Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-09-15 (Regular) Meeting Minutes1. Call to Order ENGLEWOOD CITY COUNCIL ENGLEWOOD, ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO Regular Session September 15, 2008 The regular meeting of the Englewood City Council was called to order by Mayor Woodward at 7:40 p.m. 2. Invocation The invocation was given by Council Member Mccaslin. 3. Pledge of Allegiance The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Council Member Mccaslin. 4. Roll Call Present: Absent: Council Members Jefferson, Moore, Penn, Oakley, Mccaslin, Wilson, Woodward None A quorum was present. Also present: City Manager Sears City Attorney Brotzman Deputy City Manager Flaherty City Clerk Ellis Deputy City Clerk Bush Director Gryglewicz, Finance and Administrative Services Director Kahm, Public Works Director White, Community Development Senior Planner Langon, Community Development Planner Bell, Community Development Director Black, Parks and Recreation Recreation Services Manager/Golf Spada, Parks and Recreation Recreation Program Administrator Rhoades, Golf Course Special Events Administrator McGuigan, City Manager's office Recreation Services Manager/Operations Hultberg, Parks and Recreation EMS/Emergency Management Coordinator Green, Fire Police Commander Sanchez 5. Consideration of Minutes of Previous Session (a) COUNCIL MEMBER OAKLEY MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLIN SECONDED, TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 2, 2008. Mayor Woodward asked if there were any corrections or modifications. There were none. Vote results: Motion carried. Ayes: Council Members Penn, Mccaslin, Moore, Woodward, Jefferson, Wilson, Oakley Nays: None Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 2 6. Recognition of Scheduled Public Comment (a) Mayor Woodward said Carolyn Armstrong of the Parks and Recreation Commission is present to award the Colorado Parks and Recreation Association's Community Service Awards. The recipients are Ouray Sportswear and Red Bird Farms. Ms. Armstrong said I am a member of the Parks and Recreation Commission. I am also a retired Colorado State Park Ranger and, as such, I was a member of the Colorado Parks and Recreation Association for many, many years. The Colorado Parks and Recreation Association is a group of park and recreation professionals from the State, local and Federal level and there are also quite a few private folks who provide recreation. One of the things that CPRA does and they have a huge awards program, because they believe strongly that we are all in this together and they believe strongly that we need to honor those folks who help us get our mission of parks and recreation accomplished. Right before I retired from being a Colorado State Park Ranger, I had the privilege of being the awards chair. So, I am extremely familiar with their awards and one of the awards they have is the CPRA Community Service Award. This is not a competitive award. You do not have to compete against anyone to get this award. However, the requirements you need to qualify for this award are quite extensive. So, parks and recreation agencies can nominate members of their community, folks that they are aware of that have helped meet the needs of parks and recreation in the communities. The City of Englewood Parks and Recreation staff nominated two different groups this year, for this award. Both of them were found worthy of receiving this award. So it is my pleasure to present those tonight and the first award goes to Ouray Sportswear. Mark Musselman, who is the representative from Ouray Sportswear, could not be here tonight and so we presented this award to him at the Englewood Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting on Thursday night. So I will very quickly let you know what this award is about. Ouray Sportswear has been key to the success of the City of Englewood Parks and Recreation Department's annual fitness challenge. The donation of several thousands of dollars of apparel and merchandise has enabled the program to grow to 590 annual participants in just four years. Ouray management is always willing to support Parks and Recreation programs, particularly those relating to sports and fitness. The Parks and Recreation Department is fortunate to have such an active corporate partner within the community. Again, that award was given to Mark, Thursday night at the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting. The second award I'm pleased to tell you about, is to Red Bird Farms. If I could have Mayor Woodward and Lo and Sheri Mielke join me at the podium. Let me tell you about Red Bird Farms. Red Bird Farms has been a major supporter of the City of Englewood's Department of Parks and Recreation programs and special events. For several years, Red Bird Farms management and staff have volunteered, sponsored and donated delicious food, with enthusiasm, professionalism and outstanding customer service. Red Bird has provided their signature, natural chicken sandwiches and beverages for the hole-in-one Junior Golf Program, the City picnic, several fund raising events in support of the Summer Concert Series, and the FunFest. Englewood Parks and Recreation is fortunate to have such a willing and committed partner in support of Parks and Recreation activities. So what we have for you ... and I will let Mayor Woodward do the presentation ... there are two things. One is a plaque that lists what I just read and the qualifications in order to be able to win this award. The second is a plaque that reads: Community Service Award, The Colorado Parks and Recreation Association, along with the City of Englewood Parks and Recreation Commission do hereby acknowledge, appreciate and recognize the efforts of Red Bird Farms to improve and enhance parks and recreation in this community. Let me offer the microphone, very quickly, to Mr. Mielke, if he would like to say something. Mr. Mielke said thank you very much for the honor of this award and congratulation on your fantastic golf course and an equally fantastic practice arena. And best of all, because of time constraints, a fantastic Par 3, which I try to get on as often as I can. You have a fantastic staff at the course ... Bob, Shannon, Robert and Mike ... well, Mike is retired now ... it's a great crew and they are fun to work with and we always look forward to the Junior Golf Program. So, congratulations to your staff and a great golf course. Mayor Woodward said I would like to congratulate you. This is the second time ... being on the Parks and Rec Commission, that I have heard about the golf course, in the last week. Ouray Sportswear was right there to compliment us and they also talked about how they have utilized the golf course. So, congratulations and I would like to present this Community Service Award for Colorado Parks and Recreation Association, along with Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 3 the City of Englewood, Parks and Recreation Commission. Congratulations. Mr. Mielke said thank you very much. There was applause. · Ms. Armstrong said thank you very much and my thanks to the Englewood Parks and Recreation staff for taking the time out to reward their partners. Thank you very much. There was applause. Mayor Woodward said thank you Carolyn. (b) Mayor Woodward said Michael Morton, Executive Director of the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce, is present to address Council regarding the upcoming Englewood Days event on October 4, 2008. Mr. Morton said the Greater Englewood Chamber of Commerce is putting on Englewood Days this year. It will be Saturday, October 41\ The location has been changed, for those of you that aren't aware of that. We are holding it in front of CityCenter. It will extend east, down the block and include the auxiliary parking lot that Wal- Mart is sharing with us for the actual car show down at that end. And then down at this end, in front of CityCenter, we will have food vendors and different booths for other non-food vendors. Also bands ... we will have a fairly large children's area going on all at the same time. The event is planned for 9:00 a.m. to, potentially, 9:00 p.m. Although, this time of the year, it is a little bit chilly, we probably won't be going as late as 9:00 p.m., but we do have all of our ducks in a row, as far as permission for doing that. Tonight, thank you for having me here in front of City Council. We are asking for the City's assistance in some of the following areas of the list that is in front of you. Several of these areas have been supplied in past years for Englewood Days. So, if any of you have any questions, I would be happy to answer those. Council Member Mccaslin said I have a question. It says City fees for booths ... Englewood businesses ... no costs. And down here it says City fees ... application .... Mr. Morton said that is just a listing of the fees ... what we are asking for ... as far as the booths go ... we have several different. .. well they are not really companies ... but the idea behind Englewood Days this year is part of the proceeds will benefit the Military Families Relief Fund in Colorado. There is a branch of the Military Relief Fund in every single State. What these folks do, is help returning vets that may have been disabled in the war ... things like that. .. to remodel their homes ... vets that are over fighting the war for us, sometimes their families cannot maintain a household ... they provide daycare and other different, essential things to these families. So what we would be asking is ... there are certain entities, such as the National Guard and the other branches of the service that will be showing up ... they will have booths, but they are giving us multiple volunteers. The National Guard is giving us 20 different volunteers that will help us with the event coordination and ... security. So, we don't want to then charge them for a booth ... fees for a booth. We also have ... I believe there are four different bands lined up right now. They are coming and playing for free, because it is for the military, so we don't want to charge them an event fee for these different groups that are volunteering to come in with their time and equipment ... whatever that may be ... to help us with the festival. Council Member Mccaslin said do you know how many vendors you have signed up now? Mr. Morton said we have several signed up now. I talked to two more today. We have maybe 10 in the background, that are not actually signed ... that are going to be participating with us. Sam's Club will be participating with us. The new Costco across Santa Fe, will be participating with us and we have several other, fairly large companies that are going to come in as sponsors. Council Member Mccaslin said I think last year there were over 120 cars ... I'm estimating ... I have no idea. Are we going to have that many this year? Mr. Morton said we hope to ... we have issued notices to several different car clubs that are in the City. We do have a parking lot, large enough to where we can hold approximately 225, 230 cars ... if they show up. One thing that is a variable in car shows, particularly at this time of the year ... in October ... is, if it is raining that day or if it is snowing, the cars probably won't come out. But we can still hold the festival, as far as the booths and the things at the other end ... the music, that type of stuff, we can still go on with , that. So, really, a lot depends on the weather. We are hoping to have a fairly large turnout. We also thought that we would have the antique fire engine down at the car show end, in the Wal-Mart parking lot, just for more entertainment down on that side. The military will also be bringing Humvees ... things like that, that kids can look at. .. that type of thing. Also, the Show Wagon would be used down in the car show parking lot, where we would Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 4 have a DJ ... who we already have taken care of ... or signed up. But he is volunteering his time for the whole day. That is sort of the main essence of that event. The event fees ... we didn't want to charge those that are volunteering for 8 hours ... all their equipment. .. things like that. .. and then start charging them fees on top of it. As far as the police officers ... when we met with the Police Department. .. they were saying that we need 6 police officers, to be staggered in through the day for the event ... that would work in conjunction with the National Guard that we have signed up to come in. Mr. Mccaslin said thank you. Mayor Woodward said do you have anything else Michael? Mr. Morton said that is pretty much it, unless you folks have any questions. We would sure like to have help from the City in pulling this off. Thank you very much. Doug Cohn said I did think of one other thing that you guys allowed us to use in years past. The mobile Cherrelyn Horse Car. It's been to two of the Englewood Days shows and it was a giant hit, as folks asked the drivers ... what is this thing? And we could describe what a wonderful piece of Englewood history it is. So, Michael can add that to the list. Mr. Morton said we certainly have room for it, if it is approved by Council. We could also include that as a bit of history for Englewood. Mayor Woodward said thank you. I'm sure this will come up under Council Member's Choice. Mr. Morton said thank you. Council Member Penn said thank you Mike. 7. Recognition of Unscheduled Public Comment Mayor Woodward said I see that there are a number of people that are signed up to. speak about the boarding house ordinance before us tonight. Please understand that there have been two public hearings on this matter. Council has received the minutes setting out the testimony from the hearing before the Plannin~ and Zoning Commission. Council also received testimony at the Public Hearing before us on September 8 . Council has received all the documents and reports submitted at those meetings. Council's decision will be based on that material and the testimony from those Public Hearings. This is an open meeting and you are free to speak. I would ask that you not simply repeat what you or others have said at the Public Hearings. Council policy limits presentations at this time to five minutes. That time may not be transferred ... with the approval of the rest of Council. I would ask that you stay on point, as you make your presentation. Council will not tolerate personal attacks. Such behavior will result in the loss of your privilege to continue speaking. Your presentation tonight is not under oath, as it was or would have been at the Public Hearing. Council will weigh that as you make your presentation. Again, this is your time to present and Council will not address questions at this time. Council is scheduled to discuss this later this evening and the decision will be voted on, one way or another, at that time. (a) Tara Kringstad said this is Brandy Bartholomew and we are sponsored by the Student Government Class at Englewood High School. This Friday we have the Englewood High School Parade for our Homecoming. We did meet with Officer O'Connor and Traffic Engineer Nick Johnson and decided on our route for this year and discussed the permit. We are going to keep the same route as we did last year. So the parade will start this Friday at 1 :30 at Englewood Middle School. It will head down Delaware, east on Tufts, south on Logan and then end at the Englewood High School parking lot. The reason for us being here tonight is we are asking for financial assistance in the amount of $273.00 to help offset the cost of barricades and the permit. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Mayor Woodward said thank you. (b) Doug Cohn, an Englewood resident, said I came to talk about 13 words. You guys have been working really hard on this rooming house thing. As I look over the print out of it in the newspaper ... I didn't count them, but I'm guessing there are 4,000 words. When constituents come and talk with you and bring an issue forward and they want a problem fixed and as a Council person you guys really want to work on those kind of things. Mostly, mostly ... that works. The issue with the 13 words is different. After 4,000 words ... 3,987 are okay. The 13 are the problem. We had a Public Hearing 13 days ago and for an hour and a half you guys ' Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 5 listened to lots and lots of conversation ... folks in favor, folks against. Heated discussions. It doesn't make any difference. The City talked to you about the ordinance and it was designed to repair a mistake ... an item left out in the 2004 UDC. We were just going to fix a problem that we had. It doesn't make any difference. Law abiding citizens relied upon the existing law and contracts were written based on the existing law. What you guys want to do here is make an after-the-fact law. That is going to be a really big problem. A retrospective law is one that takes away existing rights. It's a law that makes illegal, an activity that was legal before. One of the bus driver guys I work with ... a fellow named Rick ... grew up in Wheat Ridge. On his property they had three horses. As Wheat Ridge developed they decided they could no longer have horses in town and they passed a law saying you couldn't have any more horses. Everybody understood that his family could keep the horses. They made a special provision for those guys in grandfathering them in ... that the grandfathering goes with you. If you sell the house or get rid of the horses, then there won't be anymore horses. The grandfathering does not go with the land. He felt satisfied with that outcome. In 1760 a fellow named Adams brewed beer and he made lots of beer, made lots of money and people liked it. The King granted him a license to make the beer and he followed all the laws at the time. But then there was a problem. The King of England decided that he did not like Adams. He was a troublemaker. The King decreed that Adams must stop making beer and selling it and the King took his property and took his business. The law applied only to him and it took away his livelihood. All the other brewers could continue to brew beer. The law took away his existing rights by decree, when no crime had been committed. Mayor Woodward said please wrap up, you have one minutes. Mr. Cohn said one minute. I hope that you guys will talk with the City Attorney's Office and with the Community Development Office before you go ahead with this thing. This is clearly an unconstitutional law and may expose you guys to some possible legal consequences. There is a crime called malfeasance in office, where public officials make a conscious decision to violate ... to pass an unlawful law. That is what this one is and I hope you will talk about it some more. I think my time has expired. I will stop talking now. (c) Laurett Barrentine, an Englewood resident, said I am not here to talk to you specifically about the boarding house rule. I am going to try to backup a little bit of what Doug Cohn just said. I think if I could make it a little clearer for you ... that if you do this, if you ungrandfather somebody, that you are violating the law. That you should understand that you are not above the law. That you have a responsibility, as an elected official, to know the law. At the last meeting when some people were filming, you got legal advice from the City Attorney's Office, from Nancy Reid, telling you that you could go ahead and vote ... that Council or any board or commission could vote to exclude somebody from recording your meeting. You didn't vote. And the reason you didn't vote, is because the citizens stood up, with the law in their hand, refuted what she said, and she was silent. And you didn't vote, because she was wrong. You cannot hide behind your employees. Dan Brotzman is your employee, not the other way around. If this goes down ... the liability, the responsibility falls on your shoulders, not his. One of the reasons for that is that he does not see his position as an advocacy position. I believe that you are under some mistaken impression that he believes that he is supposed to stop you from doing anything that is wrong or illegal or that might cause the City problems. In a conversation shortly before I left Council. .. and I was unfortunate to have learned it so late ... I had a conversation with Dan about some issues and I asked him ... don't you believe that this could cause the City some liability, some problems in the future ... it violates private property rights with the Constitution ... or whatever it was that we were discussing. He said that was not his role. And I said then let me get this straight ... if Council wishes to do stupid, you will let them? And he said yes. You are obligated to know what you are doing, when you are elected. This is not learning on the job. There are two small books that would have avoided some of this problem. One is the Constitution ... its fairly small ... and the other is Robert's Rules of Order. An example tonight, Mayor ... is when you have an issue and you are going to change a process ... you can't do it the way you did. There has to be a motion, people have to vote. Every decision you make has to be on the record. Nothing that you do publicly can then be undone in private. And you have done it. You have ... time after time ... received questionable guidance from the City Attorney. That you follow it, is your fault. Not that he gives it. That you tolerate it is an issue of an employee/employer relationship and that is something you should address. I will just once again state ... you were obligated to know what you were doing when you were elected. That is what you promised people. Not that you would come to the aid and barricade up the City ... but that you would represent the constituents who elected you. That is all I have. Thank you. Mayor Woodward said thank you. Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 6 (d) Matthew Crabtree, an Englewood resident, said I would like to start off by saying thank you for your consideration, during the last Study Session, for extending the timeframe that audio recordings of these meetings are kept. This is a step in the right direction and a step towards furthering open government in the City. Although, the hesitation to extend this timeframe ... further than one year ... is a little puzzling. Many of you were adamant that the timeframe is only to be extended to one year and no longer. The topic at hand, really, is the Study Sessions and the most concerning point of all is that there are no written minutes produced from these Study Sessions. This leads me to two concerns regarding this matter. Number one, most of the discussions made, for each ordinance, are policy decisions made in Study Sessions ... and they seem to stay in Study Sessions. When those ordinances or policies are brought into Council Chambers ... not very often do you bring those discussions along with that. So, basically, this places the public, and even future Councils, at a disadvantage ... for not knowing how you came to the conclusion of the vote that you voted on here. Now, the second of my two concerns, like I said earlier, there are no written minutes made of Study Sessions, which means once those recordings of Study Sessions are destroyed all record of those meetings are gone. Now, I understand the City Attorney mentioned during that meeting on the i\ that Study Sessions are only for educational purposes of Council and there are no decisions during Study Sessions, which, according to the City Attorney is the reason why audio recordings can be destroyed and no written minutes have to be taken. But the fact is ... and this is what is interesting ... you have many times made decisions during Study Sessions. You just call these decisions something different. .. you call them a consensus. But the literal meaning of the word consensus ... a consensus is a decision. For clarification the definition of the word consensus is: "a method of making decisions through which a group strives to reach substantial, though not necessarily unanimous, agreement on matters of overall direction and policy which can be supported by all". That is a definition of the word consensus. So, if you are making a consensus ... which you have done countless times at Study Session ... you are