HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/15/1987-RegularDecember 15, 1987
' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m.
A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Tuesday, December 15, 1987, 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: Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and
Winokur.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Huisjen, Krajicek
Citizen Participation
A. Proclamation Naming December 13-19 as Drunk and Drugged Driver
Awareness We was accepted by Jody Rankin, Governor's Traffic Safety
Advisory Committee.
Joe Stern, 1221 Laporte Avenue, asked Council to adopt a Resolution in
support of the INF treaty.
Larry Scott, 2821 Eagle Drive, member of the Larimer County Citizens for
Tax Reform, reported that a petition had been filed with the City Clerk
calling for Ordinance No. 181, 1987 to be repealed. He urged Council to
hold back on all recommendations for spending.
Jack Richardson, 2912 Eagle Drive, asked several questions relating to the
Transportation Utility Fee collected to date.
Paul Bates, 609 Duke Lane, spoke in favor of a Council Resolution
supporting the INF treaty.
Agenda Review• City Manager
City Manager Burkett stated several Councilmembers had requested that Item
#21, Resolution 87-185 Making Appointments to the CHOICES 95 Capital
Improvements Advisory Committees, be delayed until December 22 at an
adjourned meeting.
Larry Scott, 2821 Eagle Drive; requested Item
of Ordinance No. 193, 1987, Amending Section
#9, Hearing and First
22-99
Reading
of Fort Collins Relating to Reallocation
of the Code of
of Assessments for
the City
Special
Improvement Districts, Item #10, Hearing and First
194, 1987, Amending
Reading of Ordinance
No.
Section 22-38 of the Code Relating to Changes
Public Improvement Districts, and Item #13, Items
in Local
Pertaining
to the
-311-
December 15, 1987
Extension of the Agreement with Historical Opera House, be removed from the
Consent Agenda.
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 be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Agenda Items #18 and #27, Pulled Consent Items, except items pulled
by anyone in the audience or items that any member of the audience is
present to discuss that were pulled by staff or Council. These items will
be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
5. Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of December 1
6. Second Readinn of m- ,en ,nn, .,. ..
7.
FIM
This ordinance, which was
December 1, will increase
Budget. The Residential,
increase 4%, but will be
approved by Council during
Oversizing Ordinance.
unanimously adopted on First Reading on
the Street Oversizing Fees for the 1988
Commercial, and Industrial fees will
less than the projections reviewed and
the effective term of the 1986 Street
Several funds require supplemental appropriations for 1987
expenditures. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First
Reading on December 1, appropriates $96,000 in the General Fund for
the upkeep and maintenance of the Block 31 property and $101,000 from
the Employees Retirement Plan Pension Fund for payments to additional
retirees and administrative costs.
Taxes.
The proposed Ordinance contains several amendments to Article III of
Chapter, 25 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins relating to sales
and use taxes. This Article was revised in its entirety in the fall
of 1986. Since that time, staff has determined that the proposed
changes are either required by recent changes in state law or would be
appropriate for purposes of clarifying the application of the sales
and use tax and insuring the enforceability of the same.
-312-
i1
December 15, 1987
' 9. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No 193 1987 Amending Section
22 99 of the Code of the Cit Of Fort Collins R lating to Reallocation
of Assessments for Special Improvement Districts
10.
The Code provisions pertaining to the reallocation of assessments
should be revised in order to permit the City to initiate its own
reallocations, if necessary, whenever district properties are
subdivided. Such reallocation is necessary to assist the County in
properly assessing the subdivided parcels.
This Ordinance would permit the expansion of the geographic boundary
of an SID after improvements have been made and assessments levied on
properties within the SID.
A. Resolution 87-180 Authorizing the Mayor to Apply to the Northern
Colorado Water Conservancy District for Cancellation of Temporary
Use Permits.
' B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 195, 1987, Applying and
Contracting for Beneficial Use of Water on Behalf of the City of
Fort Collins and Prescribing the Terms for Application for an
Allotment of Water to Said City by Northern Colorado Water
Conservancy District.
I1
This resolution and ordinance are needed to apply for the transfer of
2,814 acre-foot units of Colorado -Big Thompson (CBT) Project water
held by Fort Collins under Temporary Use Permits to a permanent Class
B Contract. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD)
requires that Temporary Use Permits be converted to a permanent Class
B Contract every few years.
12. Items Relating to Front Range Farms Annexation and Zoning.
Resolution 87-181 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating
Annexation Proceedings for Front Range Farms IT Annayafin�
First Reading of Ordinance No. 196, 1987, Annexing Approximately
79.45 Acres Known as Front Range Farms II Annexation.
First Reading of Ordinance No. 197, 1987, Zoning Approximately
79.45 Acres, Known as Front Range Farms II Annexation, into the
I-L Limited Industrial Zoning District.
-313-
December 15, 1987
13.
This is a request to annex and zone approximately 79.45 acres located
north of East Vine Drive and east of I-25. The requested zoning is the
I-L, Limited Industrial, Zoning District, with a planned unit
development condition. The property is presently undeveloped.
A. Resolution 87-182 Extending Agreement Between Historical Opera
House Properties Ltd., the Downtown Development Authority, and the
City.
B. Resolution 87-183 Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a
First Supplemental Indenture of Trust and a First Amendment to
Loan Agreement and Other Documents in Connection with the City's
Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the Opera House Project.
On December 16, 1986, the City Council adopted Ordinance 196, 1986
which ordinance approved the issuance of $5,800,000 in Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds for the Opera House Project. The City was
to loan the proceeds of those bonds to Historical Opera House
Properties, Ltd. for the purpose of constructing the Opera House
Project. To date the aggregate principal remains intact and the
project has not been initiated.
