Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-08/21/1990-Regular' August 21, 1990 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Proclamations and Presentations - 6:15 p.m. a. Proclamation Naming September as World Summit for Children Month was presented to Roslyn Lagerstrom. Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, August 21, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy Agenda Review: City Manager ' City Manager Burkett requested that Item #18, Items Relating to Exchange of Land with Faith Evangelical Free Church and Granting of Drainage Easements, be withdrawn from the Consent Calendar for further staff review. Lou Stitzel, 521 E. Laurel Street, requested that Item #13, Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 98, 1990, Amending Chapter 2 of the Code Relating to Boards and Commissions and Creating the Community Development Block Grant Commission, be removed from the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar to be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #20, Pulled Consent Items. 7. Consider_ approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of July 17. -219- August 21, 1990 E1 The City of Fort Collins has begun a migration of central computer ' systems to the Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) VAX series of computers. The Utility Customer Information System software will be implemented soon and will be followed in early 1991 by a total Financial Information System, including Payroll and Personnel, joining the Sales Tax and Equipment Maintenance systems which currently reside on the VAX equipment. With this transition it is important for the City to build relationships with other DEC users who have similarly configured hardware in order to provide an alternate site for processing should some condition at either site make that necessary. That relationship has been established with Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) in Denver. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 7, authorizes the Mayor to enter into an one another with reciprocal computer processing services in the event either of their computer systems become inaccessible. The Block 21 Alley Paving and Pedestrian Improvements Project is being done to reconstruct and improve concrete pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter, and the approaches to the Block 21 alley after the installation of new sanitary and storm sewers in the alley. The developer of the Opera Galleria is in agreement with the City to participate in the removal and replacement of concrete pavement in the alley along the frontage of the Opera Galleria as part of normal development requirements. The City is paying for improvements to the remainder of the alley extending north from Mountain Avenue to Laporte Avenue as a joint capital project. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 7, appropriates the participating developer's share of the construction costs. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 90, 1990, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the 1990 Concrete Improvement Program. The 1990 Concrete Improvement Program is the sixth year of an annual program to encourage property owners to construct, repair, replace, and maintain their concrete curb, gutter and sidewalks. This program is voluntary on the part of the property owners. To encourage participation by property owners, the City splits the cost of construction with the property owners (50/50), hires the contractor, and oversees the construction. In addition to paying 50 percent of the cost of the improvements, the City also pays the costs of oversizing sidewalks on major streets and the costs of constructing pedestrian access ramps at intersections. The City also pays for extending sidewalks across irrigation canals, alleys or other public property. ' -220- August 21, 1990 ' This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 7, appropriates the $35,000 revenue estimated to be received from property owners for this year's program. Appropriating an estimate of the property owners' participation at this time will allow us to proceed with the award of the contract and construction this fall as soon as the revenue from property owners are received. As in the past, if the total amount of revenue received is less than this amount, the amount of the appropriation not covered by revenues will be frozen. 10. Items Pertaining to the Foothills Water Tank Annexation and Zoning. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 91, 1990, Annexing Approximately 4.61 Acres, Known as the Foothills Water Tank Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 92, 1990, Zoning Approximately 4.61 Acres, Known as the Foothills Water Tank Annexation, into the R-F, Foothills Residential, Zoning District. On August 7, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 90-115 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Foothills Water Tank Annexation and Zoning. On August 7, Council also unanimously adopted on First Reading ' Ordinance No. 91, 1990 and Ordinance No. 92, 1990 annexing and zoning approximately 4.61 acres of City -owned property located north of Prospect (extended) and approximately one and a half miles west of Overland Trail. The property is the location of one of the City's Water Tanks. The requested zoning is R-F, Foothills Residential District. The property is currently zoned FA-1, Farming in the County. This is a voluntary annexation. APPLICANT: Gity of Fort Collins OWNER: City of Fort Collins 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 95, 1990, Fixing the Salary of the Municipal Judge. 12. City Council met in Executive Session on July 24 to conduct the performance appraisal of Municipal Judge Kathleen M. Allin. In 1989, the Mayor entered into an Employment Agreement with Kathleen Allin for a two-year term as Municipal Judge beginning July 1, 1989. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on August 7, sets the Judge's revised compensation at $50,400 per annum effective July 1, 1990. -221- August 21, 1990 13. 14. name 1n tine caoiLai rroiectis runs Tor imuruvemen Ls w one nUr Unb ruc t Aztlan Community Center. In 1989, the Anheuser-Busch Corporation donated $55,000 to the City of Fort Collins to make improvements to the Northside Aztlan Community Center. The City received half of the donation last fall, and the other half will be received this fall. The work to be done includes adding air circulation in the gymnasium, making locker room improvements, improving exterior wall moisture protection, improving the gymnasium floor, adding a divider curtain in the gymnasium for program flexibility, and replacing old exercise equipment. This ordinance will change the current "CDBG Citizens Steering Committee (CSC)" to a formal City commission to be called the "Community Development Block Grant Commission". The intent of making the CSC a City commission is to resolve issues relating to the appointment of members, issues relating to the length of `service an individual member may have on the CSC, and to clarify that all boards and commissions rules and regulations apply to the CSC. Staff feels. the status of the CSC could be elevated to that of a City commission without creating any problems for the City in needing to meet minimum Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations for low- and moderate -income neighborhood resident participation within the CDBG Program. The State of Colorado currently reimburses the City of Fort Collins for the maintenance of traffic signals and signs on the state highways within the City limits at the rate of $237 per month per traffic signal and $840 a mile a year for traffic signing. The contract covers thirty-eight signals that are on state highways within or contiguous to the City limits. The contract is being written for a maximum amount of $116,604. This will allow the future addition of three signals at the current reimbursement rate without a new contract. The rate of $237 per signal and $840 per mile is the same rate as in the previous state contract executed in 1984. The Transportation Division has reviewed all costs associated with the operation and maintenance of the signals and signs and believes the $237 per signal and $840 per mile is still adequate to cover City costs. Exhibit A is a breakdown of the costs the City has identified with the operation and maintenance of traffic signals and signs. -222- August 21, 1990 15. Resolution 90-123 Aooroving an Amendment to the Master Agreement Between the City and Anheuser-Busch Concerning pH Control The Master Agreement between the City and Anheuser-Busch was signed on December 31, 1982. Article VI (1)(b) of the Master Agreement specifies that the pH of wastewater discharged from the brewery to the City's wastewater treatment plant must be within the range of 6 to 9. The pH range specified in the City Code for other commercial and industrial customers is 5 to 9. The 6 to 9 range was included in the Master Agreement originally because of concern about the volume and strength of brewery wastes and its potential impact on the treatment plant. During the first year of operation, the City experienced some problems treating the brewery wastes due to pH fluctuations and higher than normal loadings. The high loading problem was quickly resolved by the brewery, but the pH issue has presented a more difficult technical problem. In order to address the pH issue, Anheuser-Busch modified its pH control facilities located at the brewery and also agreed to fund the construction of additional pH control at WWTP #2. Since the modifications to pH control facilities at the brewery were made, .the pH of the wastes entering WWTP #2 have remained, for the ' most part, in the range of 5 to 9. This pH range and the reduction of brewery waste loadings below the allowable limit during the winter months have resulted in a waste that can be properly treated at WWTP #2. Anheuser-Busch has agreed to keep its loadings at this reduced level during the winter months until the new pH control facilities are constructed at WWTP #2. The proposed two -stage biological treatment system is expected to be designed and constructed by the end of 1993 and will solve the bre.,ery waste pH problem. Anheuser-Busch's share of the cost of the proposed facilities at WWTP #2 is $2.6 million. 