Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-02/17/2004-RegularFebruary 17, 2004 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, February 17, 2004, 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: Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Councilmembers Absent: Bertschy. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. Citizen Participation Ken Gordon, chairperson of the Human Relations Commission, thanked Council for the study session and dialogue regarding a human rights protection ordinance. He stated the Commission had established a subcommittee to work on developing a task force. Clint Skutchan, 712 Great Plains Court, expressed concern regarding the Council making appointments to boards and commissions on the basis of"friendship and loyalty." He also expressed concern that some people were appointed to a number of different boards when there were many citizens who were willing to participate. He asked that a concerted effort be made to bring others into the process. He expressed concern that different criteria were used for the appointment of different individuals. Mark Claiborne, 908 LaPorte Avenue, read a letter written by a Spanish-speaking immigrant regarding her experience with a car accident and alleged discrimination. He stated a human rights protection ordinance was needed to prevent these types of incidents. Cheryl Distaso, 135 South Sunset, spoke regarding the need for a human rights protection ordinance. She asked that Council wait for a recommendation from the task force before going ahead with any Resolution on the issues. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Martinez thanked those who spoke under Citizen Participation. Councilmember Roy asked about the intent of the Resolution that Council could consider on March 2 about human rights. City Attorney Roy stated the Resolution would address the following points: that the City should (1) respect the human rights of all people, (2) not engage in racial profiling, (3) inquire about immigration status only in conjunction with other normal legally permissible investigations or activities, and (4) work with City boards, commissions and other agencies to ensure that community members who believed that their civil rights had been violated either by the City or others had appropriate recourse. Councilmember Roy asked if the intent of the Resolution would be to give to the Human Relations Commission the authority to form a task force. City Attorney Roy stated was part of the fourth point of the Resolution. Councilmember Tharp stated it was her understanding that the intent of the March 2 Resolution would be to empower the Human Relations Commission task force to look into the issues and bring back to Council a Resolution. Mayor Martinez stated it was his understanding that the direction was given by a memo to the HRC regarding the task force. City Attorney Roy requested clarification regarding whether the first three points he cited should be included in the March 2 Resolution or whether the Resolution should contain only some version of the fourth point. Councilmember Tharp stated her understanding was that the Resolution would relate only to the fourth point. Councilmember Kastein suggested that this issue be discussed under Other Business. He stated the Council would be discussing appointments of citizens to back-to-back terms on different boards at the end of this meeting. Councilmember Tharp suggested looking into the facts of the incident described by Mr. Claiborne. Agenda Review City Manager Fischbach stated item #23 First Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2004, Authorizing the Sublease to Larimer County ofa Portion of the Fossil CreekReservoir Property Leased by the City from North Poudre Irrigation Company would be withdrawn from the agenda and scheduled on March 2. He stated item #32 Resolution 2004-026 Appointing the Members of a Citizen Budget Advisory Committee had a revised Resolution containing the names of those to be appointed to the committee and that item #33.5 Resolution 2004-029 Amending Resolution 2004-016Appointing the Members of an Economic Vitality and Sustainability Action Group appointing Pat Brady to the EVSAG in place of Tom Gleason had been added to the agenda. Councilmember Kastein pulled item #32 Resolution 2004-026Appointing the Members ofa Citizen Budget Advisory Committee from the Consent Calendar. February 17, 2004 CONSENT CALENDAR Consideration and approval of the Council Meeting minutes of an adjourned meeting of November 25, 2003, and regular meeting minutes of December 2 and December 16, 2003. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for E911 and Emergency Medical Dispatch Systems at Fort Collins Police Services Dispatch Center. The Larimer Emergency Telephone Authority (LETA) collects a monthly fee from all county telephone users to purchase equipment, train users and maintain equipment used to process E91 I phone calls and dispatch appropriate Emergency Services Providers. This Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 3, 2004. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations For the Purnose of Constructing Bicycle Lane and Streetscape Improvements along West Elizabeth Street Between City Park Avenue and Shields Street. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 3, 2004, appropriates unanticipated revenue of $219,000. Project improvements include the construction of safer bike lanes, pedestrian crossings, and streetscape improvements along West Elizabeth Street between City Park Avenue and Shields Street. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. City Council authorized expenditures in 2003 for various purposes. The authorized expenditures were not spent or could not be encumbered in 2003 because: There was not sufficient time to complete bidding in 2003 and therefore, there was no known vendor or binding contract as required to expend or encumber the monies. The project for which the dollars were originally appropriated by Council could not be completed during 2003 and reappropriation of those dollars is necessary for completion of the project in 2004. To carry on programs, services, and facility improvements in 2004 with unspent dollars previously appropriated in 2003. February 17, 2004 The above circumstances, the unexpended and/or unencumbered monies lapsed into individual fund balances at the end of 2003. Ordinance No. 019, 2004, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 3, 2004. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2004, Adopting Undated Rules and Regulations Governing Grandview and Roselawn Cemeteries and Amending Section 23-156 of the City Code Pertaining to Cemetery Rules and Regulations. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 3, 2004, amends Section 23-156, requiring that cemetery rules and regulations be adopted by ordinance rather than by resolution. It also authorizes a number of changes and updates to the Cemetery Rules and Regulations. The primary change is the offering of Saturday burials, including in -ground burials, entombments and inurnments, and establishing guidelines for the scheduling of Saturday burials. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2004, Authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to Apply and Contract for Beneficial Use of Water on Behalf of the City of Fort Collins, and Prescribing the Terms for Application for an Allocation of the Right to Use Colorado -Big Thompson Project Water to the City by Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 3, 2004, authorizes the City to apply for and obtain the perpetual right to use 150 acre-foot units of Colorado -Big Thompson Project water held by the City. These units are currently held under temporary use permits with the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. 13. Second Reading of OrdinanceNo. 