Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-06-23 Study Session Agenda PacketSTUDY SESSION AGENDA CITY COUNCIL CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO 7500 W. 29th Ave. Wheat Ridge CO February 6, 2023 6:30 pm This meeting will be conducted as a virtual meeting, and in person, at 7500 West 29th Avenue, Municipal Building, if allowed to meet on that date per COVID-19 restrictions. Some City Council members or City staff members will be physically present at the Municipal building for this meeting. The public may participate in these ways: 1. Attend the meeting in person at City Hall. Use the appropriate roster to sign up to speak upon arrival 2. Provide comment in advance at www.wheatridgespeaks.org (comment by noon on February 6, 2023) 3. Virtually attend and participate in the meeting through a device or phone: • Click here to join and provide public comment • Or call +1-669-900-6833 with Access Code: 853 9173 6851 Passcode: 657787 4. View the meeting live or later at www.wheatridgespeaks.org, Channel 8, or YouTube Live at https://www.ci.wheatridge.co.us/view Individuals with disabilities are encouraged to participate in all public meetings sponsored by the City of Wheat Ridge. Contact the Public Information Officer at 303-235-2877 or wrpio@ci.wheatridge.co.us with as much notice as possible if you are interested in participating in a meeting and need inclusion assistance. Public Comment on Agenda Items 1. Zoning Code Modernization 2. Clean Fleet Retail Delivery Fee (CFRDF) – Tax Exemption 3. Review of Council Rules of Order and Procedure 4. Staff Report(s) 5. Elected Officials’ Report(s) Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Cutler, Senior Planner THROUGH: Lauren Mikulak, Interim Community Development Director Patrick Goff, City Manager DATE: January 27, 2023 (For February 6, 2023 Study Session) SUBJECT: Zoning Code Modernization ISSUE: From time to time, staff recommends updating the zoning code (Chapter 26) as it relates to best practices, lessons learned from peer cities, updated policies and processes, to correct typographical errors, to clarify code language, and as a result of long-range plan adoption. Both the City’s mixed-use code requirements (Article XI) and subdivision requirements (Article IV) have not been updated in some time. City Council is now well educated on the cost of developing housing in the City of Wheat Ridge. The Affordable Housing Strategy discussion and adoption included recommendations to reduce barriers to affordable housing development in Wheat Ridge, and some of the recommendations within this memo are directly related to that goal. The other recommendations within this memo seek to modernize portions of the code that have not been reviewed in whole in several years. This memo is divided into two general sections: 1) Article XI (mixed use) updates, starting on this page, and 2) Article IV (subdivision) updates, starting on page 6. Questions for Council are included throughout the memo, with a recommendations section to summarize everything at the end. ARTICLE XI (MIXED USE CODE): The City’s mixed use zone districts and standards were created in 2010 as Article XI of Chapter 26. The mixed use districts were designed to create a flexible approach to land uses and to enhance the character of Wheat Ridge’s commercial corridors. After creating the zone districts, City Council approved legislative rezonings of the 38th Avenue corridor in 2011 and the Wadsworth corridor in 2012. Since 2010, the City has seen a large amount of development and reinvestment in properties with mixed use zoning, which shows the success of those districts. However, the mixed use code has not been comprehensively reviewed since its adoption nearly 13 years ago. Given the large amount of development continuing to occur in mixed use districts 2 and the continued demand to rezone to mixed use zones, staff has reviewed the code and provided recommendations within this memo to update and clarify regulations as needed. These recommendations seek to modernize portions of the code, to provide better clarity and organization for easier administration, to establish standards that were not included in the original regulations, and to reduce some barriers to affordable housing development and reinvestment in Wheat Ridge. 2010 Code The 2010 addition of the mixed use code as Article XI was a substantial change to the zoning code and was designed to attract and incentivize redevelopment in the City. Prior to the mixed use code, the previous zoning code outright prohibited or greatly restricted mixes of land uses on the same site and relied upon a cumbersome planned development process. The mixed use code for the first time in Wheat Ridge allowed for a wide range of land uses, incorporated design standards directly into the code, enabled some higher-density development and a mix of land uses along commercial corridors and areas adjacent to rail transit. Other Updates Since 2010, the mixed use code has periodically had minor updates as other ordinances have been adopted to clarify the code or define terms. However, the code has not been reviewed in whole since 2010, which is a long time without a comprehensive review. Only one ordinance made a significant change to the mixed use code, Ordinance No. 1686 (2020), which required additional design standards for attached residential development (i.e. townhomes) including an effective ban on “slot homes.” Discussion Topics Staff is recommending a quick cleanup list in Topic 1 below, which includes necessary fixes to the code based on lessons learned, lack of clarity, and to quickly support affordable housing efforts. Other topics may require additional discussion. Topic 1 – Code Cleanup Items This list was started in 2012 as staff quickly noted some items needing clarity within the mixed use (MU) code, and the cleanup list has expanded substantially as staff has processed numerous development applications in the mixed use zone districts. However, due to staff resources and other demands, this cleanup was not prioritized. Given the recent adoption of the ADU ordinance, increasing questions about some code requirements, and continued demand for development, staff is requesting these cleanup items proceed to a code amendment in early 2023. Deficiencies in the current code have required staff to adopt some administrative policies to clarify confusing or missing language. These modernization and cleanup items include: • Create standards for accessory buildings: The original mixed use code did not include any regulations for accessory buildings, which was an oversight. Staff currently relies upon an administrative policy from 2012 to regulate buildings such as garages or sheds in mixed-use zones given the lack of clarity in the code. The intent was not to prohibit accessory buildings in MU but there are no substantive regulations in the code. Given the adoption of the ADU ordinance, the MU-N district could see some ADUs being constructed in addition to the other accessory buildings (garages, sheds, etc.) already being built, and we are overdue to include standards in the code. Staff is recommending 3 similar regulations to the other existing mixed use standards for setbacks and height and to incorporate standards similar to the administrative policy generally following C-1 standards for commercial and R-3 standards for residential projects. • Clarify and update open space requirements: o Remove language that community gardens cannot count towards useable open space. Staff is unsure why this was included in the original ordinance; these spaces otherwise meet the codified definition of usable open space. o Clarify that walking paths at least 5 feet in width may count towards useable open space if part of a pedestrian network such as a walking loop or through other useable open spaces such as a common lawn or plaza. For sidewalks that do not meet these width or connectivity standards, staff has not counted them toward usable open space, and a code basis would be helpful in negotiations with developers. o Clarify how private fenced yards do or don’t count towards open space percentage. o Clarify minimum plant sizes and quantities with reference to standards in Section 26-502. o Allow artificial turf in limited circumstances, such as central plazas or play areas. • Refine building placement and orientation standards: o Require public-facing entrances in MU-C TOD and increase its build-to requirement from 50% to 60% to better encourage dense and pedestrian-oriented development in Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) areas o Clarify that the Community Development Director, not the applicant, gets to decide what the “predominant orientation” of townhomes are o Require accessible pedestrian walks to be at least 5 feet in width • Clarify drive-thru and gas station separation requirements • Update permitted uses: o Add major utilities per Xcel’s requirements. Public utilities are permitted in other