The Charter Amendment to Require Voter Approval of Developer Subsidies
Text of the Charter AmendmentTexts of Requests That City Council Place the Charter Amendment on the Ballot
Bill SimpsonWebb Aldrich
THE CITY SHALL NEITHER PAY, PAY BACK, WAIVE, NOR REIMBURSE ANY TAX OR FEE TO ANY DEVELOPER OR OTHER ENTITY UNLESS A SPECIFIC AGREEMENT IS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. THE APPLICANT REQUESTING THE AGREEMENT MUST PAY THE COSTS FOR ANY SPECIAL ELECTION.
Requests that City Council Refer the Charter Amendment to the Voters
Bill Simpson (May 13, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting, Public Comments)In an April 26th (1999) memo to City Council by Steve Glueck through Mike Bestor Golden City Staff formally requested Council's direction regarding the city's short term economic strategies. In the words of the memo:
"In order to facilitate this discussion [of short term economic strategies] and communication, staff has requested the opportunity to update council on May 6th 1999 about recent discussions and to request directions about recent discussions and to request direction from council as a whole for these continued discussions. . . . We look forward to the continued discussion and council direction."Whether or not the City of Golden continues subsidizing development and private enterprise will have profound ramifications for our community's future, and we on the Shadow Council are pleased that the city staff are seeking direction in this matter.
The city's economic strategy will effect every single member of the community, and this is why we on the Shadow City Council want to provoke a thorough and open dialogue about the value of what is being created through the economic strategy currently in place. We want to maximize citizen participation in such a dialogue.
We, therefore, support the following amendment to the Golden City Charter:
"The City shall neither pay, pay back, defer, nor reimburse any tax or fee to any developer or other entity, unless a specific agreement is approved by the voters. The applicant requesting the agreement must pay the costs for any special election."We request that the Golden City Council consult with the authors of the charter amendment and, after such consultation, place the proposed amendment on the ballot for a vote of the people.
(May 27, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting, Public Comments)
Two weeks ago I stood up here, put the text of the Fiscal Responsibility Charter Amendment up on the TV monitors, read the text into the record. A week before that, the text of the Charter amendment appeared in the Transcript. So members of City Council have had ample time to deliberate about the Charter amendment.
Since then, the Golden Shadow City Council has voted to refer the Charter amendment to a vote of the people. I'm here tonight to find out where City Council stands on the issue. Councilman Baroch, would you, as a member of City Council, vote to refer the Fiscal Responsibility Charter Amendment to the voters? Why or Why not?
[To go directly to Councilman Baroch's response, click here.]
[To return to the top of this document, click here.]
Judy Denison (May 27, 1999 Regular City Council Meeting, Public Comments)
1) Proposed Charter Amendment
As Bill Simpson said to you on May 13: The city's economic strategy will affect every single member of the community, and this is why we want to provoke a thorough and open dialogue about the value of what is being created through the economic strategy currently in place. We want to maximize citizen participation in such a dialogue.
The following proposed amendment to the Golden City Charter was presented to you on May 13:
"The City shall neither pay, pay back, defer, nor reimburse any tax or fee to any developer or other entity, unless a specific agreement is approved by the voters. The applicant requesting the agreement must pay the costs for any special election."We request that the Golden City Council consult with the authors of the charter amendment and, after such consultation, place the proposed amendment on the ballot for a vote of the people.
2) What Subsidized Development Means to You
The Golden City Council has chosen to subsidize the new King Soopers in the amount of $3.7 million in tax rebates. The Golden City Council has also chosen to subsidize Interplaza West in the amount of $3.7 million in tax rebates. $7.4 million would go a long way towards Beaverbrook watershed, or towards purchasing land on South Table Mountain.
Golden's population is about 16,000, according to the Chamber of Commerce web page. This means that each 4-person family in Golden is subsidizing King Soopers in the amount of $924, and is subsidizing Interplaza West in the amount of $924. Did you choose to spend $1,848 of your family's money bring more malls to Golden? Did you choose to spend $1,848 so that you could perhaps save a few pennies on a loaf of bread here and there?
You will hear that this subsidy is just a discount on new,increased tax revenues. But, first of all, just how many groceries can you buy? King Soopers will mainly be taking business away from Safeway, and therefore the net revenue to the city will drop. Secondly, how much additional money is the city paying for street changes and for additional services?
In addition, why should we be giving breaks to new businesses, rather than rewarding our loyal community-minded businesses like Higher Grounds and Safeway?
