Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/11/1997-RegularFebruary 11,1997 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, February 11, 1997, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Councilmembers Absent: Apt. Staff Members Present: Bruno, Krajicek, Roy Resolutions 97-18, 97-19 and 97-20 Authorizing the Placement of Three Ordinances on the April 8, 1997 Municipal Election Ballot, Related to the Building Community Choices Capital Improvement Program, Adopted as Amended. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary A. Resolution 97-18 Submitting to the Registered Electors of the City an Ordinance Extending a .25% Sales and Use Tax for a Period of Eight Years, for the Purpose of Funding Natural Areas, Trails and Various Parks Projects. B. Resolution 97-19 Submitting to the Registered Electors of the City an Ordinance Extending a .25% Sales and Use Tax for a Period of Eight Years, for the Purpose of Funding Street Maintenance and Transportation Projects. C. Resolution 97-20 Submitting to the Registered Electors of the City an Ordinance Extending a .25% Sales and Use Tax for a Period of Eight Years, for the Purpose of Completing Building Community Choices Projects. BACKGROUND: On February 4, 1997, the City Council adopted three resolutions that would submit to the registered electors of the City three proposed tax extension ordinances. In the ballot language contained in each resolution, there was reference to the fact that the revenues derived from the extended taxes may be retained and expended by the City notwithstanding any state revenue or expenditure limitations, including those contained within ArticleX, Section 20of the Colorado Constitution. For Page I of 14 February 11, 1997 the purpose of obtaining voter approval of the provision, as required by the Constitution, inclusion of thatphrase in the ballot language is sufficient. However, because the ballot language is intended to summarize the contents of the ordinance itself, the City Attorney is recommending that the ordinances be amended to include a similar provision authorizing the retention and expenditure of all of the tax revenues. The new section containing that language is highlighted in the attached ordinances. " Assistant City Manager Bruno introduced the agenda item City Attorney Roy explained the effect of the language that he is recommending be added to ensure that the ballot language accurately reflects the requirements of Amendment No. 1 as well as the language of the Resolutions and Ordinances. He suggested a motion to reconsider each of the Resolutions that have been adopted and that then each Resolution be amended with the addition of additional language by motion. He noted the need for an additional amendment to the third Resolution dealing with the EPIC project. Councilmember Janett made a motion, seconded by Councilmember McCluskey, to reconsider Resolution 97-18. The vote on the motion to reconsider was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED City Attorney Roy recommended that Resolution 97-18 be amended by adding to the ordinance, which is contained in the body of the Resolution, a new section 4 to read as follows: "Section 4. That the full amount of revenues derived from the tax may be retained and expended by the City notwithstanding any State revenue or expenditure limitations, including but not limited to, those contained in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. " Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Resolution 97-18 with the addition a new Section 4 as read by the City Attorney. City Attorney Roy stated that the original Resolutions had blanks in Section 1 amending the Code that refers to the overall rate of the tax that will result from these three extensions. He suggested that in place of each blank the following parenthetical language be inserted: "(insert total not to exceed the existing level of 3%). " He noted that the total tax will not be known until the fate of each sales tax measure is known and that in no event will the rate of the tax exceed what it is at the present time. The motion maker and the second accepted this recommended change as a friendly amendment. The vote on the motion to adopt Resolution 97-18 as amended by the addition a new Section 4 in the ordinance contained within the Resolution to read as follows: "Section 4. That the full amount Page 2 of 14 February 11, 1997 of revenues derived from the tax may be retained and expended by the City notwithstanding any State revenue or expenditure limitations, including but not limited to, those contained in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. " and by the insertion of parenthetical language in place of the blank to read: "(insert total not to exceed the existing level of 3%)" was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to reconsider Resolution 97-19. The vote on the motion to reconsider was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED City Attorney Roy recommended the same two amendments that were made for the previous Resolution. Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Resolution 97-19 as amended by the addition a new Section 4 in the ordinance contained within the Resolution to read as follows: "Section 4. That the full amount of revenues derived from the tax may be retained and expended by the City notwithstanding any State revenue or expenditure limitations, including but not limited to, those contained in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. " and by the insertion of parenthetical language in place of the blank to read: "(insert total not to exceed the existing level of 3%)." The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember McCluskey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to reconsider Resolution 97-20. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Assistant City Manager Bruno stated that the staff recommends the same two changes that were done for the two previous Resolution and also the addition of language in Section 2b of the ordinance that is contained within Resolution 97-20 to include a percentage of the private sector dollars that would go into this project. He noted that this change would have the effect, if future Councils enhance the project, of keeping the amount requested from the private sector group the same as the current ratio. He stated that the other proposed change relates to the value of the supplemental private sector funding and the inclusion of in -kind services in consideration for those dollars. Page 3 of 14 February ll, 1997 City Attorney Roy read the language in Section 2b in the second sentence that give effect to the change outlined by Mr. Bruno: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, the construction of the EPIC studio ice rink project shall be expressly contingent upon the City's receipt of supplemental funding or in - kind contributions for such project from the private sector having a value of at least twenty-two percent (22%) of the estimated cost of the projector $700,000, whichever is less." He stated that procedurally the Council could deal with the first two housekeeping changes separately or all three proposed amendments could be dealt with at the same time. Councilmember Smith asked for clarification regarding the what would constitute an in -kind contribution. Mike Powers, CLRS Director, stated that the intent is to allow only contributions that would cost the City and would subsequently have a defined value and that are within the scope of the project. Councilmember Smith asked if there might still be differences of opinion on the future with regard to what constitutes an in -kind contribution. City Attorney Roy stated that in -kind contributions could be more specifically defined but that the statement made by the CLRS Director presents a reasonable interpretation of the existing language. Councilmember Smith asked about the rationale for the 22% or $700,000. Powers stated that Jody Lowry, head of the fund raising effort for this project, has indicated that the fund raising group would like to set a concrete target to achieve in fund raising. He stated that there is a secondary issue about whether the price could be changed in the future to put it totally out of reach of the fund raising effort. Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Resolution 97-20 as amended by the addition a new Section 4 in the ordinance contained within the Resolution to read as follows: "Section 4. That the full amount of revenues derived from the tax may be retained and expended by the City notwithstanding any State revenue or expenditure limitations, including but not limited to, those contained in Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution. " and by the insertion of parenthetical language in place of the blank to read: "(insert total not to exceed the existing level of 3%)." Councilmember Janett asked if the language for the third amendment could read "at least 22% but no more than $(insert number)" to establish a range that would be capped at some amount. Mayor Azari asked for input from Ms. Lowry prior to any additional Council discussion. Jody Lowry, campaign chairperson for Twice the Ice, stated that the concern is flexibility since the group is not certain how much money can be raised. Mayor Azari asked for clarification regarding the staff's recommendation. City Attorney Roy stated that there are three separate changes inherent in the proposed wording changes: (1) the acceptability Page 4 of 14 February 11, 1997 of in -kind contributions; (2) to value such contributions at the fair market value rather than at cost; and (3) to cap the amount required to be raised at $700,000. He stated that the language should not prohibit the group from raising more than $700,000 and that the proposed language establishes a floor of 22% or $700,000, whichever is less, and would not prohibit the group from bearing a larger share of the cost than $700,000 if they chose to do so. Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to include in Section 2b the language as follows: "Not withstanding the foregoing, the construction of the EPIC studio ice rink project shall be expressly contingent upon the City's receipt of supplemental funding or in -kind contributions for such project from the private sector having a value of at least twenty- two percent (22%) of the estimated cost of the project as determined by the City Council." and to make the housekeeping changes set out in his original motion. Councilmember Wanner stated that the intent is to leave the proportions roughly the same and to introduce the maximum amount of flexibility. Councilmember McCluskey asked if it would be up to a future Council to allocate money if the project goes higher than what is stated on the ballot. City Attorney Roy stated that under the suggested language there would be no cap and that the private sector contribution would have to be increased accordingly. Councilmember McCluskey asked about the impact on fund raising activities. Councilmember Wanner stated that his intent is to provide for flexibility and to keep in place a rough proportion of the percentages that have been discussed. Councilmember Kneeland stated that the motion would give the fund raising group a target by the time the fund raising would begin. Mayor Azari requested that the City Clerk read the motion. City Clerk Krajicek read the motion as stated above. City Attorney Roy stated that the cost determination would not need to be made by the Council until December 31, 2005 and that it may not be possible to determine the amount of funds to be raised until the end of the life of the tax. Mayor Azari commented that some of the discussion seems to indicate a distrust between the parties and that the assumption should be that there will be a good faith effort