HomeMy WebLinkAbout01.22.2024 Special Study Session NotesSpecial Study Session – City Council CITY OF WHEAT RIDGE, COLORADO City Council Chambers 7500 W. 29th Avenue
January 22, 2024
Upon adjournment of the Regular City Council Meeting, and after a short recess, the
Mayor called this Special Study Session to order at 7:06 p.m.
This meeting was conducted both as a virtual meeting and hybrid, where some
members of the Council or City staff were physically present at the Municipal building,
and some members of the public attended in person as well.
After calling the meeting to order, presiding official Mayor Starker stated the rules and
procedures necessitated by this meeting format.
Mayor Starker welcomed the Council, other elected officials, staff and interested
citizens.
The Mayor also explained the virtual/hybrid meeting format, how citizens will have the
opportunity to be heard, and the procedures and policies to be followed.
Council Members present: Janeece Hoppe, Scott Ohm, Jenny Snell, Korey Stites,
Amanda Weaver, Leah Dozeman, Dan Larson, and Rachel Hultin.
Also, present: City Manager Patrick Goff; City Attorney Gerald Dahl; Deputy City Manager, Alli Scheck; City Clerk, Steve Kirkpatrick; Director of Community
Development, Lauren Mikulak; other staff, guests and interested citizens.
Public’s Right to Speak
No one came forward tonight.
Note about Wheat Ridge Speaks:
Citizens may visit the Wheat Ridge Speaks website and enter written comments of up to
1,000 words on any Council agenda item. The deadline for citizens to submit
comments is 12:00 Noon Mountain Time on the day of a Council session so that
Council members, other elected officials and City Staff have time to review the
comments before the meeting on Monday evening.
The City Clerk’s Office transcribes those Wheat Ridge Speaks comments into these
minutes, placing each comment along with the record for that agenda item.
There were no citizen comments entered into Wheat Ridge Speaks related to this
session,
1. 38th West Street Improvement Project, Youngfield Street to Kipling Street
Issue
In March 2023, the city began a planning study of the 38th Avenue corridor between
Youngfield Street and Kipling Street with the goals of improving the roadway to
accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists while still accommodating vehicular traffic as
well as providing improved stormwater drainage. The study will combine public input
with technical analysis to develop a recommended alternative for the corridor. The final
deliverables will be conceptual plans and a preliminary cost estimate.
Staff Report
Infrastructure Project Manager, Mark Westberg, gave a detailed presentation and
explanation of the Improvement Project and background where the intent of this planning study is to develop conceptual plans for the addition of bicycle and pedestrian facilities along 38th Avenue from Youngfield Street to Kipling Street. To accomplish this, the city hired Ayres, an engineering and planning firm, to provide analysis and design
and vet various alternatives with the public.
He spoke on other topics that included the top three priorities for the corridor, identified by the public during the first round of public outreach, which were:
• Enhance pedestrian safety.
• Provide comfortable bicycle facilities.
• Resolve drainage problems.
He reported that based on this feedback as well as the results of the traffic analysis, the Ayres team prepared three conceptual alternatives:
1. Shared use path on the north side and sidewalk on the south side
2. Shared use path on the south side and sidewalk on the north side
3. Sidewalks on both sides and on-street bike lanes
Where the key takeaways and common themes from the second round of public outreach
include:
• Separate travel modes by speed, i.e. separate bikes, and scooters from
pedestrians
• Provide connections to regional destinations such as the Recreation Center
• Preserve the existing character and feel of the street.
• Preserve trees.
• Improve roadside drainage.
• Provide traffic calming to slow speeds and enhance safety.
• Underground overhead utility lines.
Mr. Westberg reported that, generally, Alternatives #1 and #3 were the most preferred by all participants. Based on the screening matrix prepared for the public meetings, Alternative 3 scored the highest.
He finished by saying that given the direction from the City Council, the next steps will
complete the traffic analysis by finalizing the locations that might need either left turn
lanes or roundabouts and prepare the conceptual plans and a preliminary cost estimate, and then gave a calendar of dates when this topic will next be presented for outreach.
Mr. Westberg requested the City Council to provide consensus on the recommended approach and then stood by to answer questions.
Councilmember questions and comments:
CM Weaver commented that she strongly supports Option 3 in the staff report, as a
resident and business owner on W. 38th Avenue. She asked about undergrounding
utilities and how feasible that would be. Staff gave a detailed answer.
CM Hultin expressed her excitement for the project. She prefers Option 3 and
explained why she prefers that opinion. She then asked about lighting at transit stops
along this project area. Staff gave a specific answer. CM Hultin also asked about
speeding along W 38th Avenue and using new standards to study the speed. Then she
asked about an art project along the avenue. Staff made detailed comments. Then she
asked about designing bike lanes and sidewalks to avoid disturbing trees along that
beautiful canopy of mature trees. Again, staff gave a detailed answer. She supports
the staff recommendation.
CM Ohm also supports Option 3 and explained why. He also expressed concern about
saving as many trees along the corridor as possible. He hopes the value of the trees is
included in any calculus about the cost of the project and special efforts to save trees.
He also asked that staff consider traffic rotaries whenever feasible because they reduce
accidents.
CM Larson asked detailed questions about the history of this project and its genesis.
Mr. Westbrook again gave a detailed answer. CM Larson then asked about a
pedestrian and cyclist count as part of the overall traffic analysis. Mr. Westbrook gave a
detailed reply. CM Larson asked about the $25 million price tag for this project and how
much of the Prop 2J funding will still be available for other projects with the $75 million
voters approved in November. Another detailed answer followed from Mr. Westbrook.
