HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-12/04/1986-AdjournedI
ADJOURNED MEETING
OF THE
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS
December 4, 1986
6:30 p.m.
An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on
Thursday, December 4, 1986, 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, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein,
and Stoner.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Huisjen, Krajicek
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager Burkett advised the Council that the Ordinance under Item #20,
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 196, 1986, Amending Chapters 38
and 50 of the Code Relating to Residential Fire Sprinkler Systems, -should
be numbered Ordinance No. 205. He also noted that a revised Ordinance No.
196, 1986 (Item #25 on the agenda) had been provided to Council.
' Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, requested Item #11, Hearing and
First Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 1986 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale
of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds, Series 1986 for the Vipont
Laboratories, Inc. Project in the Principal Amount of $3,800,000, 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 be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Agenda Items #16 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.
Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of November 4
-218-
December 4, 1986
91
7.
91
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November
18. This project will develop localized trip generation data which
will be used to determine traffic -related impacts of various types of
development. The total cost of the study is $17,000 and will be
completed by City staff. Of the $17,000, the City will contribute
$2,193 of in -kind services (staff time, etc.). The remaining $14,807
will be reimbursed from the State Highway Department P-L (Planning)
funds which are funnelled through the Larimer-Weld Regional Council of
Governments.
This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on November
18. The Developer granted the City 10 feet of additional right-of-way
and a 12 foot easement along the eastern frontage of Lemay Avenue for
use in the future widening of Lemay Avenue. The Developer of this
property cannot build between the utility easement and the opposite
lot line, and is requesting the vacation of 2 feet of this easement so
the proposed building will fit. The discrepancy is from a survey
error which has been accounted for in this vacation request. The
street right-of-way will not be affected and all utilities will be '
accommodated in the right-of-way and proposed easement.
All utilities have been contacted and have no problems with the
vacation.
Various funds which require a supplemental appropriation for 1986
expenditures have been identified. This Ordinance, which was
unanimously adopted on First Reading on November 18, makes the
transfers and appropriations. As a result of these transfers the
General Fund Prior Year Reserves will be decreased by $101,128.
Resolution 85-99 authorized the City Manager to file an application
with the Urban Mass Transportation Administration for a capital,
planning and operating assistance grant for Transfort. Grant
approval for these projects has been received from UMTA for the
following:
-219-
December 4, 1986
0
10.
Spare Bus Engine
Radii changes
Handicapped Accessibility Study
$24,000
8,000
9,600
TOTAL $41,600
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on
November 18, appropriates federal grant monies in the amount of
$41,600. The City of Fort Collins matching funds of $10,400 for these
projects are available in the Transfort 1986 budget.
This ordinance, which was unanimously adopted as amended on First
Reading on November 18, adopts the latest edition of the prominent
model building code used in the western U.S., with certain local
amendments, and repeals the current amended edition (1982) now in
effect. While most of the code provisions are retained with only
editorial and clarifying modifications, some new features are
noteworthy. Among these, for the first time, an update of current
State energy conservation standards is incorporated into an appendix
chapter. The BBA-appointed code review committee held several
meetings over the course of four months before submitting the final
draft to the Board for their endorsement last month.
The Ordinance was amended on First Reading to delete a section
relating to the use of quick -response fire sprinklers in residential
buildings. This will be covered under a separate ordinance.
This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted as amended on First
Reading on November 18, adopts the 1985 Edition of the Uniform Fire
Code. The 1985 Code contains the regulations included in the 1982
Edition of the Uniform Fire Code which was previously adopted by the
City and certain amendments to that edition. In addition, staff
recommends that certain local amendments to the 1985 Edition of the
Code be adopted. The most significant amendments relate to
semi -conductor fabrication facilities using hazardous production
materials, construction safeguards,. and regulations relating to
unattended service stafiohs. On. First Reading, portions of the
Ordinance relating to residential fire sprinkler systems were deleted,
to be considered as a separate item. The adoption of the 1985 Edition
of the Code with the amendments contained in this Ordinance is
recommended by the Poudre Fire Authority Board and staff, a Code
Review Committee which was set up by the Poudre Fire Authority, and
the Fire Board of Appeals.
-220-
December 4, 1986
12.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 193, 1986 Authorizing the '
Issuance and Sale of Industrial Development Revenue Bonds Series 1986
for the Vipont Laboratories Inc. Project in the Principal Amount of
$3,800,000.
The Ordinance will allow the issuance of Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds for the Vipont Laboratories Project in the amount of
$3,800,000. The project is located in the Prospect Park East P.U.D.,
Lots 5,6, and 7. The bond proceeds will be used to acquire and
construct a 50,000 square foot office, distribution and light
manufacturing building. The facility will be constructed for lease to
and occupancy by Vipont Laboratories, Inc., a local manufacturer of
products for the treatment of oral health.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 194, 1986, Vacating the
Blanket Easement Platted with the Original Plat.
Motion Accepting the Dedication of Replacement Easements.
The developer of The Meadows at Redwood Replat, Phase I, is requesting
vacation of the existing easement on all open space in the P.U.D., and
dedicating an 8 foot utility easement adjacent to the City I
right-of-way along both sides of all streets. All utilities are
currently installed in the easements to be dedicated.
All utilities have been contacted and have no problems with the
vacation and dedication.
13. Items Relating to the Renewal of Agreements with Golf Professionals
Resolution 86-189, Authorizing the City Manager to enter into an
Agreement for the Services of a Golf Professional at the
Collindale Golf Course.
Resolution 86-190, Authorizing the City Manager to enter into an
Agreement for the Services.of a Golf Professional at the City Park
Nine Golf Course:•
Our existing agreements with Collindale Golf Professional Bill Metier
(as an employee of the Bill Metier Company) and City Park Nine Golf
Professional Jim Greer expire December 31. Staff, with the
concurrence of the Golf Board, has negotiated new agreements with each
Professional for 1987, with an option for 1988 and another for 1989
(if desired by both parties). The Golf Board voted unanimously to
recommend Council approval of these two agreements, which are believed
to be fair and equitable for all parties concerned. The past '
performance of both Golf Professionals has been very satisfactory.
-221-
December 4, 1986
' 14. Resolution 86-185 Making Appointments to Various Boards and
Commissions.
Vacancies currently exist on the Cultural Resources Board, the Public
Access Advisory Board and the Quality of Life Commission. The
individual Council liaisons have advertised the positions and
conducted interviews.
In keeping with Council's policy, recommendations for these
appointments were announced on November 18. The appointments were
tabled to December 4 to allow additional time for public input.
Prospective appointees are as follows:
Cultural Resources Advisory Board - Judith Grillo
Public Access Advisory Board - John Schroeer
Quality of Life Commission - Jennifer Fontane
Katy Mason
Lynne Warner
15. Routine Deeds and Easements.
a. Deed of Easement from William A. Thomas, Jr., for an underground
storm sewer pipe that is a portion of the master drainage plan for
' the Greenbriar Basin, located at 1409 North Lemay Avenue.
Consideration for 8,343 sq. ft. easement: $744,96.
b. Powerline easements from 800 Lemay Properties located at 800 Lemay
Avenue and John E. Maher, Jr. located at 808 Lemay Avenue for
underground electric service to 800 Lemay Properties Subdivision.
Consideration for each easement: $1.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #5.
Item #6.
Item #7.
Item #8.
I
Item #9.
-222-
December 4, 1986
Item #10.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #11.
Item #12. A.
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 193, 1986 Authorizing the
Issuance and Sale of Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds, Series 1986 for the Vipont
Laboratories, Inc. Project in the Principal
Amount of $3,800,000, Adopted on first Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
The Ordinance will allow the issuance of Industrial Development Revenue
Bonds for the Vipont Laboratories Project in the amount of $3,800,000. The
project is located in the Prospect Park East P.U.D., Lots 5, 6, and 7. The
bond proceeds will be used to acquire and construct a 50,000 square foot
office, distribution and light manufacturing building. The facility will
be constructed for lease to and occupancy by Vipont Laboratories, Inc., a
local manufacturer of products for the, treatment of oral health.
