Regular Council Meeting Minutes
August 1, 2006
Recorded by Carol Brzeczek

This most interesting discussion of the meeting occurred during the council members reports rather than agenda items scheduled. As always, the italicized portions represent our editorial comments.

FYI for council members from Jim Woods: The Richardson’s (aka Littleton Village or the Marathon property) filed a service plan last Friday and the public hearing may be as soon as August 15th.

It was noted by the city attorney that an executive session was needed and asked for a motion. After the motion passed Doug Clark asked if the executive session would be held during or after the regular meeting. Taylor said during.

(This is a change in council behavior and one of the issues that I have challenged them. The law allows them to meet in an executive session but their past practice has been to adjourn their meetings and then meet in an executive session. Because they are adjourned they have no right to meet in a executive session. I believe this is a very important aspect of the law that needs to be adhered to primarily because if there is any action required, as a result of their executive session, they are still convened in a meeting and can come back to the public session and take action. Another reason I believe it is important, there is an actual record of time spent in an executive session whereas their current practice makes no mention of when they convened into an executive session or when they ended their executive session. The law requires them to come back to the public session and state, for the record, that their executive session discussions were limited to the subject matter and nothing else was discussed. More on this below.)

Doug Clark asked to postpone the correction of the minutes from the July 18th meeting, as he was unable to get a recording of the meeting to confirm his changes.

At the meeting on July 18th I addressed the Council and asked questions about their procedures that I did not believe were in compliance with the Open Meetings Law. Here’s a summary of what I said taken from the clerk’s draft minutes of that same meeting.

“Ms Brzeczek had been observing Council conduct the public’s business and had worked to get Council to follow the open meetings law. She said Council relied on the city attorney for understanding of the open meetings law. It was not a difficult law to read and commit to memory. Ms. Brzeczek wanted to discuss what she saw as violations with regard to executive sessions. She said Council rarely held an executive session at a regular meeting. The proper way to convene an executive session was to make a motion and the minutes should reflect the time Council convened the executive session and what time the regular session was reconvened. The record should reflect a signed statement from the chair attesting that any written minutes substantially reflected the substance of the discussion during the executive session. She had never seen such a statement in the written minutes. Ms. Brzeczek said there should also be a signed statement from the attorney attesting that a portion of the executive session was not recorded because of attorney/client privilege. She asked why Council had not followed the laws of the open meetings law?”

Mayor Taylor told me, at the July 18th meeting, that I would receive a response to my questions. I had not received an answer so I addressed Council once more asking Taylor directly when I could I expect an answer. He did not respond with an answer but instead told me to continue.

The additional comments I made had to do with the PEG fee that they had approved to be spent on video equipment for the City Center. (Marty and I had done some investigation and learned that the PEG money was collected from all cable subscribers and was to be used to “replace capital”.) PEG is an acronym that represents Public Access, Education, and Government Information. We believe the money was collected from subscribers in order to provide good cable services to the subscribers and that the expenditure of the money for police video equipment would be a misappropriation of funds. Furthermore, if the police were in dire need of new equipment it was incumbent upon the Council to provide it and for all taxpayer to pay for it – not just cable subscribers.

When the public comment portion of the meeting was concluded, Taylor told me that I would be getting a response from him but not tonight. I told him that I didn’t expect one tonight but I did expect one last week. (I don’t think he heard me though as I was not milked and he really didn’t give me a proper opportunity to respond.)

Agenda Items
The Council passed an ordinance amending Chapter 1 of Title 9 of the Littleton City Code pertaining to restrictions on minor drivers. This act will bring Littleton in compliance with the new state law. Clark amended the motion by adding language that would include the same language the state has pertaining to the penalties which are fines and community service. Rebecca Kast did not support the amendment saying that the municipal judges should have leeway one way or the other. Amy Conklin said she did not like giving the judges direction and if she had her way they would not be adopting the law at all. Clark explained that this was a contentious issue at the state level and he does not think it is wise to only incorporate a portion of the law into city code. His motion failed on a 3-4 vote with Mulvey and Taylor voting with Clark.

Parking By Permit Only
This Ordinance was adopted to allow those neighborhoods that are located near schools, commercial business areas and light rail stations to become a “parking by permit only” area if 75% of the residents agree. This ordinance will alleviate current problems along South Broadway (car dealer employees are parking in the neighborhoods just west of Broadway) and in the South Park area where light rail users are parking in the neighborhoods.

The most interesting parts of this discussion were two suggestions made by Taylor.

1.
He wondered if Woodlawn could be used as a parking area for light rail users on a fee basis with the fees being used to run a shuttle from Woodlawn to the light rail station.
2.
He asked if it was legal for dealerships to purchase homes on the west side of Broadway and turn the land into a parking lot for the employees.

Marty Brzeczek spoke to that suggestion reminding Taylor that the South Broadway Corridor Plan strongly encouraged the west side of Broadway remain residential. Taylor said it could be rezoned and Marty said it wasn’t what the citizens wanted.

