Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-10/04/2011-RegularOctober 4, 2011 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of, Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, October 4, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Horak, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Troxell and Weikunat. Councilmembers Absent: Kottwitz Staff Members Present: Atteberry, Harris, Roy Citizen Participation Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Current, commented on Public Power Week and stated the Urban Renewal Authority is not using best practices. Suzanne Durkin -Schindler, 1342 Stonehenge Drive, discussed a new non-profit created as an extension of the Restorative Justice program. Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, discussed the proposed redevelopment of the Bender Mobile Home Park on Wood Street and requested that Council authorize adequate relocation funds for the residents. Chase Eckert, ASCSU Director of Community Affairs, requested a formal update regarding the removal of ASCSU/City signs. Deborah Goodson, 912 Wood Street, expressed concern regarding the relocation of Wood Street Mobile Home Park residents and requested that Council authorize adequate relocation funds. Citizen Participation Follow-up City Manager Atteberry stated Bruce Hendee, Assistant to the City Manager, met with Mr. Eckert and stated a solution regarding the signs is in progress. Councilmember Poppaw asked what role the City can play with regard to the displaced residents at the Wood Street Mobile Home Park. City Manager Atteberry stated a response will be provided within a week. Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, replied a meeting occurred this afternoon regarding the assembly of resources and identification of roles and responsibilities. 61 October 4, 2011 Councilmember Horak requested additional information prior to the October 18, 2011 meeting. City Manager Atteberry replied the information will be forthcoming as quickly as possible. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked what responsibilities lay with the County, developer, and residents and noted the importance of ensuring residents moving early are not lost in the process. Mayor Weitkunat noted the Fort Collins Light and Power Utility has a reliability rating of over 99%. CONSENT CALENDAR Consideration and Approval of the September 6, 2011 Regular Meeting Minutes. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Building on Basics Police Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System Upgrade. The current version of the Computer Aided, Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System (CAD/RMS/JMS) is outdated and does not operate in the latest Windows or Internet Explorer environments. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011, authorizes the appropriation of funds needed for Fort Collins Police Services to upgrade the current systems (software, hardware and project manager costs) through Tiburon, Inc. and will allow the CRISP (Combined Regional Information Sharing Project) agencies to bring the current CAD/RMS/JMS system up-to- date. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney. This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011, expands the financial disclosure requirements for City Council candidates, the elected City Council, City Manager, and City Attorney to include any and all interests in real property by the person making disclosure or the person's spouse, regardless of whether the property is held for the purpose of resale and profit, as currently required. Items Relating to Turfgass and Updating Related City Code References. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code Regarding Weeds, Grass and Rubbish. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12 of the City Code Regarding Resource Conservation. City Code currently requires that all weeds and grasses (except "ornamental" grasses which cannot exceed twenty percent of the landscape) be kept to a maximum of six inches in 62 October 4, 2011 height. These Ordinances, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011, will allow certain grass types to be exempt from the current six inch height limit. The Code amendments will serve to promote water conservation, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and provide options for Fort Collins residents who are interested in using water -wise turfgrass. The grass types that would be exempt are Blue Grama and Buffalograss, and they would have a height limit of twelve inches. 10. Items Relating to Civil Infraction and Abatement Procedures A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 19 of the City Code Pertaining to Rules for Civil Infractions and Making Editorial Corrections to Article V. r B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code to Allow for an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of Costs of Weeds and Rubbish Abatements and Making Editorial Corrections to Article IV. Ordinance No. 126, 2011, will allow staff to make payment plan arrangements with defendants for the amount due for civil infractions, and to extend a defendant's timeframe within which to satisfy judgment after a final hearing to a reasonable period of time beyond thirty days. Ordinance No. 127, 2011, provides the option of an appeal process for weed and/or rubbish abatement invoices with the Director of Community Development & Neighborhood Services or with the Municipal Court Referee which is consistent with the appeal process for sidewalk snow removal abatements. Both Ordinances were unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128 2011 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Proiects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park The Veterans Plaza at Spring Canyon Community Park creates a public venue, bringing community members together to recognize and commemorate the sacrifices and dedication of service members who have served our country. The plaza is located on approximately three acres of land near the main entrance of the Park at Horsetooth Road. This Ordinance will appropriate funding in the amount of $60,000 for the final phase of the Veterans Plaza project. 