proposed measure, but wanted to tell Council to let the taxpayers make their own decision. He thinks that the Council owes it to the citizens to table this measure, and let each citizen decide whether or not they can afford it.
Steve Howell, Lakewood, CO said this is his 27th year in education as a teacher and feels he can adequately speak about what it means to be a teacher in a changing environment and culture in which we're trying to prepare students for a future that none of us knows what it would look like. Technology needs, primarily, are of massive importance to our students. We have to prepare them for a future no matter what they do-whether they are of the 89% that go to college or the 11% that do not. They will have to use technology knowledge to understand the ability to learn no matter what they do. Someone once said that the problem for educators is for so long they've done so much with so little, that the public expects them to be able to do more with even less. He said the realities of education in our world is not all about money. It's about a lot of things that he did not have enough time to go into at this time. The improvements of our schools, our facilities, the technology and equipment within them allows teachers to do a better job of educating students.
Dave Wiechman, Ward 4, Lakewood, CO, said in six months, his children will be out of public schools, but that does not mean he would not have an interest in Jefferson Schools. He will continue to do so because the students are our future, and as long as he lives, they will be his future. Therefore, it's very important to him and everyone here that our children receive the best possible education. As part of his parenting for the past 15 years, he's been deeply involved with the schools. We can debate every dollar, but the bottom line is if we don't provide the adequate resources for our children, within a matter of years they will suffer. If we don't provide adequate resources, there will be a serious decline in just a matter of years--in property values and society as a whole. He urged all voters to realize how important this measure is to protect our children-don't be pennywise and pound foolish-think about what's best for the long run, which is, continued support for our schools.
Public comment was closed.
A motion was made by Councilwoman Allen and seconded by Councilman Peterson, to adopt Resolution 2008-69.
Councilwoman Baroway noted that when she first moved to Lakewood and her children started to attend school, she noticed that the library at the school had no books, and her neighbors had no school age children at that time, and thus, were against raising any kind of money for the school, which she feels makes no sense. As noted before, the children are our future, and while some taxpayers' dollars may not go directly for the taxpayer's child at that time, it will benefit someone's children, and those children will someday have to take care of us when we're older-making decisions to govern the City and our future. As a volunteer in JeffCo Schools, she has seen firsthand, the need for support and resources. She added even though City Council may endorse this measure, it is in no way telling people how to vote. When it comes time for each citizen to mark his/her ballot, they can still make whatever choice they want.
Councilwoman Stack said currently, the United States is in a crisis, and she feels is not a wise thing to endorse any type of increase at this point in time. She said in the future, when things are straightened out nationally, we could take another look at this. But at this time, we have some huge problems that people have yet to figure out what to do about them. She said at this time she cannot endorse a resolution that will take so much money from each and every property owner.
Councilman Peterson said again, it's not easy to make decisions that benefit
all the citizens of our community. In any community he feels there are two particular
classes that deserve more attention than any others-our children and our senior
citizens. Too often, it seems that these two groups are in competition for scarce
resources. No one wants to put anyone in a position where they have to decide
between feeding their children/keeping a roof over their heads or keeping adequate
schools. He feels this measure does not do that. Sometimes, it's easy to exaggerate
the impact of policy as you move forward from an economic standpoint and minimize
the impact of policy on our community, the citizens we serve and use that as
lens to view it from. No one wants to throw dollars at anything and think that's
all it takes, because it's not. In looking at what the school district has done
in respect to the current bond issue with the capital improvements they've management
them
very well. In his position, he feels it is incumbent upon him to do the best
he possibly can with the reasons and capabilities he have to act in the best
interest of the constituents he serves- the citizens of Lakewood.
Councilwoman Koop said she works part-time for Jefferson County schools, and feels she should not vote on this issue.
Mr. Cox said it is always a person decision by each Council member. Also, it's hard to know if there is a direct or indirect financial benefit that would be involved.
Councilwoman Koop said there could be, and said she would not vote on this case.
Councilwoman King said as a former teacher in Jefferson County and parent/grandparent whose children have been educated in Jefferson County, we cannot underestimate the importance of good schools-not just for the children but also for property values we all enjoy in Lakewood. The benefit of supporting our schools cannot be under-rated.