In April of 1987, an agreement was signed between Historical Opera
House Properties, Ltd., the City and the Downtown Development
Authority, which agreement authorized reimbursement to the developer
for expenses associated with public improvements to be made in
conjunction with the Opera House Block Project. The reimbursement was
not to exceed $404,000.
The City and the ODA have been asked by Mr. Walt Brown of Historical
Opera House Properties, Ltd. for an extension of time in which to
commence construction of the project. Original documents required
that the construction of the project be commenced before January 8,
1988, and Mr. Brown has determined that this deadline cannot be met.
He is requesting that the City and the DDA extend all the agreements
to July 8, 1988.
The DDA Board of Directors has voted to approve Mr. Brown's request,
and Resolution 87-182 would give approval by the City Council to the
extension of the developer reimbursement contract.
Resolution 87-183, if adopted by the City Council, would approve the
forms of the First Supplemental Indenture and the First Amendment to
Loan Agreement, which documents have been drafted to grant the
extension,sought by'Mr. Brown. This approval is conditioned upon the
execution and delivery of an Amended Letter of Credit by December 23,
1987. The purpose of this letter of credit is'to secure the payment
of the principal of, up to 120 days' interest on and the repurchase
314-
December 15, 1987
1
14.
15.
16.
1
price of the Industrial Development Revenue Bonds issued for the
project. In the event the letter of credit is not received, the City
would not be obligated to grant the extension requested by Mr. Brown.
The City of Fort Collins has contracted with the Humane Society for
Larimer County for animal control services since 1981. This year's
contract is for a continuation of that service. The contract again
Provides for both animal control enforcement and shelter care.
The contract totals $146,713. Of this total, $108,713 is allotted for
enforcement and the remaining $38,000 is for shelter care.
Animal control enforcement coverage will continue on the same schedule
as in 1987: Monday - Friday 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 p.m. and Saturday and
Sunday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
The contract relationship between the City and the Humane Society for
Larimer County remains excellent, with the Society dedicated to
providing professional animal control enforcement, care and education
to the community.
On November 4, 1986, the City Council adopted a resolution authorizing
the City Manager to enter into an agreement with the Fort Collins
Convention and Visitors' Bureau. The Council is authorized to name
six of the seventeen Board members. Two positions representing the
performing arts and City -at -Large are vacant due to expiration of
their terms. Advertisements were placed seeking applicants and
interviews were conducted by Susan Kirkpatrick for the Board of
Directors.
In keeping with Council's policy, these recommendations were made
public at the December 1 meeting and tabled to December 15 to allow
for public input. The prospective City Council appointees are as
follows:
City -at -Large Terry Sarazin
Performing Arts Bruce Freestone
December 31, 1990
December 31, 1990
Resolution 87-177 Authorizing, the Mayor to Execute a Quitclaim
Deed Conveying to Cowan Concrete Products, Inc. the City's
interest in the Chaffee Ditch Right -of -Way.
-315-
December 15, 1987
17
Motion Accepting Trail Easements from Cowan Concrete Products,
Inc.
In this exchange, the City would transfer to Cowan Concrete Products,
Inc. (previously known as Mobile Pre -Mix) the City's interest in the
Chaffee Ditch right-of-way by quitclaim deed. In exchange, the City
will acquire easements for the Poudre Trail adjacent to the Strauss
Cabin Trailhead area.
The Parks and Recreation Department
construction of the Poudre Trail at
due to limited space because of the
Cowan Concrete, adjacent landowner
exchange the needed trail easemen
interest in the Chaffee Ditch.
requires additional land for the
the Strauss Cabin Trailhead area
Poudre River. Discussions with
resulted in an agreement to
t for the City's right-of-way
The City had acquired interests in the ditch in the 1970's. The ditch
has not been active and is not required for any present or future City
needs. Cowan Concrete could use the ditch for future development of
its site on Timberline Road.
The City will not be transferring water rights; only its interest in
the Chaffee Ditch right-of-way. This right-of-way is about 0.75 of a
mile long with no defined width.
The trail easements (4 tracts) from Cowan Concrete will total 1.492
acres.
Routine Deeds and Easements
a. Storm drainage easements from Progressive Living Structures, Inc.,
a Colorado corporation, and Harl P. Clark and Audria E. Clark to
provide for regional storm drainage to serve the Horsetooth
Commons P.U.D. and other areas upstream. The Clark property costs
more because the land is developable. The other property costs
less because it is between Shields Street and a detention pond,
and therefore, not developable. Consideration: $320 (Progressive
Living) and $2,778.50 (Clark).
b. Drainage easement from Clarendon Hills Associates in connection
with the Clarendon Hills First Filing Subdivision. The easement
is needed for street- drainage to be routed to Fossil Creek.
Considerakion: None.
Powerline easement from Kenneth Weng located at 203 East Vine
Drive needed to underground existing overhead electric system.
Consideration: $435.
Deed of Easement from Evelyn K. Anderson for foothills pressure
zone water improvement. Consideration: $1,533.
-316-
1
u
December 15, 1987
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #6.
Item #7.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #8.
Item #9.
Item #10.
Item #11. B.
Item #12. B.
C.
Councilmember Mabry made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and
Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
-317-
December 15, 1987
Ordinance No. 193, 1987, Amending
Section 22-99 of the Code of the
City of Fort Collins Relating to
Reallocation of Assessments for Special
Improvement Districts Adopted on First Readies
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
The Code provisions pertaining to the reallocation of assessments should be
revised in order to permit the City to initiate its own reallocations, if
necessary, whenever district properties are subdivided. Such reallocation
is necessary to assist the County in properly assessing the subdivided
parcels.