16. Currently, Police. Services is leasing, with an option to purchase, the Indoor Police Training Facility, which includes an indoor shooting range, classroom and physical skills training area. This facility is used by Police Services tc train officers in critical job skills, i.e., firearms training and proficiency; arrest control., defensive tactics and baton training; CPR and First Aid training; crime scene and communication skills training. Management and use of the facility is coordinated through the Fort Collins Police Services Training Unit. Under the intergovernmental agreements, outside law enforcement agencies will be permitted to use the facility for law enforcement related training. Mutual police training needs can be enhanced by ' permitting inter -agency use of the facility. Police Services continues to be approached by other regional law enforcement agencies seeking to use the facility. Because additional intergovernmental -223- August 21, 1990 17. ME 19 agreements are anticipated, staff will attempt to consolidate them into a consistent timetable for Council consideration; at the same time attempting to accommodate individual agencies' fiscal years. On March 20, 1990, Council adopted a resolution amending the City of Fort Collins Fire Fighters Pension Plan. The amendment authorized the transfer of fire fighter's retirement funds from the existing defined benefit plan to a money purchase plan. The resolution identified dates by which the transfers should be accomplished. Due to the complexity of Internal Revenue Code guidelines and the development of the new money purchase plan, the dates for completion have not been met. Therefore, this resolution extends the time frames for completion of required activities from June 15, 1990 to October 18, 1990. A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 99, 1990, Authorizing the Mayor to Execute Quitclaim Deeds with Faith Evangelical Free Church exchanging land of near equal size and value, and the City acquiring Church land for a bicycle/pedestrian trail from the Spring Creek Trail to Drake Road at Dunbar Street. Motion to accept easement from Faith Evangelical Free Church for bicycle/pedestrial trail. In this exchange, the City would deed to Faith Evangelical Free Church 0.27 acres of the Ross Open Space Land in exchange for 0.27 acres of church land. Both parcels of land exchanged on the north property line are of equal size and value. In addition the church is deeding 0.07 acres of land to the City for a bicycle/pedestrian trail through its property to Drake Road. This land exchange will benefit the City by providing trail access with a safe, signalized pedestrian crossing at Drake Road and Dunbar Street. In return, the Church's northerly property boundary will be straightened, which will facilitate its parking lot configuration. Routine Deeds and Easements. Powerline easement from Erica Bender Sagner, 915 W. Magnolia Street, needed to underground existing overhead electrical services. Monetary consideration: $10. Powerline easement from Richard needed to underground existing Monetary consideration: $10. '. Osborne, 508 Gordon Street, overhead electrical services. -224- August 21, 1990 ' c. Powerline easement from Zelba D. Warren, 1624 Remington, needed to install new streetlight service. Monetary consideration: $10. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #7 Item #8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 88, 1990 Entering into an Inter- governmental Agreement For Reciprocal Computer Services with Public Employees Retirement Association (PERM. Item #9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 90, 1990, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the 1990 Concrete Improvement Program. Item #10. A. LIN Item #11. Annexatio District. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #12. Improvements to the Northside Aztlan Community Center. Item #13. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None. MOTION CARRIED. -225- August 21, 1990 Ordinance No. 98, 1990, Amending Chapter 2 of the Code Relating ' to Boards and Commissions and Creating the Community Develooment Block Grant Commission. Adopted on First Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This ordinance will change the current "CDBG Citizens Steering Committee (CSC)" to a formal City commission to be called the "Community Development Block Grant Commission". The intent of making the CSC a City commission is to resolve issues relating to the appointment of members, issues relating to the length of service an individual member may have on the CSC, and to clarify that all boards and commissions rules and regulations apply to the CSC. Staff feels the status of the CSC could be elevated to that of a City commission without creating any problems for the City in needing to meet minimum Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations for lowand moderate- income• neighborhood resident participation within the CDBG Program. In 1988, the City Council conducted a comprehensive review of all advisory boards and commissions. At that time several concerns were noted with the Community Development Block Grant Program Citizens Steering Committee (CSC). The Council's two primary concerns with the CSC at that time were as follows: (1) the selection process for appointment of members; and (2) potential conflicts of interest in performing the Committee's most publicly visible function... making recommendations to the Council as to which program/project applications should be funded for the next CDBG program year. Over the years, regulations by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have required a citizen participation plan in the City's CDBG Program. Current HUD regulations, specifically Section 104.(a)(3), require a citizen participation plan which: "provides for and encourages citizen participation, with particular emphasis by persons.of low and moderate income who are residents of slum and blight areas and ..., provides for participation of* residents in low- and moderate -income neighborhoods as defined by the local jurisdiction." The purpose of this ordinance is to change the current "CDBG Citizens Steering Committee" to a formal City commission to be�called the "Community Development Block Grant Commission". By making the,CSC a City commission, ' staff hopes to resolve issues relating to the appointment of members to the 6xIZ-V August 21, 1990 CSC, issues relating to the length of service an individual member may have on the CSC, and clarify which boards and commissions rules and regulations apply to the CSC. Staff feels the status of the CSC could be elevated to that of a City commission without creating any problems for the City in needing to meet minimum HUD regulations for low- and moderate -income neighborhood resident participation. Brief History of the CSC: The City of Fort Collins received its first CDBG grant in 1975. As a condition of receiving the grant, the City had to establish a citizen participation program which included low- and moderate -income individuals. A Citizens Steering Committee was established and over the years generally consisted of six (6) neighborhood residents, two (2) from each of the three (3) low- and moderate -income neighborhood strategy areas (NSAs) in the city (Holy Family, Laurel School, and Buckingham, Alta Vista, and Andersonville - B.A.V.A.); seven (7) members from organizations with an interest in community development and improved quality of life for low- and moderate -income people (such as the Chamber of Commerce, Senior Citizens Board, Neighbor -to -Neighbor, Inc., Housing Authority, League of Woman Voters, Downtown Development Authority); and up to four (4) at-)arge members. The CSC neighborhood representatives were chosen by neighborhood residents at an annual meeting within the neighborhood to review the Board, Neighbor -to -Neighbor, Inc., Housing Authority, League of Woman .Voters, Downtown Development Authority); and up to four (4) at -large members. The CSC neighborhood representatives were chosen by neighborhood residents at an annual meeting within the neighborhood to review the accomplishments of the CDBG Program; the organizational representatives were appointed by the individual organizations; and the at -large representatives were chosen by the neighborhood and organizational representatives. The CSC provided a vehicle for accomplishing many goals of the CDBG Program including: (1) promoting the CDBG Program within the NSAs; (2) keeping the City informed as to the needs of low and moderate -income people; and (3) providing recommendations to the City Council concerning the expenditure of CDBG funds. 1988 CSC Appointment Options: In 1988, four options were presented for the City Council to consider in establishing a new procedure for making appointments to the CSC. Given CounciI's concerns, it was obvious that a method without Council involvement was unacceptable. The four options presented in 1988 were: 227- August 21, 1990 1. City Council Appoints the Entire CSC. I Under this option the CSC would have become a formalized City commission. Appointments to the CSC would be made according to the regular boards and commissions selection process and procedures. Individuals would be required to submit a written application, be interviewed by a sub -committee of the Council, and be formally appointed by Council Resolution. The number of neighborhood representatives, organizational representatives, and/or at -large representatives would be at the discretion of the Council. Staff's major concern with the option, at that time, was how to guarantee low- and moderate -income neighborhood resident participation on the committee. Low- and moderate -income neighborhood residents would be required to go through what could be an intimidating interview/selection process. 2. City Council Appoints the CSC/Neighborhood Representation Required. This option was similar to Option #1 except that the six (6) low- and moderate -income neighborhood representatives, two (2) from each neighborhood, would be required by Code or Committee by-laws to be included on the CSC. The number of other Committee members, whether they be additional neighborhood residents, organizational representatives and/or at -large representatives would be at the discretion of the Council. The six (6) neighborhood representatives could be recruited by members of the City Council, CDBG staff, and/or former CSC members and selected by the Council through a less intimidating process. 3. City Council Ratifies CSC Members. This option proposed that the selection process for CSC members would remain "as is" with neighborhood representatives selected during the annual neighborhood meeting and organizational representatives appointed by their individual entities. The Council would then formally ratify the CSC. The Council would, thus, have veto power over members of the CSC. Any individual not acceptable to the Council would have to be replaced. Staff's concern with this option centered on the problems that could be created if the Council did not ratify a certain selection by a neighborhood or organization. 