Background
On August 19, 1986 Council passed Resolution 86-139,' setting forth the
intention of the City to issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds for the
Vipont Laboratories, Inc. project. At that time staff submitted a request
to the State for an allocation from the statewide balance from which to
issue the bonds. Although there were no funds available from the statewide
balance, the applicant was able to secure an assignment of allocation in
the amount of $3,800,000.
-223-
December 4, 1986
' The bonds will be administered by United Bank of Fort Collins, N.A.
pursuant to an Indenture of Trust Agreement between the City and United
Bank. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. has committed to purchase the bonds upon
issuance by the City. The applicants have requested that the pricing of
the bonds be done in connection with the second reading of the ordinance.
As a result, the interest rates will need to be inserted by amending the
bond ordinance on December 16.
At the time of closing the applicant will be required to pay the City's
economic development fee (1116 of 1% of the principal amount of the bonds
outstanding at the end of each bond year). Although the exact fee will not
be determined until the interest rate is set on second reading, staff
anticipates that the fee due will be approximately $19,500 (assuming 25
years at 8.5%)."
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember
Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 193, 1986 on First Reading.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, commented on Vipont's move from the
downtown area and an agenda item scheduled later in the meeting to issue
bonds for the Opera House project in order to attract more business to the
downtown area.
Dave Dwyer, bond counsel for Vipont, noted that Vipont needed a much larger
' space than is available in the downtown.
Councilmember Stoner stated he felt IDRB's are based on the market system
directing where to build, rather than directing where a project has to be
built in order to qualify for the IDRB.
Councilmember Liebler stated her vote was based on benefit to the community
in relation to the amount of the inducement, and the amount of the money in
relation to the number of jobs created.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 193,
1986 .on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 190, 1986, Amending
the Code Relating to Campaign;
Contribution Limits. Adopted oril:Second Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
-224-
December 4, 1986
"At the November 4 meeting, Council directed that an Ordinance be prepared '
for consideration to amend the limit on the dollar amount that any person
or entity may contribute in support of or in opposition to any candidate on
the ballot at any City election. The contribution limit was $500 per
person or entity and applied only to candidates and not to ballot issues.
This Ordinance setting a $50 limit was adopted by a 5-2 vote on First
Reading on November 18."
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler,
to adopt Ordinance No. 190, 1986 on Second Reading.
Terry Stone, 626 Remington, supported the proposed $50 limit, stating he
felt it would promote more citizen participation and cause candidates to
get out and interact more with the voters.
Councilmember Stoner stated he was opposed to any limit on campaign
contributions. He indicated he did not feel it was appropriate for Council
to dictate how an individual should spend their money or to dictate how a
candidate should run their campaign.
Councilmember Estrada agreed with Councilmember Stoner, adding that he felt
this limit sets up a system where only the wealthy would be able to run for
office.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick read a statement indicating her support for a $50 '
limit and the reasons she felt strongly about such limit.
Councilmember Horak stated he did not support the limit in order to limit
the amount of money spent in campaigns, but did support the $50 limit in
order to limit the "voice through dollars" used in influencing campaigns.
He disputed Councilmember Estrada's statement about only the wealthy being
able to run.
Mayor Ohlson stated he supported the Ordinance for its attempt to limit the
potential for undue influence by moneyed individuals in a campaign.
The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 190,
1986 on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: Councilmembers Estrada
and Stoner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Public Hearing and Resolution 86-192 Adding
Projects to the City's Fiscal Year 1986-87
Community Development Block Grant Program Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item: '
-225-
December 4, 1986
"Executive Summar
This resolution will add two projects to be funded with Community
Development Block Grant funds from the United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development for the City's FY 1986-87 CDBG Program year. The
CDBG Citizens Steering Committee has reviewed the applications, discussed
the proposals with the applicants, and presents a recommendation for use of
the funds.
Background
On September 2, 1986, the City Council passed Resolution 86-147 which
allocated $116,000 of additional CDBG Entitlement Grant funds to the
following CDBG program areas:
$30,000 Westside Neighborhood Plan
$66000 Downtown Housing Rehabilitation
$20:000 Contingency Funds
The City advertised for, and received three, specific project proposals for
the expenditure of Downtown Housing Rehabilitation funds. The proposal
requests received were as follows:
$50,000 from: Anthony and Sharon Ferguson, the Local Development
Company and A-E Design Associates for the LaCourt
Hotel at 232 Pine Street.
$37,000 from: The Fort Collins Housing Authority for 252 Linden
Street.
$50,000 from: The Local Development Company for use at a site to
be selected.
Copies of the above applications have been previously submitted to the
Council for their review.
The CDBG Citizens Steering Committee met on November 13, 1986, to review
the proposed applications and formulate a recommendation for funding to the
City Council. The following 'criteria' were used to evaluate the
applications:
1. Amount of private money being leveraged.
2. Guarantee of affordable rents for low-income people.
3. Amount of funds allocated for project management.
The LaCourt Hotel project is fora total $250,000. Project management is
estimated at between IOY-15Y. The Fort Collins Housing Authority would
manage the units.
The Fort Collins Housing
Authority project
is
for a total
$53,970. Project
'
management is estimated
at 5%. Units will
be
managed by
the Authority.
-226-
December 4, 1986
The Local Development Company project is for $100,000 but, being more
conceptual in nature, was not seriously considered.
In addition to the 'evaluation criteria' listed above, the Committee also
discussed the issue of handicapped accessibility to the units.
Steering Committee Recommendation
The Steering Committee voted to recommend that the available $66,000 be
split, with $33,000 going to both the LaCourt Hotel and Housing Authority
projects. The applicants were encouraged to work out the number of
handicapped units between the two projects. The Housing Authority was
requested to negotiate 20-year leases. The Committee also instructed the
LDC that the funds were specifically for the LaCourt Hotel Project, and if
that project didn't work they were to come back before the Committee with a
new proposal. A copy of the Committee's minutes is attached."
Chief Planner Ken Waido gave background on the item and answered questions
from Council.
Lou Stitzel, 521 East Laurel, member of the Steering Committee, explained
the rationale used in arriving at an even split between the two projects.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Resolution 86-192.
Jim Reidhead, A-E Design Associates, representing the LaCourt Hotel
project, commented on additional funding the project will receive from
other sources.
Councilmember Liebler stated she she was pleased with the recommendation
from the CDBG Steering Committee and commended those involved for their
sensitivity toward the cooperation needed to meet housing needs.
Councilmember Estrada agreed with Councilmember Liebler and stated he
supported the project.
Councilmember Rutstein stated she was glad to see the community's awareness
of the need for housing in the downtown.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Resolution 86-192 was
as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 195, 1986, Adopting the
1987 Par Plan. Adopted on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
-227-
December 4, 1986
I"Executive Summary
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.
Background
The 1986 Pay Plan is based on a performance pay system which includes labor
market increases to base salaries and pay for performance. The purpose of
the plan is on rewarding superior day to day performance by employees and
retaining our competitive position in the labor market.
The 1987 pay system has four components:
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.
PERFORMANCE STEP INCREASES pay provided employees who meet performance
goals who have not reached the top of the pay
range.
PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PAY - performance pay for those employees who have
reached the top of their pay range.
The following chart presents the 1987 proposed pay increases for these four
categories.
PROPOSED 1987 PAY INCREASES
Total City
General Fund
Base Pay
$570,716
$228,286
(Labor Market)
Pay Equity
40,414
16,166
Performance
Step Increase
223,587
89,435
Performance
Incentive Pay
28,782
11,513
Benefits
70,089
28,036
(Cost of
increase to
benefits
caused by the
increase
in salary)
'
TOTAL COSTS
$933,588
$373,436
-228-
December 4, 1986
(Total percent increase + 4.3%)
TOTAL BUDGETED $1,260,769
BALANCE
+ $ 327,181
$504,308
+$130,872
The City-wide base salary increase will average 2.63%. The pay increase
varies between our 26 pay lines or job families. The range of these
increases is from a low of OY to a high of 5Y. Because of the labor market
pay surveys, 122 employees will not receive an increase in 1987. When Pay
Equity is included with base pay, the average increase is 2.9%. Combining
all four categories, the total average increase is 4.3Y."