actually making a decision in there, which renders the comments that Mr. Brotzman made during that Study Session, invalid. But the most interesting part is, once those audio recordings are destroyed there is no record of your consensus decisions. Which means if there is no record of your consensus decisions made during Study Sessions, then there is no record of the change being enacted. If there is no record of the change being enacted, then it is not legal and it does not exist. Just so you believe me ... I am going to reference the Colorado Open Meetings Law ... subsection number 8 and subsection number 2 ... that actually references this matter. We are going to start with subsection number 2 ... it pertains to the minutes. It says minutes of any meeting of a local public body, at which the adoption of any proposed policy, position, resolution, rule, regulation or formal action occurs or could occur, should be taken and promptly recorded and such recording shall be open to public inspection. Now I am going to jump to subsection number 8, where it states ... no resolution, rule, regulation, ordinance or formal action of the State or local public body shall be valid, unless taken or made at a meeting that meets the requirements of subsection 2. Where I am getting at, is that any time ... and I can count easily 1 O times over the last year ... you have made consensus decisions in Study Session ... those aren't legal and those can't be upheld in Court. If you don't believe me ... this is the absolute truth here. This law ... everybody, every elected official in the State of Colorado has to follow this and there are no exceptions and no questions to it. It is your responsibility to uphold the Constitution of the United States and this is in there. Dan Brotzman, at one point, had said, and this is concerning ... and regarding the Open Meetings Law ... Dan Brotzman said at one point in response to Bob Mccaslin ... one of Bob McCaslin's comments or questions ... how Bob Mccaslin should be able to contact other Council members via telephone or whatever way ... Dan Brotzman said, well, the public would prefer that these comments would be made in the public arena. Well, it is not a matter of preference and I think that this is an example of Mr. Brotzman's ... of the way he looks at the law. And I am really concerned. So, I would like to jump forward real fast and real quick leave you with a topic regarding open meetings that I found interesting in a recent Denver Post article ... "for a democracy to work, people need to have a stake in what their government is doing. We simply can't have government for the people, by the people unless people are informed." This also ties into the boarding house thing. How do you know that the legal advice that you have received to this point, regarding the boarding house matter and removing the grandfather clause, is legal? The Open Meetings Law hasn't been followed to this point. How do we know that the other advice is being provided? I thank you for your time. Mayor Woodward said thank you. (e) Robin Noffsinger, an Englewood resident, said I just have a few comments. As you know, a group of us attended the Public Hearing on September 2nd , regarding the proposed amendments of boarding and rooming houses. Our group tried to stay focused on the issues at hand, but it became apparent, as the Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 7 evening progressed, that this was nothing more than the Bartnicks, their friends, acquaintances and church members filling this meeting with false accusations and slanderous statements, towards my family and members of our group. We were accused of saying things that were not true. That we used friendships of Council to our advantage. When in fact, we tried to address our concerns with our own District Councilman Joe Jefferson first. Also, saying that my husband and I were personal friends with Gary Sears. When, in fact, we have been in contact with Mr. Sears twice on this issue of rooming and boarding houses. But the worst slander of the evening came from a former Council member here tonight. .. who does not even know us or has ever talked to us ... stating that we were racists. And all of this while they were under oath. But I ask you ... do we really expect anything different from this group of people? At what point does all of this become a public nuisance? Obviously, there is no way to keep all parties happy and we don't envy Council's position. But I'm sure you don't envy my position ... being one of only two households next door to a rooming and boarding house in an R- 1-C District. Again, thank you for your time. Mayor Woodward said thank you. (f) Joanna Mulnix, an Englewood resident, said I would just like to express my opinion that I think R-1 residential zoning has, historically, always meant one-family residential. And I would hope that it would stay that way. Also, I would like to resubmit this neighborhood petition regarding the skate park at Cushing Park, I would like to ask that Council, again, read the petition and return it to the City Manager. Cushing Park seems to be getting the reputation of an unsafe, drug park. And our mutual goal is a safe, clean, drug-free residential area. Thank you. Mayor Woodward said thank you. (g) Frank DeHoff, an Englewood resident, said I came before you here and asked for some help to get my alley fixed. Gentlemen, you don't have to worry about getting your shovels and wheelbarrows. It has been vastly improved. It is still a work in progress and I hope it will continue to improve. It is a lot better and, in fact, I noticed the Humvee salesmen are no longer bringing their customers down the alley after a rain. There was laughter. Mr. DeHoff said thank you again. Mayor Woodward and several Council members said thank you. (h) Miguel Drake, an Englewood resident, said thank you for your time and thank you so much for all the hard work that has gone into this. There has been an awful lot of rancor involved with the position regarding boarding houses in R-1. I really appreciate the effort and the pain that everybody in the City has gone through trying to deal with this problem. This could be about a lot of other things then it is. It could be about property rights usage and whether or not the property rights for a single person trump the property rights of their five neighbors. This could be about issues regarding what is appropriate. What it fundamentally comes down to is that in R-1, which is a single family zoning ... as currently coded ... you could have 4 bedrooms in a 4,000 square foot house, you could put 8 people in that house that turn over every 30 days. You could do that in 20 houses on a block. I ask if that is fundamentally R-1? Is this a use that is appropriate for a single family zone? I don't think so. Maybe in some places it is. Maybe in Glenwood it is. Maybe in ... I don't know ... Capital Hill it is. I used to live in the Baker neighborhood. I lived upstairs in R-1 in a 25 foot wide house. Maybe R-1 Dor R-2 D or whatever Denver calls it. It is an extremely high density area. That isn't where I chose to move. I moved into an area that was a house and a family, and a house and a family, and a house and a family. I really appreciate the defense of that neighborhood. And now we have a second issue and the second issue, of course, is that of the taking ... and that of the property rights of the individual. There are some constitutional issues there and it is worth noting however, that in the last three years the Supreme Court of the United States has decided that, in fact, it is okay to take from an individual property owner ... not to give to a City, not to give to a common jurisdiction ... but to give to a private redeveloper. I'm not saying that is right. All I am saying is it is something to be aware of when you are considering the legality of a taking. So, when it comes down to it, we have two fundamental issues. One is the first part ... the first part being the protection of R-1 and zoning. Which is, in fact, appropriate in my opinion. The second of which is whether or not the taking is appropriate. And in my opinion, if it is deemed to be legal and deemed to be defensible, then I think it should happen ... because in this particular situation what is happening is, in fact, damaging the neighborhood. Thank you. Have a good evening. Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 8 Mayor Woodward said thank you. (i) Paul Hendricks, an Englewood resident, said I didn't come here to say this, but since I'm here I can't resist a microphone ... you might say I am addicted to this stuff. It scared me the last three weeks and I just wanted to get it out in the open here ... that any one of you is just one lucky gubernatorial election from being one heartbeat away from that old man that has had cancer and make him President. So ... but then again most of you, with the exception of Jill ... aren't pretty enough to make that anyway. Did you get that? There was laughter. U) Rick Gillit, an Englewood resident, said I just wanted to remind this Council and remind this public that the Bartnick's won their court case. They have the legal right to do their business. The City lost and they won. I just wanted to remind everybody that that has already been set. I do want to say that I think the issue here is ... not that the Bartnick's made a mistake and not if the residents of this City are getting raw deal. Honestly, I see that this Council or this City made the error. The Bartnick's did what they thought was legal and actually these folks have the legal right to an R-1 District...okay. I am here to defend them then, in the sense that I live in an R-1 and I want my R-1 as well. But we also have to live with our decisions. Decisions were made, some time ago, to allow boarding houses in an R-1, by an oversight, not of the Bartnicks and not of these fine residents. I think it is important that this Council understand that the decision was made at the City level and it needs to be corrected at the City level. Let's do the right thing. I don't know what the true answer is. I have an idea. But I say, let's not punish somebody who did what they thought was right. Let's help the City from this point forward say ... I'm the City and we probably shouldn't start a new boarding home in an R-1 District, but definitely we have the moratorium, but no new ... l think we've done what we should have done as a City in that area. These people definitely have a right to be upset that the City had oversight. The last time we talked, some of the residents were very upset at those favoring the Bartnicks, and probably rightfully so ... and I'm sure that the Bartnicks were pretty upset that they put an investment by what they thought the City was allowing. So my address is to the City ... let's do the right thing, let's stand up and say if we made a mistake, we made the mistake ... let's make it right. And let's just assure the City that we are going to really focus on doing the right thing for them. Thank you. Mayor Woodward said thank you. 8. Communications, Proclamations and Appointments (a) A proclamation declaring September 17-23, 2008 as U.S. Constitution Week was considered. COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLIN MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON SECONDED, TO APPROVE A PROCLAMATION DECLARING SEPTEMBER 17-23, 2008 AS U.S. CONSTITUTION WEEK. Mayor Woodward asked if there was any discussion regarding the proclamation. Mayor Woodward said I find it ironic that the second item on this says "whereas it is of the greatest importance that all citizens fully understand the provisions and principles contained in the Constitution in order to support, preserve and defend the Constitution against all encroachment" and it goes on. With what has been going on over the past few months, it just kind of hit home. Vote results: Motion carried. Ayes: Council Members Penn, Mccaslin, Moore, Woodward, Jefferson, Wilson, Oakley Nays: None 9. Consent Agenda COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER PENN SECONDED, TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 9 (a) (i), (ii), (iii) and 9 (b) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv). ' Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 9 (a) Approval of Ordinances on First Reading (i) COUNCIL BILL NO. 62, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 3, CHAPTER 4, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000, ENTITLED "CITY OF ENGLEWOOD NONEMERGENCY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PLAN AND TRUST AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1999". (ii) COUNCIL BILL NO. 63, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD FIREFIGHTERS PENSION PLAN DOCUMENT (THE PLAN). (iii) COUNCIL BILL NO. 64, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD POLICE OFFICERS PENSION PLAN DOCUMENT (THE PLAN). (b) Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading (i) ORDINANCE NO. 48, SERIES OF 2008 (COUNCIL BILL NO. 53, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000 PERTAINING TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE 2008 (ii) ORDINANCE NO. 49, SERIES OF 2008 (COUNCIL BILL NO. 54, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF "THE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT" BETWEEN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD AND THE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR THE PURCHASE OF TECHNOLOGICAL TOOLS. (iii) ORDINANCE NO. 50, SERIES OF 2008 (COUNCIL BILL NO. 55, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER PENN) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A GRANT ENTITLED "STATE OF COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GRANT AND GRANT AGREEMENT (EMPG) WITH THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD". (iv) ORDINANCE NO. 51, SERIES OF 2008 (COUNCIL BILL NO. 56, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLIN) AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN EMS PROVIDER GRANT AWARDED BY THE STATE OF COLORADO TO THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD. Vote results: Motion carried. Ayes: Council Members Penn, Mccaslin, Moore, Woodward, Jefferson, Wilson, Oakley Nays: None (c) Resolutions and Motions There were no resolutions or motions submitted for approval. 10. Public Hearing Items Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 10 (a) Mayor Woodward said this is a Public Hearing to gather input on the City's Proposed Budget for 2009. Director Gryglewicz, being duly sworn, said this is a Public Hearing to gather citizen input on the 2009 Budget for the City of Englewood. I have just provided the City Clerk with a copy of the Notice of this Public Hearing that was published in the Englewood Herald on August 29, 2008, as well Proof of Publication on the City's Website from August 20, 2008 to September 14, 2008. The Proposed 2009 Budget was delivered to City Council on September 4, 2008. The City Charter requires Council to have the Budget on or before September 15th of the year. City Charter also requires Council to hold a Public Hearing within 3 weeks of the submission of the proposed budget. As I said, this is a Public Hearing to gather input on the Proposed 2009 Budget. City Council and staff will be having a Budget Workshop, September 20 th ... that's this Saturday at 8:30 ... in the Community Room. I will open it for input. COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLIN SECONDED, TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO GATHER INPUT ON THE CITY'S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2009 AND TO ACCEPT DIRECTOR GRYGLEWICZ'S TESTIMONY. Ayes: Council Members Penn, Mccaslin, Moore, Woodward, Jefferson, Wilson, Oakley Nays: None Motion carried and the public hearing opened. Mayor Woodward said we are open for questions for Mr. Gryglewicz. Mayor Woodward said I just want to mention that we have our retreat on Saturday the 20th here at CityCenter. And our General Fund ... right now we are showing uses exceeding sources by $800,000.00. And from what I see here ... the General Obligation Bond Fund has a $115,000.00 shortfall; our Capital Projects Fund ... has a $271,000.00 shortfall; and the Capital Equipment Replacement Fund ... has a $886,000.00 shortfall. So, obviously, we have our work cut out for us on Saturday. I think as everyone knows, we are required to have a balanced budget. So where the dollars come from or what we cut out is what we will be looking at Saturday. Mayor Woodward said are there any other comments? There were no other comments. Laurett Barrentine, an Englewood resident, being duly sworn, said since this is just the first reading and this will be going back again ... my question ... my comments are regarding the workshop. There was discussion over the 4 years that I was on Council, about this being a public record. This is not a workshop. All of the Council members attend, all of the Department heads attend ... Dan Brotzman, the City Attorney and Gary Sears, the City Manager are there. And decisions are made on how our money will be spent. I am asking that the meeting be recorded and that that recording then, be of the quality good enough so that there can be a public record or ... either/or ... that minutes are also taken ... or a recording ... one or the other or both would be great. You are spending our money and we would like to know how you are doing it and that requires that a reliable public record is available, so that we know how the meeting went ... so that we can understand what decisions are being made. Do I have a guarantee that you are going to follow the law .... and the Open Meetin'gs Law and that a record ... City Attorney Brotzman said Ms. Barrentine this is your opportunity to present to Council and any questions that you ask are treated as rhetorical. Ms. Barrentine said I hope that somebody will take the time to answer ... since that has been a bone of contention between the City Attorney and I ... that over the years, no recording was made, that the law wasn't followed. I think it is a legitimate question for me to bring up. I don't want the time to pass ... by the time the meeting is over, is not the time to bring it up. I hope somebody will address it during Council Choice. Thank you. Mayor Woodward said thank you. Mayor Woodward asked if there was anyone else who wanted to speak during the Public Hearing. There was no one. . Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 11 Mayor Woodward said I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON SECONDED, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO GATHER INPUT ON THE CITY'S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2009. Ayes: Council Members Penn, Mccaslin, Moore, Woodward, Jefferson, Wilson, Oakley Nays: None Motion carried and the public hearing closed. 11. Ordinances, Resolution and Motions (a) Approval of Ordinances on First Reading (i) Senior Planner Langon presented a recommendation from the Community Development Department to adopt a bill for an ordinance authorizing an amendment to Title 16: Unified Development Code establishing an exception to the minimum lot width and area requirements for subdivision of properties in all R-1 zone districts. She said this request is to approve the proposed amendments on first reading and set a Public Hearing on October 6, 2008 to consider public testimony on the proposed UDC amendments. The UDC establishes minimum lot widths and minimum lot areas in all zone districts. And section 16-8-4 (D) of the Code states that minimum dimensions of lots shall be in accordance with Chapter 16-6, Development Standards. The UDC also prohibits any variances to lot width or lot area. Therefore, no lots or parcels may be created in the City that do not meet the minimum lot width or the minimum lot area requirements. Over the years, the City has been approached by property owners wanting to subdivide parcels. But those parcels are just shy of those minimum standards. And, in all cases, we have had to $ay ... since the adoption of the UDC and the adoption of the no variance requirement. .. provide them a "no" answer to the request for subdivision. The proposed subdivision exception would apply only in the R-1 zone districts and allow up to a 5% reduction in lot width or lot area, for subdivision with properties. The proposed exception also requires a public notice ... that will be noticed by posting of the property and publication. It would also require a Public Hearing by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The prohibition of the variance ... there is a prohibition for variances to the exception. Therefore, the 5% could not be varied and the zone districts could not be varied. Also, there is a prohibition for side setback variances so that all side setbacks would still be the same under the proposed exception. And the lots would have the same side setbacks as all other lots in the districts. If you have any questions, I would be happy to address them. COUNCIL MEMBER OAKLEY MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON SECONDED, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 11 (a) (i) -COUNCIL BILL NO. 65 AND TO SET A PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 6, 2008. COUNCIL BILL NO. 65, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER OAKLEY A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, CHAPTER 8, SECTION 4, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000, ESTABLISHING AN EXCEPTION TO THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH AND AREA REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTIES IN ALL R-1 ZONE DISTRICTS. Council Member Wilson said I have a question. Will there be a Public Hearing before the Council? Ms. Langon said no. Right now it's set as just a hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Should there be any appeal, the appeal would go to Council. Ms. Wilson said okay. If people come and want to speak, they will have that chance to come to Council. Ms. Langon said if they formally appeal the decision of the Planning Commission. Ms. Wilson said okay. Will those people be notified at that time of how to go about an appeal or will they just inquire with you? Ms. Langon said they would generally inquire ... yes. Ms. Wilson said okay. Mayor Woodward said I have a question on what would be the third to the last page, under item D. Lot Design and Specifications. Under a, number (2) ... the third to the last line ... "or by any resident of the City". I'm wondering if that word resident should be "any real property owner in question"? Ms. Landon said that language mimics all other sections of the Code, of the UDC. It is something we could certainly look at. The reason that Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 12 was written that way was just to mimic all the other sections of the UDC that talk about initiation of an action. Mayor Woodward said okay. So, Mayor Woodward said, there is a definition that we have of a resident that... Ms. Langon said I don't believe we have a definition of resident, but I understand your issue of a property owner ... a property owner may not be a resident. He said my issue is that a tenant or somebody else may not be the owner of the property. Ms. Langon said right, but a tenant would be a resident of the City. I believe ... it says "initiated by those parties identified in Section 16-2-3 (A)". I believe that also identifies property owners. Ms. Langon said 16-2-3 (A) says that an application for review or approval, under this Title, shall be filed by a person having legal authority to take action in accordance with the approval sought. Those persons include: 1. the record owner of the property and 2. a purchaser under a sale authorized in writing to do so, 3. an agent of the record owner authorized in writing to do so, or 4. any other party specifically identified as being eligible to file a particular type of application in this Title. So, as 16-2-3 (A) says that an application could be initiated by any of those people or any resident of the City. It's pretty broad. Mayor Woodward said, Dan ... with "any resident of the City", could we get into ... for example ... what we were talking about in years past, under historical designation ... "any resident"? Are we dealing with property rights there, when we say "any resident"? City Attorney Brotzman said that term is