022,2004, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property at 212 West Mountain Avenue for Up to Five Years. The City and the County purchased the property at 212 West Mountain Avenue in 1985 as part of the Block 31 purchases. In the Intergovernmental Agreement dividing Block 31, this property was quit claimed to the City. The County occupied this building until the new County Courthouse was completed in the summer of 2003. This building has a total of 7,704 square feet, of which 6,225 is currently usable. This space has been considered for other City users, but a need has not been identified. Staff has shown the space to a private entity and negotiations are continuing. Staff recommends leasing this property until this area of Block 31 is needed for future improvements. Ordinance No. 022, 2004, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 3, 2004. February 17, 2004 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2004, Vacating Portions of the Rights -of -Way as Dedicated on the Plat of Fossil Creek Meadows, First Filing. This site is located east of College Avenue, just north and south of Fossil Creek Parkway. It was a County development proposal that dedicated the streets as shown and laid out on the Fossil Creek Meadows, First Filing plat. Fossil Creek Parkway was built, but the Frontage Road was not. The dedicated right-of-way was annexed into the City when the parcel was annexed in 1985. Since that time a development proposal, Discount Tire at Fossil Creek, for which an Administrative Hearing was held on October 7, 2003, was submitted and shows that Fossil Creek Parkway was constructed slightly different than was originally platted. The plat approved at the Administrative Hearing proposes vacating portions of right-of-way along Fossil Creek Parkway that are no longer needed and dedicating portions which are needed due to the location in which it was constructed. The plat for Discount Tire at Fossil Creek also proposes the vacation of a portion of the right-of-way dedicated for a frontage road for College Avenue. The frontage road is no longer needed, but a portion of fight -of -way needed for the expansion of College Avenue will be retained by the City, with the remainder proposed for vacation. Ordinance No. 023, 2004, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 3, 2004. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Equipment Fund to Be Used to Purchase Property Located at 518 North Loomis Avenue and to Make Certain Site Improvements to the Property Thereon. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on February 3, 2004, appropriates Fleet Services Reserve funds in the amount of $597,000 to purchase the property and $85,000 to provide site improvement - such as landscaping, site cleanup, and fence removal. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Timberline Road Improvements Project to be used for the En ing eering Design of Timberline Road from Prospect Road to Drake Road. Traffic congestion at the Timberline/Prospect intersection is well below the City's Level of Service requirements, with almost all legs and turn movements failing during the morning and evening peak rush hours. In accordance with the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, any new development which impacts this intersection cannot proceed until these existing deficiencies are corrected. In the absence of any capital improvement funding for this intersection, two developers are electing to privately fund these improvements in order to proceed with their development projects. These two developers, owners of the bulk of the impacted property, are proposing February 17, 2004 the initiation of a special improvement district (SID) which will assess a portion of the costs of the improvements to the other owners of undeveloped property in the area that will benefit by the improvements. The two initiating developers have contributed 5100,000 so the City can prepare the plans, an estimate of costs, and maps of the district needed to complete the engineering design without cost to the City. This Ordinance will appropriate these funds into a capital project account for the selection of a consulting engineering firm to provide the design plans and documents needed for the creation of the SID and the construction of the project. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for Community Park Improvements in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund - Southwest Community Park Capital Proiect to Be Used for Park Design Costs. In1996, Council adopted the Parks and Recreation Policy Plan which gives direction for the development of community parks. Community parks serve as the focal point for community - wide activities. These parks are intended to serve a variety of recreational needs for the entire community. The community park standard is one park per 20,000 population. The development of the Southwest Community Park will be the City's sixth community park. The city's population in 2007, when the Park is scheduled to open, is estimated to be about 140,000. The development of Southwest Community Park is necessary to serve the growing community and to meet parkland standards. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Community Horticulture Center Capital Project to be used as Reimbursement for Project Expenditures Incurred. The City designed and constructed storm water improvements, in connection with the development of the Horticulture Center project, which were oversized to accommodate both the historic and developed stormwater flows from Colorado State University Research Foundation (CSURF) property onto and across the City property. A cost sharing agreement was entered into by CSURF and the City whereby the City would finance and construct all of said drainage improvements. CSURF agreed to reimburse the City for oversizing the drainage channel to accept its developed flows once Phase 1 of the construction project was completed. 0 February 17, 2004 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2004, Amending Chanter 20, Article III of the City Code Concerning the Prohibition of Indoor Furniture in Certain Outdoor Locations. This Ordinance revises Sections 20-41 and 20-42.5 of the City Code. The proposed changes would modify the existing ban on using or keeping indoor furniture in certain outdoor locations, so as to make it a violation to keep such furniture in any yard or on any porch where the furniture is visible to the public or visible from the ground level of adjacent property. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2004, Amending Chapter 20, Article VII of the Citv Code Concerning the Parking of Motor Vehicles in Yards. The proposed amendments to Article VII of Chapter 20 of the City Code would: redefine "yards"; expand the prohibition against parking on lawns to all yards of all residential properties; make allowances for unimproved driveways that access a garage; clarify the term "permanent border"; limit to front yards only the "40 percent rule" for improving parking areas; allow for the issuance of citations to the owners of illegally parked cars, as well as to the owners of the properties on which the cars are parked; and allow Code enforcement officers the right of entry onto private property to issue citations. 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2004, Amending Sections 227(3) and (4) of the Fort Collins Traffic Code Relating to Tinted Windshields. Currently, the Fort Collins Traffic Code (FCTC) allows only a certain level of window tinting for all vehicles, including law enforcement vehicles. Staff is requesting that Council amend the FCTC to allow law enforcement vehicles to be exempt from the window tinting restrictions. Window tinting is used for several reasons on motor vehicles used and operated by law enforcement members of the Fort Collins Police Department. The tinting allows for the safety and comfort of the camera radar operator, who must sit for hours inside the vehicle, sometimes in the direct sunlight, while monitoring the equipment. It also prevents harassment from individuals who find the operation of the equipment offensive. The Latimer County drug task force and its members use window tinting to conceal their identity and to assist during mobile surveillance activities. The Fort Collins Police Traffic Unit uses window tinting also in its unmarked patrol cars, to conceal the identity of the officer, which promotes the successful apprehension of aggressive drivers and further enhances the effectiveness of traffic enforcement within the City. Further, window tinting also allows for security of weapons and other sensitive law enforcement equipment by reducing the ability of potential thieves to see inside the police cars. 7 February 17, 2004 22. Items Relating to Amending the Model Traffic Code and City Code Reizarding Muffler Noise. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2004, Amending the Fort Collins Traffic Code Relating to MufflerNoise and to More Narrowly Define Prohibited Exhaust Systems. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2004, Amending Section 20-22 of the City Code Relating to Unreasonable Noise. In October 2003 at the request of City Councilmembers, a cross section of City agencies was formed into a committee to look into the City's current noise ordinances dealing with motor vehicle loud muffler noise and motorcycle noise specifically. After discussion and review of ordinances around the country, the committee made recommendations for changes to the Fort Collins Traffic Code and the Code of the City of Fort Collins in an effort to reduce the problems with muffler noise and to more narrowly define prohibited exhaust systems. If adopted by the Council, the proposed amendments will become effective upon second reading on all city streets except those which are also state highways. The amendments will become effective upon the state highways within the City limits upon approval by CDOT, pursuant to C.R.S. Section 43-2-135(g). 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 034, 2004, Authorizing the Sublease to Larimer County of a Portion of the Fossil Creek Reservoir Property Leased by the City from North Poudre Irrigation Company. The Natural Areas Program holds a lease on 810 acres of land and surface water rights from North Poudre Irrigation Company for Fossil Creek Reservoir. This Ordinance approves a sublease of all or a portion of that leased property to Larimer County. The sublease will allow Larimer County Open Lands to lease, operate, maintain and manage the portion of the reservoir adjacent to Fossil Creek Reservoir Regional Open Space (FCRROS). FCRROS is jointly owned by the City and County, but it will be operated by Larimer County. Larimer County has completed the design of the public improvements for FCRROS, which will be constructed this summer, and the site opened to the public late this year. E February 17, 2004 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2004, Authorizing the Execution of a Conservation Easement on a Portion of Running Deer Natural Area. Authorizing an Access Easement on a Portion of Running Deer Natural Area Adjacent to the Portion Covered by the Conservation Easement and Appropriating Revenues into the City's Open Lands Fund. This Ordinance authorizes the execution of a conservation easement on a portion of Running Deer Natural Area on which Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) has awarded the City a grant to reimburse the City for a portion of the cost of acquiring the property. 25. Items Relating to the Homestead Annexation and Zoning. A. Resolution 2004-020 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Homestead Annexation. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 036, 2004, Annexing Property Known as Homestead Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Homestead Annexation. This is a request for a 100% voluntary annexation and zoning of approximately 25.151 acres of publicly and privately owned property. This annexation includes the development approved in the County as the "Homestead P.U.D. 2nd Filing P.L.D. & P.D.", a 1271 foot long portion of the Ziegler Road right-of-way, and a the adjacent street rights -of -way along Cornerstone Drive and Hearthstone Drive. The recommended zoning is the UE — Urban Estate zone district. The property is located within the Fossil Creek Reservoir Area Plan. This property is eligible for annexation according to Colorado Revised Statutes, requiring 1/6 contiguity to the existing city limits. This annexation application complies with this standard since the property has 1786.15 lineal feet of its total boundary of approximately 4528.11 lineal feet contiguous to the existing City limits. This exceeds the minimum 754.68 lineal feet required to achieve 1/6 contiguity. This contiguity occurs through a common boundary with the Fossil Lake Annexation No. 2 (March 2002), and H.H. — 36 Annexation (December 1998). W February 17, 2004 26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2004, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins Colorado Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development ofthe Authority. Adoption of the Ordinance will expand the boundaries of the Downtown Development Authority (DDA) District. These boundaries are contained in the Ordinance establishing the District, as previously amended and in the Plan of Development for the DDA. The purpose of the amendment is to include the Historic Webster House property. 27. Resolution 2004-021 Renaming Shearwater Court to Swift Court. This is a staff -initiated street name change. Shearwater is a duplicate street name. Staff recommends that Shearwater Court be renamed to Swift Court. 28. Resolution 2004-022 Declaring the Intent of the City of Fort Collins to Participate in the Process of Seeking Designation as a "Preserve America Community On March 3, 2003, First Lady Laura Bush launched Preserve America, an initiative to encourage and support community efforts forthe preservation and enjoyment ofourpriceless cultural and natural heritage. Preserve America is a White House initiative developed in cooperation with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Commerce, focusing attention on President and Mrs. Bush's efforts to preserve our national heritage. 29. Resolution 2004-023 Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County Concerning the Culver Property. Larimer County has already purchased the 284-acre Culver property and has also received a GOCO grant for this purchase. GOCO requires that the County place a Conservation Easement on the property. The County is asking the City to contribute $200,000 towards the purchase and hold the Conservation Easement. The property will be an addition to Horsetooth Mountain Park, which is predominantly used by Fort Collins residents. It will allow for the expansion of the existing trail system and conserve outstanding wildlife habitat and scenic lands. Located along County Road 38E south of Horsetooth Mountain Park, the land lies on top of the beautiful red sandstone cliffs. 30. Resolution 2004-024 Authorizing an Amended Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County Concerning the Indian Creek Property. Larimer County has negotiated to acquire 1,545 acres of foothills property between the Rimrock Open Space and the Devil's Backbone Open Space known as the Indian Creek 10 February 17, 2004 property (the "Property"). The Property includes large cottonwoods along Indian Creek, an active golden eagle nest along the rimrock outcrops, and spectacular views, and the acquisition of the Property will allow the County to construct a trail that will connect the Coyote Ridge/Rimrock trail to the Devil's Backbone Open Space and to Horsetooth Mountain Park. 31. Resolution 2004-025 Adopting the Recommendations of the Cultural Resources Board Re arg_ding Fort Fund Disbursements. The guidelines for the Cultural Development & Programming and Tourism Programming accounts (Fort Fund) provide a three -tiered funding system. Organizations may apply for grants from these accounts to fund community events. Tier #1 was established as an annual programming fund for organizations whose primary purpose is to present three or more public events annually. These groups may apply for funding from Tier #1 each April. Tier #2 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier #1 support to apply for funding of events that are not fund-raising in nature and do not generate more than $5,000 in