Employee Development Director Mike Powers highlighted the elements of the
1987 Pay Plan and the cost projections for implementation of the pay plan.
He answered questions from Council about specifics of the plan and how the
figures were determined.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt Ordinance No. 195, 1986 on First Reading.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, questioned the rate of turnover
among City employees.
Mike Powers replied the turnover rate was approximately 6.7% which is a
little higher than average.
Mr. Lockhart commented on his understanding that most of the City's police
officers are paid at the top of their range.
Mike Powers stated the officers are required to meet specific performance
objectives before moving to the top of the range. He indicated that
approximately 60% of the officers are at the top of the range, and that
City-wide employees at the top is also approximately 60%.
Councilmember Estrada pointed out that the total pay plan is lower than
originally estimated and stated he would support the ordinance.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she would support the pay plan, and
indicated she felt it went a long way toward beingoequitable and ethical.
Councilmember Rutstein commented on the improvements made in the pay system
over the last year. She stated she was pleased with the pay equity portion
of the pay plan.
Mayor Ohlson stated he supported the Ordinance and indicated felt the City
of Fort Collins was one of the best employers in northern Colorado.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 195, 1986
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
-229-
December 4, 1986
1
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Citizen Participation
a. vrociamation Naming November 30 - December 6
was accepted by Anita Basham, Poudre Valley Ho
and Jerry Wilkins, Glassrock Medical Equipment.
th Care,
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, commented on the issue of the direct election of
the Mayor not being scheduled on the agenda.
Mayor Ohlson indicated the public would have an opportunity to comment on
that issue later in the meeting.
City Manager's Report
City Manager Burkett informed Council that the December 9 worksession had
been cancelled due to a scheduling conflict and the December 23 worksession
would not be held due to the Christmas holiday.
Councilmembers' Reports
Councilmember Rutstein reported on the National League of Cities (NLC)
meeting in San Antonio and discussed the speech given by Mayor Koch of New
York City. She highlighted other sessions she attended, and mentioned
information she had received on opinion surveys and the use of focus
groups.
Councilmember Horak stated he would like to have the Public Information
Officer look at focus group technics in developing her work plan for the
next year. He commented on San Antonio's tourism industry and River Walk
project. Councilmember Horak also reported that he received a letter from
a citizen thanking employees Mick Mercer and Bonnie Tripoli for their
efforts on the Sidewalk Program and Car Barn Projects.
Councilmember Estrada reported on information he received at the San
Antonio conference, specifically making economic development work in line
with culture.
Councilmember Liebler commented on the work of the NLC's community and
economic development committee which ties together social and economic
issues.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick reported on sessions she attended.on the effect
of tax reform on municipal bonds, and partnerships between educational
institutions and city government.
-230-
December 4, 1986
Mayor Ohlson recognized the fund raising efforts of the downtown merchants
for the Christmas lights in the downtown. He also acknowledged the City
crews involved in the decoration effort. He announced a community meeting,
December 11 at 7:00 p.m. at Dunn Elementary. Mayor Ohlson reported that
Governor -elect Romer would be holding a Northern Colorado economic
development meeting in Loveland on December 8, and requested the City send
representatives to gather information and present Fort Collins' point of
view.
Ordinance No. 205, 1986, Amending Chapters 38
and 50 of the Code Relating to Residential
Fire Sprinkler Systems Adopted on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
This ordinance would create a residential fire sprinkler program based on a
code equivalency- incentive implementation strategy by including a new
chapter in the Uniform Building Code and two new appendices in the Uniform
Fire Code. This ordinance does not mandate new requirements but creates a
new design standard for residential sprinkler systems and two sets of
alternative design criteria for residential buildings equipped with
residential sprinkler systems. With only one minor modification, these are ,
the same amendments recommended by staff for adoption with the 1985
Editions of the Uniform Building and Fire Codes. These amendments were
removed from the original code adoption on November 18th at Council's
request to allow additional time for staff to address Council questions and
challenges by the Fire Safety Council of Colorado. This Agenda Item
Summary includes staff's responses.
Background
This program has been under development by Poudre Fire. Authority and other
City departments for two years and is being presented to Council for
inclusion in the Uniform Fire and Building Codes. In addition to staff
development, an ad -hoc advisory committee of local builders, architects,
and developers has reviewed all aspects of the program and provided much
valuable input. In addition, this program has been reviewed and endorsed
by the Poudre Fire Authority Board, the Building and Fire Boards of
Appeals, and the Planning and Zoning Board.
During the public hearing on the 1985 Uniform Building Code, Mr. Walter
Prebis, representing the Fire Safety Council of Colorado, challenged
several components of the program and raised many questions. Through the
development process all these issues were raised, discussed, and resolved
at the staff level and through the ad -hoc committee and board review
process. As requested by Council, staff has prepared responses to each of I
Mr. Prebis' challenges.
-231-
December 4, 1986
Program Development - During the research phase of this project, staff
reviewed many reports and articles both favoring and criticizing the
residential sprinkler concept and the code equivalency implementation
strategy. These research materials included the National Fire
Protection Association's (NFPA) Fire Journal and Fire Command, the West
Chiefs Association's American Fire Journal, and the International
Conference of Building Officials' Building Standards. Also used were
research reports by NFPA, the Federal Emergency 'Management Agency
(FEMA), the U.S. Fire Administration (USFA), the National Bureau of
Standards Center for Fire Research (NBS), the International Association
of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), and fire sprinkler industry groups and
manufacturers. Mr. Prebis directly references the same NBS report from
which we derived the 75% predicted reduction in deaths and injuries.
The 85% predicted reduction in property loss likewise came from a FEMA
study done in conjunction with the insurance industry including the
Insurance Services Office (ISO). In addition to internal research,
members of our staff also visited Cobb County, Georgia and Scottsdale,
Arizona and investigated their programs first hand.
It is interesting to note that the graph presented by Mr. Prebis as an
illustration of smoke, detector vs. sprinkler performance also
illustrates the effectiveness of the fast response sprinkler system in
maintaining tenantable conditions within a dwelling unit. This graph
clearly shows that the sprinkler can activate before the hazard point
is reached. When the narrative accompanying this graph is considered,
' the favorable performance of the sprinkler system is even more
pronounced. The test describes one of the most challenging scenarios
to sprinkler effectiveness: a slow heat build-up, smoldering fire.
(See text below)
In these two tests smoke detectors provided the earliest
warning, and therefore the maximum time to escape, provided
that the occupant is mobile, and not intimate with the fire.
Residential sprinklers and heat detectors activated in the
room of fire origin at about the same time, and before the
onset of hazardous conditions.*
*Estimating Effectiveness of State -Of -The -Art Detectors and Automatic
Sprinklers in Residential Occupancies, National Bureau of Standards,
Center .for Fire Research, January 1984, Page 18. Narrative of Test
11, (Figure 12)
2. Experience in Other Jurisdictions - The experience in other cities and
fire jurisdictions which have adopted similar programs, has been no
less than outstanding. In these cities lives are being saved, injuries
and property losses are being averted, and higher degrees of design
flexibility are being realized. At this time, we are aware of 180
jurisdictions which have adopted similar programs or have programs in
active development. Most are on the west coast, in the southwest, the
' southeast, and along the eastern seaboard. In Colorado, we are aware
of no other programs as comprehensive as this proposal except for the
-232-
December 4, 1986
Y
City of Boulder, where a similar program has been in place for several I
years.
During his presentation, Mr. Prebis mentioned Cobb County. Since Cobb
County's program was adopted in 1982, several fires have occurred in
protected dwelling units and all have been successfully extinguished by
the sprinkler system with no loss of life. Mr. Prebis was correct in
that Cobb County has lost two four-plexes and the neighboring county of
Dekalb has lost one due to the extreme wildfire conditions present
during the drought suffered last summer. The Cobb County buildings
were equipped with a residential -type sprinkler system and the one in
Dekalb County was equipped" with a fully conforming commercial -type
system (NFPA 13). In these cases, the fires originated outside of the
structures during environmental conditions which defy all fire fighting
efforts and code regulations. During his presentation, Mr. Prebis
also attempted to establish a relationship between the poor fire record
in the south and the presence of fire sprinkler systems. In fact, such
a relationship does exist but is the opposite of that portrayed by Mr.