zone districts. o Add food truck court as a permitted use where restaurants are allowed o Prohibit drive-thrus in the MU-C TOD zone o Update definition of personal services to be more all-encompassing, per American Planning Association (APA) recommendations. Staff also recommends updating the standard zoning code with the same definition and updating the use charts for commercial/industrial zones for consistency. o Define maker space/workshop and allow in MU zones. Need to differentiate between “restricted light industrial” or flex/industrial and the lighter uses like maker spaces or small workshops. Also need to differentiate between “research and development” uses (such as labs and prototype production) and larger-scale manufacturing. Future discussion would be necessary after a Comprehensive Plan effort to consider mixed-use industrial flex uses more broadly. Staff recognizes the lack of flexibility in current MU and industrial zones to accommodate these types of flex uses. • Building materials: o Add siding such as fiber cement, board and batten, and lap as a permitted material but not a primary material. Staff has already interpreted siding to be allowed as 4 long as there is a primary material provided such as brick or stone, as siding is not in the list of prohibited materials. Staff recommends allowing siding as a secondary material and limiting the amount depending on visibility. o Require less change in material if a façade is all or predominantly brick, allowing a more classic architectural design with a full façade of brick and some changes in the brick pattern to still allow variation. The current code would require a brick façade to be broken up with other materials, but this does not always make sense in practice. Staff recommends retaining the requirement for material variation when other materials such as stucco, concrete, and siding are used to ensure high- quality architecture. There has not been a community consensus on requiring brick or traditional design; rather public feedback over the years has supported a less prescriptive approach and has supported an eclectic mix of architecture. o Clarify gas station canopy architectural requirements o Explore adding thickness requirements for brick/stone veneer products to ensure quality. This may require additional research to see if this is prevalent in other cities’ design requirements. o Allow transparency requirements on corner lots to be transferred to a different street-facing façade, to be consistent with the Architectural and Site Design Manual. • Clarify and add cross reference to the City Charter regarding height and density and exempted areas. This cross reference puts all density and height provisions in one place and creates a more user-friendly code. • Update and clarify bicycle parking/storage requirements to be more in line with surrounding communities, as current standards are limited and outdated. • Clarify existing height bonuses for structured parking and update cross-references; all height related provisions need to be in one place in the code. • Update vertical screening requirements to be consistent with other fencing standards and sight distance requirements. • Update screening requirement for rooftop mechanical equipment to be consistent and more user- and reviewer-friendly. Question: Does Council support a code amendment to address the items in this list? Topic 2 – Reduce minimum parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable housing to align with the recommendations in the Affordable Housing Strategy The City’s parking standards do not contemplate various types of housing and household types. In MU zones, all residential projects are required to provide a minimum of one (1) parking space per unit up to a maximum of 2.5 spaces per unit. In other zone districts, residential projects typically need to provide between 1.5 to 4 spaces per unit depending on unit type and on-street parking availability. As Council was made aware in the Affordable Housing Strategy adoption, building parking can add considerable costs to developments. Modifying parking minimums was identified as a recommended action item and immediate priority for Council. Due to land costs and construction costs, a single parking space can add tens of thousands of dollars per dwelling unit. Wheat Ridge’s parking requirements tend to be suburban-oriented in nature and only contemplate households that own a vehicle or multiple vehicles. 5 A more nuanced and contemporary approach to parking regulations would consider the proximity of housing to transit, resources, and services. This proximity impacts the need to own a vehicle, and utilization of parking tends to be lower in areas with greater services and transit access. The City’s MU districts, and some higher-density residential zones, are in close proximity to transit corridors such as the Wheat Ridge · Ward Station. Similarly, Wadsworth Blvd and 38th Avenue projects are located within walking distance to existing commercial centers and services. Parking studies provided by Foothills Regional Housing (FRH) and the City and County of Denver show that the utilization of parking at deed-restricted affordable housing is significantly lower than the Wheat Ridge mandate of 1-1.5 spaces per unit. Across FRH projects, there is an average utilization of 0.29 vehicles per dwelling unit, and in permanently supportive housing that rate drops to only 0.088 vehicles/unit (or 1 in 12). Denver recently lowered parking minimums for affordable housing to 0.1 spaces/unit and eliminated them altogether in TOD areas. Even if the City’s administrative adjustment process is used to reduce parking requirements by 25%, the 0.75 space per unit requirement is still more than double the average utilization rate of parking spaces at deed-restricted affordable housing in the Metro Area. The current Denver standards are below: Housing Type Parking Requirement Any affordable housing in TOD (within ¼ mile of rail or BRT) 0 spaces per unit 60% AMI or below 0.1 spaces per unit (in all zone districts) Other deed-restricted affordable housing 0.75 spaces/unit in low density, 0.5 spaces/unit in medium density, 0.25 spaces/unit in high density Senior 55+ housing (any income level) 0.25 spaces per unit (in all zone districts) Shelters 0.125 spaces per 1,000 sf gross floor area Staff recommends following the recommendations in the Affordable Housing Strategy to reduce minimum parking requirements for deed-restricted affordable housing in MU and higher-density residential zones. Staff also recommends reducing the parking maximums for deed-restricted affordable housing to encourage better utilization of the land than providing excess parking. A more market-based approach on parking and alignment with the FRH/Denver recommendations and studies will make Wheat Ridge a friendlier place to develop affordable housing. Reducing or removing parking requirements would not eliminate the need for accessible parking spaces required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or loading areas. This aligns with recommendations from the American Planning Association (APA) and other national best practices. Question: Does Council support reducing or removing minimum parking requirements for deed- restricted affordable housing in mixed use (26-1109) and higher-density residential zone districts (26-501)? If so, staff recommends including in the Topic 1 “Code Cleanup Items” code amendment in order to move this forward in the near future. 6 Topic 3 – Revise minimum parking requirements for changes of use in commercial buildings constructed before incorporation The City of Wheat Ridge incorporated in 1969, but a large percentage of the City’s commercial buildings on the 38th Avenue and 29th Avenue commercial corridor were constructed well before incorporation. Many buildings date back to the 1920s-1950s when parking requirements were much lower or nonexistent, and many commercial buildings were built without parking altogether. These conditions make administering the current parking requirements challenging, because with any change of use of a building, staff is required to assess the current parking requirements. For example, a building on 38th Avenue was built without any parking as part of the original “main street” and is being converted from an office to a restaurant. The current code would require staff to assess parking requirements for that change of use, which would either require the owner to obtain a variance to reduce parking requirements, build parking on site (which is not always feasible), or pursue a shared parking agreement with other nearby property owners (which can be challenging to negotiate). This presents a huge barrier to reuse of aging commercial buildings and has increasingly become a prevalent issue as the City sees increasing attempts at reinvestment and revitalization; this has been an issue on corridors like 29th, 38th and 44th Avenues. To address this issue, other cities have