traditionally, in terms of appeals, it makes sense to let neighbors appeal certain decisions. In this particular circumstance, as broad as 16-2-3 (A) is, you could probably stop it right there and eliminate ... "or by any resident of the City". That way you have included all property owners or anybody with an interest in the property. Since you are talking about actually subdividing land, you want them to have an interest in the land that they are actually subdividing. Mayor Woodward said rig ht. Mayor Woodward said I guess I would propose that we amend it after EMC, and delete "or by any resident of the City". Does that work? City Attorney Brotzman said yes, and you will need a motion to amend. Mr. Woodward said okay. Council Member Wilson said so, you want to put a period after EMC? Mayor Woodward said correct. Ms. Wilson and erase the rest of that sentence? Mr. Woodward said correct. .. delete the end ... "or by any resident of the City". Mayor Woodward asked if there were any questions. There were none. COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER PENN SECONDED, TO EDIT SENTENCE IN EMC 16-8-4 D (1) (a) (2), TO END THE REFERENCE AT EMC, AND ADD A PERIOD AND DELETE "OR BY ANY RESIDENT OF THE CITY". Mayor Woodward asked if there was any other discussion. There was none. Vote results: Motion carried. Ayes: Council Members Penn, Mccaslin, Moore, Woodward, Jefferson, Wilson, Oakley Nays: None Mayor Woodward asked if there was any other discussion or questions regarding Agenda Item 11 (a) (i). Mayor Woodward said I have another question, just a question. During the P & Z Hearing, Mr. King had brought forward the parking for R-1-C lots ... that had been reduced. He had suggested that if the property has alley access it must have a rear loading garage. Did a P & Z Study Session address this at all? That's just a question. Senior Planner Langon said can you direct me to the area in the minutes ... I am not familiar ... I don't recall that. The page numbers are at the top of the minutes. Mayor Woodward said on page of 8 at the August 19, 2008 P Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 13 & Z Public Hearing, the second to last paragraph: "Mr. King would like to see in the amendment the fact that if the property has alley access it must have a rear loading garage to minimize the impact of the garages on the front of the house if the lots are going to be a little smaller." It goes on there and that was going to be brought back at another time. Mr. King withdrew his motion so that could be brought back. Ms. Langon said that has not been brought back yet. The Commission is going to talk about that in context of all design, within all zone districts. Mayor Woodward said okay ... thank you, That is all I have. Vote results on the approval of Council Bill No. 65, as amended and setting the Public Hearing for October 6, 2008: Ayes: Nays: Motion carried. Council Members Penn, Mccaslin, Moore, Woodward, Jefferson, Wilson, Oakley None Ms. Langon said thank you. (ii) Director Gryglewicz presented a recommendation from the Finance and Administrative Services Department to adopt an emergency bill for an ordinance authorizing and approving the issuance of Private Activity Bonds for capital improvements at various Boy Scouts of America sites. He said they are a non- profit organization and the tax code allows the City to issue those Bonds on behalf of all the non-profits. This allows them to issue bonds and do Capital Projects at an interest free rate on their debt, which lowers their cost and they can do more projects. This is an issue that is solely repaid and it's an obligation just for the Boy Scouts. They will pay us a fee to do this and our out-of-pocket costs. And in compliance with tax laws, there will be a Public Hearing on this issue, October 1st at 2:00 p.m. in the City Manager's Conference Room. COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLIN MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON SECONDED, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 11 (a) (ii) -COUNCIL BILL NO. 67. COUNCIL BILL NO. 67, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER McCASLIN A BILL FOR AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE BY THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO OF A REVENUE BOND (DENVER AREA COUNCIL, BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA PROJECT) SERIES 2008 IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,000,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING CERTAIN FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS; APPROVING A RELATED FINANCING AGREEMENT AND A BOND TO BE ISSUED THEREUNDER AND AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF SUCH FINANCING AGREEMENT, BOND AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS; MAKING FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH FINANCING AND THE BOND; AND REPEALING ALL ACTION HERETOFORE TAKEN IN CONFLICT HEREWITH AND DECLARING AN EMERGENCY. Mayor Woodward asked if there were any questions. There were none. Mayor Woodward said just to reiterate Frank ... the City does not take on any responsibility for the repayment of the debt or pledge. Mr. Gryglewicz said no.;. it is solely the obligation of the Boy Scouts of America. Mayor Woodward asked if there was any other discussion. There was none. Vote results: Motion carried. Ayes: Council Members Penn, Mccaslin, Moore, Woodward, Jefferson, Wilson, Oakley Nays: None (b) Approval of Ordinances on Second Reading Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 14 (i) Council Bill No. 38, amending the Unified Development Code relating to boarding or rooming houses was considered. Mayor Woodward said I would like to open this up for discussion. We have had a Public Hearing with lots of discussion and public comments. We have had a Public Hearing through P & Z. Council Member Wilson said I have something to say. I would like to speak briefly about the Public Hearing. There were many accusations thrown around two weeks ago. First, about staff ... since I have been on Council, I have requested many items from staff. They have done many times more than I wanted. Second, I feel it is better to work cohesively with your colleagues. It is important to treat staff and Council members with respect, instead of bullying tactics. I was concerned to see some citizens use this time to get off topic and, in my opinion, grandstand for his or her own agendas. The process is not always perfect. Many issues have to change with the times. However, what I do know is, there are those who do and then there are those who complain. Perhaps it would be a better use of time if the naysayers were doers. That's all I have. Mayor Woodward said thank you. Mayor Woodward asked if there were any other comments. Council Member Mccaslin said I would like to say there was an oversight in the ordinance regarding boarding houses in the R-1 Zone in Englewood. It is unfortunate that citizens in that residential zone are forced to live next door to a boarding house, due to that oversight. This is an example of abiding by the letter of the law, but not by the spirit of the law. Mayor Woodward said is there anything else? Mayor Woodward said I would like to make a comment that I certainly believe that R-1 Districts are single-family residential districts. That's what they were intended to be, that's what they were prior to the UDC, that's what they typically are ... they are for families. I think back in 2004, when the UDC was completed, there, obviously, was an error. If there is any blame here, it encompasses a whole lot of people. I know there was an apology by one of the members on P & Z board ... that said they felt responsible for missing that. I know that there is one Council member left on Council today that voted on the UDC. One of the Council members that spoke here tonight and at the last meeting ... was on that board. The UDC passed 7-0. There were Public Hearings, there were discussions and there was plenty of work done on the UDC. It is a very fluid document, a very large document. There was an error and with an error and with the law being what it is, I do believe that when there is an error and the law is changed, grandfathering is the appropriate thing to do, in that specific case. Grandfathering ... it isn't a blanket thing, where you are just grandfathered in. There are different types of grandfathering that happen. Certainly on different types of land issues and codes, building codes ... that sort of thing. So, I know the P & Z .... and what was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission was a grandfathering for R-1 Districts ... and the conditions for all the zone districts that it would be approved in. I tend to believe that ... again, as I stated, boarding or rooming houses in future R-1 zone districts are not appropriate. In this particular case, I do believe that there should be a grandfathering of this particular one that we know of. We heard, last meeting during the Public Hearing, about 20 ... and that had come from the local newspaper ... I also understand the local newspaper knows nothing about 20 rooming houses. I feel like there was a lot of emotional stuff. In going through the minutes of the last meeting, there was a lot of pulling out and getting the emotional stuff out and digging into what the objective stuff was. Personally, I feel for people in an R-1 District where there is a rooming and boarding house ... however, in all fair conscience, that would be my position. Although, that is not what is on the table. Mayor Woodward said are there any further comments. Council Member Oakley said I'm a little confused. Have we called for a motion. Mayor Woodward said we have not called for a motion. Mr. Oakley said I was going to wait for discussion after the call for the motion. COUNCIL MEMBER MOORE MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON SECONDED, TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 11 (b) (i) -COUNCIL BILL NO. 38. Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 15 COUNCIL BILL NO. 38, INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILSON A BILL FOR AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 16, CHAPTERS 5, 6 AND 11, OF THE ENGLEWOOD MUNICIPAL CODE 2000 RELATING TO BOARDING OR ROOMING HOUSES IN THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. Council Member Oakley said I have some of the same feelings you have and I made up my mind, as to what is fair, a long time ago ... regardless of what was said here. Grandfathering is an important part of things we do and it is, many times, a fair thing to do. That is what I based my opinion on. I think with that. .. I'll pass it on. Council Member Jefferson said it was also a difficult decision for me. I saw all the different sides to this issue. It was, obviously, an emotional issue for many of the folks involved. I do see a burden on neighbors ... potential boarding houses ... it was not foreseen that boarding houses would be allowed in R-1. But I also see the opposite side ... a landowner's rights to use their property ... once those rights have been granted ... whether advertently or inadvertently. And I think both sides presented some reasonable arguments that boil down to ... the government messed up, they should make this right ... or ... government messed up and they shouldn't infringe on the rights of that individual. I had to sort of take a step back ... as Jim did ... when we were looking through some of the arguments in the Public Hearing and decide what is best for the policy of the City and what is best for everyone in the City. Outside of what is going on, on Pearl Street ... even though that is an important consideration as to what is going on. I do feel that there is a burden on the neighbors. However, I feel that burden is outweighed by a burden on the individual, if this ordinance were to pass as written. I think that the bill, as written, would be a domain action, a retroactive law and dangerously close to a bill of attainder ... which would be law against a single individual ... as we only know of one boarding house in this area. The ordinance, as written, would also leave us with large liability concerns and