MINUTES

Regular Meeting – Aurora City Council

Monday, February 23, 2009

1. RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009 AND CALL TO ORDER

Mayor Tauer reconvened the regular meeting of City Council at 7:33 p.m.

2. ROLL CALL

PRESIDING: Mayor Tauer

COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

OFFICIALS PRESENT: City Manager Miller, City Attorney Richardson,

City Clerk Johnson

3. MOMENT OF SILENCE

4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG

5. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 2, 2008

Motion by Markert, second by Pierce, to approve the minutes of February 2, 2008 as presented.

Voting Aye: Mayor Tauer, Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

Abstained: None.

6. CEREMONY

Mayor Tauer recognized Boy Scout Troop #303, sponsored by Boy Scout Troop #717.

7. PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD (non-agenda related issues only)

None.

8. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA

The agenda was adopted as presented.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR - 9a-9c

General Business

a. Consideration to APPROVE LAND PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT(S) totaling $1,163,700 for a parcel of land situated in the SW 1/4 of Section 4, Township 5 South, Range 65 West of the 6th Principal Meridian, Arapahoe County, Colorado containing 38.79 acres, more or less (Murphy).

Motion by Broom, second by Hogan, to approve item 9a, with a waiver of reconsideration.

Voting Aye: Mayor Tauer, Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

Final Ordinances

♦ b. Consideration of an ORDINANCE OF FINALN of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, amending various provisions of the City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado, regarding the establishment of fees for alcoholic beverage, cabaret, and massage therapy licenses.

♦ c. Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR FINAL of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, initially zoning of a parcel of land generally located north of the Aurora Reservoir, astride Quincy Avenue, and to the east of Robertsdale Road to Open District (“O), and amending the Aurora Zoning Map accordingly (Pronghorn Natural Area and Open Space) 1.073.02 acres more or less

Motion by Sandstrom, second by Hogan, to approve items 9b – c.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

10. RESOLUTIONS

♦ a. Consideration to APPROVE A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, authorizing the execution of a Loan Agreement with the Aurora Urban Renewal Authority evidencing a loan from the Aurora Brownfields Revolving Loan Fund for $415,000.

Motion by Wallace, second by Hogan, to approve item 10a.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

♦ b. Consideration to APPROVE A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, authorizing a Grant in the amount of $350,000 to Aurora Economic Development Council, Inc.

Motion by Beer, second by Wallace, to approve item 10b.

Council Member Markert expressed her understanding that the Economic Counsel partnered with the City and that a Strategic Plan would be provided at the end of the first quarter. She asked that be made available to Council prior to the disbursement of funds.

Mayor Tauer pointed out the funds were required at the beginning of the year and Council Member Markert’s suggestion would require a new requirement on the grant agreement.

Charles Richardson, City Attorney, noted the necessity of funds were an integral part of the operating budget. He confirmed staff would provide Council Member Markert with the Strategic Plan when it was available.

Council Member FitzGerald expressed his appreciation for the AEDC, noting the grant was well deserved.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

♦ c. Consideration to APPROVE A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, to amend the 2009 Personnel Policies and Procedures Manual of the City of Aurora, Colorado.

Motion by Beer, second by Hogan, to approve item 10c.

Council Member FitzGerald expressed his appreciation to staff for their responsiveness in providing information in this regard. He asked if from a Human Resources’ standpoint, the definition of the term sexual orientation related to both heterosexual and homosexual.

Kin Shuman, Director, Human Resources, answered affirmatively.

Council Member FitzGerald stated that term did not belong to one group or the other. Mr. Shuman concurred.

Jeff DenHoed, Aurora, Colorado, spoke in opposition to the item. He pointed out the perspectives on both sides of the resolution present a conundrum and that conundrum would not be resolved once the resolution was approved. He stated approving the resolution would provide special rights to a special interest group at the expense of everyone in the City because doing so would require an increase in cost and a decrease in City services.