CM Dozeman commented she understands the optimization of engineering design and
the cost for that consulting service. She believes that one of our top priorities for this
project is safety, especially cyclists. As a motorist she understands how important it is
to carefully plan for safety, even if the cost increased. She would prefer a shared use
path from a safety standpoint. Mr. Westbrook commented on staff’s analysis of this
problem.
CM Stites also supports Option 3. He attended a meeting of residents at which they
expressed the same opinion. He had questions about where specific facilities will be
located to avoid untoward impacts on residences and other building along the corridor.
CM and Mayor Starker thanked the staff for all of their hard work in preparing for this
update. Mayor Starker then asked if there are other sources of funding for this project
in addition to the 2J funds. Mr. Westbrook reviewed the staff’s research into all possible
sources of funding other than the City and 2J and explained that there are several
opportunities for further study.
CM Snell also supports Option 3. She opined that it will be important to continue
collecting residents’ comments and feedback on the design and construction.
CM Hultin then opined about the multiple use design and its disadvantages of putting
pedestrians, dogs, children and cyclists in the same space. She also recalled that there
are no through streets from 32nd Ave to 44th Ave, so this design needs to accommodate
the traffic volume and safety of children. Some parents will now let their children cross
an avenue to enjoy a City park.
CM Dozeman asked for an explanation of what is included in the $2.4 million cost for
design. Ms. D’Andrea gave a detailed answer.
MPT Stites proposed a consensus to direct staff to return to Council with further
specifics on implementing Option 3.
Consensus achieved.
2. Review of Council Rules of Order and Procedure
Issue
The Charter of the City of Wheat Ridge provides that the Council may determine its own
rules of procedure for meetings. Section VII.B 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.” Attached are the current Rules, effective February 13, 2023. Council may
consider amendments to these Rules at this time.
In response to the antisemitic comments received at the November 13, 2023 City
Council meeting, the City Attorney drafted the attached memo “Hate speech in the
public forum: options for local governments.” Mr. Dahl provided several options for City
Council to consider regulating the time, place, and manner of public comment.
Staff Report
City Attorney, Gerald Dahl provided an introduction on the topic of the publics right to
speech which takes place at the beginning of regular City Council meetings. Speakers
can zoom or call in to deliver comments, in addition to those present in the Council
chambers.
He presented a list of potential actions the City might take to govern this part of the
agenda, within the limitations necessarily imposed by the First Amendment to the
United States Constitution and case law construing it. The list has been materially
enhanced by responses to a listserv post I placed with the municipal attorneys listserv
sponsored by CML.
Mr. Dahl spoke on topics that included:
• First Amendment case law
• Speech given in a public forum.
• Intermediate scrutiny
• Limited public forum
He also spoke on topics of times, places and manner of restrictions which can be
placed on the opportunity for public comment. Some of those being:
1. Sign in requirements
2. Identification requirements
3. Limit total time for public comment
4. Move public comment to the end of the meeting.
5. Restrict public comment to agenda items only.
6. Written comments in lieu of spoken public comment on non-agenda items.
7. Limit or eliminate the right to donate time.
He finished by addressing Counter speech where public officials and other members of
the public certainly have the same right to speak out and contradict hate speech. This
can and does occur during Councilmember comments at the end of the meeting.
The tradition has been to not immediately respond to public comment at the beginning
of the meeting, but this rule could be changed to allow Councilmembers to affirmatively
push back and identify public comments as having been false, hate speech, antisemitic,
or any other unsavory category. The Council must balance this opportunity against the
potential for the meeting to become a form of shouting match, which undercuts the main
purpose of the meeting itself.
Mr. Dahl then stood by to answer questions.
Councilmember questions and comments:
CM thanked staff for their well prepared and informative presentation.
CM, the Mayor and the City Attorney then engaged in a detailed discussion of Council
Rules and how to achieve the desired outcomes with potential changes.
CM supported removing the right to yield time from one speaker to another during
Public’s Right to Speak. They also supported not re-broadcasting Council meeting
comments like the ones heard on November 13, 2023. There was also discussion of
allowing only spoken comments (without any slides or other AV).
MPT Stites proposed a series of consensuses to ask the City Attorney propose specific
revisions to Council Rules with options for language to adopt consistent with this
discussion, including:
1. Eliminating the yielding of time by one speaker to another speaker during
Public’s Right to Speak;
2. Addressing the archiving and rebroadcasting of video records if hate speech or
threatening comments occurs;
3. Elect the Mayor Pro-Tem at the first Council regular meeting in January each
year;
4. Changing the rules of order, we use from Robert’s Rules of Order to Bob’s Rules
of Order;
5. Changing the parliamentarian function from the MPT to the Mayor;
6. Limit Public’s Right to Speak to spoken words and handouts only; no AV/slides.
7. Clarify that there is no limit to the number of speakers during Public’s Right to
Speak but grant the Mayor the right to either limit the total time for speakers, limit
the time for each speaker to less than 3 minutes, or limit the number of speakers
generally or to comments on a specific topic or agenda item.
8. Restrict the MPT power to call a Study Session to reasonable times and days at
the convenience of other Councilmembers.
Consensuses achieved.
3. Staff Report(s)
There is a process underway to find a new Municipal Judge. Would CM like one of their
members to sit on that selection committee.
4. Elected Officials’ Report(s)
Nothing more.
ADJOURNMENT
The Special Study Session adjourned at 8:53 pm.
APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL ON February 12, 2024
______________________________
Steve Kirkpatrick, City Clerk
____________________________
Korey Stites, Mayor Pro Tem