established narrow exceptions to parking requirements. For example, Denver does not assess parking requirements for changes of use in buildings built prior to 1967. This seems to be prevalent in cities that have many buildings constructed prior to the proliferation of the automobile and the establishment of minimum parking requirements (which began in the 1950s-1960s). Infill and changes of use are different than new development, and it is more appropriate to amend the code to accommodate this classification of properties than to rely on the variance process. This recommendation aligns with goals in the Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy, the intent of the mixed use code, and future 44th Avenue plan recommendations which all encourage reinvestment in aging properties. It would also be one less barrier to business owners attempting to reinvest in aging commercial properties. The current parking requirements would still be assessed for any new development and construction. Question: Does Council support removing minimum parking requirements for changes of use in buildings constructed before the City’s incorporation? This would require edits to the mixed use code and a similar amendment to 26-501, although the majority of the buildings affected are in mixed use zones. If so, staff recommends including in the Topic 1 “Code Cleanup Items” code amendment in order to move this forward in the near future. ARTICLE IV (SUBDIVISION CODE): The City’s subdivision requirements are found in Article IV of Chapter 26 of the City Code and were last comprehensively updated in 2014 when Ordinance 1547 repealed an older subdivision code and replaced it with a new version. Since 2014, 125 subdivision applications have been processed by the City. Of those 125 subdivisions, 41 of those required review from Planning Commission and City Council, 13 required review from Planning Commission only, and the remaining 71 were reviewed administratively. 7 In addition to the updates needed to address affordable housing issues, the other recommendations within this section seek to modernize portions of the subdivision code to provide clarity and organization within the code, to establish consistent public improvement requirements, and to simplify the subdivision review process where feasible. Definition A subdivision entails the creation or reconfiguration of lots, tracts, or parcels for the purpose of sale or development, and in some cases to clean up title or ownership issues. Section 26-406.E notes that subdivisions are technical documents that are non-discretionary in nature. Subdivisions do not change zoning or permitted uses. Rather, they prepare land for development for uses already permitted by the underlying zoning. A subdivision plat defines property lines and can establish easements for utility, access, and drainage purposes. A plat can also dedicate or vacate right-of-way. 2014 Subdivision Code Update The 2014 subdivision ordinance simplified review procedures from the City’s previous subdivision code, which relied upon public hearings for almost all types of subdivisions. The 2014 update still relies heavily upon public hearings but expanded administrative review for subdivisions up to 3 lots. The ordinance clarified parkland dedication requirements including fees-in-lieu and clarified public improvement requirements. It also updated terminology and consolidated previously more complicated design standards and quantitative standards. Other Updates Since 2014, the subdivision code has been periodically updated as other ordinances have been adopted or to clarify the code. In other instances, the code has been updated at a request of Council. However, the code has not been reviewed in whole since 2014. • Ordinance No. 1749 (2022): Declaring race and religion-based covenants illegal and unenforceable and requiring a plat note on subdivisions concerning the same. • Ordinance No. 1703 (2021): Access to public streets • Ordinance No. 1693 (2020): Parkland dedication fee due at building permit, not platting. • Ordinance No. 1686 (2020): Lot line adjustments for previously platted townhomes to be administrative regardless of number of lots affected, if design is not substantially changed. Discussion Topics Topic 1 – Waiver of Parkland Dedication Fees for Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing The City’s current parkland dedication requirement established by Section 26-414 is applied to all residential projects within the City. Developers are either required to dedicate public parkland on site or pay a fee-in-lieu of dedication. Since most sites would only have small or impractical dedications, most developers are required to pay the fee-in-lieu. Currently, only ADUs and nursing homes are exempt from this requirement. The fees are assessed based on the “density factor” which acknowledges different household sizes and impacts. For example, the developer of a single-unit home or apartment building pays $2,497.29 per unit, and projects located within an urban renewal area or mixed-use development pay $2,021.62 per unit. 8 There are currently no exemptions or fee waivers for deed-restricted affordable housing projects, which are defined as units that have agreements recorded against the property limiting the rent or sales price of that unit based on income. For example, a 50-unit affordable housing project would be required to pay $101,081 under the current model. Council was recently informed of the cost of developing housing during the adoption of the Affordable Housing Strategy. Page 52 of the strategy document specifically calls for fee waivers or reductions for projects with an affordable component; although City-imposed development fees are a relatively small portion of the total development costs of a housing unit, any City contribution to affordable housing can help to shrink gaps. Staff recommends waiving the parkland dedication/fee requirement to reduce the burden of deed- restricted affordable housing development in Wheat Ridge. As of 2022, the City’s park system is largely built out and fees-in-lieu are often used to supplement existing assets. The proposed fee waiver for deed-restricted affordable housing units would not negatively impact the City’s system of parks and trails. In a project consisting of a mix of affordable housing and market rate units, the fee reduction would only apply to the deed-restricted affordable units. Question: Does Council support a waiver to the parkland dedication and fee-in-lieu requirement for deed-restricted affordable housing? If so, staff will proceed with a code amendment in early 2023. Topic 2 – Update Code for Consistency and Clarity as Needed Staff recommends updating incorrect or outdated cross-references as needed, adding modern terminology, and removing sections of the code that conflict with the current subdivision regulations. This includes: • Add a reference to internet in utility requirements. • Update 26-404.D.4 to state parkland fees are due at time of building permit. This was missed during Ordinance 1693 and needs to be updated. • Clarify when Homeowners Associations and/or party wall agreements are required and outline the maintenance obligations of HOAs. The current requirements are vague and have resulted in confusion amongst staff and developers. HOAs are typically necessary when there are common elements within a subdivision boundary, such as a water detention pond, private alley, or shared open space. The City has historically required an HOA instead of a party wall agreement because an HOA has the ability to fund the necessary maintenance of common elements. Codifying such requirement would be important in the face of recently increasing pushback from developers and builders. • Remove Section 26-117.C which conflicts with the current subdivision requirements in Article IV. This section requires any consolidation plat for multi-unit residential to be reviewed by Planning Commission and City Council, regardless of the number of lots. This does not align with the Article IV requirement that Planning Commission reviews 4-5 lots and City Council reviews 6+ lots. It also states that City Council reviews Planned Building Group site plans, which has since become a Planning Commission review (or administrative in some cases). Staff recommends removing this section altogether as not doing so in 2014 was an oversight. This is an older code section that has not been 9 enforced since the 2014 ordinance. It is staff’s recommendation to keep all subdivision related provisions within Article IV to the greatest extent possible. • Codify an administrative policy clarifying requirements for consolidation plats for redeveloping lots of record. This would allow more streamlined approvals of consolidation plats or property merger covenants for one single-unit home including concurrent review with the building permit application. This comes up most commonly in relation to older plats in East Wheat Ridge which date to the late 1800s