HomeMy WebLinkAbout1973-09-10 (Special) Meeting MinutesI
I
I
I
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CITY OF ENGLE.WOOD, COLORADO
SEPTEMBER 10, 1973
SP ECIAL ME ET ING:
Th e Ci ty Coun cil o f the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, met in
special ses s i on on Se ptemb e r 10 , 1973 at 8:02 P.M.
Mayor Senti, p r e siding, called the meeting to order.
The fo l lowing "Notice of Call" was read .by the City Clerk.
NOTICE OF CALL BY TIIE MAYOR
FOR A SPECIAL SESSION OF TIIE CITY COUNCIL
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 1973
8:00 P.M.
The City Council o f the City of Englewood, Arapahoe County, Colorado, is hereby
called to a specia l me eting at t he City Hall, 3400 South Elati Street, for the purpose of con-
ducting a public h earing on:
Union -stre ets.
Th e intent to annex approximately 183 acres in the vicinity of Santa Fe and
Isl Stanley 11. Dial
City Manager
ACKN OWLEDGE OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE
Th e f ollowing p e r s ons, all Council Members of the City of Englewood, do hereby
acknowledge r ece ipt of notice of the above special session:
Isl Judith B. Henning
Isl Paul Blessing
Isl Howard R. Brown
Isl Milton E. Senti
Isl Dallas J. Dhority
Isl Elmer E. Schwab
Isl Werner D. Schnackenberg
Al s o pre sent we r e : Assistant City Manager Mccown
City Attorney Berardini
Director of Public Works Waggoner
Director of Finance Nollenberger
Administrative Assistant Mendelson
Fire Chief Hamilton
Assistant Director of Community Development for
Planning Romans
* * * * * *
COUNCILMAN BL ESS IN G MOVED AND COUNCILWOMAN HENNING SECONDED A MJTION TO OPEN A
PUBLIC HEARI NG TO CONSIDER TH E I NTENT TO ANNEX APPROXIMATELY 183 ACRES IN THE VICINITY OF SANTA FE
AND UNION STREETS. Upon th e c a ll of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes :
Na y s:
Abse nt:
Coun cil Me mbers Schwab, Schnackenberg, Henning, Dhority, Brown, Blessing,
Se nti.
Non e .
None .
The Mayor d eclare d the motion carried and the pub lie hearing open.
* * * * * *
A c omplete tape r e cording of this public hearing is maintained on file in the
Departmen t of Finance and Re c ord.
* * * * * *
Ci t y Atto rn ey Berardin i described the type of hearing this was, that of a quasi-
judicia l n a tur e , and de f ined i t and its procedures to the Council. lie stated the Council had
passed Reso lu tion No . 3 3 , Se r ies o f 1973, which was one of intent to annex this area. It is the
City's duty t o p r ove t h at the annexati on meets the legal r e quirements tmder State law. He
presented the publishe r's affidavi t as Exhibit 1 to the City Clerk.
Mr. My r ick , attorney f or some prope rty owners in the area, stated that he questioned
the City 's intent t o d ecid e o n all th e f acts since their mind was already made up in the
annexation of this area.
-2-
Mayor Se nti stated that the Council was op e n to an impartial decision of the case.
City Attorney Berardini stated that he had some evidence and two witnesses to
present .
Mr. William Myri c k stnted that h e represented many o f the prop e rty owners in the
area and was of the opinion t hat it was not legal nor to the best interests to the property
owners in the area to be annexed.
City Attorney Berardini stated that perhaps the best method for procedure would
be for th e City to offer th e ir case fi rst and then allow objections to be made.
Director of Publi c Works, Kells Waggoner, was sworn in by the City Clerk.
Exhibit No . 2 was presented and marked for evidence. It consisted of a map of
the annexation area.
City Attorney Berardini inquired of Mr. Waggoner what his formal training consisted
of. Mr. Waggoner stated that he was a Professional Engineer (PE) in Colorado, and a PE and Land
Surveyor in the State of Wyoming.
