Regular Council Meeting
May 2, 2006
Recorded by Carol Brzeczek

This was a very interesting meeting. Here’s some background first. At the April 4, 2006 regular meeting the sewer rates were increased. The minutes of that meeting, as submitted by Julie Bower, were amended in the April 18th meeting. John Ostermiller amended his monologue and inserted language he did not speak and he changed the meaning of a couple of sentences by replacing language he used with language he didn’t use. Doug Clark added an exchange he and Pat Cronenberger had with Muggler in which, in part; Muggler agreed with Clark that Littleton never reached the trigger mechanisms for the plant expansion.

It was decided, at the April 18th meeting that there were too many amendments to the April 4th minutes that they would postpone the approval of those changes until the May 2nd meeting.

Minutes
Right after the Pledge the approval of the minutes began. Clark began by asking Jim Taylor about the email he had received from Taylor saying that a majority of the council members would not be supporting his amendments to the April 4th meeting. I am including the original language and Clark’s changes so you can see what was at issue.

Original Language
“Council Member Clark said the actual regulation required at 95% capacity, construction had to be started or building permits could not be issued. During a 30-day average, the plant never reached 95% and flows had continued to decline. The plant reached 31.7 million gallons per day and it had been going down since. The 95% figure would be 34.4 million gallons per day and the plant had never been close to the 95% when construction began.”

Amended language:
“Council Member Cronenberger asked when was the 80% capacity reached?
Mr. Muggler thought it was 2000 or 2001.”

“Council Member Clark wanted to be more precise regarding the 95% regulation. The actual regulation was that when the plant reached 95%, it had to either start construction or stop issuing building permits.

Mr. Muggler said that was right.

Council Member Clark said the 95% was measured on a 30-day average.

Mr. Muggler said that was correct.

Council Member Clark said the plant never reached the 95% limit on the 30-day average.

Mr. Muggler said okay.

Council Member Clark said flows had been going down since the high point in 1999 of 31.7 million gallons per day and had been going down since then. The 95% figure was 34.4 million gallons so we were 3 million gallons per day off of the 95% figure. We were now flowing 22.4 million gallons per day. The trend from the high pint of 1999 had actually been going down. We did not start construction until 2004 and we were nowhere close to the 95% at the point we started construction. Was that correct?

Mr. Muggler believed so.”

Cronenberger wanted to approve the minutes for the April 18th meeting first saying that she would accept the minutes if language beginning with “Council Member Cronenberger” was stricken from that point on. This would remove the Clark changes; leaving Ostermiller’s changes intact. (More on Ostermiller’s changes later.)

Clark thought they should go through the changes one by one.

Taylor wanted to approve the minutes of the 4th first. He said that the objection to Clark’s amendment was that it was written more as a dialog rather than a synopsis. Clark told Taylor he was trying to understand the objection to his amendment. Who was objecting? Was there a meeting to decide this? Was the objection just to the format or the content?

Taylor told him it was Conklin, Cronenberger and Kast who had called him with the objection and because they had called him individually.

Clark said he thought they were trying to leave out portions of the meeting that embarrassed them.

Kast told Clark that when it gets into a transcript form she is not comfortable approving the minutes because she wasn’t at the meeting and there are nuances in how things are said.
Cronenberger asked if staff could help them. What kind of a motion do you need and I will gladly make it.

Larry Berkowitz, city attorney, told council that there was a consensus to hold the changes over to this meeting. So if you don’t want to make the changes, just move to approve them as presented.

Clark said that the minutes of April 18th are accurate and that what is approved on April 18th has nothing to do with April 4th.

Taylor moved that the April 4th minutes be approved as presented. Clark said he thought they were trying to leave out portions of the meeting that embarrassed them. Cronenberger told Clark “he just didn’t get it.”

Motion was passed 5-2 with Mulvey and Clark voting no.

Cronenberger moved that they amend the April 18th minutes excluding the changes beginning with “Council member Cronenberger” and strike everything after that. Conklin seconded.

Kast, Conklin, Taylor and Cronenberger all objected to the dialog nature of Clark’s amendment, yet, as pointed out by Clark, in the minutes of the April 18th meeting on page 7 it states, “Mr. Taylor asked what was the difference between a PDO and a PD in the area north of Main Street?”

“Ms. Roberts said….” Clark wanted to know why that language was not objectionable.

Conklin said, “Life is short. Let’s just vote.”

The motion passed 5-2 with Mulvey and Clark voting no.

The rest of the meeting was minutia.