Prebis. The emphasis on sprinkler systems in the south is a direct
assault on that poor fire record, rather than that record being a
result of increased use of sprinkler systems.
3. Residential -Type Sprinkler Design Standard - The design standard
proposed in this program is one developed locally, based on existing
NFPA Standards and similar residential, - type. sprinkler standards now in
use in other jurisdictions. It is essentially an intermediate standard
which is less stringent than required for commercial buildings (NFPA
'
13), but more stringent than required for single family dwellings (NFPA
13D).
As compared to the commercial standard (NFPA 13), this standard:
- Requires fast response sprinkler heads throughout;
- Allows omission of sprinkler coverage in building areas where life
threatening fires are unlikely to originate such as attics, crawl
spaces, concealed spaces not used for storage, and small closets;
- Encourages but does not require use of combination domestic -fire
sprinkler water service lines;'and
- Allows a lower water discharge design area.
As compared to the residential standard (NFPA 13D), this standard:
- Requires an increased discharge design area from two sprinkler heads
to four;
- Requires sprinkler coverage of bathrooms; and
- Requires an external flow alarm.
'
-233-
December 4, 1986
An important issue associated with this standard is that of testing and
approval. Testing can be described
as, (1) the laboratory testing of
system components, and (2) the field testing of the entire
installation. Mr. Prebis contended that this standard was not tested.
This is not the case. All materials and components allowed to be used
by this standard must have passed the rigorous testing of Underwriters
Laboratories or Factory Mutual, and have been listed by those agencies
for the use intended. These testing standards are listed in Table 3.1
of the proposed standard. The second category of testing involves the
effectiveness of the entire system in controlling the type and size of
fire it is designed to control. This effectiveness is based more on
actual experience rather than laboratory testing. As discussed
previously, the success rate of similar residential -type sprinkler
systems is outstanding and we believe these systems will gain more
recognition by the traditional code and standards bodies as this
experience continues.
The second part of this issue is the application of the term
"approval". By definition, "approved" denotes acceptance by the
authority having jurisdiction, in the case of the Building Code this is
the chief building official, and of the Fire Code, the fire chief. Mr.
Prebis referred to the term "approved" as a ievel of legal acceptance
at a higher level than local government. This connotation is not
correct and not the intent of the term as defined by the Building and
Fire Codes. The approval concept is a vital function of a code's iocal
application process and is used in almost all jurisdictions in some
form to tailor specific code requirements to unique local conditions.
4. Building Code Equivalencies - During his presentation, Mr. Prebis
attempted to persuade Council that staff is willing to completely,
depart from the Building Code when sprinklers are installed. This is
not the case. Those Building Code equivalencies recommended in this
program represent only those staff believes are clearly redundant when
compared to the effectiveness of the sprinkler systems. These
equivalencies are also not as sweeping as Mr. Prebis contends, but
represent an extension of equivalency concepts already provided in the
model codes. In our experience thus far, these equivalencies have been
used to allow buildings to be built that are close to normal code
compliance but are also provided with the superior protection of the
sprinkler system. Specifically, the Building Code equivalencies which
caused the most concern are:
Area and Height Increases - This equivalency essentially allows 112"
sheetrock to 'be substituted for 518" sheetrock in sprinklered
buildings. Contrary to Mr. Prebis' portrayal, the structural
integrity of the building would not be lessened, nor would its fire
resistance capability be compromised to an unacceptable degree, when
balanced against' the effectiveness of sprinkler protection.
' Exterior Nall Fire Rating - The Building Code requires that when a
dwelling is built within 3' of a property line (5' for multi -family
buildings) or another building, the exterior wall facing that
IV*i2
December 4, 1986
property line or building must have a higher fire resistance rating. '
The recommended equivalency would only reduce this rating when all
adjacent buildings are sprinklered. This could apply to new
zero -lot line and cluster dwelling type projects but not to in-fi11
projects where adjacent buildings are not sprinklered. The one
change in the amendments previously proposed which staff is
proposing at this time is to qualify this equivalency by not
allowing down -rating of exterior walls in areas where wildland fires
may be anticipated.
Exits - The issue of exit equivalencies is perhaps the most
emotional due to peoples fear of fire and the perception that escape
is the only real protection against injury or death. The exit
equivalencies recommended do allow less exits from the second and
third stories of multi -family buildings than are now required.
Specifically, on a second story two exits are normally required when
the number of people served exceeds 10. The recommended equivalent
when sprinklers are .installed increases this limit to 15. On a
third story, two exits are normally required regardless of the
number of people served. Under the sprinkler equivalency, only one
exit would be required but that exit could serve no more than two
dwelling units.
5. Installation and Equivalency Cost - In researching the practicality of
the equivalency implementation strategy, staff closely examined the
installation costs of residential sprinklers as compared to the ,
potential savings that can be realized when the equivalencies are
applied. We are confident that our estimate of $1.00 per square foot
original installation cost is the upper end of the system installation
cost range and believe the cost will decrease continually as local
installers and contractors become familiar with installation
techniques. In larger multi -family buildings and projects where the
Full range of equivalencies can be applied, the cost of sprinkler
installation may actually be less than the savings, due to the
equivalencies.
6. Smoke Detectors and Fire Alarm Systems - When responding to Mr. Prebis'
questioning of fire alarm equivalencies, Mayor Ohlson correctly
identified our approach to basic smoke detector requirements. As Mayor
Ohlson pointed out; smoke detectors are required in all new dwelling
units and staff has considered them as a constant and not a variable,
when weighing various equivalencies. The equivalencies Mr. Prebis
referred to were the reduction in central fire alarm requirements for
larger buildings without interior corridor systems. These are not new
equivalencies but are ones which are already allowed by the Fire Code
when the building is equipped with sprinklers.
7. Use of Residential -Type Design Standard in Commercial Areas - The
proposed design standard allows the use of residential sprinklers in
commercial areas of a predominantly residential building or project '
when that commercial use is directly related to the residential use.
Examples of such areas include clubhouses of apartment complexes, small
WNLIN
December 4, 1986
'
assembly rooms such as dining areas
shop or office in
in a fraternity
building.
house or a small
gift an apartment
Staff
believes that the
hazard presented by these ancillary
commercial uses
is comparable to
the primary residential use and
requires only
residential -type
sprinkler protection. Commercial areas larger than the limits defined
in the design standard would have to
be provided with
a commercial -type
sprinkler system (NFPA 13).
8. Insurance Rates - Staff's research has shown that there are insurance
companies that offer reduced rates for residential sprinkler
protection. The rate reductions quoted to staff have been in the range
of 5% to 15% and we are aware that insurance companies in areas where
similar programs are in place offer substantially greater rate
reductions. In no case have we found an insurance company which
imposes a penalty for sprinkler protection.
Mr. Prebis presented Council with a letter from the Insurance Services
Office (ISO), casting doubt on the use of residential sprinklers as an
insurance reduction tool. ISO does not represent a uniform industry
viewpoint and, like most other businesses, insurance is highly
competitive. In the ISO letter, its author, Mr. Robert Clingersmith,
states in three separate places that their opinion is optional and not
binding. This is consistent with the information staff has gained from
local insurance representatives. Mr. Prebis did raise a point for
which we have not discovered a satisfactory answer. This concerns the
impact local equivalencies, beyond those provided in the model codes,
may have on insurance rates. This, however, can be considered one of
the factors a builder would have to consider when evaluating the
cost -benefit aspects of the equivalency package. Even without definite
data, the number of communities adopting residential sprinkler programs
indicates that prohibitive insurance rates are not being assessed. As
we have discussed in the past, the insurance industry tends to react
slowly to new loss control methods and technologies. We expect that as
more communities implement residential sprinkler programs, the
insurance industry will have to respond in a more favorable manner.