Tiffany Winters, Aurora, Colorado, spoke in favor of the item. She addressed concerns raised by those in opposition such as abuse of the system, cost, and constitutionality. She contended it was good business practice to provide qualified, competent, homosexual employees with the same benefits afforded equally qualified, competent, heterosexual employees.

Tara Mastracchio, Aurora, Colorado, spoke in favor of the item, and related her experience in choosing to work in Aurora as a member of the Aurora Police Department based on its progressive approach to homosexual rights. She contended approving this resolution would provide her partner and family with security if she were injured or killed in the line of duty.

Council Member FitzGerald asked Ms. Mastracchio if she agreed that the term sexual orientation applied to both the homosexual and heterosexual population. Ms. Mastracchio answered affirmatively. Council Member Fitzgerald asked Ms. Mastracchio if she would agree that heterosexual couples in a committed unmarried relationship should receive the same benefits as those being proposed for homosexual couples. Ms. Mastracchio answered affirmatively. Council Member FitzGerald asked Ms. Mastracchio if she was in favor of provision for both heterosexual and homosexual committed couples who were not married. Ms. Mastracchio answered affirmatively.

Mayor Tauer asked staff to address whether this ordinance, if approved, provided a heterosexual couples and homosexual couples with the same rights, or were rights being singled out for same sex couples. Mr. Shuman did so, stating the current proposal would give domestic partner rights to same sex couples only and not opposite sex couples. The theory being opposite sex couples in the state of Colorado have the right to marry and obtain those rights through marriage. Mayor Tauer asked staff to speak to obtaining benefits through Common Law Marriage practices. Mr. Shuman did so, noting Common Law Marriages were considered legal marriages and no difference was recognized. To further the point, Human Resources required a Divorce Degree be provided in the event an employee wanted to remove a common law spouse from their benefits. Mayor Tauer asked if a marriage and a common law marriage were viewed as the same. Mr. Shuman confirmed his understanding there was no difference.

City Attorney Richardson confirmed Common Law Marriage was a recognized status, explaining historically, the Common Law concept was designed to benefit children produced by a union where the parents had not gone through the protocol necessary for the government to recognize the marriage.

Mayor Tauer related his understanding of Council Member FitzGerald’s comments regarding having one set of rules for both heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Council Member FitzGerald concurred, noting two sets of rules ran the risk of disenfranchising either group. He asked the cost of adding both groups. Mr. Shuman agreed Council could include opposite sex couples for coverage under domestic partnerships. He noted the cost of doing so was difficult to predict and estimates were realized by analyzing other cities that do so.

Council Member FitzGerald stated based on other cities that do so, the cost could double. Mr. Shuman concurred.

Council Member Peterson asked if opposite sex domestic partnerships that ended would require a divorce. City Attorney Richardson answered no.

Council Member FitzGerald asked if the City currently provided benefits for the employee plus one. Mr. Shuman answered affirmatively.

City Attorney Richardson discussed Common Law Marriage.

AMENDMENT

Motion by FitzGerald, second by Markert, to amend item 10c, to include the glossary definition of Household Group and exclude the glossary definition of Domestic Partner.

Council Member FitzGerald read, “A Household Group – two unmarried adult persons of the same or different sex living as a household for the purpose of obtaining group health insurance by and through the employer of one. This shall not affect or diminish the procurement of health insurance by either adult for natural or adopted children.”

Council Member Markert asked staff if insurance companies would accept the City’s definition of dependants and beneficiaries. Mr. Shuman answered affirmatively. Council Member Markert asked Council Member FitzGerald if his amendment excluded family members.

Council Member FitzGerald answered no, noting children of either adult were included.

Council Member Markert asked if an adult child living in the household would be covered. Council Member FitzGerald answered affirmatively. He referenced Article 2, Section 31 of the Colorado Constitution which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, noting he shared that opinion. He reiterated the term sexual orientation was not particular to either heterosexuals or homosexuals, therefore two unmarried adult people of the same or different sex should be allowed to form a Household Group for the purposes of securing insurance.