on the part of all parties. Councilmember Wanner stated that there would be a normal process and ongoing discussion relating to the project and that it would be up to the fund raising group to determine the amount they want to raise and the fund raising schedule. Page 5 of 14 February 11, 1997 Councilmember Janett requested background regarding the Study Session discussion pertaining to the 22%. Councilmember Wanner stated that the 22% figure is roughly equal to $2 million divided by $700,000 and that the $700,000 figure is the commitment that was made by the Council. The vote on the motion to amend the Resolution was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Council member Kneeland, to adopt Resolution 97-20 as amended. Councilmember McCluskey stated that this is a partnership. Councilmember Janett spoke regarding the group's fund raising effort. The vote on the motion to adopt the Resolution as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland, McCluskey, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 10, 1997, Submitting Proposed Amendments to Article IV, Section 9, of the City Charter, Pertaining to Conflicts of Interest, to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City of Fort Collins. Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. The Charter Review Committee recommended certain changes to the Charter's conflict of interest provisions. The City Attorney, working with an ad hoc committee of two Councilmembers, has recommended changes to the Committee's recommendation which would consolidate the `financial interest" and "personal interest" standards presently contained in the City Charter. BACKGROUND: Among the proposed revisions to the City Charter developed by the Charter Review Committee were certain proposed amendments to Article IV, Section 9 of the Charter pertaining to conflicts of interest. On January 21, 1997, the City Council adopted on first reading Ordinance No. 10, 1997, which would submit certain changes to those sections of the Charter to the voters. On February 4, Page 6 of 14 February 11, 1997 1997, the City Attorney recommended postponement of the ordinance on second reading pending further review. Two Councilmembers agreed to serve as an ad hoc committee that would work with the City Attorney to develop recommendations as to any additional proposed revisions. The revisions developed by this committee and the City Attorney do not affect two of the proposed changes contained in the ordinance. The amendments not affected by the new recommendation are: (1) changes to the definition of "officer or employee" which would permit the Council to exempt from the Charter's conflict of interest rules members of authorities of the City who are governed by the provisions of the State conflict of interest statute, and (2) proposed amendments to the section dealing with sales to the City which would limit the prohibition on such sales to officers or employees who have some decision making or supervisory authority with regard to the sale. These amendments would remain unchanged. The new recommendations do affect the provisions of the Charter pertaining to financial and personal interests. The issues that were discussed in formulating the proposed changes, and the recommendations that have emerged from these discussions, are as follows: • Financial vs. personal interest. At present, the City Charter defines two kinds of interests that tin officer or employee of the City might have in a decision of the City. The first is a "financial interest. " The second is a "personal interest. " As has been discussed previously, the personal interest standard has proved to be very difficult to interpret and apply. And, at its meeting on February 4, the Council indicated that, in general, there was an overall need for greater clarity and simplicity in the conflict of interest definitions and standards. Toward that end, the Council committee and City Attorney are recommending consolidating the financial and personal interest standards into a single standard based upon economic benefit or detriment. The committee believes that this is consistent with the intent of the Charter Review Committee recommendation, since that recommendation was to shift the personal interest standard from one based upon impartiality to one based on private benefit or gain. The new recommendation, however, moves a step further in that direction by redefining a single conflict of interest standard based upon economic impact. • Business vs. individual interest. In the context of a City decision that affects a business or other commercial undertaking, the existing Charter definition of financial interest focuses on whether there is any 'foreseeable, measurable financial benefit" to the employee or owner of the business. The state statutory rules of conduct focus instead upon whether there is any "direct and substantial economic benefit" to the business itself. If so, then under the State statute, any local government official who has a "substantial" interest in the business, whether by reason ofownership, employment or otherwise, wouldbe disqualified. The approach recommended by the committee and the City Attorney focuses on the individual financial interest of the officer or employee. Page 7 of 14 February 11, 1997 • Basic conflict of interest rules. The basic conflict of interest rules are contained on page 5 of the Ordinance. Under the first rule (subparagraph (a)), an officer or employee would be prohibited from performing any "official act" if the act would directly affect, to its economic benefit or detriment, a financial interest of the officer or employee or his or her relative. (The various kinds of financial interests are defined on pages 1-3 of the Ordinance.) However, a conflict of interest would not exist if the official act in question would affect not only the officer, employee or relative, but could also be applicable to a "significant