4. Combination Selection Process. Under this option, neighborhood representatives would continue to be selected by neighborhood residents at the annual neighborhood meeting. The other CSC members, whether' they be• additional neighborhood residents, organizational representatives and/or at -large representatives, would be appointed through the boards and commissions selection process and procedures. Thus, a thirteen (13) member CSC could be established with six (6) neighborhood representatives (two (2) each. from the three (3) neighborhoods] and seven (7) members appointed by the Council. ' -228- August 21, 1990 The City Council selected this fourth option for appointing members to the CSC and on October 4, 1988, passed Resolution 88-154 formalizing the method of making appointments. On December 20, 1988, Council adopted Resolution 88-195 appointing seven people to serve with neighborhood residents on the CSC. Continuing Problems: Since 1988, staff has seen a continuation of certain problems with the CSC. It has been difficult to obtain two neighborhood representatives from each of the three NSAs. The annual neighborhood meetings to discuss the CDBG Program and appoint representatives have been poorly attended, making the pool of potential representatives small. It may be ironic, but low attendance at the neighborhood meetings may be partly due to the positive efforts made by the CDBG Program to improve neighborhood quality of life, residents have fewer problems which need to be identified and addressed. Secondly, there is no clear process for replacing a neighborhood representative who, for various reasons, may be unable to serve a full -year term. Since neighborhood representatives are chosen during the annual neighborhood meeting, when a representative resigns, does the neighborhood complete the program year with only one representative, or could anyone "just show up" and fill the vacancy? There continue to be problems associated with questions and interpretations as to which boards and commissions rules and regulations apply to the CSC. These issues include questions on the length of service an individual member may have on the CSC and certain conflicts of interest. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the CSC be made into a formal City commission. Staff believes that the following specific issues will be resolved by making this step: (1) all members would be appointed by the City Council; (2) a replacement procedure would be in place to fill vacancies; (3) it would be clear that all boards and commissions rules and regulations apply; and (4) length of service of individual members would be established. In 1988, staff expressed a concern with making the CSC a City commission. The concern was how to guarantee low- and moderate -income neighborhood resident participation, not from the perspective of, selection by the Council, but from the perspective of willingness by neighborhood residents to apply for a position on a City commission. Low - 'and moderate -income neighborhood residents would be required to go through what could be an ' intimidating boards and commissions interview/selection'process. To ease this potential intimidation, staff believes that neighborhood representative applicants could be recruited by members of the Council, -229- August 21, 1990 City staff, former CSC members, the Housing Authority, or through ' organizations such as Neighbor -to -Neighbor, Inc. Given such initial support, neighborhood residents would feel more comfortable with the selection process. However, if additional support is needed, staff or other individuals could assist an applicant through the selection process, perhaps including personally accompanying the applicant through the interview process. Staff has contacted the CSC and they are supportive of the concept and have no concerns. The next CDBG Program year, FY 1990-91, starts on October 1, 1990. The annual neighborhood meeting will be held in September. Staff would like the new "Community Development Block Grant Commission" to be in place by the start of the next program year." Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari to adopt Ordinance No. 98, 1990, on First Reading. Lou Stitzel, 521 E. Laurel, and Nila Smith, 424 E. Elizabeth, spoke in favor of changing the Community Development Block Grant Steering Committee to a formal City Commission. The vote on Councilmember Edward's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 98, 1990 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None. MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Reports Mayor Kirkpatrick congratulated the community and the organizers for their outstanding contributions in the New West Fest the preceeding weekend. She extended an invitation to the citizens of Fort Collins to attend a town meeting that would be held at the Fort Collins Museum on Wednesday, August 22, 1990 at 7:30 p.m. Ordinance No. 93, 1990, Amending the Code by Adding a New Article IV to Chapter 12 Entitled "Ozone -Depleting Compounds", Adopted on Second Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 This Ordinance, which was adopted as amended by a vote of 3-2 on First Reading on August 7, would reduce CFC releases into the atmosphere. The Ordinance requires recycling and prohibits avoidable releases of certain refrigerants and fire suppressants, restricts application of Ha1on fire suppressants, and bans the sale of certain products that contain CFC. Implementation includes an education program for the public and affected businesses and service people, a Science Advisory Committee to advise on I ordinance implementation, and legislative lobbying for effective state or federal regulations. -230- August 21, 1990 The Ordinance was amended on First Reading to provide for industrial or manufacturing users of ozone -depleting compounds to voluntarily report usage trends and reduction plans to the city for inclusion in an annual report to the community." Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari to adopt Ordinance No. 93, 1990 on Second Reading. Del Brooks, President of Rocky Mountain Regional Association of the Refrigeration Service Engineers Society, opposed this ordinance and suggested that the market forces will take care of this matter and that the Council need not worry about spending the taxpayers money to enact it. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony Road, spoke in opposition of the ordinance. He stated that there is not sufficient evidence to prove that refrigerants are to blame for the increased cases of skin cancer. Bob Teuting, 916 Cheyenne Drive, opposed the ordinance stating that the ordinance would have a severe effect on small businesses. Councilmember Mabry remarked that he would not be supporting the ordinance. He commented that there must be a better solution and that we must determine if the cost versus the benefit. Councilmember Maxey spoke in opposition to the ordinance. Mayor Kirkpatrick stated that although increased CFCs might not seem to be a life threatening situation, a beginning point needs to be established. She commented that E.P.A. rule making and regulations have not traditionally been enforced in a timely manner and that it might take the E.P.A. a long time to make a ruling pertaining to this issue. Mayor Kirkpatrick stated that due to the differing opinions of the Councilmembers, she felt that the community was well represented. She supported the ordinance. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 98, 1990 on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Horak. Kirkpatrick and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Edwards, Mabry and Maxey. MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 96, 1990, Imposing a Moratorium On The Issuance of Permits for the Construction of Certain Off -Premise Signs, Adopted on Second Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: -231- August 21, 1990 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, which was adopted by a 5-0 vote on First Reading on August 7, imposes a one hundred eighty (180) day moratorium on the issuance of permits for off -premise signs. The Ordinance also stipulates that during this period, the City staff shall work with the regulated sign industry and the citizens of the City in order to develop a proposed ordinance regulating off -premise signs. Section 3 of the ordinance has been added on Second Reading to include a time limit provision for the construction of any off -premise signs for which permits have been issued by the city prior to the effective date of this ordinance (August 31, 1990). Specifically, such signs must be constructed within 30 days from the effective date of this ordinance. A one-time 30 day extension may be granted under certain circumstances, such as evidence of diligence toward completing the sign or the existence of uncontrollable circumstances." Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak to adopt Ordinance No. 96, 1990 on Second Reading. Zoning Administrator Peter Barnes outlined the process and timetable to develop a proposed ordinance regulating off -premise signs. He also clarified that the Land Development Guidance System audit is not related to the off -premise ordinance. Since the last City Council meeting no permits have been issued for off -premise signs. He clarified the definitions of off -premise signs particularly relating to real estate signs. The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 96, 1990, on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 90-104 Directing the Development of a Historic Preservation Program, Adopted as Amended Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Council considered on July 3, 1990 Resolution 90-104 which directed the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) and staff to, prepare and present to the City Council a process and criteria for evaluating historic buildings in the City. The work was to present procedures for the preservation of such structures, and to determine if the restoration and/or preservation of such structures would serve a valid public purpose. In the past, when certain historical buildings were in jeopardy of demolition due to redevelopment, neglect or abandonment, the City found 11 -232- August 21, 1990 itself subjected to pressures from concerned interest groups to step in and save the endangered historic resource. The objective of this proposed program is to establish the validity and public purpose for the City to participate in the restoration and protection of significant historic resources that have been identified as important to the community. BACKGROUND In response to City Council direction of July 3, 1990, staff recommends the following program which is directed toward achieving the objectives of the Council and the Landmarks Preservation Commission's (LPC) Strategic Plan for the Fort Collins Historic Preservation Program. This program is based on making the best use of limited City resources to protect historic landmarks and buildings as community assets. LEGISLATIVE INTENT Chapter 14 of the Code of the City states that it is a matter of public policy "that the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of sites, structures, and districts of historical, architectural or geographic significance, located within the city, are a public necessity and are required in the interest of the prosperity, civic pride and general welfare ' of the people" (Sec. 14-2. (a)). The Code further states that "it is the opinion of the City Council that the economic, cultural and aesthetic standing of this city cannot be maintained or enhanced by disregarding the historical, architectural and geographical heritage of the city and by ignoring the destruction or defacement of such cultural, 2ssets" (Sec. 14.2 (b)). THE RECOMMENDED PROGRAM The following program is recommended for adoption by the Council with implementation in 1991. Program Objectives The objectives of the Historic Resources Preservation Program are to: 1. Designate, preserve, protect, enhance and perpetuate those sites, structures, objects and districts which reflect outstanding elements of the city's cultural; artistic, social, economic, political, architectural, historic or other heritage. 2. Foster civic pride in the beauty and accomplishments of the past. ' 3. Stabilize or improve aesthetic and economic vitality and values of such sites, structures, objects and districts. -233- August 21, 1990 4. Protect and enhance the city's attraction to tourists and ' visitors. 5. Promote the use of outstanding historical or architectural sites, structures, objects and districts for the education, stimulation and welfare of the people of the city. 6. Promote good urban design. Promote and encourage continued private ownership and utilization of such sites, structures, objects or districts now so owned and used, to the extent that the objectives listed above can be attained under such a policy. (Sec. 14-3) Program Start-up The program start-up is intended to identify and classify eligible historic resources and establish criteria to be used by the LPC in the administration of the program. To accomplish this, staff is recommending that a consultant with expertise in ..historic preservation be hired to supplement staff who is not available to work on program start-up due to other work program commitments. The consultant would be hired to provide specific services to the LPC over a three month period beginning in January 1991. Specifically, the consultant would assist the LPC in the following tasks: TASK 1: Research existing files and historic inventories to either confirm or recommend additional buildings and landmarks that would be eligible for designation pursuant to the National or State Registers of Historic Places or local landmark designations. This task should take two weeks. The final product would be a City Council approved list of City historic places, buildings and landmarks. Additional survey work may be required depending on what the consultant discovers relative buildings and landmarks that would be eligible for nomination. This follow-up work would become part of the 1991 work program of the Planning Department. TASK 2: Identify those historic places, buildings and landmarks that would be considered candidates for this program because of deterioration in physical condition or circumstances that may threaten loss due to demolition, redevelopment or abandonment. This task should take four weeks to complete. The final product would be a list by classification of historic buildings and landmarks that would be considered candidates for assistance under this program. TASK 3: Recommend criteriato be used�by the LPC in judging the merits of projects and requests for assistance under this program. This task should take two weeks to:.complete. The final product would be criteria adopted by the LPC and approved by the City Council. ' -234- C August 21, 1990 ' TASK 4: The consultant would work with the LPC to complete the City's application for Certified Local Government (CLG) status and eligibility for outside grants and matching assistance in support of the Historic Resources Preservation Program. This task should take four weeks to complete. The product would be an application with supporting documentation for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The LPC would endorse and recommend that the City Council petition the SHPO for CLG status. Recommended Start -Up Budget TASKS WEEKS TO COMPLETE ESTIMATED COST #1 2 $ 4,000 #2 4 8,000 #3 2 4,000 #4 4 8,000 TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR START-UP $ 24,000 IRecommended Start -Up Schedule 1. Release Request for Proposal . . . . . . October 5, 1990 2. Consultant Selection . . . . . . . . . . November 16, 1990 3. Contract Execution . . . . . . . . . . . December 12, 1990 4. Authorization to Proceed . . . . . . . . January 2, 1991 6. Contract Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . March 30, 1991 7. Program Implementation . . . . . . . . . April 1, 991 HISTORIC RESOURCES PRESERVATION PROGRAM FUNDING The recommended 1991 Budget will propose that funds be set aside in the amount of $200,000 to support the program as defined herein. The funding source would be undesignated General Fund reserves. For each succeeding budget year an equivalent appropriation may be budgeted by the City Council. Such appropriation would be for the purposes of stabilizing, ' restoring, and protecting City historic resources and assets that have been -235- August 21, 1990 duly designated and classified as to eligibility for program support by the LPC and approved by the City Council. Under the proposed program, the designated historic resources and assets will be eligible to receive City financial assistance in the form of loans and grants to restore historic buildings and landmarks that meet the standards and criteria of the program. Final approval of preservation projects will rest with the City Council after receiving recommendations from the City staff and the LPC. ROLE OF THE LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION (LPC) In addition to the duties and responsibilities as outlined in Chapter 14 of the City Code, the LPC will serve as principal advisors to the City Council relative to the administration of the Historic Resources Preservation Program as outlined herein. The City Council is the final decision making body regarding the disbursement of the Fund and sha11 be guided by recommendations from the City Manager and the LPC. CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLG) STATUS The LPC sha11 cause to be developed a partnership between the City and the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) of the Colorado Historical Society. The purpose of such partnership will be to promote the preservation of historic sites, structures and objects within the City and to make available additional public and private resources as may be leveraged to achieve the purpose of Chapter 14 of the City Code and this Program. Additional sources of funding for the Program that would become eligible with CLG status include: o NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION o CRITICAL ISSUES FUND o NATIONAL PRESERVATION LOAN FUND o ACCESSIBILITY GRANT PROGRAM o PRESERVATION SERVICES FUND o NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS/DESIGN ARTS PROGRAM o COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT o COLORADO HISTORICAL SOCIETY (OAHP) o PRIVATE SOURCES The LPC with support from staff is authorized, under ,this program to actively pursue additional outside funding in the+.form of grants and other sources to augment the program fund as recommended herein. STAFFING The Office of Development Services will provide staff assistance to the LPC in the administration of the Historic Resources Preservation Program. For Year 1, $25,000 of $200,000 set -aside for the Historic Resources Preservation Fund will be used to hire a professional consultant with IF*111 August 21, 1990 historic preservation expertise. The consultant will assist the LPC in the start-up of the program as outlined above." Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari to adopt Resolution 90-104. City Manager Steve Burkett clarified that adopting the Resolution will not provide funding. The decision for funding will not be.made until the 1991 budget proposal is available. Director of Development Services Mike Davis proposed bringing in an outside consultant to work on the proposed project. Dick Beardmore, 2212 Kiowa Court, stated he believed the suggested time frame was unrealistic. He suggested additional citizen participation be included. Bruce Lockhart, 2500 E. Harmony Road, spoke of the distinction between old buildings and historic buildings. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to amend Resolution 90-104, to read as follows; second line, replace the word "will" with "they", the second "Whereas", 4th word from the end, replace "is" with "may be", third line of the same paragraph after the word "by", ' insert "exploring the feasibility of". Councilmember Maxey accepted the proposed amendment as a friendly amendment to his original motion. Mayor Kirkpatrick she stated she would support the Resolution. The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Resolution 90-104, 1990 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 90-126 Providing Recommendations on Solid Waste Recovery and Recycling Options to the Board of Commissioner of Larimer County, Option A. Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Larimer County Commissioners are evaluating three options for -resource recovery and recycling facilities at the landfill: I) no action, 2) construction and operation of an Intermediate Processing Center (IPC) to receive and process recyclable materials collected in curbside collection ' programs, and 3) construction and operation of a Material Recovery Facility (MRF) to separate recyclab7es from mixed solid waste collected in conventional waste collection programs. Council directed staff to evaluate -237- August 21, 1990 the alternatives and prepare a resolution to provide recommendations to the ' County Commissioners. Two alternative resolutions are provided for Council consideration. Option A recommends that the County pursue an IPC. Option B recommends that the County pursue the MRF. Staff recommends adoption of Option A. Staff's analysis indicates that an IPC, combined with a comprehensive curbside collection program, has the potential to achieve comparable resource recovery rates at a lower cost than the MRF. SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF MAJOR ISSUES: On July 31, City and County staff reviewed with Council the options for centralized material processing under consideration at the Larimer County landfill. The County Commissioners will receive public input on the alternative proposals at a public hearing on August 28. Council directed staff to prepare a resolution to provide recommendations to the County Commissioners. The nature of Council's recommendation to the County hinges on two fundamental issues, which are discussed below. Issue 1: Should the County Develop a Resource Recovery Facility at the Landfill? Both versions of the proposed resolution encourage the County to take action to provide centralized solid waste recycling and recovery facilities at the landfill. As Council and staff have developed plans for a curbside collection program for the City, citizens have clearly expressed a desire for a strong resource recovery program. Either the IPC or the MRF alternative would facilitate such a program. Either type of facility could be developed by private companies with private financing; operating costs and debt service would be paid by adjustments in fees paid at the landfill. Either facility would require the City and other municipalities to pass "Flow -control" legislation to assure that wastes generated locally would be processed in the centralized facility. Resource recovery programs around the country are moving toward centralized processing to improve efficiency and achieve economies of scale. A central facility can provide larger volumes of higher quality materials to prospective purchasers of recovered materials. A central facility would be consistent with existing City policy which encourages cooperation between the City, other municipalities, and the County on solid waste management. The alternative to a central facility at the landfill would be the development of several facilities by individual waste haulers and/or municipalities since processing will need to occur to meet the specifications of prospective purchasers. This alternative minimizes the role of government and allows free-market forces to operate. Variability among waste haulers could lead to confusion and reduce rates of citizen participation in recycling. Because economiesrof scale would be lost, this alternative would likely reduce the variety !of materials that could be recycled and increase the overall costs of a Citywide program. Other concerns include potential zoning and neighborhood conflicts. I -238- August 21, 1990 ' Issue 2: Should the County Pursue a MRF to Process Mixed -Solid Wastes or an IPC to Process Recyclables Collected in Curbside Collection Programs? Two versions of a proposed resolution are presented for Council consideration. Version A (staff recommendation) supports the IPC concept and Version 8 supports the MRF concept. Staff reviewed the differences between an IPC and a MRF with Council at the July 31 worksession. The IPC would process materials collected from curbside programs and would be complementary with the program direction set by Council. The MRF would process mixed solid waste and would make curbside collection programs largely redundant. Either approach is technically feasible and would achieve significant reductions in the waste stream entering the landfill. The choice between the two approaches is not clear-cut as there are a number of tradeoffs to be considered. Costs Table I summarizes several important costs associated with each alternative. These estimates were prepared by County staff. In general, the MRF is the more expensive option and would result in an estimated 60% increase in the average monthly cost of residential waste disposal service. ' The IPC would increase costs of residential waste disposal by approximately 45%. Table 1 Comparison of Alternatives for Residential Customers Current MRF IPC Avg. tipping fee $/cubic yard $1.50 $6.00 $3.00 Ylncrease in tipping fee - 300% IOOY Collection Cost $6.40 $6.40 $6.40 Disposal Cost $1.60 $6.40 $3.20 Total Service Cost $8.00 $12.80 $11.60 (per month) %Increase in 60% 45% service cost -239- August 21, 1990 Landfill or ' Landfill savings OY +/- 22Y 15-23Y Ratio of cost to NA +/-.58 .77-.50 Y recovered Waste Stream Reduction Table 1 also presents estimates of the percentage reduction in the waste stream that can be achieved with the two alternatives. These estimates have been adjusted in two ways from those presented by County staff at the July 31 worksession. First, the previous estimate of 35Y waste reduction for the MRF has been adjusted downward to exclude the fraction of the waste stream associated with the composting of yard wastes. Composting of yard wastes is an option that would fit equally well with either a MRF or an IPC system. Second, the estimate of 10% waste reduction for the IPC alternative has been adjusted upward to include curbside programs directed at the commercial waste stream, as is intended in the City's program. County staff agree with these revised projections. These adjustments suggest that the differences between the MRF and the IPC are not as great as previously described and that either system could achieve waste stream reductions in the range of 20 to 25 percent. There are uncertainties associated with either projection. For the IPC, waste stream reduction depends directly on citizen participation rates; waste stream reductions could be either higher or lower than projections (50Y assumed in the higher projection). While participation rates would automatically be 100% with the MRF, the fact that recyclables may be contaminated by contact with organic wastes creates uncertainty regarding the amount of material which could be recovered and marketed. Marketing of Materials The net costs of either the MRF or the IPC will depend, in part, on the successful marketing of materials recovered from the waste stream. As recycling becomes more common, there is a trend toward increasingly stringent specifications on the part of those who purchase recovered materials. In this case, the contamination of materials associated with the MRF alternative is an important concern. Staff discussed this issue with prospective buyers of several recovered commodities and learned that contamination is a serious concern for glass, tin cans, and virtually all paper products. Because recyclables would be source -separated from organic wastes in the IPC alternative, contamination is not a large concern. The IPC appears to offer greater potential to .produce clean, high quality materials that will be in demand in'the recyclable commodities market. Public Education and Awareness of Waste Reduction Issues A final factor to consider is the extent to which the alternatives foster public awareness of broader issues of waste reduction. While public education programs can be developed with either alternative, the curbside collection programs associated with the`IPC alternative require direct 1 -240- August 21, 1990 involvement by individual citizens and businesses. The minimal separation functions required of individuals and businesses for curbside collection programs, seems likely to foster greater awareness of each individual's role in producing and recycling solid wastes. This may lead to more individual responsibility in terms of avoiding excess packaging, buying products that are recyclable, and buying products made from recycled materials. Each of these individual actions is critical to any comprehensive waste reduction program. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends that Council encourage the County to develop an IPC, assuming that Fort Collins and other county entities would proceed with curbside collection programs. It appears that this alternative can achieve comparable levels of waste stream reduction at lower costs. The IPC alternative offers greater certainty of producing high quality materials that can be successfully marketed. And the IPC involves citizens more directly in implementing solid waste reduction programs. At its August 8 meeting, the Natural Resources Advisory Board unanimously approved a motion to encourage Council to support the development of an IPC at the Larimer County Landfill. The rationale for the Board's recommendation was similar to that offered by staff. OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS Both versions of the proposed resolution also include several other recommendations that would affect the design or operation of the MRF or IPC. The recommendations are summarized below. Recommendations Applicable to Either the MRF or the IPC 1. Encourage Evaluation of Facilities to Compost Yard Wastes Because yard wastes comprise between 15 and 30 percent of the total waste stream, programs to divert them from the landfill are important. A yard waste composting program could be compatible with either the IPC or MRF option being evaluated by the County. Encourage the County to Include a "Buy-back Center" One concern expressed regarding a comprehensive recycling program is that it would take away a fund-raising option used by community organizations. If a "buy-back center" were included at either a MRF or an IPC, civic groups would still have the option of using recycling drives for fundraising. With the IPC alternative, a buy- back center would also offer incentives for participation by rural residents who might not be served by curbside collection. 