and early 1900s. In these subdivisions, it is common for residential properties to be comprised of two or more lots that are individually 25 feet wide. This unique circumstance warranted a policy that clarified when a plat versus a covenant were appropriate in order to hold the narrow lots as one property of record. A covenant is a common tool for this situation in the metro area and it would be more appropriate to codify the tool rather than rely on a policy. • Update the application checklist based on current expectations. The code includes minimum submittal requirements, and a complete checklist is routinely updated administratively. The code requirements need to be updated to include any additional materials as necessary and to remove outdated items. Question: Does Council support a code amendment to address the items in this list? If so, staff recommends including subdivision topics 1 and 2 in a single code amendment in order to move this forward in the near future. Topic 3 – Clarify Utility Undergrounding Requirements The subdivision code requires the subdivider/developer to install utilities, including new water/sanitary lines, electrical service, gas service, etc. Section 26-417.3.c discusses placement of utilities and states “all new utilities shall be placed underground.” This language, although seemingly simple at the surface, has caused confusion with developers and staff and is much more simplistic than other communities. Staff has historically interpreted this to mean that all utilities adjacent to the development need to be undergrounded, which generally includes electrical and telephone lines. However, in practice this is challenging to administer as the code language only says “new” utilities should be undergrounded. Staff is also aware that requiring underground utilities along the frontage of a subdivision may have disproportionate effects on small infill development and may require significant utility work well beyond the frontage of the property. There is also nowhere in the code to clarify how the City should enforce these requirements and there is no consideration for exceptions or waivers (with the exception of allowing some components above ground such as major distribution lines and transformer boxes). Policy direction from Council will help to inform more clarity in the code. For example, does Council have a strong desire to underground utilities on all streets or just along key corridors? Do we want to incorporate waiver considerations such that undergrounding requirements do not deter infill development, particularly on smaller sites? 10 Question: Does Council support staff’s review of other cities’ requirements and updating the code to clarify what is required? Are there any policy priorities for Council in this regard? If there is support to clarify this code section, staff recommends bringing this topic back in a future study session. Topic 4 – Update Public Hearing Requirements for Subdivision Plats The City’s review procedures for subdivisions are increasingly out of alignment with other cities in the metro area and even more so nationwide. Wheat Ridge is a rarity in that many subdivisions are required to go to public hearings at Planning Commission and/or City Council, with few exceptions. Currently, subdivisions containing less than 3 lots are administrative (staff) review only, 4-5 lots require a Planning Commission hearing, and 6 or more lots require Planning Commission and City Council approval. The last discussion regarding plat review process occurred in late 2018, was focused on flag lots, and did not ultimately result in any change in the code. Staff is seeking to revisit a discussion on the review process to better manage public expectation and to acknowledge best practice. A flaw with the City’s current public hearing requirements for subdivisions is that we are asking for public engagement and feedback when it often cannot impact a decision. Subdivisions are created for uses which are already permitted on the property, and seeking public input on a plat is confusing when the proposed use or development is already allowed by the zoning. Public hearings create the impression that the proposed use or site plan for a property is up for debate or discretionary review; this is true for a rezoning, planned development, or variance when the proposed uses and development standards are changing, but not for subdivisions. Since 2014, the City has become much more sophisticated in how we engage with the community, including the introduction of the Let’s Talk program. In recent years, Council and staff have increasingly prioritized meaningful public engagement and clear public information. Public hearings are available online, letter notice for public hearings has been expanded, posting signs have been updated, and an online map is in development to help people learn about active developments and public projects. Lessons learned from public engagement efforts and staff training include a more sophisticated understanding of how to engage or inform the public in a given situation. When it comes to subdivision plats, we put decisionmakers in an uncomfortable position and we mislead the public when we ask for public input and imply that decisionmakers have discretion. Subdivisions are ministerial actions, and Planning Commission and City Council are compelled to approve them if all requirements of the underlying zoning and subdivision design standards are being met. Neighboring communities have higher thresholds for when public hearings are required for subdivisions. Some do not require public hearings at all, and some require hearings only for major preliminary plats of large developments (at a Clear Creek Crossing or Lutheran Legacy Campus scale). Others require some public hearings in limited circumstances; for example, public hearings are sometimes retained when right-of-way is being vacated. However, routine subdivision applications for residential uses (including townhomes and multi-unit residential) and for commercial developments are generally administrative processes; this includes nearby communities such as Aurora, Boulder, Fort Collins, Thornton, Denver, and Commerce City. 11 Other nearby peer communities also have significantly reduced public hearing requirements for plats, including Englewood, Arvada, Lakewood, and Littleton. It is exceedingly rare that any subdivision application is reviewed by a City Council, generally with the exception of right-of- way vacations, and in some cases preliminary plats for large planned developments. Wheat Ridge’s requirements put it out of alignment with other communities and best practice. From the public standpoint, hearings introduce confusion and division. From the developer standpoint, hearings introduce uncertainty, are inconsistent with other communities, lengthen the overall development process, and add cost and risk into the approvals process. From staff’s standpoint, we undermine public trust, expend significant resources, introduce liability if approvable plats are not approved, and put the City at a competitive disadvantage. Staff recommends reducing the public hearing requirements for subdivisions to be more in line with surrounding communities. Staff recommends retaining the public hearing requirements for right-of-way vacation, and potentially for full-street right-of-way dedication and variances, to be consistent with surrounding communities. If the requirements for public hearings are removed or reduced, staff recommends that public information be added to the review process to ensure residents and neighbors are informed of potential development. This could be a formal city- initiated notice (a mailing or sign posting) and/or informal notice (shown on the future public-facing development map); both are methods other cities have implemented successfully. This recalibration ensures the public can still be informed of development, but in a more appropriate way that does not mislead about their role in the process. Due to the more intensive nature of this code amendment, staff recommends this change occur by separate ordinance to allow the more minor changes of Topics 1 and 2 to advance more quickly. Question: Does Council support staff removing or reducing public hearings for plats and instead recalibrating ways to inform the public? If there is not a consensus to reduce public hearing requirements, staff makes the following minimum recommendations related to the subdivision review process: • Staff recommends better clarity in the code regarding how plats are classified. o Clarify that tracts which are undevelopable (such as for detention ponds) are excluded from the count of lots that determine how the plat is processed. By administrative policy, undevelopable tracts are excluded from the count that creates those thresholds and the code should reflect this. The code implies this, but it is not clearly stated. o Revise how the number of lots are determined for consolidation plats. The lot count for these plats should be based on the number of lots resulting from the consolidation, not based on the total number of lots being consolidated. The code currently bases the count on the number of lots “involved” in the replatting. For example, the Spallone Replat approved by City Council in 2021 involved 21 substandard lots of record being consolidated into 3 lots (for the 3 existing buildings on site). The code required that plat to be reviewed by City Council despite it being a routine consolidation to clean up ownership issues and lot lines and despite it reducing the overall number of lots; if the end number of lots was used, it would have been an administrative review. 