Reports
Jim Woods – Next weeks’ meeting will be held at the museum as the City Center is a polling place and it is Election Day. There will be two issues on the agenda – The Southbridge Jamison Street Bridge and campaign finance issues.

Amy Conklin – Made a motion that the Council adopt the ground rules from CAC. Cronenberger seconded. Clark said they already had a study session and thought they were to revisit the subject. Cronenberger agreed that the discussion was never completed but she did not think it would hurt to adopt CAC’s ground rules. Clark said he would prefer advance notice in order to have a proper discussion as to how they fit in with the Council’s procedures. His understanding, from the last discussion of Council norms, was that Kast and Taylor were going to meet with Berkowitz and come back with recommendations. Taylor said that Clark was correct and that the work with Berkowitz was not yet finalized. Taylor thought adopting the CAC ground rules was “jumping the gun” and that he would prefer to address the subject in a study session and not act on the motion. Ostermiller agreed saying they needed to spend an hour or two in a study session and see how it ties into their rules and procedures. Conklin, with Cronenberger’s approval, withdrew her motion.

Conklin gave the Council a “heads up” on a proposed ordinance she has been working on addressing environmentalism. (I was unable to understand her exact words, as she was not speaking into the microphone.)

Conklin, who was absent when the South Bridge pool was talked about at the last regular meeting, thought it would be a “really good thing” if the City stepped in to mediate. She wanted to know what the City could do.

Woods told Council that there has been a rezoning application for the property. In the Council packets they should have found a history of the property that was put together by a citizen. The citizen did not make a specific request for the City. Woods had a concern that since there was an active rezoning application Council should not get involved. Conklin asked if the City had any responsibility?

Woods said if they go back to the 1977 and 1978 minutes it is very clear that the facility is a private facility. Four or five years ago So. Suburban looked at the property but it was too expensive. Since that time So. Suburban has closed two neighborhood pools and Woods doubts that So. Suburban would have any interest in the property under the current situation. Woods did not believe the City has a responsibility to step in.

Clark’s understanding is that community members were to be included on the Board and he wasn’t certain that that had happened.

Woods said the agreement was to have citizens on an advisory board and they were to provide advice on the operation of the facility.

Conklin continued to push support for the City’s involvement with mediation and Taylor responded that they need to be careful in what they authorize staff to do. Ostermiller said this is a personal property rights matter and they can’t encroach on anyone’s personal property rights.

Cronenberger said that the zoning hearing needed to be productive and asked if mediation would make it “less of a train wreck?”

Kast asked how mediation on the Southbridge property would be any different than with WalMart?

Conklin thought it was special case since it had gone on so long, there’s good documentation and good will on both sides. She thought it would be an opportunity.

Kast said they needed to hear from Berkowitz saying to get involved would be different from anything they have done before.

Cronenberger asked the staff, “What can be done to make the rezoning more productive? Think about it.”

Brad Bailey, a City attorney, said that given the nature of the beast they are not productive.

Pat Cronenberger – She has asked other council members to be prepared for the budget hearings by submitting budget questions and issues to Woods prior to the hearings. She had 4 questions.

Doug Clark – He has come to the conclusion that the only way to “fix” the response time to the Trail Mark community is to put a substation out there. He requested budget data for a 24/7 operation, asked for data that might indicate that there might be a shift that can be omitted from the schedule. He is just asking for medical services at the substation.

Woods will prepare information on a full and partial service sub station.

Clark asked about the PEG account. Because Kelli Narde had suggested, at the July 18th meeting, the PEG money might be spent for something other than what it had been collected Mulvey asked her to fax him a copy of the franchise agreement that provided the language to support such an expenditure. Clark had received a copy and he did not see anything in the contract language that gives the City the permission to purchase equipment for something outside the realm of the contract. He asked for the specific language to be pointed out to him. He said “we can’t take a fee and transfer it into the general fund without converting it into a tax.” He wanted to know how that was any different than the water fund.

Kast said the Council didn’t do that – referring to allocating money for purposes other than equipment for cable services. (Actually Council did, the motion from the July 18th transferred the entire $117,000.00 from the PEG fund to the general fund to expend on video equipment for the City Center – not just the Council Chambers.) She then said she did not get the fax of the contract language.

Clark told Kast that they did (authorize money for purposes other than for cable equipment) and that was part of the problem. The Council authorized the expenditure of the PEG money and it (the spending) doesn’t come back to council.

Narde said she asked the attorney if the money could be used for any capital expenditure and the contract says that money can be spent at the city’s discretion. She saw a need and if the money isn’t spent in one year it has to be returned to the payees. The microphones and cameras are terrible in the police interview rooms but she is ready to “throw in the towel.”

Woods said he would get the facts all Council members and that Narde can get the advice from the attorney and comeback and explain how it is different than the water fund.

Kast asked him to include what money was spent, what is left and what are the future needs.

Tom Mulvey – His remarks and questions were going to be about the PEG money but he will wait until the information that is forthcoming.