portion" of the general public. In that event, or in the event that the financial interest did not create a conflict because it was not directly affected by the official act, the officer or employee would still have to disclose the financial interest before participating in the official act. if Competing firms. A second rule of conduct (subparagraph (h)) has also been added, similar to that contained in the State statute, which would prohibit officers or employeesfrom participating in decisions which would affect businesses when the officer or employee has a substantial financial interest in a competing business. • Disclosure statements. As noted above, the new rules would require the filing of a disclosure statement any time a financial interest exists, whether or not it creates a conflict of interest. Also, if an officer or employee has a financial interest which does not create a conflict of interest, the officer or employee would be required to publicly announce the existence of the financial interest, and the reasons why, in his or her opinion, it does not create a conflict of interest, prior to participating in the official act in question. The only exception to this requirement of disclosing before participating would be if the official act was of such general application that it affects all residents, property owners, taxpayers, or owners of developed property in the city. Obviously, the purpose of these disclosures rules is to inform the public, as well as other members of the Council or board or commission involved, of the existence of the financial interest. This would give other Councilmembers an opportunity to submit the matter to the Ethics Review Board if he or she disagrees with the judgement of the Councilmember having the financial interest. • Role of the Ethics Review Board. To assist in interpreting the conflict of interest rules in cases where, for example, the affected group becomes so small as to not constitute a "significant position of the community, " a provision has been added to require the establishment of an Ethics Review Board (which already exists). The Board would render advisory opinions as to whether, due to the size of the affected group or some other particular circumstance, a conflict of interest does or does not exist. It should be noted, however, that the opinions of the Ethics Review Board in these kinds of situations would continue to be advisory in nature. Page 8 of 14 February 11, 1997 • Non-profit corporations. Only charitable organizations, as described under the provisions of the City Code, would be exempt from the new conflict of interest provisions of the Charter. Other non-profit organizations would be subject to those provisions. Therefore, if a particular decision of the City Council would have a direct economic impact on the members of a non-profit association, a Councilmember who was a director, officer or owner of that association would have a conflict of interest unless all other non -profits would be similarly affected. • Relatives. The definition of "relative" has been expanded to include more classes of persons in addition to those identified in the existing definition. • Option. There is one point on which the committee did not agree, i.e., whether to add the word "substantial" to the first rule of conduct. As noted above, the State statute requires, in order for a conflict of interest to exist, that the official act in question have a "direct and substantial" economic impact on a local government official. At present, the "substantial" standard is only in the rule relating to competing firms. The language in the first rule of conduct states only that the economic benefit or detriment to an officer or employee must be a "direct" consequence of the official act. Under the optional language, the phrase "and substantial" would be added here as well. SUMMARY The committee and the City Attorney believe that the proposed amendments to the conflict of interest rules would allow for the simpler interpretation and application of the rules, although certain questions of interpretation would remain. Additionally, it should be noted that the new rules of conduct will limit the circumstances where conflicts of interest will have to be declared, since the existing "personal interest" standard will have been replaced by a more definitive standard based solely upon economic benefit or detriment. Finally, Councilmembers should carefully consider whether the disclosure requirements imposed by the new rules will be too burdensome. " City Clerk Krajicek read the ordinance by title on Second Reading. City Attorney Roy explained the proposed Charter amendments regarding personal conflict of interest and the evolution of the conflict of interest provisions. He stated that the recommendation is to consolidate the personal and financial interest standards and outlined the main points of the proposal. He stated that the goal was to come up with a more understandable and predictable standard that would be easier to apply and that the proposal would narrow the scope of potential conflicts and add a more stringent disclosure requirement. He stated that conflicts of interest would be limited to situations involving financial conflicts as the term is redefined and that there would be substantive rules prohibiting any officer or employee from participating in any official acts if he or she has a financial interest that would be directly (or as an option substantially) affected by Page 9 of 14 February 11, 1997 the official act, unless that act entails a decision or recommendation that is or may be applicable to a significant portion of the general public. He stated that the analysis of a conflict of interest would entail determining if there is a financial interest; if so, if the interest would be directly affected by the vote on the matter; and if that is the case, a conflict of interest would be determined to