12 • Variances to the subdivision regulations should only be reviewed by Planning Commission, not automatically by City Council. It is not typical for city councils to review variance applications to subdivisions; this is more typically handled by Planning Commissions and in some cases Boards of Adjustment. Variances to subdivision applications are very rare as it is difficult to meet a majority of the variance criteria outlined in Section 26-115 and 26-409. Planning Commission is best equipped to review variances for subdivisions given they already review other discretionary land use cases including planned developments. The Board of Adjustment reviews standalone variance requests, but does not review a variance when associated with an additional development request approved by another body. Question: Does Council support staff’s minimum recommendations to clarify how plats are classified and how variances to subdivision applications are reviewed? If so, these could be included in the code cleanup ordinance. RECOMMENDATIONS: Next steps will depend on Council’s direction and could include a few ordinances and potential follow-up discussions on certain topics. For ordinances that advance, they would go to Planning Commission first and then to City Council for final approval. Staff recommends separate ordinances for the two code cleanup items, one focusing on the subdivision code changes and one focusing on the mixed-use code changes. Separate ordinances are recommended if Council wants to pursue changes to utility undergrounding requirements and/or changes to subdivision public hearings (beyond the minimum recommendations), and an additional study session for those topics may be necessary. Future Topics The Affordable Housing Strategy includes additional code amendments that would affect MU code sections. However, these updates will require more research and would be better handled in a future code amendment which could include inclusionary requirements for affordable housing. A future study session will be scheduled to discuss the following: • How mixed-use projects are defined and how height bonuses for mixed-use buildings would be applied; i.e. how much commercial is needed for a residential building to qualify for the existing height bonus for being mixed-use? • Inclusionary requirements for affordable housing in mixed-use zones, which could include a requirement to include a certain percentage of affordable housing in new residential projects in mixed-use zones and a fee-in-lieu option. • Addition of the R-4 zone district including some inclusionary requirements. Although not a mixed-use zone district, a future code amendment would likely include the changes to MU plus the new R-4 district under the banner of addressing affordable housing and increasing housing options. Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Patrick Goff, City Manager FROM: Allison Scheck, Deputy City Manager Mark Colvin, Finance Manager Gerald Dahl, City Attorney DATE: February 6, 2023 SUBJECT: Clean Fleet Retail Delivery Fee - Exemption from Sales Tax ISSUE: Effective July 1, 2022, SB21-260 created within the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment a clean fleet enterprise for the purpose of incentivizing and supporting the use of electric motor vehicles and other clean fleet technologies by owners and operators of motor vehicle fleets. The clean fleet enterprise is authorized to impose a clean fleet retail delivery fee (CFRDF) to be paid by the purchaser of tangible personal property delivered to the purchaser by a motor vehicle. The fee is $.27 per delivery. City staff’s recommendation is to follow Colorado Municipal League’s (CML) recommendation and exempt the delivery fee from taxation. PRIOR ACTION: Delivery fees are taxable per City of Wheat Ridge Code Section 22-21. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City does not currently require taxpayers to report delivery fee revenues. Therefore, staff have estimated that based on an analysis of the annual taxable revenues of seven well-known delivery-based taxpayers, taxation of the $.27 CFRDF would generate incremental annual sales tax revenue of $500 per year. Analyzed differently, staff estimate that if there are 1,000 daily deliveries in Wheat Ridge, on an annualized basis, incremental annual sales tax revenue from the CFRDF would approximate $3,500. DISCUSSION: The following arguments are in favor of exempting the CFRDF from sales tax. Is the CFRDF a Fee or a Tax? While the good intentions of SB21-260 are indisputable, it is widely held by municipal finance leadership and CML that the CFRDF, at the State level, is a tax in disguise. In fact, the Colorado Municipal League (CML) has held several forums on the subject since early 2022. CML recommends that home-rule municipalities exempt the fee from sales tax given the absence of clear direction about taxability of the fee from the State. CML also believes that the fee could potentially trigger a TABOR challenge. Staff Report: Clean Fleet Retail Delivery Fee February 6, 2023 Page 2 Per Sheppard Mullin, a national law firm focused on the retail industry: “Business groups and a State Senator have filed a lawsuit alleging that SB 21-260 violated ballot initiative Prop 117, which won over 53% of voters in the election. Prop 117 was a ballot initiative in 2020 which required voters statewide approve new state enterprises when the enterprise’s projected or actual revenue from fees and surcharges is greater than $100 million within its first five years. They allege these new fees are just taxes in disguise and are a way for the state government to get around the tax accountability goals of Prop 117.” The Independence Institute, in a similar analysis as Sheppard Mullin, notes that the fee is a “bait-and-switch” and that “the legislature has exploited another workaround to both TABOR and 117.” Wheat Ridge Municipal Neighbors The following table, provided by CML, lists the home rule municipalities that have exempted the CFRDF for the same reasons as noted in this memo. Note that the City’s neighbors, Denver, Golden, Arvada and Lakewood, have exempted the CFRDF from sales tax and additional home rule municipalities will likely follow. Home-Rule Municipalities Exempting the CFRDF from Sales Tax Arvada Aurora Brighton Castle Pines Colorado Springs Commerce City Craig Denver Evans Fort Collins Golden Greeley Lakewood Loveland Mt. Crested Butte Parker Vail Staff Report: Clean Fleet Retail Delivery Fee February 6, 2023 Page 3 Highway Users Tax Fund The State’s fiscal plan for SB21-260 revenue is to direct $.0597 of each $.27 fee it collects to the Highway Users Tax Fund (HUTF). The City receives an annual distribution from HUTF of over $1,000,000. Staff estimate the State’s fiscal plan for SB21-260 will benefit the City with an additional $15,000 annually from HUTF. That $.0597 of the $.27 fee is being transferred into a tax fund is further evidence that CML believes the CFRDF is merely a tax disguised as a fee. Whether or not the City exempt the fee from taxation, it is guaranteed to realize an increase in HUTF annual revenues. Cost vs Benefit The cost of administering taxation on the CFRDF exceeds or approximates the estimated benefit. At minimum, staff estimates the cost of staff time to ensure compliance in sales tax reporting and to provide customer service is approximately $3,500 annually. NEXT STEPS: Staff is requesting direction from Council on next steps with regards to drafting an ordinance to exempt the CFRDF from sales tax. Memorandum TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Patrick Goff, City Manager DATE: January 29, 2023 (for February 6, 2023 Study Session) SUBJECT: Review of Council Rules of Order and Procedure ISSUE: Consensus was reached at the City Council Retreat on January 21, 2023 to bring forward three amendments to Council Rules of Order and Procedure. Those amendments are as follows: 1. Change the start of Regular Meetings from 7:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. (Section IV.A.2) 2. Add language to the Rules that states Council Members are expected to read online comments submitted through Wheat Ridge Speaks before the respective meeting 3. Add language to the Rules that states Council Members are expected to attend meetings