proceeds after expenses. Tier #3 allows organizations that are not eligible for Tier #1 support to apply for funding of events that generate more than $5,000 in proceeds after expenses and are fund- raising in nature. Applications for support from Tier #2 and Tier #3 are accepted each January and June. 32. Resolution 2004-026 Appointing the Members of a Citizen Budget Advisory Committee. On January 6, 2004 City Council adopted Resolution 2004-005 establishing a citizen Budget Advisory Committee. The purposes of the Committee are to: (1) work with City staff to review the proposed exceptions to the 2005 budget, including projected 2005 revenues and any adjustments (increases or reductions) to proposed 2005 expenditures; and (2) advise Council with respect to its decisions regarding the 2005 budget exceptions, within the framework of existing City policies and programs. The Committee is to consist of seven members, with each member of Council selecting one member of the Committee from a pool a names suggested by Council members and the City Manager. Council suggested that potential Budget Advisory Committee members should have knowledge and experience in developing and administering organizational budgets —preferably large and multi -faceted organizations. February 17, 2004 33. Resolution 2004-027 Making Appointments to the Affordable Housing Board and the Housing Authority. Vacancies currently exist on the Affordable Housing Board due to the resignations of Adrianne Pic and Jeff Taylor. Applications were solicited and Councilmembers Tharp and Bertschy interviewed the applicants. The Council interview team is recommending Joe Rowan and Sunshine Workman with terms to begin immediately and set forth to expire on December 31, 2004 and December 31, 2005 respectively. A vacancy currently exist on the Housing Authority due to the resignation of Kimberly Stenberg. Applications were solicited and interviews were conducted. Councilmembers Tharp and Bertschy are recommending Steve Fortier to fill said vacancy with a term to begin immediately and set to expire on December 31, 2006. 33.5. Resolution 2004-029 Amending Resolution 2004-016 Appointing the Members of an Economic Vitality and Sustainability Action Group. On February 3, 2004 the City Council approved a list of individuals to serve as member of the Economic Vitality and Sustainability Action Group (the Task Force). Following the appointments, Tom Gleason, regretfully has to withdraw from the Task Force. To fill this vacancy, Councilmembers Marty Tharp and Karen Weitkunat are submitting the name of Pat Brady to replace Tom Gleason. Mr. Brady serves as the President of 1 st Bank in Fort Collins and is also a member of the Fort Collins Housing Authority Board. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 017, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for E911 and Emergency Medical Dispatch Systems at Fort Collins Police Services Dispatch Center. 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 018, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Transportation Services Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriations For the PuMose of Constructing Bicycle Lane and Streetscape Improvements along West Elizabeth Street Between City Park Avenue and Shields Street. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 019, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves. 12 February 17, 2004 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 020, 2004, Adopting Updated Rules and Regulations Governing Grandview and Roselawn Cemeteries and Amending Section 23-156 of the City Code Pertaining to Cemetery Rules and Regulations. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 021, 2004, Authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to Apply and Contract for Beneficial Use of Water on Behalf of the City of Fort Collins. and Prescribing the Terms for Application for an Allocation of the Right to Use Colorado -Big Thompson Project Water to the City by Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. 13. Second Reading of OrdinanceNo. 022,2004, Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property at 212 West Mountain Avenue for Up to Five Years. 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 023, 2004, Vacating Portions of the Rights -of -Way as Dedicated on the Plat of Fossil Creek Meadows, First Filing. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 024, 2004, OAppropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Equipment Fund to Be Used to Purchase Property Located at 518 North Loomis Avenue and to Make Certain Site Improvements to the Property Thereon. Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 026, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Timberline Road Improvements Project to be used for the Engineering Design of Timberline Road from Prospect Road to Drake Road. 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for Community Park Improvements in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund - Southwest Community Park Capital Project to Be Used for Park Design Costs. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 028, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund - Community Horticulture Center Capital Proiect to be used as Reimbursement for Project Expenditures Incurred. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 029, 2004, Amending Chanter 20, Article III of the City Code Concerning the Prohibition of Indoor Furniture in Certain Outdoor Locations. 20. First Reading of Ordinance No. 030, 2004, Amending Chapter 20, Article VII of the City Code Concerning the Parking of Motor Vehicles in Yards. 13 February 17, 2004 21. First Reading of Ordinance No. 031, 2004, Amending Sections 227(3) and (4) of the Fort Collins Traffic Code Relating to Tinted Windshields. 22. Items Relating to Amending the Model Traffic Code and City Code Re ardina Muffler Noise. A. First Reading of Ordinance No. 032, 2004, Amending the Fort Collins Traffic Code Relating to Muffler Noise and to More Narrowly Define Prohibited Exhaust Systems. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 033, 2004, Amending Section 20-22 of the City Code Relating to Unreasonable Noise. 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 035, 2004, Authorizing the Execution of a Conservation Easement on a Portion of Running Deer Natural Area, Authorizing an Access Easement on a Portion of Running Deer Natural Area Adiacent to the Portion Covered by the Conservation Easement and Appropriating Revenues into the City's Open Lands Fund. 25. Items Relating to the Homestead Annexation and Zoning. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 036, 2004, Annexing Property Known as Homestead Annexation to the City of Fort Collins. C. First Reading of Ordinance No. 037, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins and Classifying for Zoning Purposes the Property Included in the Homestead Annexation. 26. First Reading of Ordinance No. 038, 2004, Expanding the Boundaries of the Fort Collins, Colorado Downtown Development Authority and Amending the Plan of Development of the Authority. 37. First Reading of Ordinance No. 039, 2004, Amending Article III of Chapter 12 of the City Code Pertaining to the "Private Club" Exception to the Prohibition Against Smoking in Enclosed Public Places. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 14 February 17, 2004 Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Tharp asked for an explanation prior to Second Reading of the $850,000 in design costs on item #17 First Reading of Ordinance No. 027, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves Designated for Community Park Improvements in the Capital Improvement Expansion Fund for Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund - Southwest Community Park Capital Project to Be Used for Park Design Costs. Councilmember Kastein thanked the Cultural Resources Board for its work on the Fort Fund distributions. Staff Reports City Manager Fischbach gave an update on Council follow-ups. He also reported on the Museum exhibit and neighborhood resources. Councilmember Reports Mayor Martinez reported on discussions of the Poudre School District Liaison Committee on the search for a school superintendent, the West Nile plan, the Rural Transportation Authority, the School Resource Officer program, the water supply situation and voluntary restrictions, bicycle helmet issues, the school district executive session procedures, and naming of the new junior high school. Councilmember Tharp reported on Legislative Review Committee discussions regarding pending legislation. Councilmember Hamrick gave an update on the Compensation and Benefits Subcommittee's work on the Request for Proposals for a consultant to make an independent analysis of compensation and benefits. He asked staff for an update on the RFP. City Manager Fischbach stated the RFP would require proposals to be submitted by March 17. He stated after the evaluation and interview process the City Council would be selecting the consultant. Ordinance No. 039, 2004 Amending Article III of Chapter 12 of the City Code Pertaining to the "Private Club" Exception to the Prohibition Aeainst Smoking in Enclosed Public Places. Adopted as Amended. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. 15 February 17, 2004 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance would amend Article III of Chapter 12 of the City Code, which generally prohibits smoking in enclosed public places, so as to clarify the private club exception to that prohibition against smoking. The change would require that private clubs be non-profit organizations owned and operated by their members for fraternal, social and similar purposes. BACKGROUND In December 2002, City Council adopted sweeping changes to Article 111, Chapter 12 of the City Code which generally prohibit smoking in places of employment and in enclosed public places, including taverns and restaurants, but exclude certain public places such as retail tobacco stores and designated smoking areas in bingo facilities or bowling alleys. The definition of a 'public place" is contained in Section 12-56 of the Code. That definition excludes 'private clubs" except when functions are held at such clubs that are open to the public. That same section of the Code defines a private club as follows: Private club shall mean any establishment that has a defined membership and restricts admission to members of the club and their guests. Private club shall not include an establishment that is open to members of thegeneral public upon payment of a nominal fee. A private club shall not be considered a public place except when it is the site of a meeting, event or activity that is open to the public. Questions have recently arisen as to whether the private club exception is intended to allow private clubs to be established, on a for profit basis. Ifso, staff believes it may be very difficult to effectively enforce regulations which seek to restrict public admission to such clubs. (The City Manager's administrative regulations, which were enacted pursuant to Section 12-65(e) of the Code, attempt to address this concern by requiring private clubs to have a defined membership; limit admission to only card -bearing members and a limited number of invited guests; and charge a fee for membership that is sufficient in amount to defray the ongoing costs to providing services to members. However, these regulations may or may not be able to achieve their intended purpose). Also, staff is concerned that private, for profit smoking clubs attached to existing taverns would, as a practical matter, serve as de facto designated smoking areas, which Council decided not to allow. Council gave direction under the Other Business segment of a recent Council meeting that the private club exception be administeredso that allprivate clubs would besimilar to those that existed at the time of the adoption of the smoking ordinance, such as the Elks Club and the Moose Lodge. Staff believes that the "common denominator" of these clubs is their non-profit status. Such an 16 February 17, 2004 interpretation is also consistent with the state liquor laws, which use language very similar to the foregoing in defining the kinds of establishments that may be issued a "club" liquor license. Therefore, the City Manager responded to the Council direction by adding the following regulation in the administrative regulations: The establishment (private club) must be owned and operated by the members of the club solelyfor objects ofa national, social, fraternal, patriotic, political, charitable, education or athletic nature and not for pecuniary gain. After the City Manager adopted this administrative regulation, Council heard from members ofthe public who were concerned that this limitation was too restrictive. Additionally, staffrealized that the language in the regulation is probably inconsistent with the language of the Code itself, since the definition ofprivate club in the Code states that anv establishment may constitute a private club if it has a defined membership and restricts admission to members ofthe club and theirguests, and the definition of "establishment" under the Code includes both for profit and non profit businesses. Therefore, the non-profit requirement has been eliminated from the administrative regulations pending Council's decision whether to put that requirement into the Code. If Council believes that the appropriate course of action is for private clubs to be limited to non-profit organizations, then that should be accomplished through the proposed ordinance amendments. In addition to amending the definition of private club so as to incorporate the above -referenced limitation, the Ordinance would: amend the definition of `place ofemployment " to ensure thatprivate clubs, however they are defined, will be able to allow smoking and will not be precluded from doing so as "places of employment." add a requirement that all private clubs confine any smoke originating on their premises so that it does not escape into smoke free areas. (This would at least call for physical separation and independent ventilation, as required by the revised administrative regulations) add private clubs to the existing Code provision that requires the keeping of books and records and affords the City the right to inspect them, so that, if a question arises, a determination can be made as to whether an establishment qualifies as a private club. It should also be noted that the Ordinance does not "grandfather" existing private, for profit clubs. If existing for profit clubs could allow smoking but other ones could not, it would, in staffs view, give such existing clubs an unfair competitive advantage over proposed new clubs. It would also be 17 February 17, 2004 inconsistent with the fact that no establishments were grandfathered when the overall smoking ban was adopted. In summary, Council has the following options in dealing with the private club issue: Eliminate the private club exceptionso that all private clubs, as well as establishments open to the public, would have to prohibit smoking. A different amendment to the smoking ordinance would be necessary to implement this alternative, since the Code presently exempts private clubs. Limit the private club exception to non profit establishments that are organized primarilyfor social, fraternal and other similarpurposes. Adoption oftheproposed Ordinance would accomplish this. This would permit organizations such as the Elks Club to continue to allow smoking but would prohibit private, for profit smoking clubs. Allow private, for-profitsmokinQ clubs. This would not require an amendment to the ordinance. Instead, the City Manager would simply need to rescind the non-profit requirement that had been added to the administrative regulations. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated the issue was whether Council wanted to revise the definition of "private club" in the smoking ordinance to be limited to nonprofit organizations. He stated the administrative regulations did include wording with regard to private clubs and that wording had been removed. He stated the administrative regulations could be revised to reflect any action of the Council with regard to private clubs. He stated the proposed language would limit private clubs to those that were nonprofit. He stated staff was not recommending language that would require private clubs to be 501c(3) organizations and that this could be handled through the administrative regulations once Council's direction was received. He stated staff was recommending minor related amendments relating to the definition of "place of employment," independent ventilation of private clubs, and allowing the City to look at records to ensure that the business was a nonprofit operation. He stated three options were presented: (1) to eliminate private clubs entirely; (2) to limit private clubs to nonprofit establishments; and (3) to allow for private for -profit smoking clubs. He stated staff was recommending the second option. Mayor Martinez stated audience participants would each have three minutes to speak. Tiffany Ayro spoke in support of the ordinance. on February 17, 2004 Eric Davis, Service Bar owner, stated his business was a private club. He spoke regarding the current procedures and regulations relating to establishment of a private club. He stated he did not believe that otherbusinesses would want to change their designations to private clubs because of the difficult process. He stated a for -profit private club was just as private as a nonprofit private club and that the general public was not subjected to secondhand smoke in either case. He stated the current ordinance protected the general public sufficiently. He requested that the Council leave the ordinance as it stood. Anthony Canings, 1401 Cypress, Service Bar member, opposed the ordinance. He stated the general public was not allowed in the bar and that people must pay dues to enter. He stated members knowingly joined the private club. He stated the ordinance would erode the purpose of the private club. He asked that Council not take away the identity of the private club and the freedom of the members to smoke. He stated the Service Bar was in existence prior to the adoption of the smoking ordinance. Stacy Poncelow, 620 Gilgalad Way, spoke in support of the ordinance. She stated the smoking ban had not hurt businesses in the City. She asked that the ordinance not be weakened by allowing private for -profit businesses to change their status to allow smoking. Ann Watson, 477 Victoria Drive, supported the ordinance. She stated the new no -smoking ordinance had been an asset to the community and that business at restaurants had increased overall since the ordinance went into effect. She opposed allowing a whole new type of business or club established primarily for the purpose of providing indoor smoking areas. Barbara Johnson, 1337 Stonehenge Drive, spoke in support of the ordinance and thanked the Council for giving public health paramount importance. She asked that Council not adopt a definition of "private clubs" that would be so loose that it could be used to skirt the intent of the smoking ordinance. She supported Option 2. Rob Simms, 1300 Fairway Five Drive, supported the comments made by Eric Davis that the ordinance should not apply to a private club when the general public was not allowed entry. He stated the membership chose to join a smoking organization and should be allowed to engage in that legal activity. Clint Skutchan, 712 Great Plains Court, spoke in opposition to the ordinance and stated private clubs should be allowed to operate in accordance with market forces provided private clubs made full disclosure that smoking was allowed to those joining the club. He suggested harsher standards for nonprofit clubs since they would be able to withstand market forces (i.e. 80% of the community being non-smoking) more than for -profit businesses could. He stated there should be a true definition of "open to the public' versus "open to the general public." He asked about the process by which this ordinance was brought to the Council. 19 February 17, 2004 Jason Chernofsky, 1007 North Overland Trail, Service Bar member, stated the Service Bar was a private club and the only current business that would be affected by this ordinance. He stated this was not a street -front business and that people had to pay to enjoy its service. He asked why non- profits would be exempted and questioned the spirit of the ordinance because more people from the general public would have the opportunity to go as guests to a non-profit private club. Rich Marquez expressed appreciation for the no -smoking ordinance and spoke regarding how it benefited those employed in the service industry. He asked that Council support staff s recommendation on the amended language of the ordinance. Gabriel Wimmer, employee of The Vault and a member of the Service Bar, and spoke regarding the networking purpose of the business. Judy Rennick, 3407 Pearstone Place, spoke regarding her experience with the smoking venue at the VFW. She thanked the Council for the non-smoking ordinance and asked the Council not to weaken the ordinance. She spoke regarding new research on the increased risks to children of women who smoked during pregnancy. Dr. Todd Whitsitt, 2825 Michener Drive, Heart Center of the Rockies, thanked the Council for passing the original ordinance. He encouraged Council to adopt Option 2 and not weaken the ordinance. He spoke regarding the risks to people employed at places that allowed smoking. Jody Radtke, 1709 Sunnyside Drive, Loveland, expressed appreciation for the no -smoking ordinance and stated many of her recreational dollars were spent in Fort Collins because of the no -smoking ordinance. She stated she chose to organize a large meeting in Fort Collins because of the no - smoking ordinance. She asked Council not to weaken the ordinance. Diedre Sullivan, 3406 Hampton Drive, stated there should be a level playing field to make the no - smoking ordinance equitable for all businesses. She stated the existence of private clubs created an unlevel playing field. She asked that Council adopt Option 2. Gaye Israel, 4912 Langdale Court, professor and department head with the Department of Health and Exercise Science at CSU, congratulated the Council on the no -smoking ordinance. He asked the Council to adopt Option 2 to clarify the rules. Jeff Lightfoot stated the no -smoking ordinance was passed to keep employees in the industry healthy and that people also worked in the non-profit private clubs. He stated the rules should be applied across the board. 20 February 17, 2004 Art Bavoso, 1625 Lakeshore Drive, stated this was an issue of fairness and a level playing field. He stated private clubs should be required to abide by the same rules as other businesses such as bingo halls and bowling alleys and that there needed to be a level playing field. Scott McDonald, 954 Wakerobin, asked about the process that brought this modification to the table. He stated a modification such as this should not be brought forth because of competing interests in the Old Town bar area. He stated the ordinance should not focus attention on a specific business such as the Service Bar simply because it seemed to have a competitive advantage in Old Town. He asked if there was a flood of other applications for private clubs and asked if the problem could be with the process for approval of such clubs. Averil Strand,1811 Rainbow Drive, Director of Community Health Services for the Lorimer County Department of Health and Environment, spoke in favor of keeping a level playing field and stated this ordinance was necessary for the future. She stated the ordinance should not be weakened by allowing people to pay a small fee to bypass it. Gwen Seving, CSU employee and health educator, spoke regarding the ripple effect of the no - smoking ordinance for young people trying to quit smoking. She asked the Council not to weaken the ordinance. Molly White, 610 South Whitcomb, CSU student, spoke regarding the benefits of the no -smoking ordinance. She asked that Council not weaken the ordinance. David Lorimer, employee ofThe Vault and Service Barmember, stated the Service Barwas a private establishment for dues -paying members. He