City Attorney Be rardini inquired as to the nature of Exhibit 2. Mr. Waggoner stated
that it is the boundary of th e propose d anneJ_<ation and the contiguity with the City. He stated
that he had r e viewed the map himself although it was prepared under his direction.
Mr. Myrick inquired as to when the work was originally prepared. Mr. Waggoner
stated that on May 17 , 1973, Mr. Myrick inquired as to where the information to make the map was
obtained. Mr. Waggoner stated that it was obtained from the ordinances of annexation and from
deeds.
City Attorney Berardini introduced Exhibit 3, being a map, Exhibit 3A, ordinances
color coded to that map, and Exhibit 38, relating to the map, also color coded. Mr. Waggoner
stated that this was a map of the various anne xations by the City over the past. They were
color coded to coincide with the ordinances and deeds involved. The Department of Public Works
had taken the ordinances to the best of the information available and drawn the annexation map.
City Attorney Berardini inquired as to the nature of the deeds. Mr. Waggoner
stated that they were obtained from Arapahoe County and that these deeds were used to follow
the north boundary lines of the annexation, nor currently City boundary lines. The deeds were
not used to establish City limits e xcept in one case. Distances and bearings were determined
f rom the deeds .
Mr. Myrick stated that he would like to inquire further into the ordinances. He
inquired whether the orange lines on the map coincided exactly with the ordinance. Mr. Waggoner
stated that the line as de fined does not exist in the ordinance. The ordinance stated rather
that the line would be the boundary line of the Denver and Rio Grande Railroad. The actual distance
and bearing of the line was determined as a result of that.
Mr. Myrick inquired as to what source Mr. Waggoner used to get that boundary line
in that location . Mr. Waggoner sta ted that it was totaled from another City map of which he would
have to get from his office .
Councilman Schwab requested a five-minute recess. Mayor Senti recessed the Council
at 8:45 P.M. Council re-convened at 8:52 P.M.
Mr. Waggoner showed the source map of the distances and bearings.
Mr. Myrick stated that he wanted all the source material in the record. Mr. Waggoner
stated that the location was determined by the ordinance and that the exac.t distance and bearing
was obtained from other materials in the office. Mr. Myrick objected and requested all the material
used in the determination .
Councilman Schwab inqui red as to who ruled on the objection, a ColDlcil vote or
the Mayor. City Attorney Berardini stated that Mr. Myrick had to ask for a ruling on his objection
on the lack of evidence provided and the Council would have to make some decision. City Attorney
Berardini stated that he felt the evidence as presented should be received while Mr. Myrick had
n sked for all of the documents remotely related. Mr. Myrick stated that he needed all the backup
information which resulted in the line lying a·t that location.
Mayor Senti stated that ample evidence had been disclosed to provide the lines'
authenticity.
Mr. Hyrick stated that it was his feeling that all evidence to provide this annexation's
suitability was a burden upon the City , and his request should be considered.
City Attorney Berardini st.ated that the question had to become, how far do you go
with supplying information? Extreme details are not necessary to prove need for annexation in
his opinion .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-3-
Councilman Schwab stated that there was a need for a speedy ruling on the objections
by Mr. Myrick. Councilman Blessing concurred that more speedy rulings on the objections were
necessary in order to move the hearing along.
Mayor Senti stated that he will not allow the request for more detailed information
as asked for by Hr. Myrick. Hr. Myrick stated that it was his understanding then that the City
would not allow him to further interrogate the witness into the details of the annexation map.
City Attorney Berardini stated that that was not completely true because the
ordinances presented gave the lines although other detail was used which worked into the decision.
Mr. Myrick stated that he objected that Hr. Waggoner did not provide all the details and objected
to the cross examination being cut off. He felt that this whole proceeding was a sham if all
the information was not provided him.
Councilman Schwab moved that the objection be accepted or overruled by the Mayor,
and questioned whether Mr. Myrick had the right to question each distance and bearing. The motion
died for a lack of a second.