I was talking to a fellow from Virginia and he said that where he lives, new businesses have to PAY the city for the privilege of locating there. Golden is a beautiful, desirable location. We should be asking new businesses to pay US!
3) Challenge
You have now had at least two weeks to study the proposed Charter Amendment and the request that it be put on the ballot. Now I am asking what you plan to do. Carol Johnson, do you plan to place the proposed amendment on the ballot for a vote of the people?
[To go directly to Councilwoman Johnson's response, click here.]
[To return to the top of this document, click here.]
Councilor McKee, would you vote to place the Fiscal Responsibility Charter Amendment on the ballot?[To go directly to Councilman McKee's response, click here.]
[To return to the top of this document, click here.]
City Council Members Responses (A Transcription of Councilors' Remarks during the May 27,1999 Regular Golden City Council Meeting)
Webb AldrichOn this question that came up tonight about the referendum on economic incentives, I would not support putting that on the agenda. And the reason is that it violates my belief in our representative form of government.
You know this is being initiated because some people disagreed with Interplaza. But the bigger picture is that incentives also brought us things like the Table Mountain Inn as opposed to a boarded-up Holland House and the Old Capitol Grill as opposed to a boarded up restaurant.
To me it's one of the tools that by the Charter the people that are elected have at their disposal, and I am extremely opposed to government by referendum. I think the ultimate referendum comes every two years in the municipal elections. If you can get four people elected to go out to the citizens and say, "I'm in favor of us all voting on everything all the time," then that's what'll happen.
But the notion that we will slowly start to take tools out of the Charter and away from the duly elected officials, and that every time some decision needs to be made everybody will get together and vote I can't support it. If the proponents want to go stand out in front of the Safeway store and get it on the ballot, then that's fine. But I won't vote to put it on.
The comments that were made by Ms. Denison, I believe, about how much it costs every individual citizen--that's a bunch of hogwash.
You can take numbers and throw them around. But to take the number of the incentive and divide it by how many people live in town, that doesn't take into account people from out of town who shop, it doesn't take into account that this is done over time, that it's a rebate. So while somebody can take these numbers and spin them to try to make their point, I think it's fair to say that you need to look at the other side of that coin too. For somebody to stand up and say that it costs every family in Golden $1,800, that's just not correct. That's just wrong. So I want to counter that argument as well.
[To read Judy Denison's original remarks, click here.]
[To read Councilman Brian Starling's reply, click here.]
[To return to the top of this document, click here.]
Getting back to this charter amendment, I was going suggest that we at City Council discuss it at the Study Session rather than just throw pot shots at it in our comment period here, to take a look at what they're asking, and make a decision in the council as to whether we would support such an issue or whether we would suggest that if they want to put it on the ballot they get the citizen's initiative through the petition process and put it on themselves.
I'm a fairly strong supporter of Charter amendments in many regards, but there is a line at which you've got to have some faith in your elected officials, but when government runs amuck, and I think sometimes the state and the federal government run amuck, I'm all in favor of charter amendments. Sometimes we can see that City Council doesn't represent the wishes of the citizens.
Just look what happened four years ago on the growth limit. I was out knocking on doors not supporting the growth amendment, but it went over by a resounding percentage. The people said, "We don't agree with City Council and what you're doing, and we want to take that out of your hands." Then we have to learn how to manage it. Sometimes we should listen to what our citizens are saying. I've had--maybe it's because of my position of voting against the incentive to Interplaza--I haven't had one citizen come up to me and tell me that they supported City Council.
So I would like to see the Charter amendment put on the study session [agenda].
[To read Bill Simpson's original question, click here.]
[To return to the top of this document, click here.]
I also want to comment on the Charter amendment. I'm not in favor of it because economic development belongs in the hands of City Council, not the public.
[To read Judy Denison's original question, click here.]
[To return to the top of this document, click here.]
As far as this Charter amendment issue, I have real strong feelings about our Charter. It's worked very well for many years; that's not to say it couldn't change, but I think the--I call them the founding fathers--that helped to write that Charter--and some of those people are still alive, some of those people are still in our community--did an excellent job--a lot better than some cities. And personally, as many times as I've looked at things in the charter, like dates of elections and when you hold elections and changing things like that, I think the Charter serves us very well. I really have a problem in making a change.
I even have a problem in worrying about discussing things like this issue, because this really is a Council issue on economic development.
I would hope that at some point we would get to a point where we don't have to do anything and things will take care of themselves. But right now, without some of the development, we can't do a lot of the projects that we keep talking about. I wish people would understand that.
