Regular City Council Meeting
June 6, 2006
Recorded by Carol Brzeczek

These minutes have been done quickly but will give you the flavor of the meeting. I have not used quotations as I haven’t received a recording of the meeting. I have represented the statements made accurately though.

¨ ¨ ¨
The meeting began with a hearing on the 2007 budget. Citizens addressed the council with what they thought should be funded. Predictable as it was, several of the usual suspects were in attendance asking for thoughtful consideration when it came to funding the library and museum.

The police building was mentioned, more hours for community development staff, more code enforcement, recommendation that council consider the CAC’s result of their SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) that were developed from their public CAC meetings.

It was brought up that Channel 8 could used for more than just the regular meetings of council but the special meetings and the Planning Commission meetings. A couple of citizens that had attended the Littleton Leadership Retreat complemented the council for the quality of life in Littleton and mentioned some of the outcomes from the Retreat that would enhance the quality of life in Littleton in the future.

One citizen, Jim Saunders, went so far as to tell the council that as a result of the Littleton Leadership Retreat 100 people left knowing what it takes to make Littleton a vibrant, viable community and they are ready to embrace change; mentioning mixed use in housing and business. He said there were four conditions to facilitate successful development.

1. Citizen participation
2. Common vision
3. Strong and positive city council
4. Open, positive and progressive future development

He told council that their vision really counts.

The council voted to accept three new individuals to the various boards and commissions. Pretty run of the mill stuff until Doug Clark indicated he was voting No on the appointments because he thought qualified people were being passed over for unwarranted reasons. The example he gave was for the Liquor Authority. Seven people applied and all seven, according to Clark, were qualified. However, the council chose someone who did not ask to serve on the Liquor Authority but because of her age (young) and gender (female) she was appointed.

Unscheduled Citizens

I have never included my words to the council in the minutes but feel compelled to this time.

Well, here I am, back to address the sewer rates once more. And, I still haven’t had time to get to my real questions about the sewer rates – other items keep popping up that prohibit me from asking them for lack of time. I have to admit; when I read the Littleton Report of June 2006 I was fuming. The Littleton Report clearly misrepresented the April 4th meeting and when government obfuscates the truth, the government demonstrates their lack of integrity, honesty, and credibility in every matter.

The front-page story is all about the sewer rates and it was written to obscure the truth of the need for the sewer plant expansion. There is an Editor’s note that all the quotes in the article are excerpted from the minutes of the April 4, 2006 council meeting. I would agree with that statement.

However, the quotes have been taken out of context and have been used to mislead the citizens of Littleton.

The article reads, “When Council Member Doug Clark said, ‘The plant never reached the 95 percent limit on the 30-day average,’ Mugler responded that, ‘the facility wanted to make sure it did not hit the 95 percent capacity and have a tap fee moratorium.’”

In actuality the response from Mugler that was quoted was in response to a question asked by Amy Conklin. Her question to Mugler was if the 95% was based on projected rather than actual flows. The quote is correct but Mugler went on to say that the construction start time always has to be anticipated and is based on the projected flows.

If the minutes of the April 4th meeting had included Mr. Clark’s corrections then the minutes used for the Littleton Report would have been correct. But, five of you voted against including Mr. Clark’s conversation with Mr. Mugler, therefore, leaving the minutes unclear which lead to the editor of the Littleton Report misrepresenting the facts as they occurred at the April 4th meeting.

To remind you, Mr. Clark was asking Mr. Mugler for some specific clarification on the 95% capacity. Mr. Clark wanted to make clear that the 95% average was over a period of 30 days, which we never met and Mr. Mugler did not disagree. Mr. Clark also asked Mr. Mugler if the sewer plant was anywhere near the 95% capacity at the point that construction was started and Mr. Mugler agreed that it wasn’t.

Mayor Jim Taylor’s remarks from the April 4th meeting have been misrepresented as well and that is because the minutes are inaccurate in reporting what he said. Mr. Taylor actually said that Littleton hit the 80% capacity in 1998 and exceeded the 95% capacity for 20 days in 1999. So five years prior to the start of the expansion project we approached the trigger, but for only 20 of the 30 days, and the flows have never reached that level since. As we all know, the trend has been downward and the flows are now approximately 12 mgpd under the 95% level.

The regulatory compliance is also misrepresented. As you should know, the stricter regulatory compliance, for the most part, is due to the increase in the capacity of the plant. If the plant capacity weren’t being increased our compliance regulations would be less expensive.