exist unless the matter relates to a broad policy decision relating to a significant portion of the general public. He stated that the disclosure statement is required when a financial interest exists, except in the case of broad based official acts that affect all City residents, property owners, taxpayers, or owners of developed property. He stated that under the proposal the Ethics Review Board would be included in the Charter. He stated that participation in an official act would be prohibited if that act would detrimentally affect a business and an officer or employee had a substantial financial interest in a competing business. He asked that the Council determine if these rules, the proposed exception and the disclosure requirements are acceptable. Mayor Azari asked for input from Councilmembers McCluskey and Wanner regarding their review of the proposal. Councilmember Wanner stated that he supported the direction that is proposed to narrow the opportunity for abuses by requiring additional disclosure. He stated that this would also bring into the open relationships with not -for -profits that are currently considered to be financial interests. Councilmember McCluskey spoke regarding the need to balance potential abuse with the ability to participate in full discussion of issues. He supported the proposed disclosure requirements. Councilmember Janett noted that the term "private benefit or gain' is not used in the proposal and stated that there may be conflicts other than financial conflicts. City Attorney Roy stated that the State statute is closer to the new recommendation because the only defined interests are financial in nature. He noted that the earlier recommendation of the Charter Review Committee would be closer to capturing other kinds of benefits or detriments that are not purely financial in nature and stated that the Committee recommended redefining personal interest as "any interest by reason of which an officer or employee, or relative of such officer or employee, would in the judgement of a reasonably prudent person realize or experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general public." He stated that this language would give rise to some questions of interpretation as to what kind of benefit there might be that is economic and yet not within the specific definitions of a financial interest. Councilmember Janett expressed concerns that the new provisions might be too narrow. Councilmember Smith asked how "significant portion of the general public' would be interpreted. City Attorney Roy stated that is the primary area of interpretation that would remain and would have to be interpreted on a case -by -case basis. He stated that the main distinction would be whether the decision is a far reaching decision that could have general application to a broad category of properties in the future. Page 10 of 14 February 11, 1997 Councilmember Kneeland asked about case law pertaining to the issue of what constitutes the general public. City Attorney Roy spoke about case law pertaining to special legislation relating to such determinations. He noted that the Ethics Review Board would be called upon to render an advisory opinion regarding whether a significant portion of the general public is involved. Councilmember McCluskey asked about the consequences of the two different options (the "directly affected" and "direct and substantial" standards) regarding financial interest. City Attorney Roy spoke regarding the analysis that would be done to determine conflict of interest and discussed examples. He stated that the addition of "substantial" to the definitions would further limit the number of cases. Councilmember Smith asked for additional clarification for situations in which an officer or employee would have a personal interest by virtue of participating on the board of a not -for -profit organization but would not have a direct financial interest because the board position is voluntary. City Attorney Roy spoke regarding the decision making process to determine if a conflict of interest exists in circumstances where the board position would be salaried or unpaid. He stated that under the proposal there must be a financial interest for the individual rather than just for the business in which the individual has an interest. Councilmember Wanner stated that his goal is to include individuals who have interests in professional organizations that are not directly financial in nature. He stated that he would support including individuals who are on the board of directors of organization even if they do not have a direct financial interest. City Attorney Roy stated that the difference between the proposed rule and the State statute is that not -for -profit organizations are included in the definition of a business. He stated that to meet the goal expressed by Councilmember Wanner that the conflict of interest would have to be measured by the effect on the business rather than the effect on the individual financial interest. Councilmember Kneeland stated that involvement in a strictly volunteer activity should not require declaration of a conflict of interest when there is no financial interest. Mayor Azari stated that the current provisions almost preclude someone serving on the Council from doing any type of work. Councilmember McCluskey noted the discussion that most Councilmembers have been active in volunteer organizations in the past and that the intent is to differentiate between past and present service on the board of such organizations. City Attorney Roy stated that the analysis would begin only if a Councilmember is a current director or officer of a nonprofit organization. He stated that a decision needs to be made regarding the basic issue of whether a conflict of interest should be evaluated in terms of the financial impact on the business or on the individual's financial interest in that business. Page 11 of 14 February 