City Attorney Berardini asked for a ruling on Exhibit 3 and its admissability.
Hr. Waggoner stated that this was the best information available on this proposed annexation.
COUNCILMAN SCHWAB ~VED AND COUNCILWOMAN HENNING SECONDED A KYl'ION TO ACCEPT
EXHIBIT 3 AND OVERRULE THE OBJECTIONS FROM TIIE OPPOSITION COUNSEL TIIAT HE DID NOT HAVE ACCESS
TO TIIE RECORDS AND DETERMINATION OF THE BOUNDARY LINES. Upon the call of the roll, the vote
resulted as follows:
Ayes: Council Members Schwab, Schnackenberg, Henning, Dhority, Blessing, Senti.
Nays : Council Member Brown.
Absent: None.
The Uayor declared the motion carried.
Councilwoman Henning stated that the Council must accept expert testimony and that
any additional plats or maps would not help the Council in their decision, due to their inability
to read the detailed information on it.
Councilman Brown stated that we could not limit Mr. Myrick · in his desire to repre-
sent his clients however.
Councilman Dhority stated that he did not feel that this particular limitation
limited his role whatsoever.
City Attorney Berardini stated that he would like the Council to accept Exhibits 3A
and 3B, those being the ordinances and deeds related.
Mr. Myrick showed objection since Council had limited his interrogation of the
details of the ordinances and the deeds. City Attorney Berardini stated that Mr. Myrick could
question anything on the ordinance or the deeds that he chose.
Councilman Dhority questioned whether Mr. Myrick was allowing a free and open
hearing due to his continual detailed requests. Hr. Myrick objected strongly to this statement.
CoWlcilman Schwab stated that Mr. Myrick had been extremely Wlpleasant to Council
and questioned the feeling at the proceeding.
COUNCILMAN SCHWAB MOVED AND COUNCILMAN SCHNACKENBERG SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT
EXHIBITS 3A AND 38 AS SUBMITTED. Upon the call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes:
Nays:
Absent:
Council Uembers Schwab, Schnackenberg, Henning, Dhority, Brown, Blessing,
Senti .
None.
None.
The ?layor declared the motion cal.'ried.
Mayor Senti called a 15-minute recess at 9:45 P.M.
CoWlcil reconvened at 10:00 P.M.
City Attorney Berardini stated that he had no further questions of Mr. Waggoner.
Mr. Myrick introduced Exhibit A into the record, that being a map of a working
paper from the Department of Public Works. Mr. Myrick requested as to what the date was that
the deeds in 38 were obtained. Director of Public Works Waggoner stated that he was not exactly
sure of the date obtained. Mr. Myrick stated that he would question the deeds again in ·relation
to Exhibit A. Exhibit 3B was given to Mr. Myrick.
112
-4-
City Attorney Be rardini objected saying that Mr. Myrick was referring to work
notes of Mr . Waggone r which had no r e levance in this case.
COUN CILMAN SOIWAD MOVED TO NOT ACCEPT EXHIBIT A. The motion died for the lack
of a second .
City Attorney Be r a rdini asked that the Council receive Exhibit A in order to get
around this bypass.
Mayo r Se nti stated t he Council would receive the exhibit.
COUNCILMAN BLESS ING MOVED AND COUNCILWOMAN HENNING SECONDED A MOTION TO ACCEPT
EXHIBIT A. Up on t h e call of t he r oll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes : Council Me mbers Henning, Dhority, Brown, Blessing, Senti.
Na ys : Coun c i l Members Schwab, Schnackenberg.
Absent : None .
'nte Ma y or d eclare d the motion carried.