could force very costly litigation for the City. Again, I am concerned also about the rights of the neighbors ... forcing the burden on them, to bear the burden of a mistake made by the City. I have thrown out there the possibility for a win-win situation, where the neighbors wouldn't have to bear that burden and I think that is worth pursuing, regardless ... well ... worth pursuing if the grandfathering clause were allowed back into the ordinance. That being said I would like to make a motion to amend the current ordinance as it stands, to allow back in the grandfathering clause, with some stipulations on clarification of what the 60 day rule would be for folks who would be allowed that grandfathering. COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER OAKLEY SECONDED, TO AMEND AGENDA ITEM 11 (b) (i) -COUNCIL BILL NO. 38, TO ALLOW BACK IN THE GRANDFATHERING CLAUSE, WITH SOME STIPULATIONS ON CLARIFICATION OF WHAT THE 60 DAY RULE WOULD BE FOR FOLKS WHO WOULD BE ALLOWED THAT GRANDFATHERING. Council Member Oakley asked if it would be appropriate for the Clerk to read this. Council Member Jefferson said I think so, being as it wasn't provided to the public. City Clerk Ellis read: "Section 6. Grandfathering an existing boarding or rooming house. For all zone districts, existing Boarding or Rooming Houses may be "grandfathered" under his Ordinance. To qualify as "grandfathered" and therefore not required to have an initial Conditional Use Permit hearing; the applicant for "grandfathering" shall register as an existing use and provide the following within sixty (60) days of final passage of this Ordinance: 1. Proof acceptable to the City Manager or designee that the use was operating prior to the date of the passage of Ordinance No. 23, Series of 2008, entitled "AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OR MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW 'ROOMING OR BOARDING HOUSE' USES FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS" 2. Proof acceptable to the City Manager or designee of compliance with all provision of 16-5-2 (A) (7), E.M.C., Use Specific Standards for Boarding or Rooming House. 3. Proof acceptable to the City Manager or designee of final inspection and approval of all applicable City permits and licenses required for the property or structures; including, but not limited to any required or outstanding permits relating to the International Series of building and safety codes as adopted by the City." Mayor Woodward asked if there was any discussion on that language. Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 16 Council Member Moore said I have some questions. Mr. Brotzman may I clarify that the original ordinance in front of us ... if we were to pass it, as written, would be a legal amendment... Council would not be acting with malfeasance if we were to pass it as written? City Attorney Brotzman said that is correct. There are certain ramifications that may flow from passing it and there may be certain liabilities that flow from passing the ordinance, but it is a legal document. · Council Member Moore said I will not be supporting the proposed amendment. It is an extremely difficult decision for me, but I have repeatedly held that Council in my tenure and, what I understand about the history before it, has always protected its R-1 Districts. This situation is a terrible situation for us to be in, but I am compelled to do what I feel is necessary to continue to protect our districts and I believe it is an absolutely ... maybe there are some courtroom arguments for it ... but it is morally inappropriate to characterize this as some right that is vested and was relied upon, as an after the fact determination, as this process unfolded ... eventually revealed an error that was made, as the Mayor characterized, and I will stand behind efforts tonight to correct that error. I will take this opportunity to also comment on the Public Hearing process. In my time on Council I have really respected when the public has come out and participated. This Public Hearing process has bothered me because of the degree of personal attacks, character assassinations, irrelevant character elevations, citizens accusing a group of people here that have chosen to give much of their personal life to act in the best interest of the City. For someone to suggest that we are acting with anything other than an intent to best serve the City is disappointing, to put it mildly. And some characterizations by former Council members of the process are not exactly accurate, so tonight I will not be supporting this amendment. I will be supporting the passage of the ordinance as written. I will do it with full confidence in the service that this Council gives its City, full confidence in the process that was set up for governing this City and, Mr. Brotzman, I will do it with full confidence of the advice that the City Attorney's office provides Council on a day-to-day basis. So, with that, you will understand why I will be voting no. Thank you. Mayor Woodward said thank you. Are there any other comments? Council Member Penn said I thought about this for quite some time. John, I'm glad you came out with that, because R-1 is for single-families and I would back what John just said. Mayor Woodward asked if there were any other comments. Mayor Woodward said I will support Joe's argument. .. as I believe there was a glitch and I believe everybody, starting with Council. .. going backwards to staff, P & Zand the public ... that were here in the City, that didn't catch this ... are responsible. I think we are all responsible. Mayor Woodward said unless there is further comment we are voting on Joe's amendment only. Vote results on approval of the amendment to Council Bill No. 38: Ayes: Council Members Mccaslin, Woodward, Jefferson, Wilson, Oakley Nays: Council Members Penn, Moore Motion carried. City Attorney Brotzman said now you need to vote on the Ordinance as amended. Mayor Woodward said we are now voting on the Ordinance as amended, unless there is further discussion. Council Member Moore said I would like to clarify something. I will be voting for this Ordinance as amended. Although I did not support the amendment, I respect the process of Council and will vote for the Ordinance as amended, as opposed to doing nothing at all. City Clerk Ellis said Dan, I just have a question. This is a substantive change, so it becomes amended on first reading and we will have final reading at the next meeting? City Attorney Brotzman said that is correct. Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 17 Council Member Moore said Dan, do I need to re-move this, clarifying that this now goes to first reading? This will count now as first reading, so we will, if it passes, need to vote again on it at the next Council meeting. City Attorney Brotzman said correct. Mayor Woodward said are there any other comments or discussion? Council Member Oakley said just for clarification ... this is a vote for first reading? City Attorney said no, this is a vote for a Council Bill as amended. He said you approved the amendment, that piece, now you are voting on the entire Council Bill as amended. Council Member Oakley said I guess I have a couple more things. It has been an unpleasant process. I too ... respect the zoning that we have and it should remain that way. The rest of this will do that, but I still felt that if we had made the mistake and it had been proven and to do something like this and put us in jeopardy of having to spend taxpayers money for one of our mistakes ... I wasn't able to support. So, that is why I am voting the way I am. Mayor Woodward said are there any other comments? Council Member Mccaslin said I agree. I go with what Wayne said ... I don't agree with what is happening, but I have to agree with the process ... that we made the mistake and we have to fess up to it and it is just a shame that the people are out there and they have to live next door to a boarding house in R-1, which is single-family dwelling. I didn't hear from anybody last year about this, as far as on the opposing side, as far as why we should allow boarding houses ... we had a few discussions ... but no one called me. I didn't get a lot of phone calls saying "Mr. Councilman how do you feel?" My phone is open. I was asked a couple of times, I told a couple of people I would be glad to have this discussion, but nobody fessed up. I really feel bad for people who live in that block. Unfortunately, I have to agree with you Wayne ... I think we have to live up to our mistake. Council Member Wilson said I just wanted to say I am sorry and I do feel bad for the people who have to live next to the boarding house. But I am in agreement with the new amendment. .. the change. Mayor Woodward said are there any other comments. There were none. Mayor Woodward said would you please vote on the amended Council Bill. Vote results on approval of Agenda Item 11 (b) (i) -Council Bill No. 38, as amended: Motion carried. Ayes: Council Members Penn, Mccaslin, Moore, Woodward, Jefferson, Wilson, Oakley Nays: None (c) Resolutions and Motions There were no resolutions or motions submitted for approval. 12. General Discussion (a) Mayor's Choice (i) Mayor Woodward said I want to make a few points. What was said last week by a former Council member regarding this expenditure of money ... $350.00 an hour, hiring an attorney ... that is not the case. We have not hired any attorneys at $350.00 an hour. With regard to the signage code ... we won that case. That case is now in appeal. But we won the case. With regard to Judge Atencio making a ruling on the boarding house ... Judge Atencio did not make a ruling ... that was a plea made by the prosecutor. There was a substitute attorney from the City of Littleton. It was an arrangement where we did not pay him to do that because, I believe ... and correct me if I am wrong ... our City Attorney, basically, had a complaint against him, so he removed himself from the case. So some of these things that have been said are just not so. They are not Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 18 correct and I think it is only appropriate when somebody who has actually voted, had the opportunity to vote for this and voted for it... admits that and stands up and doesn't turn toward the crowd, but stands up and says she made a mistake also. (b) Council Members' Choice (i) Council Member Penn: 1. He said congratulation to Ouray Sportswear and Red Bird Farms. 