Background
Frequently, parcels of land subject to SID assessment are subdivided. This
subdivision requires the reallocation of assessments, whether or not a sale
actually occurs, in order to conform the City's assessment roll to the
County Assessor's records, which are kept by parcel and tax schedule
number. In the absence of such a reallocation, considerable confusion
results as to the amount of assessment which should actually be imposed
upon the subdivided parcels within the original tract.
At present, the Code only provides property owners with an opportunity to
request such reallocation, subject to review by the City's Financial ' Officer. The proposed change in Section 22-99 of the Code would re uire
that such reallocation be proposed in the event of any subdivision. And,
if the proposal is unacceptable or if the owner of the subdivided tract
fails to submit such a proposal, the change in the Code would permit the
City to itself initiate a reallocation. A City -initiated reallocation
would occur only after notice and hearing and would be determined according
to the same methods which are prescribed for the initial assessment. In
this instance, however, the reallocation hearing would be held before the
Financial Officer, subject to Council review at the request of the property
owner(s).
If, for any reason, reallocation does not occur as required, then the
original assessment would continue as a lien against the entire subdivided
tract."
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner,
to adopt Ordinance.No. 193, 1987 on First Reading.
Larry Scott, 2821 Eagle Drive, requested Council table Ordinance No. 193,
1987 until January 5 to allow more time for citizen review.
Councilmember Stoner stated the Ordinance was being considered on first
reading and indicated Mr. Scott could review the Ordinance prior to second
reading.
-318-
December 15, 1987
' Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated that because there are five weeks in
December, there would be three weeks between first and second reading.
Councilmember Horak suggested Mr. Scott present his input to Council in
writing prior to second reading.
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 193,
1987 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 194, 1987, Amending
Section 22-38 of the Code Relating
to Changes in Local Public Improvement
Districts. Adopted on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
This Ordinance would permit the expansion of the geographic boundary of an
SID after improvements have been made and assessments levied on properties
within the SID. Conditions under which such expansion would be permitted
' are outlined as follows:
a. Public notice would be given and a public hearing would be held.
b. All property owners in the district would be required to consent in
writing to the boundary change within the district. Additional written
consents could be required for lien holders and other persons whose
interests might be adversely affected by the proposed modification.
c. No district boundary would be enlarged subsequent to the issuance of
bonds for the district if, in the judgement of the City, to do so would
impair the rights of the City or the bond holders.
d. A particular boundary change would be allowed only if it would result
in the inclusion of additional property within the district. No change
that would result in the exclusion of existing district property would
be permitted.
e. Additional properties to be included within the district would have to
be specially benefited in amounts at least equal to the amounts of the
assessments to be levied upon such properties, and total cost of the
improvements would be apportioned among the properties in the district
in fair approximation of the special benefits conferred.
F. No change would be permitted if it would result in any increase in the
' amount of any individual property assessment or the amount of any
-319-
December 15, 1987
annual installment payment to be made by any property owner within the '
district.
Background
The Heart Special Improvement District #84 was created on October 31, 1984,
with an agreement between the City and the district property owners that
the improvements would be constructed to City standards, and after City
inspection and acceptance of completed improvements, the district property
owners would be reimbursed through the sale of tax exempt municipal bonds.
Pursuant to this agreement, the infrastructure improvements were completed
from April through September of 1985. The improvements included extension
of the City's existing sanitary sewer system, water distribution system,
storm drainage system, and street system. In addition, an existing
irrigation ditch was relocated and improved as part of the storm drainage
improvements. A11 improvements have been accepted by the City for
maintenance.
The district is located on the east of South College Avenue, midway between
Horsetooth and Harmony. The improvements generally include the
construction of JFK Parkway from Boardwalk Drive, south to 600 feet south
of Troutman Parkway; and the construction of Troutman Parkway, west to 200
feet west of JFK Parkway.
The district was assessed in February of 1986 and the first payment became
due in June of 1987. Two properties out of eight have defaulted and the I City is meeting the debt service on the bonds.
Nature of Request
In March 1986, representatives of Sullivan -Hayes Companies (The Company)
contacted City officials regarding the possibility and means by which the
SID Boundaries could be amended to include additional property owned by the
Company that was part of the Pavilion PUD and contiguous to, but split by,
the Heart SID. Initial staff reaction in 1986 to the proposed amendment to
the SID's boundaries was generally positive, although there is disagreement
between staff and the Company as to the substance of those early
conversations and what, if any, representations were made by the staff as
to the feasibility of the proposal.
Discussions concerning this request continued off and on throughout 1986
and into the summer of 1987 when the Company again approached the City
requesting resolution of the question of incorporation of the Pavilion PUD
into the Heart SID. By this time, the first assessment payments had been
made by property owners within the Heart SID. Construction had begun on
the Pavilion PUD project, and financial commitments had allegedly been made
to the project lenders with the "understanding that amending the district
boundaries would not be a problem."
The Company wants the City to: (1) amend the City Code (Section 22-38) to
Permit expansion of the SID boundaries after assessment; and (2)
-320-
December 15, 1987
subsequently authorize by ordinance the expansion of the Heart SID to
' include all the Pavilion property. The Company contends that the expansion
of the district boundaries would not adversely impact the SID bond issue
and assessments provided that the change is accomplished in a judicious and
procedurally correct manner.
