The City Council is scheduled to meet behind closed doors Monday to discuss a lawsuit over a no-solicitation zone downtown.

Monday’s informal agenda included a closed executive session for “legal advice and consultation” with City Attorney Chris Melcher regarding the status of a complaint filed against the city by the ACLU, which says the zone violates the First Amendment.

After the closed session, the council is scheduled to reconvene in open session and have a “general discussion” about the status of the case, according to the agenda.

The lawsuit over the no-panhandling zone isn’t the only item scheduled to be discussed in closed legal session.

The council also is scheduled to receive “legal advice and consultation … regarding the processes and procedures for ethics allegations against councilmembers.”

That item may be tied to an ethics complaint filed against City Councilman Tim Leigh by David Neumann, who claims Leigh “has committed numerous wrongful acts potentially in violation of his  fiduciary and other duties as a member of the Board of Directors of Utilities.”

Neumann has a $73.5 million contract with Colorado Springs Utilities for scrubbers at the Martin Drake Power Plant downtown. The contract and the scrubbers themselves are the subject of intense debate among city officials.

What should Colorado Springs do next in light of a judge’s injunction on the no-solicitation zone?

The Gazette asked Mayor Steve Bach and City Council members to answer the question Wednesday.

Only City Councilman Bernie Herpin responded.

“Before I can comment on the status of the lawsuit and implementation of the no solicitation ordinance, I would need to hear from our City Attorney.  However, we do have an ‘aggressive solicitation’ ordinance on the books that would cover most of the more aggressive panhandling anywhere in the city.  It, like all our laws, becomes a matter of enforcement,” Herpin said in an email.

“I, also, do not understand the comments from the judge about our lack of discussion on other issues with the content of the no solicitation ordinance,” Herpin added. “I recall that we talked extensively about no charity solicitation, specifically about the Salvation Army bell ringers; street performers; sandwich boards; Girl Scouts; and other impacts of the ordinance besides just panhandling.”

City Attorney Chris Melcher weighed in Wednesday afternoon, saying the city had already issued a statement on the matter.

“The release stated that the city would carefully review the written opinion when released next week, consult with legal counsel, and make a decision after a thoughtful review and discussion,” Melcher said in an email.

Melcher also said that Herpin was “absolutely correct” that “there were substantial and detailed discussions in public council sessions that discussed solicitation by charitable organizations,” including the Salvation Army and the Girl Scouts, and solicitation by musicians and other street performers.

“Until we have the judge’s written decision, we cannot be sure what the court meant by those comments or whether the court was simply mistaken in its review of the record,” Melcher said. “The entire City Council proceedings on the ordinance were entered into the record by the city at the hearing, and the record before the court will reflect those discussions. ”

Melcher said it’s unlikely city leaders will be able to discuss “possible next steps” until the next council meeting Jan. 7 because of the holidays.

The City Attorney’s Office gave the City Council an update Monday on Amendment 64, which legalized small amounts of marijuana in Colorado.

By coincidence, the presentation happened the same day that Gov. John Hickenlooper declared the voter-approved change part of the state constitution.

At City Hall, Kyle Sauer, an attorney in the corporate division, gave the council a presentation with a lot of information.

Among the facts: Amendment 64 allows individuals to grow up to six marijuana plants in an enclosed, non-public, locked space.

But the amendment raises other questions, including what happens in a group living situation, Sauer said.

“The example that came up as well in a college town like we have here: You have a lot of people living under the same roof. A fraternity house that has 50 people living in it. Can they have 300 plants in their house? These are things that are up in the air.”

The City Council is holding a work session Tuesday to review and discuss proposed changes to campaign finance disclosure and election code requirements.

The work session will be from 10:30 a.m. to noon in the Pikes Peak Conference Room at City Hall, 107 N. Nevada Ave.

The public is allowed to comment on the proposed changes, which are the result of confusion and other problems that surfaced during the last municipal election.

Click here to see the proposed changes.

Here’s the agenda for Tuesday’s work session:

Introductions

Key Issues

Timeframe for hearing/penalties

– What are appropriate penalty limits?
– How long should process take?

Disclosure requirements

– What information is required and what is filing process?
– Reporting of Independent Expenditures.
– Disclaimers on electioneering communications.
– Conflict between definition of Issue Committee and disclosure requirement.

Termination of committee

– How to affirmatively close?
– Carry-over funds and disposal of unexpended funds.

