Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES Town Board Special Meeting 1999-08-317Town of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado,August 31,1999 Minutes of a Special meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Town of Estes Park,Larimer County,Colorado.Meeting held in the Municipal Building in said Town of Estes Park on the 31St day of August,1999. Meeting called to order by Mayor Robert L.Dekker. Present:Robert L.Dekker,Mayor Susan L.Doylen,Mayor ProTem Trustees Jeff Barker Stephen W.Gillette George J.Hix Lori Jeffrey Also Present:Rich Widmer,Town Administrator Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerk Gregory A.White,Town Attorney Absent:John Baudek Mayor Dekker called the special meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. PUBLIC COMMENT None. TRUSTEE COMMENTS. None. ACTION ITEMS. 1.Protest concerning Ballot Title —Proponents of Initiated Ordinance Petition Prohibiting the Exhibition of Animals.Mayor Dekker stated that on August 24’,the Board of Trustees passed Resolution 21-99 concerning protest procedures for a ballot title for initiated ordinance or referendum.In a letter dated August 26,1999,Proponents Ricki Ingersoll and Terry Parenti protested the following ballot title:“Shall the Town of Estes Park prohibit the exhibition of animals in a cage or other enclosure or the exhibition of animals by tethering the animal to an object?” The proponents suggest the following language:“Shall the Town of Estes Park prohibit the exhibition of animals in a cage or other enclosure or the exhibition of animals by tethering the animal to an object.The provisions of the ordinance do not apply to the listed exceptions in the ordinance dealing with educational exhibition,exhibition of domestic animals,exhibition for purposes of adoption by a humane society or exhibition of animals during periods of rehabilitation or medical treatment by a veterinarian.” Blair Trautwein,Attorney representing the proponents stated it is important to list the exceptions for true intent of the Ordinance.Trustee Hix questioned the difference between exception and defense.Mr.Trautwein stated that,in this particular case,there is no difference.Trustee Doylen commented that the Ordinance states “it is a specific defense to a charge”;an exception occurs prior to being charged.Mr.Trautwein urged the Board to exercise discretion.Trustee Doylen noted her concern with “defense to a charge”—in this country,you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.Mr.Trautwein stated there is always a Board of Trustees (Special Meeting)-August 31,1999 -Page 2 presumption of innocence.Mayor Dekker stated the primary obstacle appears to be the definition of defense and exception.Mr.Trautwein suggested the Proponents’ballot title be amended to “...not apply to the listed defenses”rather than exceptions as listed in the protest letter,The Mayor stated the four specific defenses to a charge are not exceptions,how could same be defined and made clear to the citizens. Trustee Doylen stated the proposed ballot title includes “...treatment by a veterinarian.”The word veterinarian was not used in the Initiated Ordinance,is it an appropriate injection to the ballot title at this time?Town Attorney White confirmed the Town is prohibited from injecting any opinion,interpretation,etc. on the Initiated Ordinance. Trustee Gillette requested clarification on the purpose of the ballot title,and Attorney White responded that the purpose is to give the voter an opportunity to vote yes or no in a fair manner;there are no restrictions to the length of the ballot question.Responding to Trustee Gillette,Attorney White confirmed that the ballot title as written and approved by the Town Board August 24th fairly represents the Initiated Ordinance.However,Items 1-4 could be added as a defense,not an exception.The Ordinance contains defenses,not exceptions, and if an animal is caged or tethered,the owner could be cited into Municipal Court. Trustee Gillette moved the ballot title remain as approved August 24,1999. Trustee Barker stated the ballot title accurately reflects the Initiated Ordinance and seconded the motion. Ricki Ingersoll stated that,in her opinion,the Town Board is making a judgement on the Initiative and language contained therein on what it is presumed to be.It is illegal to kill an elk inside Town limits and slaughter it for meat,but if there is “road kill”,the meat can be used to feed the poor.The Town Board cannot make a legal opinion on this Ordinance,and parties who are initiating the Ordinance must also think the ballot title is fair —compromise or go to court.Chapter 7 of the Municipal Code is already more blatant than this Ordinance,cattle and horses are mote restricted.Nowhere in the Municipal Code does it state rodeos ate allowed.Rodeos ate illegal and an injunction could be filed to stop this activity.The Town Board is not a legal entity or court system.There are ordinances in the Municipal Code that are violated every day and people are not arrested.It is her contention that the 4 items listed in the Initiated Ordinance are exceptions and she could give a definition to make them exceptions if passed. The Town Board is not being fair,she will not stand for this action,and she will move forward. Mr.Trautwein expressed his opposition to Attorney White’s statement that the Town Board cannot add language or an interpretation to the Ordinance.If the Town Board’s intent is to be fair,the four items must be included.There are rodeos held in Estes Park with horses from all over