asked that the Service Bar not be "quashed" through this ordinance. He stated for -profit private clubs should be allowed to exist if non-profit private clubs were allowed. Deb Doorman, 608 South College, non-smoker, spoke in support of the Service Bar. She stated the amendment would hurt only one business in town and asked if the Service Bar would be grandfathered under the new rules. She stated it was a thriving business and that energy should be focused on keeping businesses running in the downtown rather than on taking away rights. Everett Bacon, 1308 Crestmore Place, stated he and his co-workers at LSA Associates shared a foyer and restrooms with the Service Bar and that they initiated the initial complaint because of smoke in their office. He stated his office received complaints about the smoke from everyone who came into the office. Nick Bucalick, part owner of Shots, stated he was appalled that this redefinition was being promulgated as a health and employee issue. He stated this was "legislation by temper tantrum" 21 February 17, 2004 rather than legislation by reason because the Service Bar did not fit the new guidelines. He spoke in opposition to the ordinance. City Attorney Roy stated he would recommend that if Council chose to leave in the "private club" exception, whether or not the definition of "private club" was changed, that the ordinance be adopted. He stated the ordinance had four parts, and that only one part was the focus of this debate. He stated Section 1 of the ordinance changed two definitions, and that one was the definition of "private club." He stated even if Council chose not to change the definition of "private club" that he would recommend adoption of the other parts of the ordinance. He stated the other definition change would exclude "private clubs" from the definition of "place of employment." He stated Section 2 provided that "private clubs" should be designed, constructed and operated in such fashion as to effectively prevent smoke originating on their premises from entering any smoke -free area. He stated the ordinance would also include "private clubs" along with the other kinds of establishments that would need to have their account books available for inspection in the event of an inquiry or complaint. He recommended adoption of the ordinance with or without the second definition change. Councilmember Kastein asked for clarification regarding the proposed changes. City Attorney Roy clarified the proposed changes. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if the definition of "private club" applied to the Service Club as well as the Elk's Club. City Attorney Roy stated the current definition applied to both types of club, assuming that both met the basic requirements of defined membership, charging more than a nominal fee for a membership, restricting admission to members and guests only and taking such actions as were necessary to prevent smoke from going into smoke -free areas. Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification regarding whether one of the speakers and the Service Club shared a building. Everett Bacon stated his office and the Service Club shared a common area (foyer and restrooms). Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification that one of the provisions under consideration was prevention of smoke originating on the premises from entering a smoke -free area. She asked if that would include the common area because it was a public area. City Attorney Roy stated that was correct and that requirement was in the administrative regulations. He stated it was staffs recommendation that this requirement should be in the ordinance as well as the regulations. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about limited access for a private club and whether a distinction needed to be made between access to the public and access to the general public. City Attorney Roy stated a private club was distinguished by it limiting access to members and guests only. He spoke regarding the history on this issue and stated the ordinance was not aimed at any one existing establishment. He stated someone interested in opening a new private club contacted City staff and 22 February 17, 2004 wanted to discuss the ordinance and regulations to determine whether a private club could be opened adjacent to an existing tavern. He stated brought up the question of Council's intent in creating the private club exception. He stated staff had a concern that if it was permissible to open a for -profit private club ostensibly for the purpose of providing a tavern environment in which smoking would be permitted, and if those could be attached to existing taverns, that this could circumvent the intent of the ordinance and serve as a designated smoking area although limited to members only. He stated one question was how effectively the requirement that the general public not be admitted to for -profit private clubs could be enforced. He stated Council expressed the intent under Other Business at a Council meeting that the exception should apply to clubs such as the Elk's and other fraternal and social organizations. He stated the State definition of a "club license" for liquor licensing purposes was the basis for this proposed ordinance, which was intended to determine Council's intent with regard to the private club exception. Councilmember Kastein asked why the Liquor Code had a different standard for private clubs that were for -profit and non-profit. City Attorney Roy stated it was an enforcement issue and that there was an objective difference between for -profit and non-profit and that status could be determined through State certification or tax status. Councilmember Kastein asked how the definition applied to liquor licensing. City Attorney Roy stated there were different types of liquor licenses and that to obtain a club license the requirements had to be met. Councilmember Kastein asked why the definition of clubs in the Liquor Code was used as the basis for determining status for smoking regulations. City Attorney Roy stated if the for -profit and non- profit private clubs were going to be treated differently in the regulations that some kind of objective and enforceable criteria were needed. Councilmember Kastein asked if the definition of "private club" could be the same as the definition in the Liquor Code. City Attorney Roy stated this was the staffs thinking in developing this language and that the ordinance was written to reflect the intent heard from Council to make this exception fit the kinds of establishments mentioned (the Elk's, the VFW, etc.). Councilmember Kastein asked how a determination was made that the Service Bar was exempted from the smoking ordinance when it went into effect last October. City Attorney Roy stated there was no licensing or permit requirement and that there was no formal determination that the Service Bar was exempted. Councilmember Kastein asked if the issue therefore arose due to the complaint process. City Attorney Roy stated this was the first time his office had addressed the Service Bar issue. He stated there was an issue with the Service Bar keeping the smoke on its premises. 