Mayor Tauer noted the estimated cost increase per couple was almost double what was originally proposed which related to approximately $4K over what was projected. Mr. Shuman concurred.

Council Member Pierce asked Council Member FitzGerald if he was attempting to create an equitable situation regardless of whether a couple was same sex or opposite sex. Council Member FitzGerald concurred.

Council Member Broom asked if this would include illegal aliens and what the timeframe would be to be considered a Household Group. Mr. Shuman stated the current Domestic Partner proposal required a signed affidavit confirming a relationship of a minimum of six months.

City Attorney Richardson stated the City used the Form I-9 for employment eligibility requirements however there was no way to determine the status of a Household Group member.

Council Member Hogan asked if that was theoretically possible under the City’s current policy. City Attorney Richardson agreed an employee’s spouse or child could have an immigration status, but noted a benefit of marriage was obtaining citizenship.

Council Member Broom stated a second person requiring insurance could be helped six months after becoming a part of the Household Group.

City Attorney Richardson noted the Amendment did not address whether a Household Group was a part of the six month rule but did shift the focus to what constitutes a household. He noted if the amendment carried, Human Resources and the City Attorney’s Office would provide guidance as to what constitutes a household.

Council Member FitzGerald related his request that Mr. Shuman draft the language to include the timeframe and apply it to the new glossary definition which was more appropriate.

Mayor Tauer noted the new language clarifies what was considered a Household Group, which addressed Council Member Broom’s concern. He suggested should the item pass, the City Attorney’s Office and Human Resources should be directed to clarify these concerns.

Council Member Beer would have preferred amending the original language to state, “partners of the same or opposite sex living together in a committed relationship” because the amended language potentially opened up City’s benefits to abuse. After further thought, he determined the City’s employees should be trusted to not recklessly abuse the City’s benefit program.

Council Member Sandstrom asked for clarification regarding the inclusion cost being approximately $100K. Mr. Shuman answered affirmatively.

Mayor Tauer asked Council Member FitzGerald if he was amenable to including language that required Human Resources and the City Attorney’s Office to construct language that would narrow the definition of Household Group in order to address Council Member Broom’s concern.

Council Member FitzGerald reiterated the intent was to create equity for unmarried couples because the original definition generated a backdoor that attempted to create legitimacy for relationships that were not marital relationships.

Mayor Tauer asked Council Member Markert if she was amenable to the inclusion of the language directing staff to better define Household Group. Council Member Markert answered affirmatively.

Council Member Beer asked if the amendment would inadvertently narrow the scope of the benefits that would otherwise have been approved in the originally submitted language. City Attorney Richardson answered no.

Council Member Pierce asked the penalty for falsifying an affidavit in this regard.

Stacie Evans, Assistant City Attorney, discussed the penalties for falsifying insurance applications, noting in the past, employees have been required to pay the difference in arrears.

AMENDMENT

Motion by FitzGerald, second by Markert, to amend item 10c, to include the glossary definition of Household Group, exclude the glossary definition of Domestic Partner and have the City’s Human Resource Department and Attorney’s Office further define and develop those criteria.

VOTE ON AMENDMENT

Voting Aye: Beer, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Wallace

Voting Nay: Broom, Sandstrom

Council Member Sandstrom clarified under the City’s current policy, both adopted and natural children of either heterosexual or homosexual employees were eligible for insurance. Mr. Shuman concurred.

Mayor Tauer asked if some portion of the incremental cost would be covered under Common Law Marriage. Mr. Shuman answered affirmatively.

Council Member Beer pointed out oftentimes City Council was required to make decisions that did not relate to public policy but caused them rather to act as a board of directors to do what was best for their employees. The only way Council could succeed in providing basic community services was through the hard work and dedication of City employees. Therefore everything possible that could be done to make sure those wanting to work for the City were included should be done. He supported expanding the City’s benefit plan.