the country,all horses are supposed to be charged $25.Such a fee is not charged as it is not the intent of the ordinance. Alan Aulabaugh commented on horses and cattle relative to the Municipal Code and Ms.Ingersoll’s comments,adding that if a person uses De-con to kill mice, that person could be charged now,unless they are a fumigation business.The Code is not written in stone,and everyone knows what the intent of this particular Ordinance means.The proponents want the exhibition of animals stopped for amusement or entertainment purposes.Mr.Aulabaugh urged the Board to compromise. Board of Trustees (Special Meeting)-August 31,1999-Page 3 Trustee Jeffrey questioned whether the ballot title would include the entire Ordinance language.Attorney White responded that yes the entire Initiated Ordinance could be printed,and Trustee Barker confirmed that a copy of the Initiated Ordinance is available to all. Mr.Trautwein commented that the Town writes many ordinances,and in many instances,the Mayor doesn’t send the Police Dept.to enforce the law.However, if there is a charge,the Town is obligated to follow through in Municipal Court. As requested,Mayor Dekker read the approved ballot title.In Mr.Aulabaugh’s opinion,the ballot title as approved is grossly short of what the Initiated Ordinance covers.Terry Parenti,co-sponsor of the initiative,pled with the Town Board to observe common sense,the Board knows what the intent is—to prohibit the caging and exhibition of wild animals.It has nothing to do with the development of property.The specific intent of the developer here is to cage wild animals for exhibition and profit;the proponents object to that simple act. Whether the development is profitable and a proper use of the site is up to them. In the interest of getting people to know what they are voting on,you have to keep the issue in focus.It will be a disservice to the voting constituents of Estes Park if they do not know what the Proponents consider to be exceptions,part of initiative.People seldom read details,it is unfair to expect they will understand this abbreviated title.Mr.Parenti urged the Board of Trustees to include the explanations so the average citizen can honestly say whether they are for it or against it.Trustee Barker questioned why the Proponents didn’t use the language “exception”in lieu of defense;Mr.Parenti responded that they could have,it was their intent. Kathy Riley/Friends of Rodeo,commented that she believes the Proponents are attempting to re-write their Ordinance.As written,the Initiated Ordinance clearly states the exhibition of animals—the ballot title is exactly as proposed in the Ordinance.Trustee Doylen reiterated that the Ordinance does not state wild animals,had it been definitive in the introductory statement,the intent would be clarified.Trustee Hix concurred with Trustee Doylen,stated the Ordinance is still flawed,and wild should have been specified.Trustee Jeffrey questioned how the definition of defense vs.exception was considered in legal terms?Mr. Trautwein referred to the Statute for the true intent and meaning of a measure. Without the defenses,the ballot title clearly doesn’t meet the intent of the Ordinance. Trustee Hix called for the question.The vote was unanimous to retain the ballot title as previously approved.Mr.Aulabaugh referred to Item #4 in the Initiated Ordinance,and added that approval of the Ordinance would make rodeos legal in this Town and that they are currently illegal.Attorney White added that tethering a dog in a driveway would be in violation of the Initiated Ordinance as written,and that exhibiting is not defined. Ms.Ingersoll disagreed with Attorney White,and added that at the next Town Board meeting,she was planning to add definitions to Ch.7 (Animal section)that would clearly define their Ordinance.In an effort to “get all avenues covered”the Ordinance language was broadly written.The Town Board has made it unfair for the voting public to understand what this Ordinance is.Mayor Dekker commented that it is the intent and definitions of the Initiated Ordinance that are elusive,and disagreed with the statement that the Town Board does not want to protect animals. 2.Lake Estes Trail Relocation/Estes Substation.Light &Power Director Matzke stated that PRPA’s contractor for the substation project plans to mobilize the week of September 7th As has been previously discussed,the bike path east of the Estes Power Plant Switchyard must be relocated.One condition of the BOR Board of Trustees (Special Meeting)August 31,1999 -Page 4 Special Use Permit is that the bike path be replaced prior to removing the portion that conflicts with the substation Project.Approximately 440’of bike path must be relocated,and Rocky Mountain Consultants (RMC)has negotiated a bid with High Peak Concrete for constwction of the new path,partial demolition of the existing path,relocation of the irrigation system,and placement of sleeves under the new path for future irrigation expansion. RMC confirmed that High Peak Concrete is the only contractor that is able to meet the time constraints of this project,and their bid price is reasonable.Staff is recommending the bid be awarded to High Peak Concrete for an estimated cost of $21,978.This expense will be refunded to the Town from the bond sale. It was moved and seconded (Hix/Gillette)the Board award the bid in the amount of $21,978 to High Peak Concrete,and it passed unanimously. Following conclusion of all agenda items,Mayor at 8:55 a.m. / adjourned the special meeting Mayor I .&I Vickie O’Connor,Town Clerk LI H