Analysis of Request
Staff has carefully considered these requests by the Company and has
provided draft legislation to accomplish the first part of the Company's
request, that is, to change the Code procedure, so as to make possible a
subsequent boundary change, should the Council conclude that such is in the
public interest. Staff supports the proposed legislative change to permit
expansion in SID boundaries for the following reasons:
a. Expansion of an SID boundary under certain controlled circumstances
could enhance the appraised value of the SID.
b. Individual assessments on other properties within the SID would remain
unchanged in the event of any such boundary change.
c. Any opportunity for challenge to the boundary change would be
eliminated by the requirement that all property owners located within
the SID concur in writing to the proposed change as a condition of
Council consideration.
d. Approval of any such boundary change would be discretionary with the
City Council on a case -by -case basis, with the applicant bearing the
burden of proof as to the merit of the application.
e. Such a mechanism for changing district boundaries after assessment
could be an additional tool for use by the City to strengthen SIDS
should the need arise."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to
adopt Ordinance No. 194, 1987 on First Reading.
Larry Scott, 2821 Eagle Drive, requested this item be postponed until
January 5 to allow more time for citizen review.
Richard Gast, 1736 Yucca Court, stated although he understands Mr. Scott's
concerns, this Ordinance helps the SID process by expanding a geographical
boundary of the District to include more property, the City's security and
taxpayers' security will be enhanced.
Councilmember Maxey asked Mr. Scott to submit his questions and concerns in
writing prior to second reading of the Ordinance.
Mayor Estrada pointed out the Council agenda is available on the Friday
prior to the meeting and Mr. Scott could review the agenda during the
weekend prior to the meeting.
-321-
December 15, 1987
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 194, 1987
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Pertaining to the Extension of
the Agreement with Historical Opera House
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"A. Resolution 87-182 Extending Agreement Between Historical Opera House
Properties Ltd., the Downtown Development Authority, and the City.
B. Resolution 87-183 Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a First
Supplemental Indenture of Trust and a First Amendment to Loan
Agreement and Other Documents in Connection with the City's Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds for the Opera House Project.
On December 16, 1986, the City Council adopted Ordinance 196, 1986 which
ordinance approved the issuance of $5,800,000 in Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds for the Opera House Project. The City was to loan the
proceeds of those bonds to Historical Opera House Properties, Ltd. for the
purpose of constructing the Opera House Project. To date the aggregate
principal remains intact and the project has not been initiated.
In April of 1987, an agreement was
Properties, Ltd., the City and the
agreement authorized reimbursement to
with public improvements to be made
Block Project. The reimbursement was
The City and the DDA have been
House Properties, Ltd. for an
construction of the project.
construction of the project be
Brown has determined that this
that the City and the DDA extend
signed between Historical Opera House
Downtown Development Authority, which
the developer for expenses associated
in conjunction with the Opera House
not to exceed $404,000.
asked by Mr. Walt Brown of Historical Opera
extension of time in which to commence
Original documents required that the
commenced before January 8, 1988, and Mr.
deadline cannot be met. He is requesting
all the agreements to July 8, 1988.
The DDA Board of Directors has voted to approve Mr. Brown's request, and
Resolution 87-182 would give approval by the City Council to the extension
of the developer reimbursement contract.
Resolution 87-183, if adopted by the City Council, would approve the forms
of the First Supplemental Indenture and the First Amendment to Loan
Agreement, which documents have been drafted to grant the extension sought
by Mr. Brown. This approval fs,:conditioned upon the execution and delivery
of an Amended Letter of Credit by December 23, 1987. The purpose of this
letter of credit is to secure' the payment' of the principal of, up to 120
days' interest on and the repurchase price 'of the Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds issued for the project. In the event the letter.of credit is
-322-
L
December 15, 1987
not received, the City would not be obligated to grant the extension
t requested by Mr. Brown."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adopt Resolution 87-182.
DDA Executive Director Chip Steiner and Finance Director Alan Krcmarik
responded to questions from Council.
Larry Scott, 2821 Eagle Drive, questioned the reason for extending the
agreement. He asked Council to vote against the Resolution.
Councilmember Stoner stated he would support the Resolution because of the
many benefits the project would provide.
Mayor Estrada stated the project would be very important to the downtown
area, and noted that if the contract is not fulfilled the City will not
suffer any loss.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 87-182 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey,
Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adopt Resolution 87-183.
' Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, -objected to the extension of the
contract.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Resolution 87-183 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey,
Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Staff Reports
City Manager Burkett reported that the Parks Master Plan discussion
scheduled for the December 22 worksession was postponed to a worksession in
January.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Kirkpatrick spoke about the "Boogie By Buggy" program. She
expressed concerns about the parking management program and parking
enforcement. She requested input fromstaff on the effectiveness of the
educational philosophy of the program.
-323-
December 15, 1987
Resolution 87-189 Making an Alternate '
Appointment to the Commission on the
Status of Women. Tabled to January 5
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"An alternate position currently is vacant on the Commission on the Status
of Women due to the resignation of Patricia Connor Young. The Council
liaison has reviewed the applications on file and will announce the
recommendation at the December 15 City Council meeting.
In keeping with Council's policy, this recommendation will be tabled until
January 5 to allow time for public input."
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adopt Resolution 87-189 inserting the name of Beth Ann Smith.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to table Resolution 87-189 to January 5. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Pertaining to 1988 Pay
Plan and Employee Dental Plan
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 198, 1987, Adopting the 1988
Pay Plan.
Each year the City Council adopts the pay plan which sets the salaries of
City employees. This plan is designed to meet the Council's goal of
rewarding employee performance and remaining competitive in the labor
market. The 1988 Pay Plan is described in detail in the attached
memorandum.
8. Resolution 87-186 Approving the Establishment of an Employee Dental
Plan.
In 1988, staff is also recommending that Council add a dental benefit to
the City's current benefit package. The dental program will be a capitated
self funded plan under which employees may receive up to $500 annually in
reimbursements for dental expenses. The proposed dental program is also
discussed in detail in the attached memorandum.
-324-
December 15, 1987
' Back round
The 1988 Pay Plan is based on a performance pay system which includes labor
market increases to base salaries. The purpose of the plan is to reward
superior day to day performance by employees and retain the City's
competitive position in the labor market. .