To make the point, plain and simple, the sewer plant was not in need of expansion because the 95% 30-day average was never met and from the high point of the flows in 1999, flows have steadily decreased. Had someone taken a look at the flows and understood the obvious – the downward trend of the flows – the construction phase of the project would never have begun. To misrepresent the truth to justify a plant expansion that was not necessary is beyond criticism. If you can’t report accurately and fairly you should leave the reporting to the Littleton Examiner and the Littleton Independent and save the Littleton Report for your fluff pieces.

Carol Brzeczek

Council Members’ Reports

The City was issued a check for $784,652.54 from the Shareback program. (Shareback program has something to do with open space – that’s all I know about it. But, it was a chunk of money!)
Amy Conklin is anxious to have study sessions on council finances, campaign finances, and debrucing.

Pat Cronenberger wants to have an article about the vicious dog ordinance in the Littleton Report.

She also criticized a council member for having a citizen attend the Avian Flu conference as a representative of “us.” The council member did not have the authority to have someone represent us.

Conklin agreed saying there was no process and it was disappointing and then something about the democratic process. Ostermiller said he remembered that the individual was mentioned and that council said they wanted to evaluate the individual but they did not get that opportunity.

At a previous meeting, Clark had suggested that they send a doctor to the Avian Flu Conference since none of them are professionals. His request fell on deaf ears – someone saying they would like to check out his choice.

Clark has requested that the budget contain more than 1 year of actual budget data. The Charter says they require two but he would prefer to see three. He had talked to Jim Harmon (finance) and would like council to agree. He believed three years of data would allow them to see trends that would go unnoticed otherwise. No response from other members.

Clark commented that he attended the CAC presentation at St. Mary’s to see the process and was less than impressed. He has been told that the CAC will write the rough draft of the new Complan and he has been told that staff would be writing it. He wanted to know who picked Merilee Utter to give the one sided presentation. He quoted Jim Saunders’ statement that the participants of the Littleton Leadership Retreat knew what needed to be done. He sited two objections to Utter’s presentation.

1.
Comparing a ski town village to a village in Littleton was an amazing analogy. Utter said that the village is what made the property so expensive in ski towns – Clark asserts that it is because the village is close to the ski lift!
2.
Utter said that the design of cities has created a situation that we are forced to use our cars and that needs to be fixed so people will get out of their cars. Clark says his neighbor, 7 doors down, has been known to drive to Clark’s and when asked why the response was because it is convenient. Clark contends that we use our cars because it is convenient and not because we have built pedestrian unfriendly communities. He also sited the number of his neighbors that drive to St. Mary’s for church rather than walk.

3.
Utter said Littleton is revising the Complan because of revenue – state law forces cities to depend on sales tax revenue as the only source of revenue. Clark said that statement was utterly (excuse the pun) false. Only 48% comes from sales tax revenue. The city receives 25% of the general fund from outside districts for fire protection. Those monies are recession and inflation proof. The counties using our fire protection services use property taxes to pay Littleton for the services. Although, there maybe good reasons to rely on sales tax for our revenue, it is not the only source of revenue the city has.

At this point, Ostermiller interrupted Clark and said, Doug, if you have a problem take it up with Merilee Utter. Do it on your own time. It is not appropriate for a council meeting. It is the Planning Commission’s responsibility.

Clark told Ostermiller that to update the financial [policies without updating the neighborhood goals (because we don’t think we can update the neighborhood goals) how is that going to work? It is good to ask those questions now rather than wait until next year when we get the report.

Clark was asked what he suggested and Clark said council should provide some direction.

Conklin asked what he would suggest.

Mayor Taylor finally jumped in and told Ostermiller and Conklin that Clark has a right to speak without being interrupted and that he thought Clark had a valid concern.

Conklin, again, asked for suggestions from Clark. Clark thought a more balanced or an opposing viewpoint ought to be given at the CAC public meetings. Right now the process doesn’t make senses and the Planning Commission and the Council need to go over the process together.

Cronenberger told Clark to make a motion and move on.

Conklin told Clark that his questions had all been vetted out at the Littleton Leadership Retreat and that the steering committee for the Retreat picked Utter for their Retreat. Clark commented that the membership of the CAC and the attendees of the Retreat were a lot of the same people. Conklin said yes, we have lots of interested citizens.

Ostermiller said the Planning Commission is charged with the Complan and all council does is to ratify it. The current plan took 6 years and we need to let the process work. Clark said something and Ostermiller replied that he was going by the Charter so excuse me!

The staff will try to get some of Clark’s questions and concerns answered for council.

The Wal-Mart letters are flowing in.

Meeting adjourned and council went into an executive session.