Enforcement issues

– Ability of Clerk and/or hearing officer for discovery of information and to compel testimony.
– Ability to “follow the money.”

Candidate training

– Manual and training program: who creates, who instructs?

Other Issues

Public Comment

Summary of Council Direction to City Attorney

Tom Florczak

Pueblo’s city attorney is coming to work for Colorado Springs.

The city on Monday announced the hiring of Tom Florczak as the new deputy city attorney.

Florczak, who starts Oct. 15, will be paid $160,000 annually — or about $20,000 more than he earned in Pueblo.

Colorado Springs City Attorney Chris Melcher said Florczak will supervise five section chiefs in litigation, prosecution, utilities, municipal and human resources. He will also support Melcher as he advises Mayor Steve Bach, City Council and city enterprises, Melcher said.

“We are very pleased to have Tom Florczak agree to join our office and help us provide the very best legal services to the city of Colorado Springs,” Melcher said in a statement.

“As the Pueblo city attorney and in private practice before that, Tom brings tremendous legal skills and extraordinary judgment developed over 34 years of practice in municipal law,” Melcher said.  “I am thrilled to have Tom join as the newest member of our team, and am confident he will help us continue to improve the Office of City Attorney and our service to this community.”

Melcher said the position of deputy city attorney is new but “fully funded” by the elimination of a prosecutor position and an assistant city attorney position.

“The changes in the office will not result in any increase to the office budget and will not require any new funds from the city’s general fund,” he said.

Melcher said Florczak’s hiring is in no way related to the Southern Delivery System. The water pipeline, which is under construction from Pueblo to Colorado Springs, has created tensions between the two communities.

“We are very excited and pleased to have Tom join our office, and are confident his experience, skill, and judgment will provide an immediate and substantial contribution to the Office of the City Attorney,” Melcher said.

According to the Pueblo Chieftain, Florczak has been Pueblo’s top attorney for the past three years and worked in the Pueblo City Attorney’s Office for the past three decades. The Chieftain also reported that Florczak also worked in former Pueblo City Attorney Tom Jagger’s firm for 31 years.

The Colorado Springs City Attorney’s Office maintains that “the city does not have a policy for keeping emails unless the emails are subject to a litigation hold.”

In other words, emails that are subject to public view can be deleted whenever government officials decide — at least according to the city’s legal department.

Photo by Daniel J. Chacon

Here’s the schedule for the proposed no solicitation zone to fight panhandling downtown, according to a news release from the City Council:

Over the next two months, the “No Solicitation Zone” Ordinance schedule is as follows:

Monday, Sept. 10 – Informal City Council meeting. City Attorney to answer questions from Council and receive direction. Public is welcome; public comment not permitted.

Monday, Sept. 24 – Informal City Council meeting. City Attorney to present draft ordinance. Additional changes may be made to ordinance. Public is welcome; public comment not permitted.

Tuesday, Oct. 9 – Formal City Council meeting. First reading of ordinance. Public welcome; public comment permitted.

Tuesday, Oct. 23 – Formal City Council meeting. Possible second reading of ordinance. Public welcome; public comment permitted.

All meetings will begin at 1 p.m. and will be held in the Council Chambers located on the third floor of City Hall at 107 N. Nevada Avenue.

This schedule is tentative and could change based on Council direction or decision.

An editorial that resurrected the $1.15 million separation agreement with former Memorial Health System CEO Larry McEvoy led City Councilwoman Lisa Czelatdko to divulge new details about what happened behind closed doors.

On a Facebook post of Gazette editorial page editor Wayne Laugesen, Czelatdko revealed discussions in closed executive session.

Here is what Czelatdko wrote, with edits:

I was actually in the closed executive session Wayne Laugesen and so know exactly what was said and not said. What was not said was a 1.2 million dollar severance package was being given to (former Memorial Health System CEO Larry) McEvoy.

What was said was:

1) Why is McEvoy here in chambers announcing a resignation with no announcement of it on the agenda or notification to Council from the City Attorney’s Office?

2) What was said from the Memorial Hospital Board Chair Jim Moore, was that they (board and Chris) were working on a severance package for McEvoy up to 18 months and that they had been working on possible packages for two weeks under the direction of Chris Melcher

3) What was said was that no Memorial contract would be valid without the signature of Jim Moore and Chris Melcher

4) And lastly, what was said was the reminder that Council, the City Attorney’s Office and Memorial board could not enter into any contracts over 1 million dollars without all three parties acknowledging it. This understanding was put in place a month prior to protect the lease negotiations and keep the current admin entering into big money contracts that UCHealth might not want.