The components of the pay plan include:
BASE PAY - the comparison of our salaries to comparable organizations in
the labor market.
PAY EQUITY - the reconciliation of jobs undervalued in the labor market.
BENEFITS - items such as medical insurance, life insurance, retirement,
social security, etc. Some of these benefits vary as a function of salary,
and therefore increase as base salary increases.
PERFORMANCE PAY - performance pay for those employees who have reached the
top of their pay range or performance level step increases for those
employees below the maximum.
categories and the cost of the proposed dental plan: The following chart presents the 1988 proposed pay increases for these four
1988 SALARY
AND BENEFIT IMPROVEMENTS
'
General Fund
Total City
Labor Market Adjustments
$284,286
$672,812
Pay Equity
15,041
16,237
Salary Driven Benefits
36,448
86,016
Inflation on Performance Pay
9,036
18,441
Added Dental Benefit
30,618
---------
62,208
--------
Total Cost of Salary and
Benefit Improvements
$375,429
$855,714
The City-wide base salary increase will average 2.7Y. Pay increases vary
between the 26 pay lines or job families. The range of these increases is
from 1% to 6%, with all employees receiving an increase in 1988.
Attachment A of the memorandum lists the percent increase for each of the
pay lines. This will be the final year of the three year phase -in period
for the City's pay equity plan:
-325-
December 15, 1987
In addition to these salary and benefit increases, employees who are at the ' top of the range are also eligible for one-time, performance bonuses of up
to 3%. The only increase for 1988 is the 2.7% inflation on the 1987
performance bonus budget.
For Council's reference, the entire pay plan is included in the ordinance.
The pay range for each position is listed including pay equity adjustments
where warranted."
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adopt Ordinance No. 198, 1987 on First Reading.
Employee Development Director Mike Powers gave a presentation on the 1988
Pay Plan and proposed dental benefits. He responded to questions from
Council.
Larry Scott, 2821 Eagle Drive, indicated he thought the salary/benefit
increase per employee was excessive.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, asked Mr. Powers about the pay
equity fund.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick recognized the work of the Employee Development
Department for their extensive work on the pay plan. She spoke of the
importance of the pay equity portion of the pay plan.
Mayor Estrada expressed support for the pay equity program. He stated he
believed the pay plan was very competitive.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 198, 1987
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adopt Resolution 87-186.
Councilmember Maxey pointed out that the dental plan is a participatory
plan rather than a plan funded entirely by the City.
Councilmember Horak expressed concern that other options have not been
presented to Council. He stated he could not support the Resolution.
Councilmember Winokur shared some of the concerns expressed by
Councilmember Horak. He',, stated he would prefer the dental plan be
incorporated into the cafeteria benefits program.
Councilmember Stoner supported the dental plan, noting it has a cap of $500
per employee each year.
-326-
December 15, 1987
' Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated although she had some initial concerns
about e
o ental
coverage iseworkable. She bstated eshe hwould flike uton offer ce pdental roach tcoverage
during 1988 to see how feasible it is.
Councilmember Mabry noted the addition of this fringe benefit to the City's
compensation package keep Fort Collins competitive with other private and
public organizations along the Front Range. He stated he would support the
Resolution.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's motion to adopt Resolution 87-186 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and
Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Winokur.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 87-187 Authorizing the
Construction of Capital Improvements at
the Fort Collins_Loveland Airports Denied
Following is staff's memorandum.on this item:
"Financial Impact
An expenditure of $50,000 of appropriated funds for airport capital
' expansion.
Executive Summary
Approval of this Resolution will permit the City Manager to expend up to
$50,000 for construction of an office and terminal facility at the Fort
Collins -Loveland Airport.
Background
The City of Fort Collins has issued its sales and use tax bonds for the
construction of several projects, including the appropriation of $2,000,000
for capital projects at the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport. Most of those
projects have been constructed. There remains approximately $400,000 of
monies appropriated for capital projects at the airport. The Cities of
Fort Collins and Loveland have previously entered into an agreement whereby
the City of Loveland will pay to the City of Fort Collins one-half of the
debt service for the bond indebtedness incurred by the City for the capital
projects at the airport.
Recently, the Airport Authority has determined that the facilities at the
airport should be expanded by the construction of an additional building
for office and terminal purposes, which is now available at an extremely
reasonable price. The structure in question is one which may be moved from
the CSU Bull Farm location to the airport for reassembly there. The
' structure is approximately 2,500 square feet in size, is in good condition
-327-
December 15, 1987
and must be moved no later than December 31, 1987. The cost for the
building, together with moving and reassembly, is $7,500.
In addition to the cost of the building itself, there are additional costs
for the construction of a concrete pad or foundation and the provision of
utilities, all estimated to cost approximately $20,000. Additional
expenses for labor, landscaping, site improvements, painting, repair,
carpeting and furnishings will cost approximately $22,500.
The Resolution authorizes the expenditure of a sum not to exceed $50,000
for this airport project."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Winokur, to
adopt Resolution 87-187.
Carol Caldwell, Fort Collins -Loveland Airport Manager, explained the need
for expansion at the Airport and responded to questions from Council.
Larry Scott, 2821 Eagle Drive, asked about the price of fuel at the Airport
and the annexation of the Airport by the City of Loveland.
Councilmember Stoner stated the Airport Authority is trying to attract
commuter service and make the Airport a paying operation. He stated the
Authority's first priority. is to extend the runway with construction
starting in June. He stated he believes the cities need to invest in the
Airport in order to increase revenues.
Councilmember Maxey stated that the issue of Loveland receiving all sales
tax collected at the Airport is separate from the issue under consideration
at this time and should not be used as a basis to deny the current request.