Council Member Wallace noted this type of insurance coverage was implemented by other large municipalities in the area. The City wanted to attract the most qualified and dedicated employees, and this resolution would do so because each employee has the right to benefits.

Council Member Sandstrom expressed concerns regarding the impact this would have on the City’s budget. Given the current state of the economy and the City’s budget concerns, she could not support the item.

Council Member Hogan noted this was about the employees and felt it was the right thing to do at the right time.

Council Member Pierce supported the item, especially given Council Member FitzGerald’s amendment, because the City’s employees were its most important asset.

Council Member FitzGerald requested a cost analysis be provided next year of the impact of the item because it may be determined to be cost prohibitive.

Council Member Peterson asked if an adult child would be covered under the policy. Mayor Tauer noted that concern was a part of what staff would attend to when addressing Council Member Broom’s concerns.

Mr. Shuman noted current policy did not allow coverage for a child over the age of 25.

Council Member Peterson noted given the recent budget cuts, she could not support adding services at this time.

Voting Aye: Beer, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Pierce, Wallace

Voting Nay: Broom, Sandstrom, Peterson,

♦ d. Consideration to APPROVE A RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, approving the intergovernmental agreement between the city and the regents of the University of Colorado at Denver for professional services for $6,000.

Motion by Beer, second by Frazier, to approve item 10d.

Council Member Hogan asked why the cost was so little and why the City did not handle it in-house.

John Fernandez, Manager, Comprehensive Planning, stated the work was highly subsidized and was largely done by graduate students.

Council Member Markert related the City of Aurora was one of the few cities enjoying this type of notable contract with Universities. She expressed her appreciation to staff for their foresight in this regard.

Council Member Beer stated the Sustainable Urban Infrastructure Program was a great program. It was an integrated program which included many of CU Denver schools and departments. He clarified the services were less expensive because the program was primarily supported with a $3.2M award from the National Science Foundation.

Voting Aye: Beer, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Wallace

Voting Nay: Broom, Sandstrom

11. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION

♦ a. Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR INTRODUCTION amending Section 137 of Chapter 102 of the City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado relating to the interest rate paid on contribution accumulations under the General Employees Retirement Plan.

Motion by Sandstrom, second by Peterson, to introduce item 11a.

Voting Aye: Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

Voting Nay: Beer

12. ORDINANCES FOR FINAL

♦ a. Consideration of an ORDINANCE OF FINAL of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, adopting the 2009 Ward Map

Motion by Wallace, second by Peterson, to approve item 12a.

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

♦ b. Consideration of an ORDINANCE FOR FINAL of the City Council of the City of Aurora, Colorado, amending Chapter 22 of the City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado, regarding registration of Abandoned Residential properties.

Motion by FitzGerald, second by Wallace, to approve item 12b.

David DeElena, Aurora, Colorado, representing the Aurora Association of Realtors, expressed concerns regarding the current bank addenda that required potential homeowners to assume the debt, fines and abatement associated with a home, and the method of communicating the existence of such debt.

Kevin Hougen, Aurora, Colorado, representing Aurora Chamber of Commerce, related concerns regarding the financial burden being passed to potential homeowners, the potential impact on credit card rates in certain parts of the community, the strict zoning requirements, and a sunset date for June 2012.

Council Member FitzGerald expressed his understanding that addressing equal enforcement and the treatment of pools and spas under this ordinance would lessen industry concerns. Mr. Hougen concurred. Council Member FitzGerald pointed out a pool or spa left full on an abandoned property presented a safety concern therefore the banks agreed to drain them. Mr. Hougen concurred. Council Member FitzGerald noted there was agreement that Deeds of Trust allow banks to go onto a property on a contractual basis to prevent the property from decay.

Mayor Tauer noted a modification to the City’s trespass law allowing a bank access to a property in order to maintain it prior to foreclosure was proposed.

