Pueblo City Council defeats motion to reconsider sales-and-use tax capital projects ordinance

Pueblo City Council on Monday rejected, 4-3, a motion to reconsider an ordinance amending Chapter 4 of Title 14 of the Pueblo Municipal Code that would establish criteria, standards, rules and regulations for appropriation and expenditure of the 1992–2026 sales-and-use tax capital improvements projects fund.

The motion to reconsider was introduced during the council's 5:30 p.m. meeting and framed as a request to bring the ordinance back for more discussion and a second reading; a voice vote later gave it four votes against and three in favor. Mayor Graham told the council she and Councilor Latino had discussed the ordinance after the June 23 meeting and that Latino had said in that conversation he “fully supports” the ordinance, a point she said justified reconsideration for clarification. “He clearly states that this is an ordinance that he fully supports, end of issue,” Mayor Graham said.

City Attorney Gifford told council members that a prevailing-side member who wishes to reconsider a failed motion must do so within 10 days at a regular, special or recess meeting; the current filing was within that time window. He also said, if the motion to reconsider had passed, the ordinance would return for a legally required second reading and public hearing on July 14.

Council discussion focused on whether a councilor had simply mis-voted on the dais. Several members said they were confused by a discrepancy between remarks made off the dais and the recorded vote during the June 23 meeting. Councilor Martinez said she, too, had received constituent inquiries about why a councilor’s spoken support did not match the recorded vote. Several councilors referenced a short video of an off-dais conversation presented during the meeting in which Councilor Latino expressed support for the ordinance.

During the voice roll call on the motion to reconsider, the clerk recorded these votes: Mark Ayla — yes; Brett Boston — yes; Dennis Flores — no; Roger Gomez — no; Joe Latino — no; Regina Maestri — no; Sarah Martinez — yes. The motion therefore failed 4-3, leaving the ordinance’s status unchanged until (and unless) proponents pursue other procedural paths.

The council did not take a final vote on the underlying ordinance during Monday’s meeting; City Attorney Gifford confirmed that if the ordinance is reconsidered and the motion passes, it would return for second reading and public hearing on July 14.

The discussion and failed reconsideration occurred during the council’s regular meeting and was followed by other agenda items including multiple charter-change discussions and work-session matters.