in-person and should attend virtually only as a last resort PRIOR ACTION: Council Rules of Order and Procedure were last amended on June 14, 2021 BACKGROUND: The Charter of the City of Wheat Ridge provides that the Council may determine its own rules of procedure for meetings. Section B of Suspension and Amendment of these Rules states “These Rules may be amended, or new Rules adopted by a majority vote of City Council Members present at a Regular or Special Meeting, provided that the proposed amendments or new Rules shall have been submitted in writing to City Council at a preceding meeting or a Study Session. Any City Council Member, or the Mayor, may initiate an amendment of these Rules in the manner provided for initiation of Agenda Items by Rule V.D. These Rules shall be reviewed and revised by the City Council as needed and as provided for herein.” Proposed Amendments 1. Section 5.1. – Regular meetings of the Wheat Ridge Charter states that “The Council shall meet regularly at least twice each month at a day and hour to be fixed by the rules of council. Section IV.A.2. – Types of Meetings of the Council Rules of Order and Procedures states “Regular Meetings are held the second (2nd) and fourth (4th) Monday of each month at 7:00 p.m. unless otherwise provided by amendment of these Rules. Proposed amendment is to change the start time of Regular meetings to 6:30 p.m. 2. Wheat Ridge Speaks was launched in 2019 to allow constituents to review and give input on Planning Commission and City Council actions without needing to attend public meetings. City Council Members are notified electronically when comments are submitted. It is the expectation that Council Members will log-in to Wheat Ridge Speaks before the meeting to read those comments. 3. The City implemented virtual meeting technology to allow City Council, staff and constituents to participate in City meetings during the pandemic. This technology is still in use and used occasionally by council, staff or the public. The proposed amendment is to include language in the Rules that it is the expectation that City Council Members will participate in council meetings in-person and only virtually as a last resort. ATTACHMENT: 1. Rules of Order and Procedure, effective June 14, 2021 RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE COLORADO Revised: June 14, 2021 -2- TABLE OF CONTENTS I. AUTHORITY 3 II. PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO SPEAK 3 III. CHAIR, MAYOR PRO TEM, CITY CLERK, CITY ATTORNEY, PARLIAMENTARIAN AND THEIR DUTIES AT MEETINGS 5 CHAIR………………………………………………………………………………………………………………5 MAYOR PRO TEM ............................................................................... 5 CITY CLERK ...................................................................................... 6 CITY ATTORNEY ................................................................................ 6 PARLIAMENTARIAN AND RULES OF ORDER ........................................... 6 IV. COUNCIL MEETINGS AND MEETING PROCEDURES 6 TYPES OF MEETINGS ......................................................................... 6 STUDY SESSIONS ............................................................................. 7 ADJOURNED MEETINGS ..................................................................... 7 EXECUTIVE SESSIONS ....................................................................... 7 MEETING NOTICES AND REQUIREMENTS .............................................. 8 ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL GATHERINGS .................................................................................... 8 ABSENCES ....................................................................................... 9 RIGHT OF THE FLOOR ........................................................................ 9 ELECTED OFFICIALS’ MATTERS ........................................................... 9 V. ORDER OF BUSINESS AND THE AGENDA 9 SCOPE OF RULE ................................................................................ 9 ORDER OF BUSINESS…………………………………………………………………………………….9 AGENDA PREPARATION AND INITIATION OF AGENDA ITEMS……………………10 INITIATING AND ADDING AGENDA ITEMS ........................................... 11 PUBLIC HEARINGS ........................................................................... 12 ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING ...................................................... 12 TIME OF ADJOURNMENT .................................................................... 12 VI. RECONSIDERATION 13 VII. SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THESE RULES 13 SUSPENSION ................................................................................... 13 AMENDMENT ................................................................................... 14 -3- RULES OF ORDER AND PROCEDURE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO I. AUTHORITY Sections 4.7 and 5.1 of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Wheat Ridge authorize the City Council to determine its own rules of order and procedure for meetings. The following Rules shall be in effect upon their adoption by the Council until such time as they are amended or new Rules adopted in the manner provided by these Rules. II. PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO SPEAK A. PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO SPEAK 1. Public’s right to speak at meetings of the City Council is of primary importance. This Rule describes those rights and the manner in which they are exercised. 2. Public’s right to speak at Regular, Adjourned and Special Council Meetings a) For non-agenda items: a member of the public may speak once per meeting for a maximum of three (3) minutes on any item not on the agenda. Up to two (2) members of the public present and signed up to speak may donate their time to the speaker for a maximum of nine (9) minutes. b) For non-agenda items: a member of the public requiring translation services may speak once per meeting for a maximum of six (6) minutes. c) For agenda items: a member of the public may speak once for each agenda item, for any length of time unless time is limited by the chair at the beginning of the item. 3. Public’s right to speak at Study Sessions: a) A member of the public may speak once per agenda item for a maximum of three (3) minutes. Up to two (2) members of the public present and signed up to speak may donate their time to the speaker for a maximum of nine (9) minutes. -4- b) A member of the public requiring translation services may speak once per agenda item for a maximum of six (6) minutes. c) Public comments will be heard at the beginning of the Study Session, unless the Study Session is combined with a Regular, Special or Adjourned Council meeting, in which case the comments may be taken at the beginning of that meeting. 4. General Restrictions on Public’s Right to Speak a) There is no limit on the number of persons who may speak. b) Content of Public Comments are not censored, other than threatening language, which is not permitted. c) Speakers should limit their comments to the relevant topic or agenda item. d) Speakers are requested to sign the appropriate roster in the Council Chambers and will be called in order. e) Written comments provided to the Council in any of the online tools provided by the City, or in hard copy, are permitted on any agenda or non-agenda item and should be given to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council members and inclusion in the record. The reading of written comments into the record is not permitted unless a member of the public representing the author is present to read them into the record at the written request of the author. A Council Member or the City Clerk may read written comments into the record with the approval of the majority of the Council present. Any such individual reading is limited to three (3) minutes on non-agenda items. f) Speakers may provide other documents, photos, etc. to the Council by giving them to the City Clerk. g) The City Clerk, or his or her designee, is the designated timekeeper for all time-limited comments. h) Councilmembers and the Mayor have the choice of whether or not to respond to members of the public after the completion of Public’s Right To Speak. -5- III. CHAIR, MAYOR PRO TEM, CITY CLERK, CITY ATTORNEY, PARLIAMENTARIAN AND THEIR DUTIES AT MEETINGS A. CHAIR 1. The Mayor shall preside over the meetings of the City Council as the Chair. 2. In the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem shall preside as the Chair. 