9. City Liability - Opponents of local sprinkler initiatives frequently
contend that local jurisdictions which grant equivalencies beyond those
provided in the model codes are putting themselves in a position of
liability. Our response has been and continues to be that if this were
true those jurisdictions which regularly use equivalencies strategies
would be experiencing legal challenges. This does not appear to be the
case. Throughout the development of this program, staff has been
cognizant of the safety issue and believes our ability to evaluate and
apply alternative methods aitd materials. is sound and well supported
within the authority already granted in°both the codes.
During
a brief
presentation of these responses at the Council meeting,
staff
will also
discuss the fire
code equivalencies not discussed on
'
November 18th. These are primarily
those aspects which can increase
in fire access requirements and are
the flexibility of residential site
design.
During
this presentation, we will also directly respond to Mr.
-236-
December 4, 1986
Prebis' objections to the proposed Building Code equivalencies, using the
diagram he
'
provided.
It continues to be staff's belief that fire sprinklers in combination with
single station smoke detectors are the single most effective means of
life -safety and property protection available today. When this level of
effectiveness is combined with our fire fighting capabilities and other
fire prevention programs, it is our firm belief that the equivalencies
recommended in this program are realistic, not excessive, and provide a
viable incentive for voluntary increases in built-in fire protection."
Fire Prevention Inspector Warren Jones summarized the material presented to
Council and stated he was available to answer questions.
Fire Chief John Mulligan expressed his views on residential fire sprinklers
and urged adoption of the Ordinance.
Chief Building Official Felix Lee expressed his support for the residential
fire sprinkler program and the code equivalency approach.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 205, 1986 on First Reading.
Walter Prebis, Executive Director of Colorado Prestressers Association,
representing the Fire Safety Council of Colorado, expressed opposition to
the proposed Ordinance. He gave a slide presentation supporting his
argument against the code equivalency approach to the residential fire
,
sprinkler program.
Dick Beardmore, 2212 Kiowa Court, A-E Design Associates, pointed out that
the code equivalency approach is a widely -accepted practice in Uniform Fire
and Building Codes. He commented on how his firm may benefit from the
provisions of the residential fire sprinkler program. He supported the
code equivalency approach.
Councilmember Stoner stated he was confident the Fire Authority would not
recommend a program that was threatening to life safety and would support
the Ordinance.
Councilmember Rutstein thanked the Fire Authority for providing extensive
information on the subject and expressed confidence in those involved in
formulating this proposal.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick thanked Mr. Prebis for his input on the issue,
and expressed her support for the Ordinance.
Councilmember Horak also thanked Mr. Prebis for the time he invested on the
issue. He stated he felt this was an area the City of Fort Collins should
be progressive on, regardless of what the "rest of the country has done on
this issue. He strongly supported the proposed Ordinance. '
-237-
December 4, 1986
' Mayor Ohlson supported the comments made by other Councilmembers and
expressed faith that the residential fire sprinkler program would not
threaten life safety.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 205, 1986
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance No. 196, 1986, Authorizing the
Issuance and Sale of Industrial Development
Revenue Bonds, Series 1986 for the Historical
Opera House Properties, Ltd. in the Principal
Amount of $5,800,000, Adopted as Amended on First Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
The Ordinance will authorize - the issuance and sale of Industrial
Development Revenue Bonds for the Historical Opera House Properties, Ltd.
in the amount of $5,8O0,0OO. The project is located at 117 - 149 112 North
College Avenue. The proceeds of the bonds will be used to acquire,
renovate and construct three commercial buildings located in the downtown
business district of the City.
Background
On November 18, 1986 Council passed Resolution 86-187, Stating an Intention
to Issue Industrial Development Revenue Bonds to Historical Opera House
Properties, Ltd. On November 25, 1986, the Larimer County Commissioners
approved a resolution assigning a part of the County's private activity
bond allocation in the amount of $5,800,000 to the City for the use of
Historical Opera House Properties, Ltd. These two actions have allowed the
applicant to move forward with the process of issuing Industrial
Development Bonds for the project. This Ordinance will authorize the
issuance and sale of bonds for the project.
There are two other parts to the financing of this project which are being
completed at this time - the participation of the Downtown Development
Authority for the construction of public improvements associated with the
project and the resolution of a Parking Agreement between the City and Walt
Brown to provide parking for the project. The DDA's participation in the
project will be structured in the same manner as their participation in the
Robinson Piersal project, with a maximum participation of $404,000 to be
paid at the time that the tax increment from the project reaches a certain
predefined ievel sufficient to support the debt. At this time the DDA is
not prepared to bring this agreement to Council. However, they are
confident that the agreement can be reached in time to bring the item
-238-
December 4, 1986
before Council at the December 16 meeting. A letter from DDA Executive
Director, Chip Steiner, is A
'
attached. parking agreement is also being
actively negotiated between the applicant and the City. The finalized
agreement will be brought to Council for action on December 16.
United Bank of Fort Collins has committed to underwrite the bonds. At the
outset, the proceeds of the bonds will be placed into escrow as a full
security for the bond holders. Within one year further credit enhancements
will be secured and the bond proceeds will be released for the construction
of the project.
The applicants have requested that the pricing of the bonds be done in
connection with the second reading of the ordinance. As a result, the
interest rates will need to be inserted by amending the bond ordinance.
At the time of closing the applicant will be required to pay the City's
economic development fee (1116 of 1% of the principal amount of the bonds
outstanding at the end of each bond year). Although the exact fee will not
be determined until the interest rate is set on second reading, staff
anticipates that the fee due will be approximately $32,00O (assuming 30
years at 8.5Y)."
Councilmember Estrada made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 196, 1986 as amended.
City Manager Burkett explained the amendments contained in the revised
Ordinance and outlined the reasons for passing the Ordinance on First
'
Reading without all of the completed documents. He indicated adoption on
First Reading without those documents posed no risk to the City. He stated
staff was available to answer questions.
In response to a question by Council, Financial Policy Analyst Pam Currey
stated the bonds had to be closed by December 23 pursuant to state law.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, stated he did not feel the $1,000
administrative fee collected on this issue was not adequate to cover the
cost of high-level staff time. He commented on the difference in amounts
of the Opera House IDRB's and the Vipont IDRB's and their overall public
benefit.
In response to a question by Counci_1, Pam Currey .indicated approximately
$34,000 would be placed in the econbmi'c development fund.
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, objected to the name of project noting the
historic opera house is not being preserved.
Dick Beardmore, A-E Design Associates, stated the name of the project was
chosen because it is the historically correctsname.
City Manager Burkett clarified that adoption of the Ordinance does not
constitute an investment of public funds, but rathervmakes bonds available
'
239-
December 4, 1986
'
for
purchase
by investment bankers and others. He noted that if the bonds
are
not sold,
the project will not
proceed.
The
vote on Councilmember
Estrada's
motion to adopt Ordinance No. 196, 1986
as
amended
was as follows:
Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak,
Kirkpatrick,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Liebler.
THE
MOTION CARRIED.
Items Placing Proposed Charter
Amendments on the Ballot for the
March 3. 1987 Regular Municipal Election
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
The eight proposed ordinances contain the substance of the Charter Review
Committee's recommendations for charter amendments as modified by Council
suggestions at work sessions and by further staff -initiated requests. One
of the proposed amendments would provide for true district elections for
the present 4 district council positions, without changing the present
system of selecting a mayor. A second proposed amendment would increase
council compensation and a third would decrease the age of eligibility for
council to 21 years. The remaining amendments deal primarily with
housekeeping matters concerning elections, financial administration and
general administration. The final amendment would propose a new method for
granting franchises by ordinance subject to the referendum rather than to a
prior mandatory election.
Background
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 197, 1986, Submitting a
Proposed Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning Election of Four
Councilmembers by Districts of the City.
8. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 198, 1986, Submitting a
Proposed Charter Amendment to a Vote to Increase the Compensation for
Councilmembers.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 199, 1986, Submitting a
Proposed Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning Recall, Initiative and
Referendum.
D. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 200, 1986, Submitting a
Proposed Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning Eligibility for
Council.
' E. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 201, 1986, Submitting a
Proposed Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning the Conduct of City
Elections.
-240-
December 4, 1986
F. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 202, 1986, Submitting a ,
Proposed Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning the City's Boards and
Commissions and Administrative Branch.
G. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 203, 1986, Submitting a
Proposed Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning Housekeeping Items for
the Financial Administration Provisions of the Charter.
H. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 204, 1986, Submitting a
Proposed Charter Amendment to a Vote Concerning Franchises and Public
Utilities.
The Council by adoption of Resolutions 86-81 and 86-112 created a Charter
Review Committee and appointed 11 individuals to serve on that Committee.
The Committee was charged to advise the Council of its recommendation on
specific charter issues. The Charter Review Committee reviewed each of the
issues assigned and submitted its Final Report on October 17, 1986. Since
that time there has been additional staff input and review by the Council.
The Council is now to determine just which proposed Charter amendments are
to be placed on the ballot at the next regular municipal election in March,
1987.
A. Ordinance No. 197, 1986 (Proposed Charter Amendment No. 1). This
ordinance proposes to amend Article II, Section 1 to provide that the four
district council seats be filled by persons not only nominated but elected '
by their respective districts, beginning with the district elections in
1989 (Part A). Included in the proposed charter amendment is the repeal of
the language pertaining to the commencement of terms after run-off
elections, to take effect only if Proposed Charter Amendment No. 5,
repealing run-off, is also adopted (Part 8). This ordinance also proposes
to amend Article XVI, Section 12 to provide for the determination of the
winning candidates in districts and for automatic recount before selection
by lot in the event of a tie (Part Q .
B. Ordinance No. 198, 1986 (Proposed Charter Amendment No. 2). This
ordinance would submit to the voters an amendment to Article II, Section 3
which would increase the amounts of compensation for councilmembers. The
current salary for council is $100, except the mayor who receives $125.
The amendment would increase these sums to $250 and $350, respectively.
The term "salary" is also proposed .to be changed to "compensation"
throughout the section.
C. Ordinance No. 199, Ig86 (Proposed Charter Amendment No. 3). This
ordinance contains a proposed charter amendment which would repeal and
reenact Articles XVII and XVIII of the charter with extensive revisions in
the procedures specified for recall, referendum and initiative. The intent
of the proposed charter amendment is to clarify the procedures required and
to fill in the gaps between local and state law, but not to change the
substantive rights. '
The following are some of the significant clarifications;br changes.
-241-
December 4, 1986
' 1. A councilmember is subject to recall only after he or she has been
in office for I year in the current term, whether or not it is
after reelection to the same position. Recall proceedings may not
be initiated within six months of the end of the council member's
term.
2. The procedures specified for recall, initiative and referendum are
mandatory for conducting the process. The council is instructed
to prescribe additional procedures and general forms for petitions
by ordinance.
3. The initiative process begins with the filing of the text of the
proposed measure with the city clerk. The referendum process is
begun by filing within 10 days of final passage of an ordinance a
notice specifying the ordinance sought to be repealed or referred.
4. A separate petition is required for each councilmember sought to
be recalled. A separate petition is also required for each
measure sought to be initiated or referred.
5. Those signing or circulating recall, initiative or referendum
petitions must be registered electors.
6. A statement is added to the recall article that the grounds stated
for recall are not subject to judicial review. Persons asked to
sign the petition or vote on the issue are the sole judges of the
validity of the reasons given.
7. An officer affected by the recall effort may have a statement of
defense included in the recall petition being circulated and/or on
the ballot.-
8. The city clerk must approve the form of a petition for any of the
processes before it can be circulated. Referendum petitions
require such approval within a specified time frame. In all
cases, the period allowed for circulation is measured from the
date the city clerk certifies the petition for circulation, and
the new time periods for circulation are:
recall 30 days
initiative 60 days
referendum 20 days
9. The affidavit to be signed by the circulator of any petition has
been made more complete.
10. Signature requirements remain the same for all three processes.
' Recall The lesser of 15Y of the registered electors or 25% of the
total votes cast for all candidates for the office in question at
the last preceding regular city election is the required number,
-242-
December 4, 1986
subject to the requirements of the state constitution. A higher
vote requirement, permitted by the state constitution and equal to
twice the signatures required for the first attempt, has been
added for subsequent attempts to recall the same officer during
the same term after one unsuccessful attempt.
Initiative and Referendum 10% of the total ballots cast in the
last preceding regular city election is the required number for
both initiative and referendum, except that if a special election
is desired on an initiative measure, the number signing the
petition must be 15% of the total ballots cast in the last
preceding regular city election.
Note: The Constitution establishes ceilings on cities' signature
requirements of 10% of registered electors for referendum and 15%
of registered electors for initiative. State initiative and
referendum signature requirements are 5% of "the total number of
votes cast for all candidates for the office of secretary of state
at the previous general election". Statutory cities require 5% of
the registered electors.
11. The petition sufficiency protest procedures permitted by state law
have been added to the charter and the city clerk is given
subpoena power in relation to hearings on protests. Council will
need to prescribe the conduct of hearings by ordinance.
12. Amendment of referendum petitions is specifically limited.
13. In the case of recall, the time limit for filing a successor
candidate's nominating petition has been increased from 15 to 25
days prior to the election. The upper limit on the time within
which a recall election must be held has been increased from 40 to
60 days after the presentation to council of a sufficient recall
petition.
14. Referendum is made applicable to parts of ordinances; petitioners
need not seek repeal of the entire ordinance.
15. Ba11ot language for initiative and referendum measures is adopted
by council after public hearing.
16. Existing limitation of one special election on citizen -initiated
measures in any 12-month period is clarified.
17. An ordinance calling a special election for any purpose has been
added to the list of ordinances excepted from referendum. Also in
the list of exceptions, an ordinance "making the tax levy" is
clarified to mean an ordinance "making the annual property tax
levy." An ordinance levying a sales tax increase is therefore
subject to,the referendum as is consistent with current
interpretation of the charter.
-243-
December 4, 1986
D. Ordinance No. 200, 1986 (Proposed Charter Amendment No. 4). This
ordinance proposes to amend Article II, Section 2 of the charter concerning
qualifications for serving as a member of council. The amendment would:
1. Remove masculine bias of language
2. Decrease age of eligibility from 25 to 21
3. Require to be registered elector
4. Require 50 days residency in district for district candidates, so
that on the earliest day possible for circulation of nominating
petitions the candidate will be a qualified resident
5. No change in requirement of 1 year city residency
E. Ordinance No. 201, 1986 (Proposed Charter Amendment No. 5). This
ordinance would submit a proposed charter amendment updating the elections
provisions of the charter, particularly Article XVI. The major changes
included are as follows:
1.
Repeal Article I1, Section 1(c) pertaining to the 1973 and 1975
elections (Part A).
2.
Amend Article XVI, Section 2 to clearly state that all municipal
elections are non -partisan (Part 8).
3.
Repeal Article XVI, Sections 2.1 and 2.2 to eliminate the
requirement for a run-off election when the leading at -large
candidates fail to receive at least 40Y of the vote (Part D).
4.
Amend Article XVI, Section 12 concerning the canvassing of the
vote to eliminate the language that pertained to an all at -large
council, to add language concerning districts, and add provision
for an automatic recount in the event of a tie before selection of
the winning candidate by lot. This amendment would be effective
only if Proposed Charter Amendment No. 1, requiring true district
elections is not adopted (Part D).
S.
Repeal Article XVI, Sections 3 and 4 (see Part E) concerning
nomination, nominating petitions, acceptance of nomination and
sufficiency of petitions, and reenacting new Sections 3 and 4 on
the same subjects to:
a. delete forms and direct the council to prescribe by ordinance,
the forms for nominating petition's and candidate's acceptance
statements
b. add substantive language to replace the deleted candidates
' acceptance form - the candidate must be non -partisan and
intend to serve if elected
-244-
December 4, 1986
c. clarify that district nomination must be by electors residing I
in the district
d. clarify how many nominating petitions an elector is entitled
to sign and what happens if an elector signs too many
e. clarify the determination of petition sufficiency by
rearranging text of the existing language on the subject
f. change the time frame for circulation and filing of nominating
petitions from 25-45 days to 30-50 days before the election
and clarifying that a nominating petition may not be
circulated earlier than the 50 days before the election, to
conform with the state Municipal Election Code.
g. add a specific prohibition against compensating a circulator
or signer of a nominating petition, which is already provided
in the case of initiative, recall and referendum petitions.