11, 1997 Mayor Azari spoke regarding examples of situations where family members are employed by major institutions such as Colorado State University. City Attorney Roy stated that the proposal would require that in the case of any decision that would directly and substantially affect CSU that anyone employed by CSU or who has a relative employed by CSU must conflict out unless that decision also affects a larger segment of the public. Councilmember Smith asked if the disclosure of relationships could be made stricter than the requirements that create the conflict. City Attorney Roy spoke regarding the disclosure requirements in situations where the financial interest may not have resulted in a conflict. He stated that if additional disclosure requirements are imposed that the type of interest that requires disclosure must be carefully defined. City Attorney Roy outlined the alternatives available to Council: (1) leave the financial and personal interest provisions in the Charter as they presently exist and change only the other aspects of the section that are proposed not relating to personal and financial interest; (2) follow the Charter Review Committee recommendation; (3) follow the new proposal. Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Smith, to adopt Ordinance No. 10, 1997 on Second Reading with the language proposed by the Charter Review Committee. Councilmember Janett asked about the Charter Review Committee's recommendation. City Attorney Roy stated that the financial interest definitions would be left as they are in the Charter at this time and that the personal interest standard would be changed to read as follows: "Personal interest means any interest other than a financial interest by reason of which an officer or employee, or a relative of such officer or employee, would in the judgement of a reasonably prudent person realize or experience some direct and substantial benefit or detriment different in kind from that experienced by the general public." He stated that the Committee recommendation also includes three specific exceptions to the personal interest standard and that this definition of personal interest would not be limited to financial interest. Councilmember Kneeland requested clarification regarding the options relating to exceptions. City Attorney Roy stated that the options related to exception from the definition of financial interest having to do with employees or owners of businesses. He stated that Option A is the existing Charter language providing that "financial interest shall not include the interest that an officer or employee or relative has as an employee of a business or as a holder of an ownership interest in such business in a decision of any public body when the decision financially benefits or otherwise affects such business but entails no foreseeable, measurable financial benefit to the officer or employee or relative." He stated that Option B would remove the ownership interest from the language. Mayor Azari asked which option is recommended by the Charter Review Committee. City Attorney Roy stated that the Committee recommended no changes to the definition of financial interest. Page 12 of 14 February 11, 1997 Councilmember Kneeland asked if Option A reflects the original Charter Review Committee recommendation. City Attorney Roy replied in the affirmative. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Janett, Kneeland and Smith. Nays: Councilmembers McCluskey and Wanner. THE MOTION CARRIED City Attorney Roy read the first portion of proposed ballot language that would reflect Council's direction regarding the Charter amendment. "Amendments to Article IV, Section 9 of the City of Fort Collins, modifying the conflict of interest rules for officers or employees of the City by redefining personal interest as an interest that entails some direct and substantial benefit or detriment to an officer or employee of the City, or relative of such officer or employee, that is different in kind from that experienced by the general public." He stated that the remainder of the proposed ballot language would be the same as had been previously published. Mayor Azari asked if there was any desire to reconsider the motion that was adopted. Councilmember Wanner commented that it would be a conflict if an officer or employee had an ownership or employee interest whether or not the individual would directly and substantially benefit from the action. He stated that it is important in terms of encouraging public confidence in elected officials not to leave the appearance of such a conflict of interest as acceptable. City Attorney stated that under the proposed language a conflict of interest would be determined based on whether there is a financial or personal interest, whether the decision in question would measurably affect the financial interest of the employee or owner and whether a reasonably prudent person would believe that the employee or owner would realize some benefit or gain from the decision that was different in kind from that shared by the general public. Mayor Azari commented about the ethics of disclosure. Councilmember McCluskey stated that the current standard has been difficult to understand and apply. Councilmember Kneeland stated that the Council is interested in balancing ethics issues with the ability to participate and that this ordinance is a step in the right direction. Councilmember Janett asked for clarification that the action affects boards and commissions as well as employees of the City. City Attorney Roy replied that the Charter provision also affects boards and commissions and employees. Page 13 of 14 The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. ATTEST: Adjournment Page 14 of 14 February 11, 1997 4ve On August 5, 1997, City Council unanimously adopted the regular meeting minutes of February 4 and February 18, and the adjourned meeting of February 11, 1997. �0.