When I left that room I know myself and many of my colleagues who did not support retention packages thought, ‘Good luck getting us to agree to anything more than his agreed contract package,’ and we went home after a 7-hour meeting day.

Wayne, please, please stop perpetuating incorrect information and writing articles based on non factual assumptions. Did (council President Scott Hente) and (council President Pro Tem Jan Martin) know more specifics? I don’t know. Do you know for a fact? Did (Councilman Merv Bennett) and (Councilwoman Brandy Williams) know? I’m not sure. Do you? All I know is Council was told by Jim Moore that Chris Melcher, City Attorney was assisting in package negotiations. Chris did not refute that as he stood there listening to Jim speak. Chris confirmed to Council what I mentioned above regarding signatures needed for agreed contract limits and Council was told a package would come back for confirmation. No confusion for me when I walked out of the room that the city attorney who is suppose to serve both Council and the Mayor, who dare Council question or challenge his legal opinion, had it under control and was working on it with the board. Assumingly looking out for the best interest of council and the city.

I also know after the nightmare began, Chris Melcher, city attorney informed council that he paid for an outside legal consult who confirmed the board could do what they did, that if we challenged them through litigation which (Councilwoman) Angela Dougan, (Councilman Tim Leigh) and myself all said we’d support, the City would be responsible for paying all their attorneys, fees, etc and they probably would win costing the taxpayers millions more of wasted dollars. Chris told Council it was a weak case to challenge, a done deal, basically Council would have to take the lumps, and the lame press release was put out by my colleagues (I was flying with space command) that we would not pursue the matter further. So as I see it everyone won but Council and the health payers.

Memorial and UCHealth got rid of McEvoy who was tainting the campaign and poisoning the morale of hospital employees, the Board showed defiance and wielded their authority one last time, McEvoy lost a job but got a heck of a lot of money, and Council gets the blame for not overseeing the Board more thoroughly. A board who legally was given full authority and fiduciary responsibility years prior. I can only assume that decision was because the prior council thought it made sense to appoint a full time board of knowledgeable people who could dedicate their time to the health system and report back monthly to council. Council, who back then, was a part time, poorly compensated body in charge of the city, the health system and the utility company. Council, who now is even more limited and minionized by certain vocal, agenda driven, influential people, who so obviously serve one master. All I can say is I hope someone is keeping track of some of these personnel issues and making permanent notes in personnel files.

The city plans to use Pikes Peak Rural Transportation Authority funds now being spent on FREX for local transit service in Colorado Springs.

Mayor Steve Bach said the City Attorney’s Office believes the city has the discretion on how to use those funds.

“We’ll collaborate with PPRTA and hopefully reach an agreement with them,” he said.

Video from the mayor’s press conference on Tuesday:

Click here to view the embedded video.

They say anybody can sue anyone for anything.

It’s true — and here’s proof:

A man who mistakenly thought he won a football pool organized by a city bus driver wanted Colorado Springs taxpayers to give him the money when the driver refused to pay up.

Don Miller said he gave a bus driver named “Ron” $10 on Feb. 3 to participate in a Super Bowl XLVI football pool.

“I had (a score of) 9 for NY and (a score of) 3 for New England at the end of the first quarter,” Miller wrote in a claim filed with the city.

“New York had 9. That was my number,” he wrote.

Just one problem: the score at the end of the first quarter was 9-0, which means Miller didn’t win squat.

The city denied the claim Feb. 14, saying that all personnel operating or maintaining city buses are employees of McDonald Transit, which is “the contractor through which transit services are supplied to the City of Colorado Springs.”

Jerry Triolo, general manager of Colorado Springs Transit Management Inc. and vice president of McDonald Transit, said Miller “apparently” didn’t understand how the football pool was won.

“This gentleman thought that just because he had one number, he wins the quarter,” Triolo said. “He was claiming (he was owed) whatever that quarter amount was, and I’m estimating that it was $250. Of course, the driver was like, ‘No, but you didn’t win.’”

Triolo said his company doesn’t approve of betting on city buses or during work hours.

“The driver was written up for that. It became a big deal because it’s not tolerated whatsoever,” he said.

“But the big issue was that (Miller)  didn’t know apparently how this game works, and he thought he only had to have one number to win it,” Triolo said.

Miller could not be reached for comment. The City Attorney’s Office redacted his contact information from the claim.