Littleton City Council Meeting
January 2, 2007

Unscheduled Public Appearances

Frank Atwood informed the Council of the next Economic Discussion Group to be held at Bemis Library on January 10th at 10:30. The discussion is open to anyone interested. The topic will be the pros and cons of regionalizing police services. Bob Armstrong, retired from the CBI, will lead the discussion. If you are interested in attending please call Frank at 720.260.1493 so he will know how many chairs to assemble.

Changing subjects, Atwood told the council that he helped elect certain members of the council and he may run for council in the future and was interested in the proposed campaign finance reforms on the agenda for first reading. He noted that the incumbent candidate has an unfair advantage over a citizen challenger. He specifically mentioned various taxpayer funded publications such as the Littleton Report, the Littleton Citizen Guide A-Z, the Littleton Calendar and Annual Report. Each of these publications are paid for with tax dollars and they all contain pictures of all incumbent council members. He noted that the Littleton Report is distributed city wide. He estimated the worth of those publications to be $162,000.00. He asked the council, do you really need to change the rules to protect yourself from the Gary Sutton’s of this world? Does Gary unfairly jeopardize the security of your incumbency? How much more do you need to tilt the playing field to your advantage? How much further are you going to change the rules to protect yourself?

Elwood Johnsen addressed the code requiring homeowners to shovel their sidewalks within 24 hours of a snow storm. He lives on Fremont and has had to shovel his walks 4 times because the city snow plows keep shoveling the snow back on to his walks. People shouldn’t have to clean their walks a second time!

Campaign Finance

The discussion opened with questions from Doug Clark. He didn’t understand the different drafts of the ordinance and asked Larry Berkowitz, city attorney, what changed from one draft to the next and which 4 council members suggested the changes.

Berkowitz said he did not know what Clark was talking about. Every council member got every copy including the black-lined version. What was in front of council was a clean version. He did not know which 4 council members Clark was referring to. Pat Cronenberger met with Berkowitz and Brad Bailey, assistant city attorney, to suggest changes and those changes along with a few others were reflected in the black-lined version.

Clark said he had a communication dated September 28 which was the product of the study session and a December 14th black-lined version. There were whole sections black-lined or crossed out and he had no idea what changed. What were the changes made by Cronenberger?

Berkowitz explained that one was a confidential document and that if council wanted to waive their attorney/client privilege then “we can talk” about it. He thought it would be better if they discussed it in a study session. Furthermore, he thought the cover letter on the second one was very clear.

Clark asked about the penalty. At the August study session the standard city penalty was determined to be the penalty. The proposed ordinance stated that the penalty would be $1000.00 and/or 90 days in jail.

Berkowitz said that is the standard city penalty – that’s the maximum standard.

Clark said that the city code says the standard is 1 year in jail.

Berkowitz said he was sorry and asked Clark, “what did you ask me?”

Clark repeated what the standard city penalty was. He would like to know what they are voting on and who directed the changes. Berkowitz said no one directed him to make the changes. They agreed to the changes that were suggested and they made people aware of those changes.

Clark said he had problems with the way the proposed ordinance was created. The first draft was sent out in secret under attorney/client privilege. At the same time 5 members of council were using the taxpayer’s money to campaign against the impact of Amendment 38 which would have resulted in personal and financial liability for elected officials. Clark thought it was a little strange knowing that the council was proposing a penalty of 1 year in jail for any candidate that violated the proposed campaign finance limits at the same time they were defending themselves against violating the Fair Campaign Practices Act.

Rebecca Kast said he needed to be accurate – it was not 5 members – it was Amy Conklin who made the suggestion and no one said anything against it and it went forward. Isn’t that the way it was?

Clark said the defense was that there was a majority on council that agreed with the mailing and they each claimed a portion of the cost of the mailing.

Kast said we are not talking about the defense. We are talking about what happened at the council meeting.

Jim Taylor said Amendment 38 had nothing to do with this discussion and urged them to get back to the ordinance before them.

Clark said the Amendment 38 issue did have something to do with their discussion. When you use attorney/client privilege to keep communications secret…..He was interrupted by Berkowitz saying it was not the reason it was done and that was explained to you (Clark) when you brought it up the last time.

Clark said the reason given by Berkowitz was that the subject was controversial.

Berkowitz said he didn’t say anything about keeping it quiet. For 28 years he has been doing business this way. He uses the attorney/client privilege with his drafts until he is certain that he has captured the council’s intent. The council has the ability to waive that privilege anytime.

Clark said that was different from his understanding of the Open Meetings Law where the city attorney can make whatever he wants secret simply because…. Once again he was interrupted by Berkowitz saying that he would agree with Clark that Clark does not understand the Open Meetings Law.