2. He said I know we have supported Englewood High School Parade in the past, but I do not know where that was budgeted last year. I think it has been budgeted many times before. City Manager Sears said I can't say right off the top of my head. I know we have done that and paid for that in the past. I assume that it was budgeted for this year under our $1,000.00 account that we have. Council Member Penn said even though they are not going down Broadway ... which is always a great thing for Englewood High School. .. being the only City to have their homecoming go down "main" street. .. I would like to make the following motion: COUNCIL MEMBER PENN MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER MCCASLIN SECONDED, TO APPROVE TO SUPPORT THE ENGLEWOOD HIGH SCHOOL WITH THEIR PERMITS AND ANYTHING ELSE THEY NEED FOR THE PARADE, COSTING ABOUT $273.00. Mayor Woodward said I guess I would ask the question ... where does that come from? Council Member Penn said I just asked Gary. City Manager Sears said Rick is here. Rick, I don't know if you can respond to that. I don't actually know where the line item is, but I know that we have approved that in the past. Director Kahm said that funding is available in our Public Works Department funding ... traffic control. So we can handle that very easily ... we have for many, many, many years. Mayor Woodward asked if there were any other questions or discussion. There were none. Vote results: Motion carried. Ayes: Council Members Penn, Mccaslin, Moore, Woodward, Jefferson, Wilson, Oakley Nays: None 3. He said I would like to make a motion ... and again ... I do not know where all this funding came from ... we would have to ask Mr. Cohn where he got funding last year from Englewood for putting on Englewood Days. I will move what Michael put before us and then hopefully somebody will second it and can either discuss it or not discuss it. COUNCIL MEMBER PENN MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER OAKLEY SECONDED, TO APPROVE WHAT MICHAEL MORTON PUT BEFORE US REGARDING ENGLEWOOD DAYS. Council Member Penn said, again, I have no idea where all this funding came from last year. So Gary if you can help us with this. City Manager Sears said I have talked to the Directors and I know Brook can maybe help me out with this. My understanding is that a lot of this has already been budgeted. I know the Police have already calculated it in from last year. The other amounts ... Council certainly has a reserve you could go to if we don't have the line Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 19 items there ... you could always tap into that. But I believe that the majority of this is already ... we just transferred the same amount last year into this year's account, so we should have adequate funds. Brook is that correct? Planner Bell said I believe I have the same list you do and I can go through each of those by line item. I was not able to find the exact notes ... but I have some notes from last year. I believe I can recreate what Council waived last year and the dollar amounts associated with that. I don't know which individual funds it came out of, but I can go through those amounts. It appears that for this year's event, their request for Police Officers is $2,625.00. In 2007 Council approved up to $1,300.00 in expenditures on Police Officers ... at least in 2007. The next item ... in terms of the staffing for the Fire Department's Antique Engine ... that was waived. So the request this year does equate ... it was waived in 2007. The request this year is for $696.00 ... again, that was waived last year. The Show Wagon in 2007 ... the rental fee was waived, but the set-up costs were paid by Englewood Days, if I am correct. This year the estimated set-up costs are $350.00 to $500.00. The rental fee this year is $400.00, so that rental fee was waived in 2007. The barricades ... a portion of the barricades ... were supplied last year by Public Works and there was a cost of $300.00 for that and that was waived. So that is the same request for this year. The Temporary Use Permit of $75.00 was waived in 2007 and that is requested to be waived this year. This year, Englewood Days is requesting to waive the Amphitheatre fee of $75.00. That was not applicable last year ... there was no Amphitheatre use for the event. This year there is a request tO waive $150.00 for a banner across Broadway. That was waived in 2007. In terms of the City fees for booths and sales and use tax deposits, event fees and application fees ... to my knowledge that was not waived in 2007. Parking lot and street sweeping ... the request this year is for $120.00 ... to my knowledge that was waived last year. In 2007 the parking lot and street sweeping was waived. The traffic controls inspections and coordination was waived in 2007. That request is for about $350.00. The motorized horsecar, which is estimated at $300.00 ... was waived in 2007, as well. I think that is all the items. Council Member Jefferson said which ones weren't waived? I think it was the Amphitheatre fee. Mr. Bell said that is correct and the set-up costs for the Show Wagon ... of about $350.00 to $500.00. I don't believe those were waived in 2007. [Clerk's note: Several Council members spoke at once. It was determined that the amphitheatre was not part of the 2007 Englewood Days.] City Manager Sears said the City fees for the booths ... basically that is sales tax and Council did not waive that last year. Mr. Cohn was here during that time. Council Member Penn said is that only applicable to businesses outside the City of Englewood? City Manager Sears said no, unless the Council waives the sales tax fees for any vendor, the sales tax will have to be paid. Council Member Wilson said the other thing is ... you said last year that the Police Officers were $1,300? Mr. Bell said that is correct. Ms. Wilson said are they asking for more? Mr. Bell said the request for this year is more officers that are being requested and recommended by the Police Department. So, the estimate for this year's staffing of Police Officers is $2,625.00 ... last year the staff expense estimate was $1,300.00 or less. Mayor Woodward said it is a longer period of time. Council Member Penn said I also think they are covering more territory than they did last year, so we have to have more officers on site, also. Ms. Wilson said thank you. Council Member Oakley said the areas where he has asked us to waive fees, as far as some of the people that were coming in and volunteering, he wasn't wanting to put a double whammy on them ... that was one of the primary areas I see ... because all of these other fees that the Departments are being asked to put an expense ' on ... given a years time, this is considered part of doing business, because there could be many things come up during the year that you can spend this kind of money on ... so, this is really not that big of a deal ... in my opinion. Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 20 Michael Morton said I would like to clarify the booth issue. We are not asking for any abatement of the City fees for anyone that is selling anything. These are merely for volunteers. We were told by the City that if a band comes in they have to pay a fee just to appear at the event. Since they are volunteering their time, they are not selling anything ... we would like for them not to have a fee. Consequently, also with the booths, if the National Guard would like to set up a booth to advertise or recruit or whatever ... and they are supplying us with all of these multiple volunteers so we do not have to ask the Police Department for additional officers ... we would like to be able to not have to charge them anything. They won't be selling anything. Any booth that is selling something, will have to register and pay the appropriate fees and taxes. These are only for volunteers that are volunteering their time. They are not selling anything whatsoever. So I just wanted to clarify that. Also, the Police Officers ... this was recommended by the Police Department. This is not a number that we came up with. We do agree with the number of Police Officers, but we did not come up with that, that was formulated by the Police Department for the area that would have to be covered ... that this would be the minimum requirement of 6 officers and they are being staggered in as they are scheduled. City Manager Sears said Mayor, if I could just mention that I think Michael covered the question about the booths. I know that in talking to Chief Vandermee that we won't see an increase in our costs as a result of that. And, as Council Member Oakley indicated, most of the Departments have built this in. Again, it has been the practice for any types of waiver fees, or City contributions, to bring it to City Council for approval. Mayor Woodward said just for clarification purposes ... under the banner across Broadway ... the cost of the actual banner was an expense of Englewood Days. The installation, in putting up and taking down, was provided by Public Works. Doug Cohn said that is correct. The City only waived the fee on putting it up and taking it down. We paid to have it manufactured and printed. Council Member Oakley said that is the same issue. Mr. Morton said yes, we will pay for the banner to be produced. We are just asking for the set up and take down. Mayor Woodward said the same thing with the Show Wagon. The rental fee was waived, the actual cost and time spent by the employees, overtime to come set up and then tear down at the end of the day, were charged back to Englewood Days. Mr. Cohn said yes that is correct. And as well, the towing charges from the towing company to haul the wagon back and forth. Council Member Oakley said that is what I was going to bring up. But this year you have a volunteer to do that? Is that correct? That is what it shows here. Council Member Penn said did Bob's Towing not waive that for you last year? Mr. Cohn said if you are interested I could e-mail you our income statement that has all the expenses written down. I don't remember specifically. The cost, with the employees for the stage ... last year, was in the ballpark of $425.00. Mr. Penn said thank you. Mr. Cohn said that was after you gave it to us free. So, Mayor Woodward said, that is right in that range of $350.00 to $500.00. Mr. Cohn said it seems like there were two or three employees plus the tow truck and I don't remember exactly how those were split out. Council Member Mccaslin said Doug, I know you spent a lot of time on this. I mean you were meeting with us all the time and updating us with everything that was going on ... and I haven't really seen the updates. I am kind of concerned about some of these charges that we are waiving and everything. Hopefully, it will be as big or bigger than it was when you had it. I don't know if there are any guarantees there, but I am looking for some guarantees ... maybe I shouldn't be but it kind of concerns me that we need to ... Michael, maybe I'll ask you. How do you feel ... are we on target as compared to last year? , . Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 21 Mr. Morton said well, as with anything ... we have changed the location and we've changed the date. We are sort of changing the focus of Englewood Days to be a more family friendly event. .. where the Car Show is not the main ... 90% of the focus. And the Chamber is just supplying the food, which is what it has been for, I guess, the last three years previous. So, as far as any guarantees, we can't really guarantee what will happen. Our whole idea behind this, since we took over this project. .. was to have a family friendly event. .. showcasing the City of Englewood at the same time. We are very fortunate, I think, to be able to get the approval, to put it down in front of CityCenter, have the light rail access ... which I think is a big plus ... and other elements that we have been able to come up with. But as far as guaranteeing for the first year, that is a very difficult thing to do. Particularly when the Car Show is dependent upon weather. So, we are hoping for a very substantial event, a nice family friendly event that we can be proud of here in Englewood and that's about the only guarantee. I am not trying to be evasive, but being the first year, we are not really sure what to expect. But, we are trying to cover any eventuality that could happen when we throw this event. Mr. Mccaslin said thank you. Mayor Woodward said do we have children's game type vendors secured ... committed? Mr. Morton said yes we do. Mr. Woodward said do we have cars for the Car Show committed? Mr. Morton said we do have car groups that have committed to show up ... as far as that goes ... to bring a whole group. As far as the kid's area ... to ensure that it is family friendly ... we have a purveyor that will have the bouncy type, inflatable, big house type things ... where kids go in and jump around. Face painters ... things like that to make it very family friendly. Council Member Penn said being part of the Chamber just the last couple of months ... Doug, my hat goes off to you. I don't know how you did it, but you did a great job and you are to be commended for the many times that you put this operation on ... because it has taken a lot of us to try to get this pulled together. Mayor Woodward said I would like to second that. Mr. Cohn said there was a large group of us that just really worked our buns off for a very long time. But, Mayor Woodward said, you headed it up. Council Member Penn said Doug you need to take credit for it because you were the leader of it. Mr. Cohn said thank you, okay I will take credit for it ... thank you. Council Member Mccaslin said Doug, how long did you work on this ... what was the time? Mr. Cohn said the first one was the one Mike was putting together. The second and third year ... it took about 6 months. There was a group of about 15 of us that