Colorado Springs adopts ethics ordinance as broader code overhaul remains unapproved

Colorado Springs City Council approved an ethics ordinance July 28 regulating the use of city resources, while a separate, unapproved draft would broaden the city’s ethics code and revise its gift and conflict-of-interest rules.

The council passed Ordinance No. 26-28 7-2. It bars covered people and their immediate family members from misappropriating city services or other city resources for personal benefit. It also allows city-funded security for elected officials and their immediate family members during official duties or personal activities when the police chief or designee determines there is a reasonable security risk. City-owned vehicles are limited to official purposes, with specified exceptions for authorized users and passengers.

The ordinance applies to elected officials, administrative officers, employees, independent contractors, volunteers and members of city boards, committees and commissions, among others. It does not include a de minimis exception or dollar threshold. The ordinance takes effect after final adoption and publication under the City Charter.

Councilmember Dave Donelson Hengem said in the July 28 meeting record that he opposed the ordinance because it lacked a de minimis exception for minor or low-value conduct. He said that issue should be addressed in broader revisions to the ethics code.

The draft overhaul would replace references to “independent contractors” with individuals whose compensation from the city is reported on an IRS Form 1099. It would also raise the specified annual gift limit from $59 to $75 per vendor or third party, with the $75 amount applying as of Jan. 1, 2026.

The proposal would revise rules for gifts and event tickets accepted by immediate family members; add exceptions for elected officials’ official-duty meals, tickets and activities at city- or government-sponsored events; and remove documentation language from several exceptions involving conferences, educational events and business meals. It would delete the existing section on “inappropriate hospitality and gifts.”

The draft would bar covered people from taking or influencing direct official action in city matters involving a substantial interest held by themselves or an immediate family member. It would exempt action on the annual city and Utilities budgets from those restrictions, even when an official or family member benefits. Elected officials also could serve on the boards of qualifying 501(c)(3) organizations and act on matters that may benefit those organizations unless the official or an immediate family member has a separate substantial interest.

It would allow covered people to rely on a written City Attorney advisory opinion for future conduct when all pertinent facts are disclosed in writing. A person acting in good faith under such an opinion could not be found to have violated the code. Verbal opinions would have to be documented upon request and would not bind the Ethics Commission in a complaint investigation.

The Legistar matter record identifies Councilmember Brian Risley and Carly Hoff, a senior legislative analyst, as presenters. It does not identify either as the legal sponsor, and the draft does not state a formal rationale. The record lists the matter as referred at a May 11 work session and scheduled for first reading or postponement July 14, with council action listed for July 28. The available records do not establish whether those scheduled actions occurred, whether the draft was formally introduced, or whether it received final council or mayoral approval. The draft has no established effective date.

The city’s existing Code of Ethics provides for complaints, investigations, hearings, sanctions and advisory opinions. The available records do not establish changes to those enforcement mechanisms through either Ordinance 26-28 or the draft overhaul.