12. First Reading of Ordinance No. 129 2011 Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary_to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase V). The final acquisition phase for the Mason Express Bus Rapid Transit Project (MAX) is set to begin with Phase V. City.Council has previously authorized the first five phases of acquisition work, which included Phases I through IV, as well as a Phase III -A. 63 October 4, 2011 Phase V is comprised of 15 separate properties prepared for the acquisition stage. The City Council authorization specified by this Ordinance begins the first step of the City's acquisition process for the property interests within this phase. As a federally -funded transportation project, acquisitions will conform to the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisitions Policies Act of 1970, as amended (Public Law 91-646). In accordance with this Act, property owners must be informed about the possible use of eminent domain and their rights pursuant to Colorado State Statute in the official Notice -of -Interest Letter. Authorization from City Council is needed prior to sending this information to property owners. This letter is the first official step in the acquisition process, which must occur prior to the appraisals. Given the recommended construction schedule for the Project and the fact that acquisitions must be conducted under procedures for federally funded projects, timely acquisition of the required property interests is necessary. Therefore, City staff requests authorization to utilize eminent domain for the MAX Project, if necessary, and only if good faith negotiations break down. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris. - 7. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 122, 2011, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves and Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for the Building on Basics Police Computer Aided Dispatch, Records Management and Jail Management System Upgrade. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney. 9. Items Relating to Turfgrass and Updating Related City Code References. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 124, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code Regarding Weeds, Grass and Rubbish. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 125, 2011, Amending Article VII of Chapter 12 of the City Code Regarding Resource Conservation. 10. Items Relating to Civil Infraction and Abatement Procedures. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 126, 2011, Amending Article V of Chapter 19 of the City Code Pertaining to Rules for Civil Infractions and Making Editorial Corrections to Article V. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 127, 2011, Amending Article IV of Chapter 20 of the City Code to Allow for an Appeal Process to Contest the Assessment of Costs of Weeds and Rubbish Abatements and'Making Editorial Corrections to Article IV. Me October 4, 2011 Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris. 11. First Reading of Ordinance No. 128, 2011, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund for the Veterans Plaza Project at Spring Canyon Community Park. 12., First Reading of Ordinance No. 129, 2011. Authorizing the Acquisition by Eminent Domain Proceedings of Certain Lands Necessary to Construct Public Improvements Related to the Mason Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project (Phase V). Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, pulled Item No. 8, Second Reading of Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City Code to Expand the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney. Councilmember Manvel made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Staff Reports City Manager Atteberry commented on a visit by Park City, Utah representatives. Ginny Sawyer, Neighborhood Administrator, presented information about the Neighborhood Grant Program. Councilmember Reports Mayor Weitkunat acknowledged the CSU journalism majors in the audience. Councilmember Horak discussed the Poudre Fire Authority Chief selection schedule and the PRPA budget and wholesale rate increases over the next three years. Councilmember Troxell stated there was a celebration of the Fort Zed demonstration project on September 24th. He discussed the grand re -opening of the Laurel and Myrtle area alleys and a tour of the Larimer County Detention facility. Ordinance No. 130, 2011, Amending Chapter 7 of the City Code to Expand the Types of Registered Electors Who Automatically Receive Mail Ballots, and to Require the City to Pav the Postage Due for Ballots Returned by Mail Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum for this item. 65 October 4, 2011 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance would amend the City Code to require that ballots in a City mail ballot election be mailed to inactive registered electors who voted in the last presidential election in addition to all active registered electors. In addition, the Code would be amended to require that the City pay postage on all voted ballots returned by mail. Both amendments are anticipated to increase voter participation. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION Mail ballot elections in Colorado are governed by C.R.S, Title 1, Article 7.5, known as the "Mail Ballot Election Act". In 2006, the City of Fort Collins codified its own mail ballot election provisions, superceding the Mail Ballot Election Act, although the City's provisions as written in 2006 were closely aligned with the state law. This was permissible, because under the State Constitution, elections are a matter of local concern. Mail Ballot Recipients The Mail Ballot Election Act and the City Code both require ballots to be mailed to "each active registered elector ". Council has expressed a desire to expand the types of registered electors who automatically receive mail ballots in a City election to include inactive registered electors who voted in the last presidential election. Colorado uses a statewide voter registration system controlled by the Secretary of State. Each registered voter has a designated status, which is defined in current rules promulgated by the Secretary of State as follows: a. "Active status " or "active record " means that there are no conditions or restrictions on the voter's eligibility. b. "Cancelled status" or "cancelled record" means that the voter's registration has been cancelled or revoked based upon a determination that the voter is ineligible, or the applicant has been deemed not registered in accordance with these rules and Title 1, C.R.S.; or the voter has withdrawn their registration. C. "Inactive - failed to vote status " means that the voter was active prior to a General Election, but subsequently failed to vote in that General Election. d. "Inactive — returned mail status " or "inactive — undeliverable status " means that a voter information card or confirmation card was returned to the county clerk and recorder by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. e. "Inactive — undeliverable ballot status " means that a voter was mailed a ballot that was subsequently returned to the county clerk and recorder by the United States Postal Service as undeliverable. October 4, 2011 This proposal would target a segment of voters classified as "inactive -failed to vote ", specifically those voters who are classified as such only because they failed to vote in the non presidential General Election (Nov 2010, Nov 2014, Nov 2018, etc). Voters who failed to vote in both the presidential election (Nov 2008, Nov 2012, Nov 2016, etc) and the non presidential election two years later will not automatically receive a ballot under this proposal. However, any eligible voter (other than one who has a "cancelled" status) who did not automatically receive a ballot may request a ballot by completing simple paperwork to document the request and update the voter's registration information (primarily current address). This paperwork isforwarded to the County elections office after the City's election and is used to not only update registration information, but also serves to change the voter's registration back to "active ". Return Postage The second portion of the Ordinance would eliminate the requirement for voters to affix postage when returning a ballot by mail, and instead, requires the City to provide postage. This can be accomplished through a postage permit under which the City will pay postage only on those ballots returned, at the current first-class rate. This change also differs from the Mail Ballot Election Act, which requires the voter to pay postage. FINANCIAL /ECONOMIC IMPACTS Mail Ballot Recipients Approximately 9500 additional voters would have received a ballot for the April 2011 election if ballots were mailed to inactive voters who had voted in the last presidential election. The approximate cost to include those additional voters would have been $19,000. Return Postage For the April 2011 election, 16,965 ballots were returned by mail. If the City had paid return postage on those ballots, the cost would have been $7,465. " Rita Harris, Chief Deputy City Clerk, stated this Ordinance would expand the group of registered electors who automatically receive mail ballots in a City election to include inactive voters who are inactive because they did not vote in the last non -presidential County election but who did vote in the last presidential election. The Ordinance would also establish that the City will pay the postage for all voted ballots returned by mail. Eric Fried, 4255 Kingsbury Drive, Fort Collins Ranked Voting representative, supported the Ordinance. Ken Tharp, 601 Birky Place, supported the Ordinance and instant runoff elections. 67 October 4, 2011 Nancy York, 130 South Whitcomb, supported the Ordinance and ranked voting and suggested changing City elections from April to November. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, supported the Ordinance but expressed concern about the lack of a public process and boards and commissions review regarding the issue. Cheryl Distaso, 135 Sunset, Center for Justice, Peace, and Environment, supported the Ordinance and encouraged mailing ballots to all registered voters. Councilmember Troxell asked how many voters exist in each classification. Chief Deputy City Clerk Harris replied there are approximately 40,000 inactive voters versus 7,900 voters who are inactive but did vote in the presidential election: Councilmember Troxell asked about the postage estimate. Deputy City Clerk Harris replied the cost estimate for. approximatelyl7,000 ballots returned by mail in the most recent election held (April 2011) is $7,500 for return postage. Councilmember Troxell asked about the public process regarding the item. Harris replied voter registration information comes from Larimer • County and the County played a large role in determining estimates for the item. No public outreach was conducted. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson noted these changes resulted from the Council formal work plan. Councilmember Horak requested a cost estimate of sending ballots to all registered voters. Harris replied the outgoing postage would add approximately $65,000 and noted many would likely be returned as undeliverable as the County has already determined unreported address changes. Councilmember Horak asked if election notices are placed in the Utility inserts. Harris replied there is typically a great deal of media coverage'regarding elections; however, the utility inserts have not included information for quite some time. Councilmember Manvel asked for a cost estimate of the City's April election. Harris replied the April election cost $96,000. Adding voters who voted in the last presidential election would add $19,000 to that cost and adding all inactive voters would add $65,000 to that cost. Harris noted the City would not be able to impose these on the County in a coordinated election and the changes would not take effect until April 2013. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson asked if all of the previous analysis and work session information could be included in the Second Reading packet. Harris replied in the affirmative. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No. 130, 2011 , on First Reading. Councilmember Manvel supported the ordinance as proposed. .: October 4, 2011 Councilmember Poppaw supported the elimination of financial barriers for electors. Councilmember Troxell stated he would like to see the data, but supported the changes. Councilmember Horak proposed a friendly amendment to allow the elector to provide the necessary postage. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson and Councilmember Poppaw accepted the amendment. Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson requested information regarding additional publication of elections prior to Second Reading. Councilmember Horak suggested outreach to boards and commissions in terms of ideas for publicizing elections. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 131, 2011, Amending the Appeals Procedure Contained in Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code Relating to the Procedures for Hearing Appeals to the City Council Adopted on First Reading The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUM3L4RY This Ordinance makes several changes to the way in which appeals to the City Council are handled. The changes are in response to concerns and suggestions ofpersons who haveparticipated in recent land use appeals, and to direction provided by the City Council at a Council work session. The changes deal with the following topics: the scheduling of the appeal hearing; the ability of Councilmembers who file an appeal to participate in hearing the appeal; the ability of opponents of an appeal to present their views in writing in addition to presenting argument at the hearing; the manner in which site visits are conducted; the submission of written materials to the Council; and expanding the group of persons who can participate in appeal hearings. BACKGROUND I DISCUSSION Chapter 2, Article II, Division 3 of the City Code establishes a procedure whereby the final decisions ofcertain boards and commissions and other decision makers can be appealed to the City Council. Most frequently, this appeal process is used for considering appeals from the decisions of the Planning and Zoning Board or the City's administrative hearing officer on applications for approval of land use proposals. Over the recent past, parties on both sides of the appeal process have expressed concerns about the process and have suggested ways in which it could be improved. •e October 4, 2011 On June 14, 2011, at a City Council work session, the Council considered a number of these issues, including the possibility of establishing a "de novo " appeal process in place of the existing "on the record " appeal process. Under a de novo process, the Council would conduct an entirely new hearing on the matter that had been decided by the initial decision maker rather than limiting the evidence at the appeal hearing to the record that was established at the hearing before the initial decision maker. At the conclusion of the work session discussion, the Council indicated a preference for retaining the current appeal process but making several revisions. The proposed revisions to be included in this Ordinance were the following: • eliminating the current provision that prevents Councilmembers who file an appeal from participating in hearing the appeal; expanding the period of time within which the hearing on an appeal must be scheduled; and expanding the group of persons who are entitled to speak at an