met once a week for 6 months. We divided up the tasks and some folks knocked on doors to raise money and some folks did art work ... some guys did T-shirts and some guys knew how to put plastic on banners and the car guys. We just had whole bunch of guys with different skills. Council Member Penn said we do have Pro Players working with us this year ... we have the Shirelles coming in. Mr. Cohn said the Pro Players ... I've met Gary and he is a good guy. Council Member Penn said some of you may not know who the Shirelles are ... Joe ... because you are probably not old enough. There was laughter. Mayor Woodward said what do we have on the table now? Maybe if you could come up with a number. Or, Council Member Penn said, maybe just what we should cover or not cover ... maybe that would be easier. Mr. Cohn said excuse me, I did think of one other detail that was not waived for us. Being as we are on City property, we need to have our own event insurance. I've given Michael the information on that ... that the folks in Risk Management said we aren't going to waive that one. Council Member Penn said we do, I believe we do have a $5 million event insurance program, which is required. Director Kahm said if I could just take a moment and share a couple of things. We were talking about the banner ... I would like to point out that waiving the fee is fine, but from a scheduling standpoint, we have only one location that is available just the week prior to the event. O~herwiseh thos~ banners are all booked on · Broadway. So, you wouldn't be able to put a banner up until the 28t and ,t would be good through the day of the event. As far as barricades ... we have always provided Public Works barricades, which is good enough for all the parking lots, but the event would still have to provide a barricade company and the proper Class 3's and all to close the streets off. On the Amphitheatre fee, before you waive that. .. I'll let EEF waive it instead, Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 22 because it is actually the Englewood Environmental Foundation has that fee on maintenance out there and of course, we are always anxious to encourage this type of thing to happen in this community. So, that is not an issue and I can state that as President of the Environmental Foundation and I'm sure I have at least one vote over there don't I? There we go. There are two votes. We mentioned the horsecar ... we have always done that. We can add that today. I put another bullet on the list earlier today ... and I don't know if it is on your list as I haven't seen your list. .. but it has to do with building maintenance for the Saturday event. If this event is successful. .. and we want it to be ... City Hall. .. this building is open that day. What we have always required is that somebody provide security and in this case the guard will provide security to make sure nothing goes wrong in this building. I would hope that they would request that we waive the fee for me to have custodial folks available during the day to keep those restrooms going on the second floor. If I had to have somebody here for the entire day, at time and a half, it would be about $270.00. And this is one of those things that if we have a big crowd, we are going to need them, because we will have to keep replacing paper products, because we really want folks to be on the second floor and probably not in the Library and disrupting the Library. And, in fact, if we have bad weather and something doesn't go well and we don't have a large crowd, then that cost will be cut down, because we would send those folks home. Council Member Penn said if I could add to my motion to approve: COUNCIL MEMBER PENN MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER OAKLEY SECONDED, TO APPROVE POLICE OFFICERS, FIREMEN FOR ANTIQUE ENGINE, SHOW WAGON RENTAL FEES ONLY, BARRICADES THAT ARE USED ONLY FOR THE PARKING LOTS, TEMPORARY USE PERMIT FEES, BANNER SET-UP, PARKING LOT AND STREET SWEEPING, TRAFFIC CONTROL INSPECTIONS AND COORDINATION, MOTORIZED HORSECAR, AND THE CUSTODIAL SERVICE IN CITYCENTER, FOR ENGLEWOOD DAYS. [Clerk's note: Discussion ensued. Several people were speaking at once. The comments were not clear.] Vote results: Motion carried. Ayes: Council Members Penn, Mccaslin, Moore, Woodward, Jefferson, Wilson, Oakley Nays: None (ii) Council Member Oakley said the lady that brought up the petition in regard to Cushing Park ... and I don't know whether she specifically mentioned the skateboard thing ... she did mention drugs. This has been before us a time or two and there was a proposal to move the skateboard park over to Denny Miller, where it would be closer to the Police Department. I don't remember what happened, but these people keep coming back to us and it seems we never give them any answers. I would like to give them some kind of an answer this time. Mayor Woodward said the Parks and Recreation Commission did a study and it came back to Parks and Recreation and Parks and Recreation sent a letter to the head individual about that. .. in conjunction with the Police Department there was a meeting and Parks and Recreation discussed that the Master Parks Plan had in it some fees for doing some things to the skate park and there may be a relocation of the skate park. It would not be to Miller Field, probably, it would be to the northwest corner of Cushing and it would probably be a newer type ... concrete or something ... below grade ... which takes care of some of the sound issues. Now I know there is still a complaint about some of the young people that are coming from light rail and then heading over to Wal- Mart and going through the Galapago Street opening. But there was a response to that. Council Member Oakley said to that group or to us? Mayor Woodward said to that group. Directly to the group. Council Member Jefferson said I think what happened is she came to me and I wasn't aware of exactly what was going on there. But if we could get some more information out there, because I live on the 3200 block of Fox Street and when I was out campaigning it was an issue. Whether it is perceived or it is real or not, it can be argued and it is out there. I think we have to communicate with these people and let them know what the real • I r . Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 23 deal is and provide some of that information ... to try to quell some of those concerns. Mayor Woodward said yes. (iii) Council Member Jefferson: 1. He said congratulations to Ouray and Red Bird Farms. 2. He said Michael, hopefully we will get this event going for you. Hopefully, we will get everything going. It is an important event for the whole community. Hopefully, we can all help support it and get some more businesses down there and folks down there, because of its new location. 3. He said I hope Brandy and Tara have fun with their parade and hopefully the money will go a long way in helping out with some of those activities. 4. He said Doug ... with the retroactive issue ... I think it is true that some of these situations can be retroactive, but I don't think it is necessarily unconstitutional. I think you open yourself up to some liability if you choose to go that route. 5. He said Laurett. .. I appreciate your concerns about some of the record keeping issues ... particularly with this retreat. Hopefully, we can address some of those concerns later. In fact, I will address it now. I think we should be recording that meeting. Does everybody else agree? Mayor Woodward said that meeting will be recorded. So, Council Member Jefferson said hopefully that will addresses some your concerns. Mayor Woodward said during Study Session you hopefully noticed that that was one of the very first things I ask ... is the recorder on ... before we start the meeting. Mr. Jefferson said I agree. I think you are very diligent about that ... I agree. 6. He said to Robin and Miguel who came and spoke ... again, I feel some of your concerns, I hope that maybe we can chat a little bit afterwards. I do think there is a possibility still to get a win-win and place some of the burden on us, rather than the City. 7. He said Frank ... I almost got my shovel out and it's always nice to hear some things are getting resolved. So, I appreciate you sharing that. 8. He said I would like to make a motion to change our policy on keeping recordings on both Study Sessions and Regular Meetings ... to change it to keep them both for one year. [Clerk's note: This item was listed on the Agenda as 12 (b) (i).] A resolution amending the records retention schedule for City Council Study Sessions and Regular Meetings from six months to one year was considered. COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON MOVED, AND COUNCIL MEMBER PENN SECONDED, TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. 70, SERIES OF 2008. RESOLUTION NO. 70, SERIES OF 2008 A RESOLUTION AMENDING CITY OF ENGLEWOOD RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE. Council Member Jefferson said I would like to reiterate, I would like to save them a little bit longer. In giving this , issue a little more thought. .. I thought the number ... four years made a whole lot of sense, rather than just sort of an arbitrary number. Because it matches up with Council's terms ... that way when you get on you know there are records kept for the entire term and if you wanted to research something you could. Englewood City Council September 15, 2008 Page 24 COUNCIL MEMBER JEFFERSON MOVED TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 70 TO RETAIN MEETING RECORDINGS FOR FOUR YEARS. Mayor Woodward asked for a second. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Council Member Jefferson said as I don't hear a second, is there any other discussion on the Resolution as it stands? Council Member Moore said I have a comment. I would like to clarify ... at least my understanding ... of consensus. I think tonight is a great example. Often in Study Session we do reach consensus. What we reach consensus on is what we are going to vote on in this room, not what that vote will be. Tonight is a prime example of a type of situation where there may be full consensus to take an amendment to vote. Joe's motion here was something that we had consensus to bring forward, so that we can make a formal decision in here. And you will still see the debating of those decisions in here. If 7 Council members individually brought each of their own resolutions forward on the same subject, we would be even slower than we are. So, I just wanted to clarify that. Decisions that need to be voted on, are voted on in here ... and. consensus is not a decision in that context. It is a consensus about what we are going to formally debate on in here. If it turns out to be 7 to nothing ... well there is not much debate. But when Council has a difference of opinion on an issue, you will see it in the discussions and in the way the votes turn out. So, I just wanted to clarify that. .. given some of the comments earlier. Thank you. Council Member Jefferson asked if there were any other comments on the motion on the table? There were none. Vote results on motion to approve Resolution No. 70, Series of 2008: Ayes: Council Members Penn, Mccaslin, Moore, Woodward, Jefferson, Wilson, Oakley Nays: None Motion carried. 13. City Manager's Report (a) City Manager Sears said we had an outstanding session with the ULI. We had about 60 participants ... there was a walking tour and a lot of good information from people all over the United States ... Atlanta to Dallas ... outstanding people. We are going to put all the information together on a DVD and we'll get that to City Council: But it was really an outstanding session. They took a look at CityCenter and what types of things we can do to really make a difference on this site. I think you will be very impressed with the comments and ideas that come forward. (b) City Manager Sears said just a reminder ... Saturday is the Budget Workshop ... so bring your Budget. Saturday morning, 8:30, in the Community Room. 14. City Attorney's Report City Attorney Brotzman did not have any matters to bring before Council. 15. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.