Councilmember Horak stated that he does not believe it makes sense to
continue to spend money on the Airport until other issues are resolved. He
stated he was not convinced the Fort Collins -Loveland Airport would ever
pay for itself. He stated he felt the $400,000 should be used to pay off
the bond issue.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she would not support the Resolution for
reasons stated by Councilmember Horak, and because she would like more
information from a recent survey about the viability of the Airport before
she could support expansion of the Airport facilities.
Councilmember Mabry stated he did not feel it was prudent to invest in this
expansion in order to attract usage. He stated he would prefer to see the
funds reserved so that after the survey is completed funds will be
available to help service a commuter airline or other user.
Mayor Estrada stated it. would have been helpful to have more information
prior to consideration-of°this expenditure.
SPIE-11
December 15, 1987
' The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 87-187 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Maxey and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Winokur.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Items Concerning the Appeal of Planning and
Zoning Board Decision Regarding Fort Ram Village,
First Filing, Final PUD Amended (k69-84E),
Located Between West Elizabeth and Plum Streets,
and East of Constitution Avenue (extended)
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
A. Hearing of Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board Decision Regarding Fort
Ram Village.
B. Resolution 87-188 Making Findings on Appeal of Planning and Zoning
Board Decision Regarding Fort Ram Village.
The Planning and Zoning Board at its November 2, 1987 meeting reviewed and
approved the request to amend the Fort Ram Village, Final, First Filing.
' The request was to amend the approved P.U.D. in order to increase the
number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual dwelling units
from 3 to 4. The request was specifically for the 62 four -bedroom units
proposed in the project. The Planning and Zoning Board approved the
anning
anduest Zoningth a Boardote of 5-. Ms. Donna Fairbandecision . Council may uphold,koverturn, remandis appealing theor)modify
the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. If Council determines the
Board improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the
appellant, the matter must be remanded to the Board for rehearing.
Optional Resolutions are provided for upholding, overturning or remanding
the Board's decision. No Resolution for modification has been prepared.
Background
The Planning and Zoning Board granted final approval to the Fort Ram
Village, PUD, First Filing at it's regular meeting of August 24, 1987 on a
vote of 5-0. The project consists of 218 multi -family apartment units on
14.40 acres, resulting in a density of 15.1 dwelling units per acre. The
breakdown of units is as follows:
32
- I
bedroom
units;
62
- 2
bedroom
units;
62 -
3
bedroom
units;
62 -
4
bedroom
units;
-329-
December 15, 1987
On October 6, 1987, Council approved Ordinance No. 142, 1987 which allows '
the Planning and Zoning Board, in reviewing a PUD multi -family project, to
increase the number of unrelated persons who may reside in individual
dwelling units beyond that allowed by the Zoning Code (3 unrelated
persons). The number of persons may be increased provided that such
individual dwelling unit is part of a multiple -family residential PUD, and
meets all applicable criteria. According to the Code, the Planning and
Zoning Board must consider the adequacy of the following factors in their
decision:
- open space;
- recreational areas;
- parking spaces;
- public facilities (sewer, water, etc.)
Ron Gray, the developer of the Fort Ram Village, First Filing, submitted a
request to amend the existing approved project in order to increase the
number of unrelated persons who may reside in the 62 four bedroom units
from 3 to 4.
Staff processed the application request in accordance with Ordinance No.
142, 1987, including the notification of property owners within 500' of the
site, posting the required sign on the property, and providing an
advertisement in the Coloradoan.
On November 2, 1987 the Planning and Zoning Board conducted a public
meeting on the proposed change to Fort Ram Village Filing One, Final
(copies of the Staff Report and verbatim minutes of the hearing are
attached). The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the request against the
criteria described in Ordinance No. 142, 1987, considered testimony of
staff, the appellant, and other interested persons. The Board determined
that the request satisfied the criteria and granted approval on a vote of
5-0. A breakdown of compliance to the criteria is outlined in the Staff
Report to the Planning and Zoning Board.
Reasons for Appeal
A copy of the appeal letter is attached. In general it appears that the
appellant's reasons for appealing the decision are based on the following:
(1) That the Planning and Zoning Board's decision was not supported by
competent evidence:
STAFF RESPONSE: As indicated in the Staff Report to the Planning and
Zoning Board the request was supported by the LDGS, and satisfied the
criteria of Ordinance No. 142, 1987. These factors were discussed by the
Board at the public hearing. The Planning and Zoning Board decision was
based on proper and complete information.
(2) That the Board failed to conduct a fair hearing, because it:
-330-
December 15, 1987
a) Ignored its rules of procedure (regarding notice); and
b) Improperly failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the
Appellant.
STAFF RESPONSE: Staff properly notified surrounding property owners within
500', posted the property with a notification sign, and provided a notice
in the Coloradoan. The appellant lives approximately 850' from the
project. All pertinent information was available at the hearing, and the
appellant and other parties - in- interest were given an opportunity to speak
and provide evidence during the citizen participation portion of the
deliberation. The Board conducted a fair and appropriate hearing on this
matter."
Councilmembers Estrada and Kirkpatrick stated they would withdraw from
consideration and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of
interest.
City Attorney Huisjen stated he has reviewed the grounds for appeal and has
determined that the grounds are properly stated. He stated that new
evidence shall not be considered. He noted that if the Council determines
that the Board failed to receive all relevant evidence offered by the
appellant, the Council shall remand the matter back to the Board for
further findings. He stated if it is determined that the matter will not
be remanded to the Board, at the conclusion of the hearing the Council
shall either uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the Board. He
stated Council should make a finding that the grounds of the appeal conform
to the requirements of the Code. He responded to questions from Council.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to hear
the appeal based upon the fact that the written grounds of appeal conform
to the requirements of the City Code and are sufficient to be appealed.
