Rejects Ordinance 2024-06 That Would Have Allowed a Six-Month “Let’s Catch our Breath” Pause
After much comment during the public hearing, “Emergency Ordinance 2024-06, Imposing a Temporary Moratorium on the Submission, Acceptance, Processing, and Approval of Certain Land Use Applications, and Declaring an Emergency” was defeated in a 4-2 vote.
Community Development Director Bill Almquist led off consideration with a 10-minute prepared statement outlining the need for a six-month, emergency moratorium. The intent: to finish the complete rewrite of the city’s Land Use Code (LUC). Efforts since this began in 2019 have been hampered by the COVID-19 pandemic, staff turnover, and most recently the transfer of Senior Planner Kristy Jefferson to fill the vacancy for the City Clerk position.
The LUC rewrite is reported to be two-thirds complete. Outsourced consultants have been working with staff to streamline the language, remove ambiguities and contradictions, and align all the cross-references in every section of what some have called a “1,000-piece jigsaw puzzle”. The result of this effort is expected to make the code easier to understand for developers, reduce the need for interpretations/negotiations, and ultimately, speed up approval times.
The city’s development office is extremely short-staffed and the workload is heavy with 60 email threads and 150 emails alone each day that need to be worked. Almquist and Kathryn Dunleavy (who also spoke), together with a technician are holding the bare-bones crew together; putting in unstainable work weeks, at great personal sacrifice. An experienced planner is signed to join the team in June but will need to get up to speed on local codes and processes. While no one can guarantee the timeline, the request for a six-month moratorium was only on approval of new planned developments and major impact reviews.
Almquist’s points may be seen and heard on the City YouTube recording which runs approximately from 56:50 to 1:06:00 in the session. He emphasized that professional planning best practices clearly recommend a moratorium during major LUC updates and making it an emergency ordinance is key to prevent a landslide of new applications attempting to “get in under the wire”.
He pointed out that there are already 1,200 units that have passed approvals, so contrary to a concerned voice during the meeting, there is no shortage of work for the already busy local trades. Citing the experience, drive to win, and endurance of the long distance runner he is, Almquist offered this analogy: “[sometimes you need to] take a step, then pause, so you can start running.”
Council Questions and Public Hearing on moratorium
During the public hearing, Planning Commission Vice Chair Francie Bomer spoke to the council as a private citizen, in favor of the emergency moratorium.
“It would not affect by-right construction, administrative reviews, subdivision exemptions, minor applications, annexation requests, nor would it impact building permit applications, she said.
“It’s difficult enough to understand all the nuances of a project without injecting competing versions. Managing both versions of the code, at the same time, creates a nightmare for our hardworking staff, planning commission, and council,” she added. “Our planning department is seriously short-staffed and needs this time to focus on completing the code revisions. It should be a priority for them, and for you. It’s time to trust and support our development director, and his skeleton crew.”
During council questions, Almquist was asked if other tasks could be taken off the department’s plate, if front-line customer service to the public or response times could be reduced to allow focused time on the LUC. Additional outsourcing of work to contract interim staff or consultants was explored but none of these options seemed to provide the significant relief needed.
The choice: either approve the emergency moratorium, or put the LUC on the back burner for an undetermined time, during which new applications would prolong the LUC rewrite even further while risking a potential catastrophe in this vital department.
During public comment, developers, business owners, the director of the Economic Development Corporation, and a small contractor expressed various concerns for their own interests. While to be expected, opponents appeared to be focused on the short-term and not necessarily the long-term best interests of the community at large. Common themes included “This signals to outsiders that we are closed for business…it will create a huge backlog, ruins momentum for the trades, etc.”
A statement by bushiness owner Ray Kitson that “moratoriums are a job killer” was made without any substantiation. Responding to council member Critelli’s concern for the health, safety and long-term sustainability of the staff, Kitson placed blame squarely on the council and at the same time took aim at the department’s efforts. “Why are you pampering the staff? It’s a job, it’s work.”
Council discussion and vote
The topic was raised in regular session, without the benefit of a previous work session on the matter, or considering the implications of an emergency ordinance (a single reading/public hearing and immediate effectivity if passed). Council members faced a difficult choice, especially newly-seated council members. While council appreciation and support for the staff was universal, pressure from the business community was clearly evident.
Dominique Naccarato wanted to ramp up department staffing regardless of the outcome but was worried about overlap with the Chaffee County building application moratorium which is now set to expire at the end of 2024, after that effort suffered a change of consultants midstream. Mayor Pro Tem Justin Critelli expressed deep concerns about the stamina of the staff and and council’s need to support them.
Despite earlier staff assurances that a moratorium would not impair short or long-term growth in the economy, Suzanne Fontana took a straight business line saying “We can’t curb growth at the expense of housing or growth or sales tax.”
Council member Aaron Stephens hoped for a compromise — a moratorium after Chaffer County lifts theirs. New member Wayles Martin wasn’t sure if six months was enough anyway, an opinion shared by Alisa Pappenfort.
A motion to approve the moratorium was made by Critelli, and seconded by Pappenfort, who, after a roll call, were the only two votes cast in favor and the motion was defeated. Staff was directed to investigate the possibility of adding another planner, however the impact of this decision on current staff and the community at large remains to be seen.
In other business
Ordinance 2024-05 Changes to Park and Recreation City Code
A presentation by Parks and Recreation Department Director Diesel Post followed which built on discussions at the April 1 work session. Post accepted the council’s direction that most of the proposed code modifications were acceptable and brought up answers to anticipated financial implications for added staff time and materials for park cleanup of errant dogs.
A motion was made by Naccarato and seconded by Pappenfort to amend Ordinance 2024-05. In it, language would be added to continue to prohibit dogs in City Parks per Section 11-6-70 of the Municipal Code and Section 3 Animal Nuisances 7-5-220 would be removed entirely . The amended ordinance was approved unanimously on first reading. A second reading and public hearing is now set for April 16.
Litigation with the Town of Poncha Springs
After Council Mayor and Attorney reports, a motion was made to go into Executive Session for the purpose of “Legal advice regarding lawsuit brought by the Town of Poncha Springs, Tailwind Group LLC and Full Views Matter, LLC against the City of Salida and related negotiations, discussions and next steps.”
This ongoing litigation was also a point addressed by several people at the opening of the meeting during public comment. As a group, the sentiment expressed was to urge the council to resolve the litigation and open up a backlog of wastewater permits in Poncha Springs. These have been held up by Salida due to concerns about rampant growth in Poncha risking downstream capacity in the shared system. The question of who pays for the growth triggered in Poncha Springs remains the primary issue, followed by a need for an updated intergovernmental agreement between the municipalities.
Featured image: Salida City Council members Suzanne Fontana, Alisa Pappenfort, Dominique Naccarato, Mayor Dan Shore, Wayles Martin, Justin Critelli, Aaron Stephens. Merrell Bergin photo
Recent Comments