Mr. My rick inq ui r e d as to the nature of Exhibit A. Mr. Waggoner stated that it
was a work sheet u sed in pre paration of the final annexation map. ·Mr. Myrick inquired as to how
the work sheet wa s d ifferent f rom the final exhibit. Mr. Waggoner stated that there were probably
numerous cases bu t p ointed out one in particular. Mr. Myrick inquired as to the red marks on
the exhibit . Mr. Waggone r s ta ted that they were distance measures. ·Mr •. Myrick requested Mr.
Waggoner to put specific s ymbols on the map. City Attorney Berardini objected that it was
irrelevant. Mayo r Se nti concurred wi th that irrelevancy and upheld the City Attorney's objection.
The Ci t y Cl e r k f urther classified the ordinances and deeds by classifying them
with small numerals f or i d e n tification purposes.
Mr. My r i ck questioned the deed 3Biii, questioning whether it was used in the
preparation of t he map. Mr. Wa g goner replied in the affirmative.
Mr. My rick reques t e d that Mr. Waggoner point out the location on the map. City
Attorney Berardi ni objected, s tating that it was irrelevant. Mayor Senti sustained the objection.
COUNCILMAN SOIWAB MOVED AND COUNCILMAN DllORITY SECONDED A MOTION TO RECONSIDER
AND RECEIVE 3B AS EVIDENCE INDIVIDUALLY, NOTIUG TIIEM AS I TIIROUGH X. Upon the call of the roll,
the vote r esul t e d as follows :
Ayes :
Na ys :
Absent:
Coun cil Memb e rs Sc hwab, Schnackenberg, Henning, Dhori ty, Brown, Blessing,
Se n ti .
Non e .
None .
'nte Ma y or d ecl ared th e motion carried.
Coun ci lwoman He nni ng left the chambers at 10:50 P.H.
Ma y or Senti called a 5-minute recess at 10:55 P.H.
Co un c i l re conve n e d at 11:10 P.M.
Mayo r Se nti s tated t h at the Assistant City Manager would read the rules of procedures
in a quasi-jud icia l hearing. As sis tant City Manager !t;Cown read the rules in 1-7-7-c of the
Englewood Municip al Code. Mr. Myr ick stated that he recognized the quasi-judicial rules, still
questioned whethe r a n i q>a rt i a l d ecis ion could be made by the Council. Mayor Senti stated that
it was a quasi-judici a l proceed ing and that with a real determination to be made by Council
based upon the evi d e n ce presented .
Mr . My r ick i nq ui r ed a s to how many feet the proposed annexation did not close by.
City Attorney Bera r dini o bjected s a y ing that nothing requires those kind of details to be disclosed
unde r ths Statutes .
Mayo r Se nti s t a t ed t h at Mr. Myrick could question no further into the details of
that.
Ci t y Attorney Be r a rd i ni stated that he had no further questions of the Director
of Public Works .
Assis tan t Director of Commw1ity Development for Planning, Dorothy Romans, was
sworn in by t he City Cler k .
Ci t y Attorney Berard i ni inquire d whether Mrs. Romans was familiar with the presenta-
tion t o Council . Mr s . Roma ns r eplie d in the affirmative. City Attorney Berardini inquired
whethe r Mrs . Romans had pre pare d the papers for the annexation digest. Mrs. Romans replied in
the affirma t i v e .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-5-
City Attorney Berardini requested that the annexation digest be made Exhibit 4.
Hr. Myrick objected to the digest as e vidence as it was second-hand information. The evidence
was ruled as admissable and labeled Exhibit 4.
City Attorney Berardini inquired whether any ownership was in more than one name
crossing annexation lines for more than $200,000. Mrs. Romans replied in the negative. City
Attorney Berardini inquired whether any land was in a single ownership over 20 acres. Mrs. Romans
replied that Mr. Peter Kiewit had 44 acres and its assessed value was only $29,880. City Attorney
Berardini inquired whether any land had been split due to the annexation. Mrs. Romans replied
in the negative.
Mr. Myrick stated that the exhibit did not have any foundation and it was a sales
document in all respects.