The amount of money we're giving away over the long haul--and I do mean the long haul--I mean the total future of Golden past our time is minimal compared to what it can help our city do. Truthfully, I'm spending more money now in Golden because I shop at King Soopers. I have always shopped at King Soopers, and now I'm shopping in Golden at King Soopers. So there's a big difference. And I would hope to shop at a lumber yard when we have one.
Enough said.
[To read Councilman Starling's reply, click here.]
[To return to the top of this document, click here.]
[Editor's note: During public comments, immediately after Marian Olson asked him if he would vote to put the Charter amendment on the November ballot, Councilman McKee responded, "No ma'am I won't, rest assured." Webb Aldrich interjected, "Me neither."]
On the 1% growth issue, Chuck, I think you're really misrepresenting the situation. There was 47% of the voters in Golden at the time and it was a substantial turnout that didn't vote for the 1% building permit limit. Some of the people that were running for City Council at the time as well as some that were serving on Council at the time told citizens "We don't think that it's good policy to try to manage the housing market by saying we're going to limit building permit issues and somehow regulate when the houses are built." You can argue either way.
But the point is that this City Council has taken the 1% growth limit, the staff figured out a way to actually implement it to allocate the building permits out to the builders so that we didn't get sued, we implemented the 1% successfully, we all take it seriously up here. It's the law of the city and we've done everything we could to uphold that thing--including amending it later on for senior housing and for the Mitchell site. There was substantial public testimony in the record at the time that people supported the modifications to allow senior housing at the Mitchell site.
So don't hand me this stuff about how we don't listen to the citizens, that we're not in tune with them, or whatever. We've administered that law faithfully, we still believe in it, and we'll keep on doing it. And to keep on saying that we're not in tune with the citizens--I spend too much time busting my butt up here trying to do just that. It stinks.
[To read Marian Olson's original question, click here.]
[To return to the top of this document, click here.]
I think that the forefathers did a wonderful job writing the Charter, but I don't think that they had perfect knowledge by any means. There are times when there are things that could better represent the public--I know you don't want to hear that, Bill. The reality is that some of us have heard that from a number of people, and having a fair debate on these issues is certainly what council's all about. To have the debate should not be an issue. It should be something that we discuss just like we discuss all serious issues here.
With regard to the 1% people had to do that themselves in order to get that done. We afterwards followed through with that, and that's a good sign, but please understand that they had to do that in order to get it passed. In this sense, the Charter amendment is not that different. They're asking for a fair debate about it. They're not asking for anything more than that.
With regard to some of the things about Table Mountain Inn, it could still exist even if this charter amendment passed. The charter amendment basically states that the public would be voting on it. If it were a worthwhile endeavor I think it would still be funded.
Some of these things and how they are instituted is why a debate is a good thing to have, because that could change something that could adversely affect the city. The wording of the charter amendment may need to be different. Council may want to have other input. So I think it's definitely worth the debate.
We definitely need to do that to show the citizens that we're listening. To immediately assume that this is a negative type of event is not a good assumption. We need to be very careful about minimizing individuals who come to speak here.
And saying that what they've said is "hogwash"--there are nice ways to say these things, diplomatic ways to say these things, and I think we should do that. This body represents, hopefully, a higher standard.
[To read Councilman Aldrich's assertions, click here.]
[Councilman Baroch's remarks on the 1% Growth Ordinance, click here.]
[To read Mayor Schenck's remarks, click here.]
[To read Councilman McKee's remarks, click here.]
[To return to the top of this document, click here.]
AS far as the charter amendment goes, I don't see any problem with discussing the issue. After all, it's the citizen's desire to bring a petition forth. I think they have to present it to council, first, and then we decide if we want to put it to a vote of the people.
What needs to be done, like Brian said, is some good discussions because you can, by popular vote, even though it's the will of the people, get something in the charter that could be onerous. If you don't have a debate on it, that can happen. So I'd rather see some discussion back and forth on the issue.
Now as far as the incentives, I disagree. I know when I first came on council, well you know, I certainly was opposed to any incentives. But there's a lot of ins and outs on those. To me most of these incentives are just tax breaks, and each and every one of us takes advantage of tax breaks. Home mortgage deductions, waiving fees that are charged up front. It's a real hard issue, but I personally believe that something like that needs to be kept in hand under this body's responsibility.
[Editor's note: After Councilman Ramstetter's remarks, Councilwoman Johnson agreed that a discussion of the Charter amendment should be placed on agenda for the June 3rd, 1999 study session. Together with the stated wishes of Councilmen Starling, Ramstetter, and Baroch, this allowed the subject to be placed on the Study Session agenda.]
[To return to the top of this document, click here.]