Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/28/1989-AdjournedFebruary 28, 1989 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 4:30 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, February 28, 1989, at 4:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Councilmember Absent: Estrada Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy Agenda Review: City Manager City Manager Burkett stated there were no changes to the agenda as published. Ordinance No. 17, 1989, Authorizing the Aggregate Refunding of Special Improvement District Bonds. Adopted as Amended on Second Read Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Special improvement district bonds in the amount of $13.2 million are proposed to be refunded. This Ordinance was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on February 7. On February 21 it was tabled to February 28 to allow adequate time to market the bonds. The final issue amount, interest rates on the bonds, and the net effective interest rate will be read into the Ordinance prior to final action by the Council. The following minor changes have been made to the Ordinance since First Reading: 1) Central Bank of Denver is named as the registrar and paying agent. 2) .The definition of funds comprising the escrow has been clarified. 3) There have been revisions to some bond call notices based on the revised closing date for the aggregate refunding. ' 4) Language has been inserted to clarify the pledge of assessments for SID #77 bonds." -149- February 28, 1989 Councilmember Mabry asked that the record reflect that he did not ' participate in the discussion or vote on Ordinance Nos. 17 and 18. Finance Director Alan Krcmarik detailed the market changes since the First Reading of this Ordinance. He stated the City was able to obtain an 8.25% interest rate on the bond issue which will pay off bondholders in 12 districts. He added bondholders would be paid off by May 1, and new bonds issued to new bondholders. Loring Harkness, bond counsel, Ballard, Spahr, Andrews, and Ingersoll, read the proposed amendments to Ordinance No. 17, 1989, into the record. Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 17, 1989, as amended on Second Reading. The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn). THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 18, 1989, Amending Ordinance No. 2, 1986, Which Assessed the Cost of ' Landmark Special Improvement District No 80 Adopted on Second Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance would extend the period of time in which the sole property owner in Landmark Special Improvement District No. 80 (the "District") would pay the remaining principal balance of the assessments levied on property in the District. The amount of the assessment would not change and the City would retain its ability to collect the assessment. This Ordinance was adopted 6-0 on First Reading on February 7. On February 21 it was tabled to February 28 along with the bond ordinance for the aggregate refunding. Since the outstanding bonds for the District are included in the City's aggregate refunding, the second reading of this Ordinance must follow final adoption of Ordinance No. 17, 1989 which authorizes the aggregate refunding." Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 18, 1989, on Second Reading. The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None I (Councilmember Mabry withdrawn). THE MOTION CARRIED. -150- February 28, 1989 Resolution 89-53 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board Denial of the 403 S. Whitcomb PUD Preliminary and Final Plan. and Upholding the Decision of the Board Denied Following is staff memorandum on this item: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 19, 1989, March and Myatt, P.C. filed an appeal on behalf of Stephen McGinnis, of the January 5, 1989 final decision of the Planning and Zoning Board to deny the 403 S. Whitcomb PUD Preliminary and Final Plan. On February 21, 1989, Council voted 4-3 to uphold the final decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. In order to complete the record regarding this appeal, the Council should adopt a Resolution making findings of fact and upholding the Planning and Zoning Board decision. BACKGROUND March and Myatt, P.C., on behalf of Stephen McGinnis, filed the appeal based on the following allegations: (1) Abuse of discretion, in that the decision of the Planning and Zoning ' Board was arbitrary and record; without the support of competent evidence on the (2) Failure to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions of the Code and Charter; and (3) Failure to conduct a fair hearing in that the Board exceeded its authority or jurisdiction as contained in the Code and Charter. At the February 21, 1989 hearing on this matter, Council considered the testimony of City staff and the appellant. In subsequent discussion, Council determined that the Planning and Zoning Board's decision was supported by competent evidence of record; that the Board properly applied the relevant provisions of the Code and that the Board did conduct a fair hearing; and determined to uphold the decision of the Board." Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Mayor Stoner, to adopt Resolution 89-53. The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Stoner and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Maxey. THE MOTION FAILED. ' Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to reconsider the vote taken on February 21 after the hearing on this appeal. 151- February 28, 1989 The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Winokur. THE MOTION CARRIED. Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to overturn the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board with the condition the business at the 403 S. Whitcomb address remain limited to an antique business to be operated solely by the occupant of the principal residence situated on the premises. The business restrictions proposed by the applicant are to be incorporated as conditions for the operation of the antique business. Stephen McGinnis, appellant, indicated he agreed with Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion and the conditions included. The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Mayor Stoner. THE MOTION CARRIED. City Attorney Roy stated he had prepared a Resolution making findings of fact on Council's decision on the 403 S. Whitcomb appeal but noted several amendments would need to be made to the Resolution as drafted. He detailed those amendments for the record. Resolution 89-54 Making Findings of Fact Regarding the Appeal of the Planning and Zoning Board of the Denial of the 403 S. Whitcomb PUD Preliminary and Final Plan. and Overturning the Decision of the Board Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Resolution 89-54. The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Mayor Stoner. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 32, 1989, Amending Chapter 2 of the Code Relating to Employment Status of City Employees Adopted on First Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: 11 152- February 28, 1989 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During our recent review of Police Department organizational issues, we have identified a City Code provision which causes some confusion and anxiety with Police employees. Section 2-537(a) provides that "The Chief of Police shall hold office at the pleasure of the City Manager. All other members of the Office of Police Services shall hold their respective office or employment at the pleasure of the Chief of Police..." This Code provision places the classified employees of the Police Department in a separate category from all other employees of the City. I think it is important that the classified Police employees enjoy the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities under the Personnel Rules and Regulations that other employees of the City enjoy. I do not think it is desirable to terminate any classified employees of.the City without cause. The Police classified employees should be provided due process, progressive discipline, termination for cause only, etc. At the same time, we want to make it clear in the Code that unclassified employees of the City will continue to serve at the pleasure of the City Manager. Accordingly, we recommend that Council repeal Section 2-537(a) and adopt a new Section 2-567. The effect of these changes would be to place classified Police employees in the same category, under the same employment rights as all other classified employees of the City and to codify the current administrative regulations which provide that unclassified employees serve ' at the pleasure of the City Manager and are not subject to, or covered by, the Personnel Rules and Regulations." Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 32, 1989, on First Reading. City Manager Burkett explained the need for the Ordinance and noted the change would give lower level police employees the same job protection that most of the City's 850 employees have. Current Code provisions state classified police employees serve at the pleasure of the Police Chief. He added the change will not affect unclassified employees who still will serve at the discretion of the City Manager. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion of adopt Ordinance No. 32, 1989, on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Executive Session Authorized Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of conducting interviews with the four Municipal Judge candidates. -153- February 28, 1989 The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion was as follows: Yeas: ' Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. At the conclusion of the Executive Session, the meeting was reconvened at 8:40 p.m. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to formally request that the City Manager prepare a press release outlining what has been done with regard to the Police Department management/reorganization issue, what is currently being done and the process that was followed, and including the time spent by City Manager's staff in resolving the matter. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adjourn the ' meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Mayor -154-