appeal hearing to include members of the general public. Those changes are included in the proposed Ordinance. In addition, City staff has recommended the following additional changes: • creating an opportunityfor parties opposed to an appeal to file a statement in opposition to the appeal; clarifying the extent to which new evidence may be contained in written materials presented to the Council prior to the hearing and in presentations made at the hearing; • clarifying the purpose and procedure for conducting inspections of the site that is the subject of an appeal. The primary purpose behind allowing opponents of an appeal to file a written statement in opposition to the appeal is to give the parties on both sides of the appeal early notice of the other parry's position. In that way, the parties canbetter prepare and focus their remarks at the appeal hearing. This change should also shorten the time needed at the appeal hearing for the parties to make their oral presentations, especially in the case of appeals that are complex in nature. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is supportive of all of the proposed changes with the exception of expanding participation in the appeal process to allow comment at the appeal hearing by members of the general public in addition to parties -in -interest. Staffis concerned about that proposal for several reasons. First, the City's decision whether to approve a land use proposal is made through a "quasi judicial " process in which the decision maker (both the initial decision maker and the City Council), determine the rights ofparticularparties who are directly and immediately affected by theproposal. The decision must be based upon established criteria. Those who have been involved in the process 70 October 4, 2011 prior to the Council appeal hearing and who are directly affected by a development proposal are more likely to focus their remarks on the facts in the record and the relevant criteria rather than on general policy consideration. Second, the City Code already defines `parties -in -interest" to include not only the applicant, the interest holder in the property that is the subject of the application, and those who live close to the site, but also those members of the general public who sent comments to the initial decision maker or appeared at the hearing before the initial decision maker. Thus, the general public is already able to participate in the process for reviewing land use applications. Third, allowing the general public to speak at the appeal hearing would likely make it more difficult for the Council to hear all persons who wish to speak at the hearing within the limited period of time that is available for presentations at the hearing. Finally, this change could be construed as expanding the group of persons who would have legal "standing" to challenge the Council's decision in court, in which case, then even nonresidents of the City who have no direct stake in the approval or denial of the particular application could bring such a challenge. Therefore, if the Council decides to make this change, staff recommends that additional language be added on Second Reading expressly stating that the ability of members of the public to speak at the appeal hearing should not be construed as giving those members of the public the right to challenge the City Council 's decision in court. " Karen Cumbo, Director of Planning, Development, and Transportation Services, introduced the history of the item. City Attorney Roy stated staff is recommending several proposed changes, including allowing additional time for holding an appeal hearing, adding an opportunity for a formal, written statement in opposition to an appeal, clarification of site inspection procedures. Staff is recommending against allowing members of the general public to comment at the appeal hearing. Doug Brobst, 1625 Independence Road, supported staff s recommendations. Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, stated the Ordinance does not address citizen concerns and added the process is not working for a variety of reasons. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson requested a memo within a week regarding the appeal issues raised by Council, neighborhoods, and staff, and asked when those changes can be expected to come forward. Cumbo replied a summary of the changes made in the last year will be forthcoming. Councilmember Troxell supported staff and noted City staff is upholding the Land Use Code as approved by Council. Cumbo noted the content of the Land Use Code is reviewed annually as part of an on -going process. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adopt Ordinance No. 131, 2011 , on First Reading. 71 October 4, 2011 Councilmember Horak requested a friendly amendment to remove the section referencing participation in appeal hearings by the general public; thereby accepting staff s recommendation. Councilmember Manvel did not accept the amendment. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Troxell, to amend Ordinance No. 131, 2011, to remove the phrases relating to general public participation. Councilmember Horak noted any participant in the Planning and Zoning Board hearing is considered a party -in -interest. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson opposed limiting citizen comment. Mayor Weitkunat noted appeals are based on a record of previous events and supported limiting citizen comment to only parties -in -interest. Councilmember Manvel supported being inclusive in terms of citizen comments. Councilmember Poppaw opposed limiting citizen comment. Councilmember Horak opposed allowing participation by individuals other than parties -in -interest. City Attorney Roy noted allowing only parties -in -interest to participate in appeal hearings could help protect against decisions that may stray from the criteria. Councilmember Manvel asked how the presentation time allotment is distributed for each side of the appeal. City Attorney Roy replied the issue has not been a problem in the past; however, the Mayor has the final say as to the scope and time of presentations. The Mayor has the ability to cut off presentations at the end of the allotted time. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked how it is certain that speakers are parties -in -interest. City Attorney Roy replied objections could occur or the Mayor could ask each speaker how he qualifies as a party - in -interest. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson stated he would be more likely to support the amendment if a plan for additional community publicity is put into place. Cumbo replied notices of hearing are published and each property is posted with a sign for development review. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson suggested the site signs be larger. Mayor Pro Tem. Ohlson opposed the amendment as all members of the public should be allowed to participate. Councilmember Horak stated allowing the general public to participate in appeal hearings will work against neighborhood members who have attempted to put together a cohesive argument. 72 October 4, 2011 Mayor Weitkunat noted the appeals process is a final process and is questioning the reasoning for the inclusion at that point. Councilmember Troxell stated the inclusion of general public in the appeal hearing could dilute the arguments of each side. The vote on the motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Horak and Troxell. Nays: Ohlson and Poppaw. THE MOTION CARRIED. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson and Councilmembers Horak and Manvel requested staff provide additional ideas relating to informing the general public of development proposals. Councilmember Horak asked if the phrase "opposed" could be eliminated from Section 2-53. City Attorney Roy replied it would not present a legal issue. Councilmember -Horak requested a friendly amendment to amend Section 2-53(a) to remove the phrases "opposed to the appeal" and "in opposition to an appeal" in Section 2-53(b). Councilmembers Troxell and Manvel accepted the friendly amendment. Councilmember Horak stated this change would allow both sides of the appeal to present written arguments prior to the appeal hearing. The vote on the motion to adopted Ordinance No. 131, 2011, as amended, was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. ("Secretary's note: The Council took a brief recess at this point in the meeting.) Resolution 2011-092 Further Amending the Rules of Procedure Governing the Conduct of City Council Meetings, Adopted The following is staffs memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMiVARY This Resolution would further amend the rules of procedure with regard to comments by citizens during the Citizen Participation segment of Council meetings insofar as those comments are related to quasi-judicial matters. The language would be refined to state that comments would not be permitted on matters that are the subject of a pending application with the City when the approval or disapproval of the application is appealable to the City Council. 73 October 4, 2011 At its meeting on September 20, 2011, the Council approved certain changes to its rules of procedure for conducting Council meetings. One of those changes dealt with a citizen's ability to comment on quasi-judicial matters under the Citizen Participation segment of Council meetings. After considerable discussion and citizen input, the Council modified the language that had been proposed by staff so that citizens would be permitted to comment on land use proposals up to the point in time when a formal application for approval of the proposal was filed with the City. After that point in time, comments would not be permitted at Council meetings. The language recommended by the City Attorney and adopted by the City Council on September 20th reads as follows: Section 3.Citizen Comment. a. During the "Citizen Participation" segment of each meeting, citizen comment will be allowed on matters of interest or concern to citizens other than the following: (2) a pending land use proposal that, itapproved by the Planning and Zoning Board or hearing officer, would be subject to appeal to the Citv Council. Upon further review, staff believes that there are two problems with this language. First, it fails to take into consideration other kinds of quasi judicial decisions besides those dealing with land use proposals. Second, it is limited to situations in which a proposal is approved by the initial decision maker and does not address proposals that are not approved. To address these concerns, staff is recommending that the language be further revised to read as follows: Section 3.Citizen Comment. a. During the "Citizen Participation segment of each meeting, citizen comment will be allowed on matters of interest or concern to citizens other than the following: (2) matters that are the subject of a pending application with the City when the approval or disapproval of the application is appealable to the City Council. " City Attorney Roy stated an amended Resolution was provided to Council in the Read -Before packet. This change was debated at the last Council meeting and is related to whether or not, and to what extent, citizens commenting during public participation can comment on quasi-judicial matters. Council had previously opted to prohibit public participation on quasi-judicial matters in situations where an application for approval of a development proposal had been)filed, or pending applications. 