3. Encourage a Contract Structure that Allows Sharing of Revenues from the Sale of Recyclables to Fund Educational Programs -241- August 21, 1990 Several of the firms who bid on the MRF proposed sharing revenues from the sale of recyclables with the County. Staff recommends that Council endorse this concept and extend it to the IPC alternative. Revenues generated from sales of recyclables could be used to fund public education on waste management issues, or with the IPC option to help offset the costs of providing program promotion and public education on recycling. Since individual municipalities would be responsible for implementing curbside collection programs, staff recommends that revenues be shared with participating municipalities. Additional Recommendations Applicable Only to the IPC Encourage a Design that Would Allow Processing of Commingled Recyclable Materials. If an IPC is developed, staff recommends that it be designed to allow processing of commingled recyclables. This would allow waste haulers to use a "colored -bag system" and collect recyclables along with other solid wastes. If this system were used, the collection costs shown in Table I for the IPC would be further reduced, to perhaps $7.40 per month, the total service cost would be reduced to about $10.60 per month, and the ratio of cost to waste stream reducti.on would be lowered to between .70 and .42. This type of system would also decrease the number of additional vehicles required to implement a comprehensive curbside recycling program. 5. Encourage a Fee Structure that Provides a Financial Incentive for Recycling At the July 31 worksession, County staff described a fee structure in which landfill costs would be raised to subsidize the operation of the IPC. As discussed, processing through the IPC would be free and landfill costs would be increased by about 100%. Staff recommends that Council support this approach because it would provide direct incentives to the waste haulers (and their participating customers) to develop effective recycling programs. The Natural Resources Advisory Board also endorsed this concept in their recommendation to Council of August 8." Environmental Administrator Tom Shoemaker explained Option A, recommending the IPC concept and Option B, recommending pursuing the MRF concept. He also stated that there will be a Public Hearing on August 28, 1990 to hear public comments as well as comments from affected agencies regarding the options that are being considered at the landfill. Shoemaker explained the proposed options• including cost and sophistication of the current technology. He stated that the total cost figures will not be available until Council makes a recommendation. He added that the additional wear on the highways has not been estimated. Shoemaker commented that with the MRF option, waste haulers would not have , to change their operation but the entire community would face higher costs. -242- August 21, 1990 With the IPC option, the haulers would have to adjust operations to accomodate a curbside collection program. Mayor Kirkpatrick asked which of the two options would last the longest. Shoemaker stated that the technology of the two options is comparable. He concluded that both options would be successful in sorting metals. Councilmember Mabry suggested that the City should adapt to the option that the County feels is best for them. Shoemaker pointed out that the City is co-owner of the landfill and needs to be involved in the selection. Councilmember Maxey made a motion to adopt Resolution 90-126, Version B. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari to adopt Resolution 90-126, Version A. Councilmember Mabry recommended sending the County Commissioners a resolution stating that the City will support whichever option the County believes most appropriately and thoroughly serves the need of the entire County, with the idea that the City, will take whatever action needed to support and implement the County's recommendation. Councilmember Winokur spoke in favor of the IPC. Councilmember Edwards mentioned his concern regarding the MRF option and spoke in support of the IPC option. Mayor Kirkpatrick supported the IPC option. Councilmember Azari supported the IPC option The vote on Councilmember Edward's motion to adopt Resolution 96-126, Version A was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Mabry and Maxey. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 90-127 Adopting a Total Compensation Financial Policy for City Employees, Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on'this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The financial impact of the adoption of this resolution will be determined as total compensation data is collected for 1991. Based on the model ' developed for 1990, the overall financial impact of a 70th Percentile method should be very minimal, and within the amount budgeted city-wide for personal services budget increases. -243- August 21, 1990 At the Council Worksession on August 14, Council directed staff to present r a financial policy regarding total compensation at the next regular Council meeting. The policy calls for a total compensation philosophy based on a Percentile method calculated at the 70th percentile. BACKGROUND: At the August 14 Council worksession, City Council gave staff direction to pursue the recommended methodology for implementing a total compensation plan. The methodology proposed by staff is to compensate City employees at the 70th percentile of the total compensation survey of Front Range employers. The details of this methodology are outlined in the Total Compensation Report provided to Council for the August 14 worksession. In order to formally adopt the total compensation philosophy, Council is asked to review and adopt the financial policy in the attached resolution. The policy outlines the goals and objectives of establishing a total clear statement to employees about the goals of the City as an employer in establishing a compensation plan. StafF believes that the policy makes a clear statement to employees about the goals of the City as an employer in establishing a compensation plan and outlines a general method for achieving these goals. Staff believes that there are several advantages to adopting the 70th percentile method. First, it sends a strong positive message to employees e about the value which the City places on its human resources. By acknowledging and rewarding City employees at the 70th percentile, a strong statement is made that the City believes that it has high quality employees who provide high quality services to the community. Second, the policy establishes a system by which City Council can make future decisions regarding pay and benefits as a package, rather than dealing with each issue separately. This will provide both Council and employees with a clear expectation about how compensation will be determined in future years. Finally, staff is provided with a framework to work with employees and management to make future decisions about the mix of pay and benefits. An expanded flexible benefits program can be developed over the coming years to provide more choices to individual employees so that they can best meet their individual needs. If this financial policy is adopted by Council, staff will begin to work on developing the specifics of the total compensation plan for implementation in the 1991 budget year. As in past years with the pay plan, staff will ask Council in November to consider the final compensation package for the 1991 budget. At that time, staff will present Council with additional information on the implementation of the total compensation plan. In order to review the appropriateness of Total Compensation surveys, Employee Development staff will work with Mountain States Employers Council to audit and review the methods by which survey information. is compiled and total compensation figures are calculated. Additionally, Employee Development , staff will annually meet with the Personnel Board to review survey information regarding correct job matches, the mix of public and private -244- August 21, 1990 ' employers in the surveys, the number of northern Colorado versus Denver Metro organizations in the surveys, and to review the assumptions being used for calculating total compensation." Employee Development Director Jaime Mares explained the Total Compensation Financial Policy. Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry to adopt Resolution 90-127. The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion to adopt Resolution 90-127 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry and Maxey. Nays: None. (Councilmember Winokur left the room.) THE MOTION CARRIED. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 83, 1990, Amending Section 2-656 of the Code Relating to Open Meetings for City Boards and Commissions. Adopted Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At present, there is no uniform rule which establishes the circumstances ' under which City boards and commissions may meet in executive session. The proposed ordinance would generally establish for boards and commissions the same rules as presently apply to executive sessions of the City Council. City boards and commissions would be permitted to meet in executive session to discuss the same subjects that would be permissible for the Council to discuss in executive session, but only to the extent that these subjects are relevant to the duties and functions of the particular board or commission, and the purpose for which it was established. (An option has been provided, at the suggestion of the Liquor Licensing Authority, which would permit boards and commissions to meet with attorneys for the City to discuss any legal issues relating to the board's or commission's activities. The Council is permitted to meet with its attorneys in executive session only with regard to an "adversary situation.") Exceptions would be created for meetings of the trustees of the City's pension fund and for the Human Relations Commission review of internal investigations conducted by the Office of Police Services. Additionally, the ordinance would require that all meetings of boards and commissions at which any formal action is to be taken sha11 be held only after full and timely notice to the public. Finally, the proposed ordinance would provide that the minutes of all meetings of boards and commissions, except for minutes of executive sessions, shall be open to public inspection. -245- August 21, 1990 BACKGROUND: ' Earlier this year, the City Council adopted certain changes to the open meetings provisions of the City Code. These changes applied only to Council meetings. The net effect of the changes was to extend the open meetings requirement to meetings of Council committees. Provision was made, however, for these committees to meet in executive session to discuss those subjects which are permissible for executive session discussion for the full Council. During the course of reviewing the open meetings provisions of the Charter and Code, attention was paid to the current provisions pertaining to boards and commissions. At present, there is no general permission for boards and commissions of the City to meet in executive session. Instead, certain specified boards and commissions are permitted to do so for various reasons, and the remaining