Clark said he thought it was worthwhile that while they were looking at contribution limits for candidates and they should be looking at what they are not covering – issues. Contribution limits to ballot issues were discussed at the study session but a majority of the council decided they only wanted to look at candidate contribution limits. In theory, large contributions to candidates are a problem but large contributions made on behalf of ballot issues are not a problem. Spending $41,000.00 is not warping democracy but spending $10,000.00 to $12,000.00 is warping democracy. We have had individual companies such as Wells Fargo and companies with no bid contracts with the city like J. F. Sato contributing large sums to ballot issues and that is not an ethics issue to us.

We had 5 candidates that received $5,000.00 contributions in the last election. Three of the 5 lost. Ray Koernig raised more than Tom Mulvey and Tom won. Greg Reinke raised more money that I did and I won. The idea that money solely affects the outcome of a campaign can not be proved by what has happened in Littleton.

Cronenberger brought up another issue but not before scolding Clark telling him that he raised the issue at the study session – make a motion – make an amendment – you are free to say anything and I am sure you would have support for it.

Cronenberger was concerned about the reporting. She wants more reporting. Berkowitz told her that after they had talked earlier about the same, he wants to be sure there are not any issues with Littleton’s recording requirements and the state’s. He does not want to eliminate any requirements. He suggested the council either pull the ordinance and bring it back with changes or they postpone the 2nd reading until all issues are sorted out. He thought it would be more advantageous if they did not adopt this on 1st reading.

Taylor suggested that they not approve the proposed ordinance but to go back to a study session to discuss it further. He wanted all 7 members to be very clear where they are going. At the study session there were a number of split votes. He suggested that each take an opportunity to sit down with Berkowitz and talk about their concerns before it comes up for first reading again.

Kast asked if they could make suggestions tonight.

Taylor said he preferred to have them talk with Berkowitz.

Clark asked if the study session will include the material to discuss limiting contributions on ballot issues.

Taylor told Clark that if he wanted to amend the ordinance you need to meet with Berkowitz so everyone could talk about them (the changes) at the February 2nd meeting.

Berkowitz said he would accept written comments too.

John Ostermiller said if anyone had issues with the phraseology or the terminology – that’s one thing – but to incorporate amendments based on one council member’s suggestions – no. We have to have a document we are working with. The 90 days versus one year – that’s something that should be changed. But to just send amendments to Berkowitz for incorporation, I don’t agree.

Kast said her one suggestion would be to limit the amount of money a candidate can put into his own campaign. She does not want anyone with an “enormous” bank accounts to spend more just because they have more. She thought they could loan their campaign any amount of money to be paid back by contributions.

Clark said he would agree with that change. However, if a candidate loans his campaign $5,000 to $7,000 and the campaign does not get the contributions to pay the loan back does the candidate then go to jail because they violated the ordinance. That’s the path we are going down.

Kast said the candidate would have to think about that prior to making the loan. A person should not be allowed to spend as much as they want.

Ostermiller thought this would need to be discussed in a public hearing.

Clark moved that the ordinance not be approved. Mulvey seconded. Motion passed 4/2 with Cronenberger and Ostermiller voting no.

Kast said, so we are back without anything.

Ostermiller said, “It’s dead.”

Kast said, “Isn’t that what we wanted to do?”

Ostermiller said, “no, it’s dead. Point of Order – It has been defeated. It is no longer an issue.” Let’s move on with the agenda.

Holding Cell Renovation

This has been on ongoing issue. Ostermiller moved to accept the contract with Sierra Steel for the project. Kast seconded. Discussion followed.

Clark said that 1 year ago he had asked why the current holding cells were decommissioned. He said the letter he received from Commander Brandt listed several reasons; a number were meaningless. Now they have a contract to approve and the contract does not show the design or a list of requirements. We don’t even know if the new design will solve the problems. He would prefer to have a list of requirements established and a design then go out for competitive bids. It would not be the first time we go down a path and get something other than what we need.

Mulvey said the contract is not specific – it doesn’t show what they are doing.

Taylor said the single source contract was discussed at the study session. We need to have faith in the staff’s ability to look and meet the Federal Standards for the facility. He said Sierra Steel will take care of the problems that currently exist.

Clark said he is afraid that is not true. There is nothing in the contract about the sight and sound separation. If the specifics are not in the contract then the city will not have any recourse after the contractor is finished.

Chief Bruce Beckman spoke to the council and explained that they have been involved with Sierra Steel since August of 2005. They have visited two Sierra Steel projects – a completed project (Weld County) and a project mid-construction. They are impressed with the quality of Sierra Steel’s work. He said the sight and sound issues are critical and they are being taken care of with this project. They have met with the architect twice and the final product is going through the design review now. He feels comfortable with the design based on his visitations and knowing that they will be using the same materials and design in Littleton as he saw in the other projects. He said the project is not ideal but they have to make due with the resources available and the footprint of the current cells. What they have now is totally unacceptable.

Taylor made a statement that the Police Department does know what the Federal Standards are? Chief Beckman said there is no code at the Federal or local level similar to the fire codes and building codes, although fire and building codes are part of the project. There are certain things they can and can’t do but beyond that it is very subjective. They can’t put males with females or juveniles with adults. The standards are based on “best practices” and understanding previous liability suits. We won’t be building to the American Correctional Standards because we are not building a jail.