Nancy Sheffield, Director, Neighborhood Services, concurred.

AMENDMENT 1

Motion by FitzGerald, second by Peterson, to amend item 12b by striking the language in Subsection C(2), relating to pools and spas, and replacing it with language that reads, “Pools and spas shall be kept in such condition that they do not violate the provisions of Section 62-26 par 20 of City Code.

VOTE ON AMENDMENT 1

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

AMENDMENT 2

Motion by FitzGerald, second by Peterson, to amend Item 12b by adding a new Subsection K, titled Review state, “This section of Chapter 22 of the City Code of the City of Aurora, Colorado shall be reviewed by City Council during the month of June 2012. In aid of such review, a report on the ordinance enforcement and effectiveness shall be made available to City Council by appropriate staff and the Code Enforcement Committee at least one month prior to the above review.”

VOTE ON AMENDMENT 2

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

AMENDMENT 3

Motion by FitzGerald, second by Peterson, to amend Item 12b by the insertion of the term fee between violation and penalty in the first sentence of Subsection F.

Council Member Markert clarified that change was made.

Council Member FitzGerald removed his motion.

VOTE ON ORIGNAL MOTION

Voting Aye: Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

13. PLANNING MATTERS

a. PUBLIC HEARING to consider a SITE PLAN AMENDMENT for a 2,771-square-foot restaurant with a drive-through, generally located at the Northeast Corner of Ironton Street and Colfax Avenue (10707 E. Colfax Avenue).  (Jack-In-The-Box at Colfax Square)

Kim Kreimeyer, Planning, gave a brief presentation of the item. She related efforts made by the applicant to mitigate concerns previously raised by Council.

Council Member Wallace expressed her appreciation to staff and the developer for their efforts in this regard.

Motion by Wallace, second by Pierce, to approve item 13a.

Voting Aye: Mayor Tauer, Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

14. RECONSIDERATIONS AND CALL-UPS

None.

15. GENERAL BUSINESS

a. Consideration to appoint one member to a three-year term on the Public Defender Commission.

Motion by Peterson, second by Markert, to appoint Tina Collins to the Public Defender Commission.

Voting Aye: Mayor Tauer, Beer, Broom, FitzGerald, Frazier, Hogan, Markert, Peterson, Pierce, Sandstrom, Wallace

16. REPORTS

a. Report by the Mayor

b. Reports by the Council

Council Member FitzGerald related the success of the recent Chocolate on Havana event.

Council Member Markert invited all those interested in attending to the Ward IV meeting scheduled for Thursday, February 26 at 6:30 p.m. at Fire Station #11.

Council Member Pierce announced the Grand Opening of Kohl’s at the Gardens of Havana on March 4, 2009 at 7:30 a.m., and the recent production of “Hazard County” at the Fox Theater running now through March 15. Those interested can purchase tickets at www.aurorafox.org or by calling 303-739-1970. He expressed appreciation and congratulations to those volunteers involved with refurbishing the historic trolley.

Council Member Wallace encouraged everyone to attend the Shadow Theatre’s production of Smoky Joe’s Café which was running through March 12. She announced the Qwest Communications scholarship program for high school seniors and asked all those interested to call 303-729-7502 for application information.

Council Member Beer echoed Council Member Wallace’s enthusiasm regarding the production of Smoky Joe’s Café and recommended everyone attend. Tickets could be purchased at www.shadowtheatre.com or by calling 720-857-8000. He related the success of the Aurora Symphony Orchestra Valentine's Day Dessert Soiree which took place on Valentine’s Day in the lobby of the City building. He wished Karen Middleton, Representative for Colorado State House District 42, a happy birthday.

17. PUBLIC INVITED TO BE HEARD

None.

18. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Tauer adjourned the regular meeting of City Council at 8:59 p.m.

_______________________________________

EDWARD J. TAUER, Mayor

ATTEST:

________________________________________

DEBRA JOHNSON, City Clerk