boards and commissions not specifically mentioned in this section of the Code must rely upon the provisions of state statute to authorize executive sessions. In summary, the existing state of affairs is as follows: (1) The boards specified in Section 2-656 are the Water Board, the Personnel Board and the Building Review Board. For these boards, a broad "best interest test" is used to determine whether a nonpublic meeting is permissible. Additionally, there is .a specific grant of authority for the Human Relations Commission to hold closed meetings, but only for the purpose of "receiving and considering evidence relating to a citizen complaint filed against a member of the Office of Police Services." Finally, Trustees of the police, fire and general employees' pensions are permitted to hold closed meetings to review pension applications, medical records, personnel records and reports, and to discuss pending as well as previously granted pensions with board attorneys. (2) A11 other boards and commissions must depend upon the provisions of state statute for authority to hold closed sessions. A copy of that statute (Section 29-9-101, C.R.S.) is attached. Under this state law, executive sessions are permitted only "for consideration of documents or testimony given in confidence." Boards and commissions are not permitted to make final policy decisions or take any formal action in executive session. Colorado case law authorizes home rule municipalities such as the City of Fort Collins to adopt their own rules regarding this subject. So long as these rules are adopted either by the City Charter or by ordinance, they may contradict the provisions of the state statute, since the manner of regulating meetings of city boards'and commissions has been held to be a matter of purely local concern. The City Attorney's Office has recommended changing the existing provisions of the Code so as to provide uniformity for all :boards and commissions, and to bring the purposes for which executive ,sessions may be- held into -246- August 21, 1990 I conformity with the executive sessions rules which apply to the Council itself. Under the City Charter and Code, the City Council may meet in executive session only to discuss the following subjects: (1) Personnel matters restricted to the following areas: a. Matters involving the hiring, appointment, dismissal, demotion, promotion, assignment and discipline of city personnel, and the review of the performance of the City Manager, City Attorney or other direct City Council employees. b. Consideration of complaints of charges against individual city personnel, provided that such matter shall not be considered in executive session if the individual concerned requests that the matter be considered in open session. c. Consideration and discussion of strategy matters relating to negotiations with employee groups or unions. (2) Meetings with the City Attorney or other attorneys representing the City of the purpose of discussing strategy and to receive legal opinions in connection with an adversarial situation. (3) Consideration of water and real property acquisitions by the City is ' restricted to the consideration of appraisals and other value estimates, and the consideration of strategy for the acquisition of such property. This Ordinance, if adopted by Council, would establish these same rules for boards and commissions, to the extent that the subjects permitted for executive session discussion are relevant to the duties and functions of a particular board or commission and the purpose for which it was established. Essentially, boards and commissions would be permitted to meet in executive session, by majority vote of their members, to discuss personnel matters, to meet with attorneys representing the City in connection with an adversarial situation, or to consider the acquisition of water or real property. No formal action would be permitted to be taken by any board or commission in executive session. The only exceptions to these rules would be: (1) meetings of the trustees the Police, Fire and General Employees' Pension Funds, which would have the authority to meet in executive session for the purpose of reviewing pension applications, medical records, personnel records and reports and discussing pending as well as previously granted pensions with board attorneys; and (2) meetings of the Human Relations Commission to review internal investigations of the Office of Police Services. Public notice would still have to be given of all meetings which are ' required to be open to the public. Minutes of such meetings would be open to public inspection. Finally, the sections of the Code dealing with this -247- August 21, 1990 subject have been renumbered and would be relocated in the Code. At ' present, the provisions appear together with the provisions pertaining to financial disclosure requirements for certain City officials under Article VI of Chapter 2. As amended, the open meetings provision would appear under Article II of Chapter 2, which is presently reserved for general provisions relating to City boards and commissions. Input was sought from City boards and commissions regarding the proposed changes. The response received from the Natural Resources Advisory Board was two -fold: 1. The board expressed concerns about applying the provisions of the proposed ordinance to meetings of subcommittees of boards and commissions. The requirements of the proposed ordinance would not, in fact, extend to meetings of subcommittees; the requirements that the meetings occur in public (subject to certain exceptions) and that notice be given and minutes maintained all apply only to meetings of the full board or commission at which formal action is taken. Unlike the comparable provisions for City Council meetings, there is no language extending these provisions to committee meetings. 2. The board also recommended that executive sessions should be authorized by a two-thirds vote of a board or commission, rather than a majority vote. Because this two-thirds rule would differ from the majority rule which is established for the City Council by the City Charter, the change recommended by the board has not been included in the proposed ordinance. Council may wish to consider the board's input on this point, however, and, if the a board's recommendation were adopted by the Council, "majority vote" in Section 2-71(a) could be changed by amendment to "two-thirds vote." Input was also received from the Liquor Licensing Board. This board cited the need for confidential consultation with the City Attorney's Office in situations which are not adversarial. As noted above, the City Charter and Code permit the Council to meet with the City Attorney or other attorneys representing the City only for the purpose of discussing "adversarial situations." The Liquor Licensing Board, which functions in a quasi-judicial capacity, believes it would be desirable for boards and commissions to be able to seek confidential opinions and interpretations in situations which may not be adversarial but which relate to the board's activities and decisions. Optional language has been provided for Council's consideration (Option B incorporates the Liquor Licensing Authority's recommendation in Section 2-71[a])." City Attorney Steve Roy explained the provisions of the ordinance and the two options that are available. Hestated that the same rules that apply to the Council would apply to Boards• and Commissions and all Boards and Commissions are similarly affected. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards to approve Ordinance No. 83, 1990, Option A. -248- August 21, 1990 ' The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 83, 1990, Option A on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 100, 1990, Calling a Special Municipal Election for November 6, 1990, and Submitting a Proposed Charter Amendment to a Vote of the Registered Electors of the City Concerning Direct Election of the Mayor and District Representative, Option B. Adopted as Amended on First Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT The estimated cost for the election is $3,000. Funds will be requested from Operating Contingencies. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the July 24 worksession, Council discussed the Final Report and Recommendations of the Council Governance Committee and gave direction to staff on a proposal to be brought back for formal Council consideration on ' August 21. Council's direction was to prepare an Ordinance to submit a proposed Charter amendment to the city voters at a special city election to be held on November 6 in conjunction with the General Election. The proposed Charter amendment contains the following changes to the Charter: 1. City voters would directly elect the Mayor at -large. The current system provides for election of the Mayor from among the Council. 2. Six District Councilmembers would be nominated and elected by District. In the current system, four Councilmembers are nominated and elected by District and three are nominated and elected at -large. 3. Redistricting to change to six Districts would take place six months prior to the 1993 election (or by January 1, 1991 in Transition Option 6) and every four years thereafter. The redistricting process would remain unchanged, with boundaries set by Council Ordinance upon recommendation from staff. 4. The directly elected Mayor would serve. a two-year term of office. Currently, the Mayor is elected from within the Council for a one-year term. ' 5. Compensation for the directly elected Mayor would be set at $500 per month, an increase from the current $35.0,per month. -249- August 21, 1990 6. The title of Assistant Mayor would change to "Mayor Pro Tem." I 7. The Mayor Pro Tem would be elected from among the Council for a term of two years. The Assistant Mayor is currently elected for a term of one year. 8. The Mayor Pro Tem would fill a mayoral vacancy until the next regular election. Procedures are established for a mayoral vacancy that occurs within 45 days before the election. In the current vacancy process, Council fills all vacancies by appointment until the next regular election. 9. Election of the Mayor Pro Tem would take place one week following each biennial election at the Organization Meeting at which the Mayor and Councilmembers take office. 10. Candidates would be prohibited from running for two elective municipal offices simultaneously. 11. Two options for the transition period are included in the Ordinance: Transition Option A: (1993 Redistricting) 1991 - Mayor elected to 1993. - 2 at -large Councilmembers elected to 1993. 