In the end, the only argument was whether the council should kill the beast or postpone dealing with it until the heat died down.

An ordinance that would have severely limited the number of improvements that Cortez homeowners could make on their own houses was ultimately put to sleep Tuesday after the city council heard from an overflow crowd during a public hearing.

Along with requiring general contractors to be licensed, the proposed law would have restricted homeowners to one "non-structural" repair or maintenance project — replacing a door or broken window glass, for example — per year without obtaining a contractor’s license; it would have also limited homeowners to one "structural" project — such as building a garage or adding a room — every three years.

Passed by the council on first reading with little discussion at its last meeting, the ordinance was supposed to protect homeowners who hire contractors from shoddy work and rip-offs. But people protested during the hearing that it would do the opposite: penalize homeowners by preventing them from doing their own work and forcing them to hire someone else.

"I have concerns as to the citizen’s rights," said Ken Maness, who questioned the need for any ordinance.

"Has there been a situation where the public health, safety and welfare is in peril?" Maness asked. "Has there been a public outcry [for such regulation]?

"I think we need to study this a lot more."

Mayor Joe Keck conceded that "there’s not good data" to demonstrate that problems with disreputable builders has been a "significant issue."

Two representatives of the MontDolores Homebuilders Association, which had spent three years consulting with the city’s public-works department to develop the ordinance, expressed continued support for the licensing requirement.

"I’m for the ordinance," said John Stramel, president of organization. "I’d like to see us all [be] professionals."

Contractor Lyle Rice said he was also "in favor of some sort of licensing," but not the ordinance in question.

"I’d like to make a motion to table it indefinitely to research it and come back," Rice said.

Builder Gregg Daniel pointed out that a homeowner’s project still has to pass muster with the city’s building inspector.

"We need a way of telling good contractors from bad ones," he said, "but there are other ways of approaching this if we’re out to help the people of Cortez.

"Who does this [restriction] benefit?" he asked. "The only people I can think of is contractors."

Chris Eastin, former long-time member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, also pointed out that the city hadn’t shown the need or demand for any ordinance..

"You don’t have any documented evidence as to the extent of an actual problem with shoddy or ‘gypsy’ contractors," Eastin said. "I recommend collecting and analyzing complaints as the basis for any city action." He said any licensing process would also be expensive and would probably mean hiring one or two more people for the building department.

Eastin also challenged the make up of the six-member board that would have had the power to suspend or revoke licenses, which would be comprised of five people representing the building professions and real estate brokers and only one "citizen at large."

"Why is the board made up of industry insiders if it’s for consumer protection?" her asked.

A retired union carpenter said the proposal would have curtailed his supplemental income and made it harder for other retirees to afford work on their houses. He also pointed out that Cortez had gotten rid of a previous contractor-licensing ordinance in the ’60s.

"It’s pride in your work that makes quality, not testing," he said. "As long as the building inspectors do their job, I can’t see the sense of licensing."

Councilwoman Darlene Denison, the only member to oppose the ordinance at the previous meeting, said she had received no information about sleazy contractors bilking Cortez residents.

"We already have penalties for violating [the building code]," she said. I think we have the means [to enforce it] right now,"

Frank Henson, owner of Henson Construction Co., said while he believes contractors should be more regulated, he appreciated the opposition.

"I’m in favor of licensing." Henson said, "but so many good points have been made against it here tonight, it’s difficult to say they’re wrong — they’re not."

Councilman Bob Diederich suggested tabling the ordinance rather than scrapping it to let people know it would be back in another form.

"If it’s killed, it’s an indication we’re not going there anymore," Diederich said, maintaining that it would be "structurally" easier to amend the proposal than to go though the whole process again.

But Keck remained adamant that voting it down was the best course.

"[The ordinance] had a lot of good intent," Keck said, "but the mechanism is fatally flawed —I think we need to start all over."

In other business, the council:

• Passed an amendment to the pet-licensing ordinance so it no longer requires cats to wear collars displaying a rabies tag.

Many cat lovers had protested that the collars could cause their inquisitive charges to get caught on tree limbs or similar obstructions. The ordinance still requires that cats be vaccinated for rabies and that owners show proof of this when asked by law enforcement.

• Passed an amendment to the "historic sign" ordinance that expands this designation into the Commercial Highway zone as well as the downtown district.

The change will allow the Tomahawk Motel on South Broadway to apply for such designation rather than tearing down its towering neon sign.

• Passed a resolution supporting legislation that would create a national conservation area in western Montezuma County that has been introduced in Congress by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell and Rep Scott McInnis.

Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit told the commission last fall he would ask President Clinton to declare the 164,000 acres of BLM land a national monument to protect its "cultural resources," or Anasazi ruins, unless the legislators acted.

NCA opponents lobbied the council to vote the resolution down, maintaining it would be easier to nullify a national monument. They claimed a national monument would be easier to nullify by fighting it in court than legislative action would be.