City Attorney Berardini stated that the City felt the evidence was quired adequate
and that it was not necessary to subpoena all the County records for this purpose. Mayor Senti
stated that Council will accept it. Mr. Myrick inquired whether he was to be able to continue
to cross examine the witnesses. Mr. Schnackenberg stated that Mr. Myrick should be able to
question, but remain pertinent to the subject.
COUNCILMAN SCHNACKENBERG MOVED AND COUNCILMAN BLESSING SECONDED A K>TION TO ALLOW
KR. MYRICK TO PROCEED WITH HIS QUESTIONING OF THE WITNESS. Upon the call of the roll, the vote
resulted as follows:
Ayes: Council Members Schnackenberg, Dhority, Brown, Blessing, Senti.
Nays: Council Member Schwab.
Absent: Council Member Henning.
'nle Mayor declared the motion carried.
Mr. Myrick inquired of Mrs. Romans who owned the railroad land. Mrs. Romans
stated the Denver and Rio Grande and the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe. Mr. Myrick inquired
whether the City had looked into the railroad property in relation to land over $200,000 for
20 acres. Mrs. Romans replied in the negative. Mr. Myrick inquired whether there was any
separation at the Kiewit property. Mrs. Romans replied in the negative. Mr. Myrick inquired
whether there is any separation in the Hall property. Mrs. Romans replied in the negative.
City Attorney Berardini stated that this would conclude the City's case. The
statutes required that no other petition must be offered to another city. None have been offered.
Additionally, no conditions must have been put on individuals' properties and none have been
done so.
Mayor Senti swore in Director of Finance Nollenberger for evidence.
Mr. Myrick inquired as to the status of general obligation bonds in the City of
Englewood. Director of Finance Nollenberger stated that the City currently had outstanding
around $4,000,000 of general obligation bonds which were self-supporting from water revenues.
Additionally, no tax levy was made for property tax to support these bonds.
Mr. Myrick inquired as to when sewer service would be available to the area.
Hrs. Romans stated that not until it became economical to develop it.
COUNCILMAN SCHWAB MOVED AUD COUNCILMAN DIIORITY SECONDED A ~ION TO CONTINUE
THE HEARING UNTIL NOVEMBER 12nI. Upon the call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes: Council Members Schwab, Schnackenberg, Dhority.
Nays: Council Members Brown, Blessing, Senti.
Absent: Council Member Henning.
The Mayor declared the motion defeated.
Hr. Myrick inquired as to the water situation in the area. Mrs. Romans stated
that they would extend service when it became feasible.
Mr. Myrick wrapped up his case, stating that the hearing was a farce and questioned
the City Council's ability to make an impartial decision.
City Attorney Berardini made a few conunents, stating that the City was joining
the railroad property, rather than dividing it. The statute does not require a survey in the
area, but rather only a legal description being stated. He felt the land was receiving the
benefits of the urbanization and as a result should be incorporated into a city.
Exhibit B. was presented by Mr. Myrick as a petition from the area.
-6-
COUNCILMAN BLESSING MOV ED AND COUNCILMAN BROWN SF.cONDED A M>TION TO CLOSE TIIE
PUBLIC HEARING . Upo n t he call of the roll, the vote resulted as follows:
Ayes : Council Mem b e r s Schwab, Schnackenberg, Dhority, Brown, Blessing, Senti.
Nays : None .
Absen t: Cowtcil Me mb e r Henning.
'nle Ma yor declared t he motion carrie d.
COUNCILMAN BROWN MOVED AND COUNCILMAN BLFSSING SECONDED A M>TION TO ADJOURN. Upon
the call of the roll , t he vote resu l ted as follows:
Ayes : Council Mem bers Schwab, Schnackenberg, Dhority, Brown, Blessing, Senti.
Nays: None .
Absen t: Council Me mb e r Henning.
TI1e Mayor declare d the mo tion c arrie d and the meeting was adjourned at 12 :27 A.M.
/s/ Karl Nollenberger
ex officio Clerk of the Council
I
I
I
I