1993 - Redistrict 6 months before election. - Mayor elected to 1995. - Districts 1, 3, and 5 elected to 1997. - Districts 2, 4, and 6 elected to 1995. 1995 - Mayor elected to 1997 - Commence staggered elections for Districts, alternating between odd -numbered and even -numbered. - Districts 2, 4 and 6 elected to 1999. Transition Option 8: (1991 Redistricting) 1991 - Redistrict before January 1. - Mayor elected to 1993. - 2 at -large convert to Districts 2 and 4 elected to 1995. 1993 - Mayor elected to 1995. - Districts 1, 3, and 5 elected to 1997. - District 6 elected to 19.95':: 1995 - Commence staggered elections for Districts, alternating between odd -numbered and even -numbered. . - Mayor elected to 1997. ' - Districts 2, 4 and 6 elected to 1999. -250- August 21, 1990 ' Both transition options would provide for direct election of the Mayor beginning in 1991, and would achieve a 313 split in staggered terms for the District Councilmembers, with biennial elections alternating between even -numbered Districts and odd -numbered Districts beginning in 1995. Both options are basedon the four current District representatives elected in 1989 continuing to serve until 1993. Transition Option A would retain two at -large Councilmembers until 1993, providing a buffer period for the change to six Districts. This option would complete the transition to six new Districts in 1993, and staggered terms for District Councilmembers would begin in 1995. One consideration under this option is the potential for a one-time total turnover of the Council in 1993 when all District seats and the Mayor's position appear on the ballot simultaneously. Transition Option B would begin the District conversion in 1991, resulting in overlapping District representation during the two years that the four 1989 Districts and six 1991 Districts would both be in effect. This option could create some confusion about representation during the two years of overlapping Districts, and it is also more complicated to implement. Staff has surveyed a number of Colorado communities to determine options available for staggering terms. Although there are variations, most systems build in potential turnover in equal proportions. Staff recommends ' that terms ultimately be staggered to elect the three representatives from odd -numbered Districts at one election and the three representatives from even -numbered Districts at the next election. Staff recommends Transition Option A because it is the least subjective, it is the simplest to understand and implement, and it provides for eliminating the 1989 Districts and fully implementing a six -District system in one step rather than in complicated steps. In addition, the real potential for total Council turnover in 1993 under Option A is probably not high. Staff recommends that redistricting be done every four years rather than for every District election to provide stability in District boundaries, while maintaining reasonable equity in the number of registered voters in each District. In Transition Option A, initial redistricting to establish six Council Districts would occur in 1992, at least six months before the 1993 District election. With Transition Option B, redistricting would initially occur before January 1, 1991. Transition Option A allows more time to complete redistricting, while Option B would require redistricting almost immediately after the November election. The initial redistricting process will require considerable public input and staff and Council study. The ordinance would call a special municipal election for November 6 in conjunction with the General Election. The deadline to request permission from the Larimer County Clerk for this special election is September,7. ' The City will pay a prorated cost for the election." -251- August 21, 1990 City Clerk Wanda Krajicek gave a brief description of the history of the , proposed Charter Amendment and summarized options A and B. She stated that both of the transition options would provide for direct election of the Mayor commencing in 1991 and would achieve a 3/3 split in the staggered terms for the Councilmembers. She stated that staff recommends Transition Option A due to its simplicity in understanding and implementing. She clarified that the district numbers in the amendment were to simplify the transition and that Council action by ordinance would still determine the districts boundaries. Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari to adopt Ordinance No. 100, 1990, Version B. Krajicek clarified that the redistricting under Option B would be every 4 years, commencing January 1, 1991. John Knezovich, 1205 Green Street, favored placing the proposed Charter amendment on the November ballot. Councilmember Winokur stated that he would support Option B. Councilmember Azari stated she believed the citizens should be given the opportunity to elect the Mayor. She supported Option B. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards to amend page 3, section 2, second paragraph that reads, "NO PERSON SHALL BE e ELIGIBLE TO STAND FOR ELECTION TO MORE THAN ONE (1) ELECTIVE OFFICE AT AT ANY SINGLE MUNICIPAL ELECTION" to add the additional language of "OR WHILE HOLDING AN ELECTED MUNICIPAL OFFICE", and delete subparagraph (3) in Section 18. Councilmember Azari spoke in support of Councilmember Mabry's motion. City Attorney Steve Roy stated that the laws pertaining to municipal elections are a matter of local concern, and that it is legal to do whatever the Council feels best under the Constitutional proscriptions. He stated that the intent of the proposed amendment by Councilmember Mabry is clear and asked for the time between the First and Second Reading to draft language to meet that intent. Councilmember Horak stated that he did not support the amendment. The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion'to amend Ordinance No. 100, 1990, was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards Mabry and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick and Winokur. THE MOTION CARRIED. 252- August 21, 1990 ' Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari to amend page three, Section 2 under "Qualification of Members" to replace age twenty-five (25), with age twenty-one (21). John Knezovich, 1205 Green Street, voiced his opposition to Councilmember Mabry's motion to amend the qualifications for members age to twenty-one (21). Mayor Kirkpatrick spoke in support of the amendment. Councilmember Azari supported the proposed amendment. The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to amend Ordinance 100, 1990 was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari to amend the proposed Charter amendment in Section 4, first sentence to add the following sentence: "The Mayor shall also perform such other duties as may be provided by ordinance which are not inconsistent with the provisions of this charter." Councilmember Winokur briefly explained his reasons for the proposed amendment. The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Horak, Kirkpatrick and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Edwards, Mabry and Maxey. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Steve Roy explained that under the redistricting there may be some districts represented by two Councilmembers for a short time, but all of the districts would be represented. Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey to amend Section 1 (Membership Terms) to delete lines 1 & 2 in paragraph (b), and on the third line, delete "(4) SIX (6)", and insert "all seven members shall be nominated and elected by districts". He explained that if the amendment passed the City would be divided into seven districts and each district would each have its own elected Councilperson and the Mayor would be elected from the Council. John Knezovich, 1205 Green Street, spoke in opposition to Councilmember Mabry's proposed amendment. -253- August 21, 1990 Councilmember Winokur stated that he would not support the amendment and ' stated that he believed the voters should ultimately be the ones to make the decision. Mayor Kirkpatrick remarked that she would not be supporting the proposed amendment. The vote on Councilmember Mabry's motion to amend Ordinance No. 100, 1990 with the additional language to read "all seven members should be nominated and elected by District" was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Edwards, Mabry and Maxey. Nays: Councilmembers Azari, Horak, Kirkpatrick and Winokur. THE MOTION FAILED. Councilmember Horak said that he would not be supporting placing the ordinance on the November ballot. He believed it would be better placed on the April ballot. Councilmember Winokur urged Councilmembers to support the ordinance and added that any issues that need to be resolved could be done between First and Second Readings. Councilmember Edwards stated he did not support the idea of a directly elected Mayor. Mayor Kirkpatrick commented on the voter participation in the November and April elections. She further stated that she would like to see the proposed Charter amendment on the November ballot. The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 100, 1990, Version B as amended, was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Kirkpatrick,, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Edwards, Horak and Mabry. THE MOTION CARRIED. Resolution 90-128 Appointing the City's Representative on the Policy Committee of the Colorado Municipal League, Adopted Following staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY As a member municipalYty of the Colorado Municipal League, the City is entitled to designate a representative to serve on the Policy Committee of the CML. The Policy Committee is responsible for reviewing legislative proposals and recommending to the League Executive Board positions of support, opposition, no position or amendment to a wide variety of ' legislation affecting cities and towns. The Policy Committee also proposes -254- August 21, 1990 to the members of each annual conference in June revisions to the League's policies which guide League positions on public policy issues affecting municipalities. The Resolution appoints the City's representative on the Policy Committee." Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to adopt Resolution 90-128 inserting the name of Councilmember Edwards as the representative of the Fort Collins City Council on the Colorado Municipal League Policy Committee. The vote on Councilmember Azari's motion was as follows: Yeas: Council - members Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m. ' ATTEST: I�L�& City Clerk A mayor NP4*12