3. The Chair shall preserve order and decorum, prevent personal attacks or the impugning of member’s motives, confine members in debate to questions under discussion, be responsible for conducting meetings in an orderly manner, assure that the minority opinion may be expressed and that the majority be allowed to rule. B. MAYOR PRO TEM 1. At the first or second Regular meeting in November of each year, the Council shall elect a Mayor Pro Tem who shall serve until their successor is elected. The procedure shall be as follows: a) The Chair will announce that the floor is open for nominations for the position of Mayor Pro Tem. b) Nominations will be taken from City Council members by voice. No second is needed. c) Each nominee will have the opportunity to address the Council. d) A motion and second is then in order to elect one of the nominees to the position of Mayor Pro Tem. If the motion is not carried, additional motions are in order until a Mayor Pro Tem is elected by a majority of Council present. 2. If presiding as the meeting Chair, the Mayor Pro Tem shall have the voting privileges of a regular Council Member. 3. The Mayor Pro Tem’s duties shall include reviewing and setting the Agenda prior to Council Meetings and adding emergency items for discussion if necessary. The Mayor Pro Tem shall have the authority to remove any item from the Agenda of any Regular Meeting or Study Session, before publication, with the exception of: a) An item placed on the Agenda by two (2) Council Members or by the Mayor and one (1) Council Member prior to the meeting pursuant to Rule V.D.1; or -6- b) An item added by the Council by majority vote of Council present during any meeting pursuant to Rule V.C.6. 4. The Mayor Pro Tem shall arrange for and coordinate the orientation of all newly elected officials, including a review of these Rules, within two (2) months after the election. C. CITY CLERK The City Clerk, or designated representative, shall attend all meetings of Council and shall keep the official minutes. D. CITY ATTORNEY The City Attorney or acting City Attorney shall attend all meetings of the Council unless excused by the City Council and shall, upon request, give an opinion, either written or oral, on the question of law. E. PARLIAMENTARIAN AND RULES OF ORDER 1. The Mayor Pro Tem shall also function as the Council Parliamentarian, and may call upon the City Attorney for a recommendation on procedure, if desired. 2. The Parliamentarian shall advise the Chair and members of Council on parliamentary rules. 3. The current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, newly revised, shall advise the Parliamentarian regarding questions of order and procedure in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these Rules, the Wheat Ridge Home Rule Charter, the Wheat Ridge Code of Laws or other laws governing the City. 4. In cases where the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, newly revised, are inconsistent with these Rules of Order and Procedure, these Rules of Order and Procedure control. 5. The Mayor (or the Mayor Pro Tem, if presiding), shall be the final authority on all points of order or procedure, subject to override upon a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of the entire Council. IV. COUNCIL MEETINGS AND MEETING PROCEDURES A. TYPES OF MEETINGS 1. The Council meets for Regular, Adjourned, and Special Meetings and Regular and Special Study Sessions. -7- 2. Regular Meetings are held the second (2nd) and fourth (4th) Monday of each month at 7:00 PM unless otherwise provided by amendment of these Rules. 3. Study Sessions are held the first (1st) and third (3rd) Monday of each month at 6:30 PM, unless otherwise provided by the Mayor Pro Tem. 4. The Mayor Pro Tem may schedule additional Study Sessions to take place at any other day and time. 5. Council members are expected to attend Council meetings in person. In the event of illness, weather, or other necessity, council members may attend virtually by telephone or through the Zoom or other remote attendance platforms provided by the City. B. STUDY SESSIONS 1. Study Sessions shall be for the purpose of discussing concepts and ideas. No formal business shall be conducted. Consensus votes during all Study Sessions are non-binding, with exception of consensus votes to schedule or decline to schedule a matter for consideration at a Regular or Special Meeting, which may, however, be reconsidered after six (6) months as permitted by Rule V.D.3. Until an issue is disposed of at a Regular, Adjourned, or Special Meeting, it may be amended or reconsidered in that or any future Study Session. 2. Public Comment will be allowed at the beginning of a Study Session as provided by Rule II.A.3. C. ADJOURNED MEETINGS Any Meeting of the Council may be adjourned, by a majority vote of council members present or the chair, to a later date and time, provided that no adjournment shall be for a period longer than the next Regular Meeting. D. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS 1. The Council may meet in Executive Session on a vote of a majority of City Council members present in a Regular or Special Meeting (Charter Section 5.7). 2. No notes may be taken during an Executive Session except by the City Clerk and/or City Attorney. 3. If, at any time during the Executive Session, a Council Member feels that a matter is being discussed other than that stated as the purpose of the Executive Session, that member should so state and may request that the Executive Session be terminated. If a consensus of City Council Members present agree, the session shall be terminated -8- or the discussion shall be returned to the stated purpose of the Executive Session. 4. All requirements of the Colorado Open Meetings Law shall be followed. E. MEETING NOTICES AND REQUIREMENTS 1. Meetings involving no more than two (2) Council Members, whether in person, by telephone or other electronic medium and whether or not the Mayor also attends, shall not be subject to any of the requirements of this Rule. 2. Meetings of any three (3) or four (4) Council Members must be open to the public, but no advance notice is required. 3. All meetings of five (5) or more Council Members must be preceded by public notice of the meeting posted at least 72 hours prior to the meeting, with the exception of Special Meetings and emergency Special Meetings, pursuant to Charter Section 5.2, on the City website and the locations designated by resolution of the Council, listing the topic of the meeting, its location, time, and date. Copies of the notice shall be given to all City Council Members and the City Clerk at least 72 hours before the meeting. a) The City Clerk is responsible for the posting of the meeting pursuant to the Charter and Code. b) There is no responsibility to post notices of meetings of other bodies and groups, whether or not members of the Council are expected to attend. 4. Public meetings arranged by the City for members of the public, such as open houses and public input meetings, are not meetings of the City Council. F. ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AND SOCIAL GATHERINGS 1. The purpose for this rule is to permit the City to be represented by its elected officials at meetings of other groups or organizations, including, without limitation, intergovernmental organizations, neighborhood organizations, business and service organizations, and other organizations or groups with which the City has a relationship. 2. Any member of Council and the Mayor may attend meetings of other groups without prior notice, provided however, that any such meeting, if attended by three (3) or more members of the Council, is open to the public, pursuant to Section 24-6-401, et seq., C.R.S. -9- 3. Social gatherings, at which the discussion of public business is not the central purpose, shall not be subject to any of the requirements of Rule IV.E. G. ABSENCES In the event that a Council Member expects to be absent from a Regular, Special or Adjourned Meeting or Study Session, the Member shall notify the City Clerk, and the City Clerk will duly notify the City Council at the beginning of the meeting. H. RIGHT OF THE FLOOR 1. The chair must first recognize each Council Member requesting to speak unless limited by a motion to limit debate or for calling the question. (applicable also to Study Sessions) 2. Speakers shall confine themselves to the question under discussion. All discussion must be germane to the Agenda Item. (applicable also to Study Sessions) 3. Members of Council shall avoid personal attacks and refrain from impugning the motives of any member’s argument or vote. (applicable also to Study Sessions) 4. Once a vote, or in the case of a Study Session a Consensus, has been taken, there shall be no further discussion on that motion or Agenda Item unless a motion to reconsider is adopted. I. ELECTED OFFICIALS’ MATTERS This is the time elected officials may make comments on any subject. Time limit per elected official will be five (5) minutes. V. ORDER OF BUSINESS AND THE AGENDA A. SCOPE OF RULE: This Rule V shall apply only to Regular, Special and Adjourned Meetings, and not to Study Sessions, unless specifically noted. B. ORDER OF BUSINESS The general rule as to the Order of Business in Regular Meetings: • CALL TO ORDER • PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE • ROLL CALL • APPROVAL OF MINUTES • APPROVAL OF AGENDA -10- • PROCLAMATIONS AND CEREMONIES • PUBLIC’S RIGHT TO SPEAK • CONSENT AGENDA • PUBLIC HEARINGS, ORDINANCES ON SECOND READING • ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING • DECISIONS, RESOLUTIONS AND MOTIONS • CITY MANAGER’S MATTERS • CITY ATTORNEY’S MATTERS • ELECTED OFFICIALS’ MATTERS • ADJOURNMENT C. AGENDA PREPARATION AND INITIATION OF AGENDA ITEMS 1. The Order of Business of each meeting shall be as contained in the Agenda prepared by the Mayor Pro Tem following the Order of Business provided in this Rule. 2. By majority vote of the City Council during any City Council meeting the order of business for that meeting may be changed. The City Manager and City Attorney may also propose to add or delete items to the Agenda of such meetings under “Approval of Agenda,” subject to approval by a majority of the Council members present. 