Councilman Anderson said the funny thing about endorsement is that no one wants to think they are powerful and important, but yet studies have shown that it is a fact of advertising that endorsements do provide a shortcut for individuals, and he feels that this is the danger that Council is doing as a body with these endorsements tonight. He agreed with Councilwoman Stack and said, in uncertain times, is this the burden we want to lay on our children and fellow neighbors? He will vote "No" on this issue.
Councilman Paul said in this uncertain times is not a good time to give up on our children. He encouraged all to do they their 'homework' and make their own choice. He thinks it is important to fund our schools, which are the backbone of our communities. Not all who come out of JeffCo schools are successes, but we need to make sure we offer the programs to keep kids in school and to keep them graduating - giving them the skills for the future. He will support this measure.
Mayor Murphy said putting this resolution on the agenda has provided a great forum for a debate for proponents and opponents, and in his opinion, it (endorsement) is worth doing-the public has been able to hear "yes" or "no" and as it's been stated, members of the public will vote their choice. It was stated by one speaker tonight that this endorsement would give the school district a "blank check". This is not a "blank check", rather it is a very specific proposal and dollars spent for each school is listed. He read the names of some of the schools and the proposed dollar amount to be received. He feels that good schools create healthy neighborhoods and they help to increase property values for all of us. He noted that Alameda High School anchors the eastern portion of our community, and he firmly believes that schools are the centerpiece/focus of the neighborhood. Also, well-educated students lower crime rates and a dollar invested now in our students carries the great potential of a dollar we won't have to spend down the road on our police department chasing students. A good school district draws employers and good jobs, and that is a stated goal of this City Council. He feels that the JeffCo School District has demonstrated by the 2004 bond issue, a firm commitment to prudence in the way the funds are spent, and that Superintendent Stevenson provides visionary leadership. He feels that this measure is absolutely an essential issue to us as a community. He will vote in support of the resolution.
VOTE: Ayes: 7 Nays: 2 (Anderson, Stack) Not voting: 1 (Koop) Absent: 1 (Kellen)
The motion passed.
ITEM 12 - REPORTS
Mayor Murphy and City Council Members reported their attendance at previous meetings and events and announced upcoming neighborhood meetings and events.
Mayor Murphy asked Margy Greer to remind everyone of some things to keep in mind regarding voting.
Margy Greer, City Clerk, stated that November 4, 2008 is Election Day. All ballots must be received by 7:00 p.m. at one of the drop-off locations or at Jefferson County via mail. There has been some confusion in regards to ballots being post-marked by November 4-this is incorrect. To clarify she noted that ballots must be at the drop-off locations or at Jefferson County by 7:00 p.m. on November 4. In regards to proper postage, this is a long and lengthy ballot and Jefferson County has encouraged person to place two first class stamps on the ballot envelopes when sending them via the mail. However, if there is not enough postage on the envelopes, Jefferson County will take care of it. Early voting runs from October 20th -- 25th 2008, and October 27th -- 31st, and persons can vote early at Jefferson County Administrative facilities; any Jefferson County Motor Vehicle branch offices; and Jefferson County Library locations. Mail-in ballot drop-off locations include all the early voting locations as well as City Hall locations (Arvada, Edgewater, Golden, Lakewood, Westminster, Wheat Ridge, and Jefferson County Administration and Court Facilities). Some persons wanted to know where to get copies of the "blue book". She explained that the State of Colorado is responsible for mailing said books. Neither Jefferson County nor any of the other city facilities have copies to give. However, one can go online at www.state.co.us./gov and all 71 pages of the blue book are available to review and/or download. To determine what precinct one should vote, persons can go to www.votejeffco.com, or contact the City Clerk's Office at (303) 987-7080. Additionally, persons can track the status of their ballot at this address. They can reach the Jefferson County Clerk and Recorder's Office at (303) 271-8111.
Councilwoman Baroway added that persons should not bring their mail-in ballots to the polling places. Ballots are not accepted at the polling places.
Councilman Anderson noted that unsigned ballots are not valid and would not be counted. He urged all to please sign the envelopes before dropping them in the ballot box. Also, couples should not place their ballots in the same envelope-neither ballot would be counted.
Mayor Murphy encouraged as many as possible to vote early.
ITEM 13 - ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the Council; Mayor Murphy adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Submitted by:
Margy Greer, City Clerk
 |
||
Americans with Disability Act (ADA) Notice |
||