6. Amend Article XVI, Section 7 to provide for electronic voting
systems (Part F).
7. Amend Article XVI, Section 11 by deleting the paper ballot vote
counting procedures and transferring the language concerning the
preservation of used ballots to Section 7 of said article, but
retaining the polling hours and stating judges' duties upon the '
closing of the polls (Part F).
8. Amend Article XVI, Section 5 to include ballot issues as part of
the published notice of election (Part G).
9. Amend Article XVI, Section 9 concerning election judges to
eliminate absolute requirement of precinct residency so that city
clerk may look outside the precinct if there are not sufficient
interested electors within the precinct (Part 1).
10. Amend Article XVI, Section 14 concerning corrupt practices with
grammatical changes only (Part J).
11. Amend Article XVI, Section 16 concerning the number of ballots the
city clerk must provide to each precinct by requiring only a
"sufficient quantity" rather than enough for IOOY of registered
voters plus 25 extra'(Part K).
12. Amend Article XVI, Section 18 concerning vacancies on council to
increase the number of days in, which council has to appoint a
successor from 30 days to 45 days, and to declare that a vacancy
exists not only when one removes from the city but also when a
district officer removes from the district (Part L).
13. Generally, throughout charter to substitute "'registered electors" '
for "qualified electors" since registration -,may be verified more
-245-
December 4, 1986
' readily and the change is consistent with amendments to state
statutes and the constitution, e. g. for recall, initiative and
referendum, if the proposed charter amendment affecting them is
not adopted; nominating petition signature requirements (XVI, 3);
and membership requirements for board of elections (XVI, 6) and
precinct judges (XVI, 9). A definition of "registered electors"
is added to Article XXI (Parts H, I, N and 0).
14. Generally, throughout the charter to use "regular city (or
municipal) election" for consistency as the charter presently uses
both "general" and "regular" and "general" is the accepted
terminology for a state election rather than a city election (Part
Q.
F. Ordinance No. 202, 1986 (Proposed Charter Amendment No. 6). This
ordinance contains a proposed amendment which would affect the
administrative provisions of the charter, touching many articles. The
intent of the proposed amendment is to provide more flexibility in
administration by deleting specific references to named departments and
boards, duties of department heads and functions of boards and departments;
substituting instead a specific list of administrative functions and public
services which the city must provide for its residents, and clarifying the
role of the council and the city manager in reorganizing the particular
administrative structure. The specific amendments are:
1. Amend Article II, Section 5(b) allowing the council to create,
change or abolish office, departments and agencies by ordinance,
on report and recommendation of the city manager, so long as no
governmental function and public service appearing in a new list
is eliminated (Part A). The non-exclusive list of essential
public services includes:
fire suppression and prevention
police services
finance and recordkeeping
electric light and power
water supply and wastewater services
street maintenance
storm drainage
planning and zoning
2. Repeal Article III, Sections 5 & 6 concerning the city managers
assignment of departmental functions and employees and incorporate
the repealed. language with modification into Article IV, Section
2, concerningjhe administrative branch (Parts 8 and D).
3. Repeal Article- IV, Section 3 concerning the directors of
departments and chiefs of divisions and their hierarchy, but
retaining the residency requirements (Part E).
I
4. Repeal language creating specific departments and listing their
functions and duties.
-246-
December 4, 1986
a. Department of Finance (Parts G, 1 and J). Amend Article V,
Section 22 to delete reference to creation of the department
and to focus instead on the appointment of an executive
officer of finance as an ex-officio treasurer. Also, wherever
"director of finance" appears in the charter to substitute
"financial officer" and wherever "department of finance"
appears, substitute "financial administration unit" or
"financial officer." (affects Art. I1, Sect. 15; Art. V,
Sects. 6, 12, 13, 23, 25, and 35.)
b. Department of Purchasing (Part H). Repeal Article V, Section
29 creating such a department and focus on "a purchasing
agent."
c. Department of Municipal Public Utilities (Parts K, M and N).
Repeal Article IX, Section 1 concerning the creation of the
department and replace with a new section taken from Article
XIII, Section 6 concerning the power of the city to construct
or acquire public utilities. Repeal Article IX, Section 2
concerning the specific functions of the department, retaining
the city's right of access to private property for utility
purposes.
d. Fire Department. Repeal Article VII in entirety (Part V).
e. Police Department. Repeal Article XI in entirety (Part V). '
f. Department of Parks and Recreation Repeal Article X in its
entirety (Part V).
g. Department of Public Works. Repeal Article XII in entirety,
but retaining the language of Section 3 concerning the
creation of improvement districts by transferring it to
Article IV as the last section in that article (Part S).
5. Repeal most language creating specific boards and functions:
a. Elections Board. Retained in charter.
b. Water Board (Part 0). 'Retained in=charter, but amend Article
IX, Section 7, to eliminate some unnecessary general language
repetitive of general charter provisions for boards, to
eliminate the requirement that the city manager be an
ex-officio member of the board, and to update the list of the
board's duties by adding advising council on wastewater policy
matters.
c. running and Zoning Board; Zoning Board of Appeals. Repeal
Article XIX in entirety (Part V). '
d. Public Library Board. Repeal Article XX in entirety (Part V).
-247-
December 4, 1986
' 6. Amend Article IV, Section 1 to eliminate reference to a Library
Board, a Planning and Zoning Board, a Board of Zoning Appeals, and
a Board of Elections, to add a reference to commissions, to expand
on the general provisions governing boards and commissions, to
provide that council may create, change and abolish boards and
commission not required by the charter or state law, and to permit
the council to appoint alternate members to boards with limited
voting privileges (Part Q .
7. Repeal Article III, Section 4 concerning the mandatory retirement
age of a city manager and amend the remaining portion of the
Section for housekeeping purposes (Part B).
8. Amend Article II, Section 9 concerning ordinance codification to
provide for supplementation of the code "at least once a year"
rather than just "yearly" (Part P).
9. Amend Article II, Section 14 concerning the council's power to
provide for licenses and permits to remove the inference that
Council must hear every appeal, instead providing that Council
establish appeals rights and procedures by ordinance (Part Q).
10. Amend Article XIV, Section 2 concerning municipal court to allow
the council to set maximum fines by ordinance pursuant to state
t limits rather than specifying penalties for violations of city
ordinances in the charter (Part R).
11. Amend the definitions of "department" and "division" in Article
XXI (Part F).
12. Generally, to renumber, retitle and reorganize the articles of the
charter to fill the gaps caused by the repeal of entire articles.
Also to provide for renumbering of sections within articles as
necessary to accommodate amendments (Parts V and W).
13. Generally, to remove the masculine bias of the charter language
(Part X).
G. Ordinance No. 203, 1986 (Proposed Charter Amendment No. 7). This
ordinances contains a proposed charter amendment which would update and
clarify the financial provisions of the charter, particularly Article V.
The proposed charter amendment would:
1. Amend Art. II, Sec. 6 to clarify that ordinances may be introduced
at regular or special meetings, but that only emergency ordinances
may be adopted at the same meeting at which introduced (Part A).
2. Amend Art. V, Sec. 12 to change the day of the month from the 5th
' to the 10th on which the county treasurer must report and pay to
the city amounts collected on behalf of the City to conform to
IVIU:11
December 4, 1986
current practice and to authorize the Council to change the '
frequency of such payment as is permissible by state law (Part B).
3. Amend Art. V, Section 17 to clarify that the City shall not pledge
its credit to private persons or entities (Part D).
4. Amend Art. V, Sec. 19 to update the list of permissible forms of
municipal borrowing to make the list conform to the securities
permitted by the following sections of the charter (Part f).
5. Amend Art. V, Sec. 20.2 concerning general obligation securities
to exclude refunded and and defeased securities from the
limitation on indebtedness to avoid double -counting of the
outstanding obligations (Part F).
6. Amend Art. V, Sec. 20.4 concerning refunding securities to allow
flexibility in the principal and interest terms so long as the
total principal and interest payable on the refunding securities
is not higher than the original securities being refunded, and to
exclude tax increment refunding securities from the requirement of
an election (Part G).