74 October 4, 2011 Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, opposed the Resolution until such time as the appeals process has been changed. He suggested this prohibition aids in staff shaping outcomes of land use decisions. Councilmember Horak asked what this change is based upon. City Attorney Roy replied the change is based upon his interpretation of the requirements of due process as applied to the quasi-judicial process and, in particular, the phenomenon of citizens using the citizen participation time to speak to quasi-judicial matters. Councilmember Horak asked if any neighboring jurisdictions have similar regulations. City Attorney Roy replied in the negative. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Resolution 2011-092 as amended. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted this change allows citizens to address Council at least until a formal application has been filed. City Attorney Roy stated this Resolution brings forward an amendment to the policy to establish the current practice and softens the current practice to allow citizen participation comments related to potential quasi judicial matters up to the point of an application being filed. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson asked if the discussion of quasi-judicial matters was previously allowed during citizen participation. City Attorney Roy replied the prohibition began following the increase in frequency of citizens discussing quasi-judicial issues. Councilmember Horak stated he would not support the Resolution and is of the opinion that citizens should be allowed to speak to any issue during citizen participation. Councilmember Manvel stated the input to the process needs to be more controlled and supported the Resolution. Councilmember Horak stated applications can be submitted and withdrawn multiple times. City Attomey Roy noted this refers only to applications that are quasi-judicial in nature and includes only applications which may be appealable to Council. If this is applied only to quasi-judicial applications before the Planning and Zoning Board, it creates an inequality with other quasi-judicial issues. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson suggested tightening the language to perhaps allow citizen input before Council until an item is placed on the Planning and Zoning Board agenda. City Attorney Roy clarified that an item is considered quasi-judicial from the start of the process if it is possibly appealable to Council. A lengthy discussion was held regarding the previously adopted Resolution and City Attorney Roy's opinion that the language in that Resolution is flawed. 75 October 4, 2011 Councilmember Horak asked how citizens can be made aware of filed applications. Cumbo replied there is information on the web page regarding current applications and Council can be provided with a running list of filed applications. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Poppaw and Troxell. Nays: Ohlson and Horak. a THE MOTION CARRIED. City Manager Atteberry refuted Mr. Sutherland's comments regarding City staff and the appearance of corruption. Ordinance No. 123, 2011, Amending Section 2-637 of the City.Code to Expand the Financial Disclosure Requirements for Members of the City Council, the City Manager, and the Citv Attorney, Adopted on Second Reading The following is staff s memorandum for this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, unanimously adopted on First Reading on September 20, 2011, expands the financial disclosure requirements for City Council candidates, the elected City Council, City Manager, and CityAttorney to include any and all interests in real property by the person making disclosure or the person's spouse, regardless of whether the property is held for the purpose of resale and profit, as currently required. " Eric Sutherland, 3520 Golden Currant, discussed the financing of projects with public funds and ethics in public service. Mayor Pro Tern Ohlson noted this item would increase the amount of disclosure and expose potential conflicts of interest. Councilmember Troxell made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Poppaw, to adopt Ordinance No.123, 2011, on Second Reading. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Poppaw, Ohlson, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Mayor Pro Tem Ohlson made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Manvel, to adjourn to 6:00 p.m. on October 11, 2011, to consider various matters related to the construction of Phase III of the Dixon Creek Substation to Horseshoe Station transmission line project, including a possible executive session and subsequent formal action by the Council. Yeas: Weitkunat, Manvel, Ohlson, Poppaw, Horak and Troxell. Nays: none. 76 THE MOTION CARRIED. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. ATTEST: Chief Deputy City Clerk Adjournment �F FQRr�� Pr /yVRPO� October 4, 2011 VAM 77