3. The Agenda shall be distributed to the members of City Council and the public by 5:00 PM on the Thursday prior to the Monday of the Regular Meeting. 4. The City Clerk’s Office shall be notified of the Agenda by noon on the Wednesday preceding the Monday on which the City Council meets. All backup material and documents required for the Agenda shall be filed with the Clerk’s office by 5:00 PM on that day in order to be included in the City Council packet. 5. A majority of City Council Members present at a meeting is required to direct the City Attorney or staff to draft an ordinance to be included on the Agenda. 6. A majority vote of City Council Members present may add, change the order of, or delete an item from, the Agenda under “Approval of Agenda.” In Regular Meetings, this must be done before Public Hearings and Ordinances on Second Readings. 7. The first option of introducing Agenda Items shall go to a representative of the City Council District to which the Agenda Item pertains or to the City Council Member who initiated the item. Council Agenda Items not specific to a City Council District may be introduced by any member requesting such privilege from the Chair in advance of the meeting. The Mayor shall assign Agenda Item introductions and -11- notify each City Council Member and the City Clerk prior to each City Council meeting. 8. Fiscal Notes. On any Agenda item containing a fiscal impact on the City’s budget, the City Manager shall prepare a brief explanatory note that shall include a reliable estimate of any anticipated change in the expenditures or revenues to the City and whether such expenditures or revenues shall be recurring in nature during future budgets years. This shall include any principal and interest payments required to finance expenditures. 9. City Council may not approve an appropriation under City Manager’s Matters, City Attorney’s Matters, or Elected Officials’ Matters. D. INITIATING AND ADDING AGENDA ITEMS 1. City Council Members or the Mayor may each originate an Agenda Item with the approval of one other City Council Member. Each City Council Member and the Mayor shall be allowed to originate only two (2) items per month to be added to the Agenda of a Regular Meeting or a Study Session, subject to the scheduling authority of the Mayor Pro Tem under Rule III.B.3. It is the intent of this Rule that no more than two (2) agenda items may be initiated by the Mayor or any City Council Member during any single month. 2. It is the responsibility of the originating City Council Member to provide backup material for the City Council packet as to the subject or arrange for that backup material to be prepared. No item may be included in the Agenda without proper backup. 3. Other than by reconsideration pursuant to Rule VI, once an item has been decided by a formal City Council vote at any Regular, Special or Adjourned Meeting or by a binding consensus vote at any Study Session under Rule IV.B.1, it is not eligible to be added to a future Agenda for six (6) months. 4. Motions made by City Council Members which are not in the City Council packet should be submitted to the City Clerk and the Mayor in writing during the City Council Meeting so they may be accurately voted upon and included in the minutes. 5. During a Regular Meeting, under the City Manager’s Matters, the City Attorney’s Matters or the Elected Official’s Matters portion of the Agenda, or at a Study Session, the Mayor, a City Council Member, the City Manager, or the City Attorney may request that a motion be made to add an item to a future Agenda for consideration, subject to approval by the City Council by a majority vote of Council present (for addition to a Regular Meeting Agenda) or a consensus vote (for additions to a Study Session Agenda). -12- 6. The City Manager may add administrative and operational items to the agenda during “Approval of Agenda.” E. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. All speakers are requested to sign up on the appropriate roster, indicating whether they intend to speak to a particular Agenda Item. There is no time limit on individual public testimony, provided, however, that the chair may impose a limit on individual speakers’ time in consideration of the number of speakers signed up on the hearing item and the available time for the hearing The City Council shall not entertain a motion for the final disposition of the matter until the City staff and applicant have made their presentations, if any, the public has been able to speak on the matter, the City staff and the applicant have been given the opportunity to clarify any issues raised, and the public hearing has been closed, provided that motions regarding the conduct, scheduling or continuation of the public hearing shall be proper at any time. 2. Hearings which are labeled as “Quasi-Judicial” matters on the Request for Council Action in the meeting packet: a) Councilmembers shall refrain from communicating with each other, the applicant, or the public prior to the hearing. b) Written material and e-mails received prior to the hearing shall be forwarded to staff for inclusion in the hearing record. c) The chair shall swear in all witnesses, affirming their intention to tell the truth F. ORDINANCES ON FIRST READING 1. It is the goal and desire of City Council to allow all interested parties to provide input during the Public Hearing/Second Reading on all proposed ordinances. A full, complete, and open discussion of all proposed ordinances is encouraged during the Public Hearing/Second Reading. 2. Therefore, public comment and staff presentations will occur only during the Public Hearing/Second Reading. First Reading will be for the purposes of setting proposed ordinances for publication, and establishing a date for the Public Hearing/Second Reading. G. TIME OF ADJOURNMENT 1. At 11:00 PM, the City Council shall complete action on the Agenda Item then under discussion and shall adjourn the meeting. -13- 2. Prior to such adjournment, the City Council may take any of the following actions: a) Acting by three-fourths (¾) majority vote of the City Council Members present, complete all or portions of the remaining Agenda. b) Acting by a majority vote of the City Council Members present, schedule any unfinished items for a future Regular or Special Council Meeting. c) Acting by majority vote of the City Council Members present, continue the meeting to a later date and time certain. VI. RECONSIDERATION 1. A motion to reconsider may be made only by a City Council Member originally voting with the prevailing side. 2. Such motion to reconsider shall be made only at that or the next scheduled Regular Meeting. A continued or rescheduled meeting shall be considered a next scheduled Regular Meeting for the purpose of such motion to reconsider. If not reconsidered at that time, the issue may not be placed on any agenda for six (6) months. 3. A motion to reconsider shall require an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire City Council. 4. A City Council Member who was absent from the meeting at which the item was discussed may vote on the substantive matter following a successful motion to reconsider provided that City Council Member affirms, on the record, that he or she has listened to the recording of that Agenda Item. VII. SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THESE RULES A. SUSPENSION Any provision of these Rules not governed by the Home Rule Charter or Code of Laws may be temporarily suspended by a three-fourths (3/4) majority vote of the City Council Members present. -14- B. AMENDMENT These Rules may be amended, or new Rules adopted by a majority vote of City Council Members present at a Regular or Special Meeting, provided that the proposed amendments or new Rules shall have been submitted in writing to City Council at a preceding meeting or a Study Session. Any City Council Member, or the Mayor, may initiate an amendment of these Rules in the manner provided for initiation of Agenda Items by Rule V.D. These Rules shall be reviewed and revised by the City Council as needed and as provided for herein.