7. Amend Art. V, Sec. 20.5 by enacting a .new sub -section and
renumbering the subsections to allow the City to pay assessments
on city -owned property in improvement districts in installments
without an election thereon, to exclude such an assessment from '
the limitation on the city's indebtedness, and to provide that
money remaining to the credit of an improvement district may be
transferred to a surplus and deficiency fund when all obligations
are satisfied and that excess moneys in the surplus and deficiency
fund may be withdrawn for public purposes and to meet a deficiency
in any improvement district fund (Part H).
8. Amend Art. V, Sec. 23(h) by eliminating the monthly requirement
for accounting statements to Council and providing instead for
submittal at a frequency that Council may establish (Park J).
9. Amend Art. V, Sec. 24 to update, the accounting principles for
segregation of utility' accounts! and to clarify that only the
utilities subject to payment's to the general fund in lieu of taxes
need estimate the amount' of taxes that would be chargeable if
owned privately (Part K).
10. Repeal Art. V, Sec. 26 & 27 and reenact a new Sec. 26 to update
and clarify general funds vs. special funds as consistent with
recodification of Chapter 30 of the code (Part L).
11. Repeal Art. V, Sec. 28 concerning Grandview Cemetery since there
are now two cemeteries and the recodification of Chapter 30 of the
Code adequately provides for perpetual care funds (Part M).
-249-
December 4, 1986
' 12.
Amend Art. IX,
Sec. 6 to update the accounting language and
somewhat broaden the authority to expend net operating revenues of
the city's utilities, so long as limited to purposes beneficial to
utility ratepayers, and clarifying that only the water, wastewater
and electric utilities, and not stormwater and street maintenance
utilities, are subject to PILOT (Part N).
13.
Amend Art. XXII, Sec. I concerning the transitional provisions at
the time of adoption of the 1954 charter to clarify to prevent
impairment of contracts or retirement plans or bond ownership
(Part 0).
H.
Ordinance No. 204, 1986 (Proposed Charter Amendment No. 8). This
ordinance proposes to amend Article XIII concerning franchises and public
utility
acquisitions in several particulars:
1.
Repeal and reenact Section 1 which presently requires that an
election be held before a franchise is granted to provide that a
franchise may be granted by ordinance subject to the initiative
and referendum, after notice published by the applicant and public
hearing at first reading. The applicant would still be required
to pay for any election that may be required because of a
successful initiative or referendum measure. The state
constitution was amended by the electors adoption of Amendment #3
in the general election of November 4, 1986, to permit home rule
'
cities to grant franchises without mandatory elections and the
proposed charter amendment would extend this authority to fort
Collins. The procedure is similar to that provided by statute for
statutory cities (Part A).
2. Amend Section 6 to clarify when an election is required before the
city may purchase a public utility. State law requires the
payment of just compensation in the case of annexation of
territory served by rural electric associations, so no election
should be held in such case. It seems appropriate to extend the
exception to other cases where annexation is involved. The
purchase of a public utility under the terms of a franchise
granted by the city would require an election (Part 8).
3. Amend Section 10 concerning the granting of revocable permits for
use of public places to delete the unnecessary word "temporary"
from uses requiring a permit, and to make some grammatical changes
(Part Q.
4. Amend Section 15 concerning common use of franchise facilities to
make grammatical changes only'(Part D)."
City Attorney John Huisjen gave a background of the eight ballot packages.
He suggested Council focus on the issue of direct election of the Mayor,
noting the other Ordinances would fall into place around that issue. He
-250-
December 4, 1986
stated he had copies available of the options previously considered for the
direct election of the Mayor. He responded to questions from Council.
Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt Ordinance No. 197, 1986 on First Reading amending page 2, Section D
to read "nominated and elected from districts".
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, objected to election by district being tied to
the direct election of the Mayor issue. She stated she would prefer to see
them as separate items on the ballot. She stated she felt the citizens
should be given the opportunity to vote on the direct election of the Mayor
issue. She pointed out the Charter Review Committee ranked direct election
of the Mayor as its first recommendation.
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, commented on the Charter Review
Committee's consideration of the direct election of the Mayor issue and the
reasons for recommending its placement on the ballot.
Councilmember Liebler stated she strongly supported the issue of election
by district, stating she felt it was fair and reasonable based on the
current make-up of the city. She stated she had not seen enough public
support to warrant placing the issue of direct election of the Mayor on the
ballot, and she did not support the concept of direct election for the City
of Fort Collins at this time.
Councilmember Estrada stated he had not experienced any problems with the
current system of choosing a Mayor. He stated that direct election of the
Mayor would not give the Mayor any more duties or power, and expressed
concerns that the public might misunderstand the effect of the direct
election issue. He stated he supported the Ordinance calling for election
by district of four councilmembers.
Councilmember Horak strongly supported
councilmembers. He stated he was not
Mayor would provide a better system of
support placing the issue on the ballot.
the election by district of four
convinced direct election of the
government and therefore would not
Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she did not support the Ordinance, noting
she favored having six councilmembers elected by district and a directly
elected Mayor.
Councilmember Rutstein stated initially'_"she was prepared to allow the
voters to consider direct election of the mayor with three councilmembers
elected by district and three councilmembers elected at -large. She stated
she was convinced, based on the comments of the other councilmembers, that
there was not enough public outcry to place the issue of direct election of
the Mayor on the ballot. She stated she would support the election of four
councilmembers by district.
Mayor Ohlson stated although he favored six or seven council districts, he
would support district election of four councilmembers. He stated he had
251-
December 4, 1986
not heard any logical arguments for changing the current system of electing
the Mayor.
The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 197, 1986
as amended on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember
Kirkpatrick.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to
adopt Ordinance No. 198, 1986 on First Reading.
Councilmember Horak stated he felt strongly that the voters should set the
salaries for the City Council.
Councilmember Liebler stated she felt raising the compensation for Council
would enable less financially -independent people serve in a Council
position.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick agreed with Councilmember Horak and noted the
proposed increase is not significant.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 198,
1986 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
' Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember
Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 199, 1986 on First Reading.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
amend Ordinance No. 199, 1986 on page 12, paragraph (e)(1) Initiative, to
read "The petition must be signed by registered electors of the city equal
in number to at least five percent of the total registered electors .....
then the petition must be signed by registered electors equal in number to
ten percent of the total registered electors cast in the last regular city
election."
Bruce Lockhart, 2500 East Harmony Road, opposed the amendment stating he
felt it makes it more difficult to place an initiative on the ballot.
Councilmember Horak strongly opposed to the amendment, stating he did not
feel it was appropriate to make the process harder for the citizens.
Mayor Ohlson agreed with Councilmember Horak, stressing the opposition to
making the process more difficult.
' The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to amend Ordinance No. 199, 1986
on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada and Stoner.
Nays: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, and Rutstein.
IP46fAN
December 4, 1986
THE MOTION FAILED.
Mayor Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to amend
Ordinance No. 199, 1986 on page 13 to change the period of circulation from
20 days to 30 days for a referendum. Yeas: Councilmembers Liebler and
Ohl son. Nays: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Rutstein, and
Stoner.
THE MOTION FAILED.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 199,
1986 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, and Rutstein. Nays: Councilmember
Stoner.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 200, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler; Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Liebler, to '
adopt Ordinance No. 201, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Liebler made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adopt Ordinance No. 202, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Estrada made�a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance -No. 203, 1986 on First Reading.
Councilmember Stoner thanked members of the Charter Review Committee for
their work on the Charter revisions.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Horak, Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember I
Rutstein, to adopt Ordinance No. 204, 1986 on First Reading.
-253-
December 4, 1986
Councilmember Rutstein expressed her appreciation to the Charter Review
Committee and staff members who spent a great deal of time on the issues
and preparation of the proposals.
Councilmember Horak stated he did not feel the changes made by this
Ordinance were necessary and he would not support it.
The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada,
Kirkpatrick, Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember
Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Attorney Huisjen noted staff would be making minor amendments to the
Ordinances prior to Second Reading.
Addournment
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick,
to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Kirkpatrick,
Liebler, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
Mayor
-254-