Yeas: Councilmembers Horak, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
None. (Councilmembers Estrada and Kirkpatrick withdrawn
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Assistant Mayor Stoner stated that because this is an on -the -record appeal,
presentations on behalf of the appellant and opponents of the appeal would
be limited to 20 minutes Parh
City Planner Debbie deBesche gave a brief presentation of this appeal and
answered questions from Council.
Donna Fairbank, 1712 Clearview Court,
events leading up to the November
hearing. She expressed her concerns
and the impact on traffic in the area.
the 4-bedroom units.
appellant, gave a background of the
2, 1987 Planning and Zoning Board
about inadequate parking requirements
She suggested other alternatives to
Lucia Liley, attorney representing'!the property owner, pointed out the plan
for this project has been through three public hearings for the
preliminary, the final, and the amended final. She indicated that each
-331-
December 15, 1987
phase of the plan was unanimously adopted by the Planning and Zoning Board. , She stated the 4-bedroom use has always been proposed as a part of this
plan. She stated the property owner chose to bring an amended final back
to the Board after the City Council adopted an ordinance clarifying the
issue of more than three unrelated persons living together, to verify that
the Board did intend to have more than three unrelated persons living
together in this plan. She stated the Board unanimously approved the
amended final because they felt the project had met all of the criteria set
out the ordinance adopted by Council. She pointed out the issue at hand
was whether the Board acted appropriately when it approved the amended
final, not whether any elements of the plan are appropriate or whether the
ordinance allowing more than three unrelated people is appropriate. She
stated that the appropriateness of certain Code provisions used by staff to
evaluate projects is not at issue.
Frank Vaught, Vaught -Frye Architects, representing Topanga Enterprises,
spoke of the criteria used to evaluate this project and how the project
meets that criteria.
William Jacobi, 1621 Lakeridge Court, read a petition and letter signed by
members of the neighborhood urging Council to overturn the Planning and
Zoning Board decision to allow four unrelated people to live in a unit in
the Fort Ram Village development.
Dave Cismoski, 1308 Birch, stated he lives 1 1/2 blocks northeast of the
proposed development and noted he did not receive any notice of the
Planning and Zoning Board hearings on the proposed development. He spoke
of the impact on traffic by the addition of this development as proposed.
Anita Wright, 2219 Shropshire, spoke of the impact on the neighborhood and
the apartment vacancy rate city-wide.
Mr. Vaught and staff members responded to questions from Council.
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to
adopt Resolution 87-188 (Option A) Making Findings on Appeal f Planning
o
and Zoning Board Decision Regarding Fort Ram Village with the of
of
the following condition:
that any four (4) bedroom unit shall not be occupied by more than
four (4) persons, unless all occupants of such unit are related
by blood, marriage, guardianship, or adoption.
(Secretary's Note: Resolution 87-188, Option A, upholds the decision of
the Planning and Zoning Board.)
Councilmember Winokur explained his amendment was offered in an attempt to
address the concerns of the appellant about the actual number of people who
might reside in each 4-bedroom unit. He stated that although the appellant
raised some interesting concerns about the current process, the decision
Council is required to make in due process under the current system are
based upon what the law, is at this time. He stated he did not find ,
-332-
I
December 15, 1987
evidence that the
in consideration
Planning and Zoning Board ignored
of the
its rules of procedure
relevant evidence
project, or that the Board
that was offered. He
failed to receive all
presented during
incompetent
added that
the appeal, he was not convinced
based on the evidence
that
decision.
the Board made an
Councilmember Horak expressed concern that the Traffic Engineer was not at
the Planning and Zoning Board hearing to present his evaluation of the
proposed development. He stated he found no evidence in the minutes of the
Planning and Zoning Board hearing that indicates the Board considered the
provisions of the ordinance allowing more than three unrelated persons
which call for adequate open space and outdoor recreation facilities. He
the
statti ee the was lawcwasrchangedthat
regardino ngmthe numberwas pof unrelateto d perl at
living together about this pending development which was waiting fors
the
change to occur. g
the Councilmember Stoner stated the appeal is based solely on whether or not
not they ni�nterpretedand nthe Codeing r appropriately. Hed received properystated he would upholdrthor
e
decision of the Board.
The vote on Councilmember Winokur's motion to adopt Resolution 87-188
(Option A) as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Mabry, Maxey,
Stoner, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Horak. (Councilmembers Estrada
and Kirkpatrick withdrawn)
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution 87-190 Authorizing a
$500,000 Draw on Street Oversizing
Line -of -Credit Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Financial Imoact
The proposed resolution authorizes an additional S500,000 draw on the
Line -of -Credit in order to meet anticipated expenditures incurred in the
Street Oversizing Fund during 1987. This follows the anticipated debt
projected in the 1986 Street Oversizing Ordinance approved by Council.
Executive Summary
At the time that the City, negotiated the street oversizing Line -of -Credit
in the amount of $2,000,000 with the ,First Interstate Bank of Fort Collins
' it was concluded that a $500,000 credit limit would in most cases be
sufficient for the City's purposes of having a temporary fund available for
street improvement projects. However; it was also concluded that the City
might occasionally have a need to draw upon the Line -of -Credit in some
cases where the total would exceed $500,000. Therefore, the Line -of -Credit
-333-
December 15, 1987
was established at $2,000,000 to give to the City of Fort Collins an '
dopportunity to use the t to its maximum if necessary and
esi� rable. Previous draws on the Line -of -Credit have amounted to $500,000.