Clark made an amendment that they put out a design for competitive bid or put a performance clause in the contract that guarantees the contractor meet their obligations. If they are not met there would be no payment.

Kast said that sounded too vague and she didn’t think they could get anyone to sign a contract like that.

Kast called for the question. Motion was made to accept the contract and was passed 5/2 with Clark and Mulvey dissenting.

Reports

Snow Storm

Everyone had high praise for the street crew for all the work done to clear the snow from the roads and neighborhoods. Cronenberger said she thought council members should be more in the loop with information as she was unable to respond the way she wanted to when citizens called her. She thought too many people were having to walk in the street because the sidewalks were not cleared; especially along Littleton Blvd.. She said they also needed to educate the businesses – it is very typical of them to plow the parking lot and not the sidewalk. They need to accommodate other forms of mobility.

Clark thought it would be a good idea to hear from citizens about the storm – let them tell us what happened. We should then look at our policy and determine if we need to change how we manage large storms. He made a motion to do so and Mulvey seconded. Kast said it wouldn’t hurt to look at the policies but plowing residential streets equaled a lot of money. She thought it should be a study session rather than hearing from the public.

Clark thought a study session would be fine but only after hearing from the public. He suggested that staff give on overview of the current procedures, an inventory of the equipment available, and whatever information that might inform the public.

Cronenberger asked how they would inform the public about this “ad hoc” hearing and how productive would it be.

Kast thought it would be better to have some time pass before having the meeting.

Clark said the advantage in waiting is that more people would be notified. The disadvantage is that they would hear from fewer people the longer they waited. He thought the city could do a better job – no reflection on the crew that worked this storm but there is always room for improvement.

Ostermiller said it is an issue of what the people want versus what it costs and it was premature to have the meeting until they know the cost of this storm. The citizens may change their mind when they know how much it costs. He said this is the third time since 1980 that they have plowed the residential streets – Christmas 1982, the 2003 storm and this past storm. He said Charlie Blosten would still be moving snow around and he needed time to prepare. Do we need to change policy if it has only happened 3 times in the past 20 years? It is best we wait – it won’t happen again during our terms.

Mulvey said the crews did a wonderful job – most of his complaints came from people living on cul de sacs. He asked if anything was being done about pot holes?

Jim Woods said they are already in pot hole repair mode.

Mulvey said everyone went to their government channels to get information and Littleton did not have anything up on Channel 8 right away. He again asked for the return of Channel 8.

Kast said she thought it was better to have something on the web site rather than cable. (50% of the people have cable)

Clark wanted to know if we are still using private contractors and Woods said no. Clark asked if all the invoices would be known in the next couple of weeks. Woods thought they would know the cost of this storm by the 16th of January. Clark thought they should move forward with the discussion – we may not have another storm for 10 years but we could have another in the next 2 months. We need to use this experience to improve.

Taylor thought it was much more appropriate for a study session. Clark understood that it was easier for them to have the discussion in a study session but said more people would see and hear if the meeting was held in the council chambers.

It was decided to put some background information in the next Littleton Report, hear from the citizens and then discuss the subject in a study session following a regular meeting on February 2 or the 16th – whichever meeting came after the Littleton Report distribution and if time permitted.

Trail Mark

Woods told the council that Lockheed Martin was not going to be able to provide the emergency services for Trail Mark. The situation will be discussed at the next study session. Clark asked that they include four options along with others that staff may include. They are:

1. Station a paramedic permanently at the Blakeland station

2. A sub station for Trail Mark

3. Analysis of response time from West Metro

4. Private Contractor.

Kast suggested they have a map of the region pointing out new developments. She wondered where the new development south of Lockheed Martin would be getting their services.

Campaign Finance

Taylor asked Berkowitz that he would be asking for a motion to do with campaign finance and under council rules what would he have to do.

Kast said she was glad. Her intent with a no vote was not to kill the ordinance. She thought it should be discussed further and that she was confused.

Cronenberger said she was baffled by what happened earlier in the meeting. Whatever you think about campaign finance most people think money has an effect on campaigns. They had two drafts and plenty of time to comment and there were no suggestions. She was the only one that sat down with Berkowitz and Bailey.

Clark said he brought up issues at the study session and because of the attorney/client privilege it all had to be kept under wraps.

Taylor moved that campaign finance be reconsidered. Kast seconded. Motion passed 5/1 with Clark dissenting.

Motion was made and seconded to have a study session on campaign finance. Clark asked for background information on ballot issues to be included. Kast asked him if he could provide it. Clark said no, it is Berkowitz’s job. Berkowitz said they could draft an amendment. Motion passed 5/1 with Clark in dissention.

Taylor thought the council should be looking into 311 for Littleton. Woods said it would make economic sense to be part of a regional 311.

Taylor noted that he is having computer problems and is not receiving any emails etc. Woods asked him if he wanted a city employee (IT guy) go to his house and help. So, city employee, Ken Price, will do so.