This resolution will bring the total authorized draws to $1,000,000. The
proposed resolution authorizes an additional $500,000 draw on the
Line -of -Credit in order to meet anticipated expenditures incurred in the
Street Oversizing Fund during 1987."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to
adopt Resolution 87-190.
Civil Engineer Matt Baker reviewed this item and, along with City Manager
Burkett, responded to questions from Council.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, questioned when the entire line of
credit would be used, and how the City expected to pay off the line of
credit.
Councilmember Winokur expressed concern about using the City's line of
credit.
Councilmember Horak stated he would not support the Resolution, noting he
did not believe it was to the City's benefit to draw on its line of credit.
Mayor Estrada stated he would have liked more information including a
breakdown of current SID's. He stated he could not support the Resolution.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Resolution 87-190 was as
follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and
Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Estrada and Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Motion to Direct,Staff to Place
Ordinance No. 199. 1987, Amending
Chapter 18 Relating to Mobile Home
Electrical Services, on January 5,
1988 Regular Meeting Failed to Pass
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Financial Impact
City programs are not affected fiscally. However, if the amendment is not
adopted, perhaps half of all owners of mobile home parks in the City may be
forced to upgrade mobile home service receptacles to 50 ampere capacity
regardless of the maximum electrical loads of the mobile home. Many of
these smaller, older units have maximum loads of'30,amps and less. Because
the current language applies to all existing parks and both rental and '
-334-
December 15, 1987
' owner occupied units, some park owners will be facing total costs of
thousands of dollars based on estimates of $200 to $300 per lot service.
Executive Summary
A recent appeal based on the previous "Chapter 76" surfaced an oversight in
the recently revised Mobile Home Ordinance. The minimum standard for new
mobile home manufacture of 50 ampere electrical systems, inadvertently
included existing mobile home electrical supply receptacles by not
stipulating an exclusion in the utility provisions of Section 18-7(a). The
proposed amendment will allow existing smaller capacity service outlets to
continue as long as the same mobile home remains on the lot. Upgrading to
50-amp service outlets will then occur individually as mobile homes are
moved and replaced.
Background
Many older, smaller mobile homes in several parks throughout the City have
electrical supply cords and internal distribution systems with less
capacity. Increasing the receptacle size to 50 amps on mobile home lot
services would require that the mobile home electrical distribution system
be rewired to match, or the new 50 amp receptacle would, itself need to be
"fused" at a lower rating not exceeding the mobile home capacity. As long
as service cords and lot receptacles are matched for these smaller units,
no inherent electrical hazard exits. Should electrical hazards be found
during the inspection process, naturally, these will require correction.
During the development of the new Chapter 18, owners of the small, older
parks were led to believe that other than inspection and possible upgrading
of mobile home rental units, expensive, upfront improvements throughout
existing parks would not be imposed with the new law. The issue surfaced
coincidentally when an electrical correction notice, issued in August under
the earlier "Chapter 76", was appealed and reached the Building Review
Board shortly after second reading but prior to the effective date, by only
a few days, of the current ordinance. Disposition of that case specified
upgrade of all service outlets in the park to 50 amps within one year.
As a result of that appeal staff immediately began looking at amending the
current ordinance for existing parks in order to avoid imposing costly
retroactive legislation that does not necessarily reduce electrical hazards
nor improve the life safety of existing mobile homes. The proposed
amendment will allow existing service outlets less than 50 amp capacity to
remain indefinitely. The upgrade provision will be triggered only when
existing mobile homes are moved off lots and replaced. The current mobile
home, however, does not exclude small mobile homes manufactured prior to
the 50-amp standard from being installed in the City provided they meet all
other specified safety criteria.
The attached staff memorandum explores other options considered by staff
relative to this issue."
-335-
December 15, 1987
c
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to 1
adopt Ordinance No. 199, 1987 on First Reading.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Council Stoner, to table
Ordinance No. 199, 1987 until January 5, 1988.
City Attorney Huisjen pointed out the Ordinance would need to be read in
full prior to any consideration because the Ordinance was not available to
the public 48 hours in advance.
Councilmember Winokur asked if a motion directing staff to place this item
on the January 5th agenda would be sufficient.
City Attorney Huisjen replied such a motion would have the same effect.
Councilmembers Maxey and Stoner withdrew their motions to adopt and table
Ordinance No. 199, 1987.
Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
direct staff to place the Ordinance on the January 5 agenda.
Councilmember Horak stated although he would not support the motion, he
believed the process was more appropriate than the original motion to table
the Ordinance.
Mayor Estrada stated he would not support the motion, but did support the
process.
The vote on Councilmember Maxey's'motion to direct staff to place the
Ordinance on the January 5 agenda was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers
Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Mabry, and Winokur.
THE MOTION FAILED.
Councilmember Horak stated he would like Council to reconsider the water
Policy issue in January or February to clarify Council's direction on water
matters. He stated he would be willing to restructure the Resolution
previously defeated by Council.
After discussion, it was the Council's consensus to schedule the matter for
a worksession in February.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she would like to schedule a discussion of
the conflict of interest policy at a future worksession.
The consensus of Council was to schedule the discussion at a future worksession. ,
-336-
0
December 15, 1987
1 Councilmember Mabry questioned the status of the Transportation Task Force
and when their report would be scheduled for a worksession.
Deputy City Manager Skip Noe replied a January worksession was planned if
space was available.
Councilmember Stoner outlined the timetable for the SID process.
Councilmember Horak stated he would like to have a cost estimate for an
independent financial review at the January 5 meeting.
Ad.iournment
Councilmember Winokur made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to
adjourn the meeting to 6:00 p.m. on December 22 to consider the Resolution
making appointments to the CHOICES 95 Subcommittees. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, Stoner, and Winokur. Nays:
None.
The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m
ATTEST:
City Clerk
1
-337-