23 February 17, 2004 Councilmember Kastein asked if other establishments would be affected besides the Service Bar if the ordinance was adopted. Sarah Fox, Natural Resources, stated it was her understanding that the Service Bar would be the only establishment affected. City Attorney Roy stated one other establishment (Shots) might also be affected. Mayor Martinez asked if the Service Bar met the law as currently written. City Attorney Roy stated he did not know if the Service Bar met all of the requirements. He stated if the Service Bar met all of the requirements that it was in compliance with the current law. He stated he did not know if it met all of the requirements. Mayor Martinez asked if a process must be followed to apply for private club status. City Attorney Roy stated was no process and that staff had discussed a permit system. He stated this was not included in the ordinance amendments. Mayor Martinez asked if there was a process to question whether an establishment was a private club. City Attorney Roy stated there was no process except for the complaint process. He stated none of the no -smoking ordinance models included a permit requirement for private clubs. He stated a permit process could be helpful to those interested in establishing a private club. Mayor Martinez asked how the Service Bar became a private club and what guidelines were followed and whether staff felt that the Service Bar complied with the ordinance. Eric Davis, Service Bar, stated before the smoking ordinance went into effect in October that the Service Bar had talked with staff at the smoking enforcement office. He stated there was no set definition about what constituted a "private club" initially. He stated the Service Bar worked with staff on the guidelines i.e. restricting membership, length of membership, charging, having a defined membership, etc. He stated the Service Bar complied with those guidelines and that one issue might be the smoke getting into the neighboring office. He stated the Service Bar was working on that issue. Mayor Martinez stated it appeared that the Service Bar worked with City staff regarding compliance with the requirements for "private club" status. Rich Kopp, Streets Department, stated the City had issued a citation based on investigation of a complaint was received from a neighboring business. He stated the definition of "private club" included a provision that you could not mix air containing smoke with an area that should be smoke -free. He stated in that respect, the Service Bar was not in compliance with the Code. Mayor Martinez asked if the Service Bar was a "private club" except for the fact that smoke escaped from the establishment. Kopp replied in the affirmative. Mayor Martinez stated the problem of the smoke escaping to the neighboring establishment could and should be fixed. 24 February 17, 2004 Councilmember Kastein stated this had become a "single establishment issue." He asked if the definition within the current ordinance was crafted in cooperation with the Service Bar so that it met the definition of a "private club." City Attorney Roy stated staff did not consult with the Service Bar or any other private establishment in developing the definition of "private club" and that several model ordinances were used as the basis for the definition. Councilmember Kastein asked if the current definition of "private club" matched the definition in the model ordinances that were followed. Carrie Daggett, Assistant City Attorney, stated the City added to the definition of "private club" that was in the model ordinance. Councilmember Kastein asked if this issue had surfaced in other communities. Daggett stated she had conversations with several other jurisdictions that had the same issue of defining "private club." She stated Toledo, Ohio had an issue pending with regard to the definition of "private club." Councilmember Tharp asked if was possible to "grandfather" one establishment. City Attorney Roy stated would be possible. Councilmember Tharp stated this would not deal with the original concern that a bar wanted to open a "private smoking club." City Attorney Roy stated that would deal with the issue if the Service Bar became the only private club that was permitted to not comply with the new requirements. He stated the effect would be that there would be an existing private for -profit club and that there would be no others. Councilmember Tharp asked if there would be a fairness issue. City Attorney Roy stated that would be an issue unless a rational basis could be identified for making this exception. Mayor Martinez asked if there was a fairness and equal protection issue in exempting one establishment. City Attorney Roy suggested that an Executive Session would be recommended if Council wished to explore that issue further. Councilmember Weitkunat stated that as this issue evolved, that there did not to appear to be an issue. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 039, 2004 on First Reading, Option 1 (eliminating the "private club" exception so that all "private clubs" as well as establishments open to the public would have to prohibit smoking). Councilmember Roy stated many bar and restaurant owners had asked that there be a "level playing field" in connection with the no -smoking ordinance. He stated Council was hearing that if there were going to be rules that everyone should be required to follow them. He stated the first option seemed to be the fairest for existing businesses and the future. He stated Option I would continue the goal of creating a healthy Fort Collins and would create a level playing field. 25 February 17, 2004 Councilmember Hamrick stated the assumption was that there would not have to be a permit process and that all establishments would be treated the same. City Attorney Roy stated it was his understanding that the intent was to eliminate the "private club" exception altogether and to require even non-profit private clubs to prohibit smoking. Councilmember Roy stated that was his intent. City Attorney Roy stated there would be no need for a permit requirement and that the exception would be eliminated. He stated if this was the direction that there would need to be an additional ordinance to accomplish this direction. Councilmember Hamrick asked if this would make the non-profit private clubs an "exception to an exception." City Attorney Roy stated this would clarify that there were no exceptions for private clubs. He stated this could "muddy the waters" in the sense that if they were truly "private clubs" that they were not an "enclosed public place." He stated was the reason for the "private club" exception. Councilmember Tharp stated she would not support the motion. She stated this option would totally eliminate choice and that would make the ordinance more heavy-handed. She stated people should have the choice of paying to join a club where they could smoke. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion. She stated "private clubs" were not "public domain" and that there should be some choice and consideration of individual rights. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. THE MOTION FAILED Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance No. 039, 2004 as amended on First Reading to remove the proposed new language in the ordinance relating to the "private club"definition applying to "pecuniary gain." City Attorney Roy stated it was his understanding that the definition of "private club" would remain unchanged and that private clubs could continue to be for -profit but would have to be separately ventilated, that the City would have the right to inspect their books, and that they would not be considered "places of employment' which would mean that smoking could be permitted. Councilmember Tharp asked if there was a need to examine the books if there was no requirement regarding whether the establishment was for -profit or non-profit. City Attorney Roy stated there was a need to determine whether the establishment was genuinely a "private club." Mayor Martinez asked if there was any reason to require an application process to obtain "private club" status. 26 February 17, 2004 Councilmember Weitkunat asked if this could be addressed by asking staff to look at a permit process. City Attorney Roy stated staff could look at this issue prior to Second Reading but that additional time might be needed. Byrne stated this could be addressed on Second Reading or the ordinance could be adopted and direction could be given to staff to come back with a permit process. Councilmember Kastein stated it was his intent that the City not be too "heavy handed" with any particular business. He stated eliminating the definition could create problems in the future because of lack of clarity in the ordinance. He stated there was a `loophole" in the current ordinance. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the current ordinance had a definition of a "private club" and that this expanded on that definition. She stated there would not be a problem with the existing establishment except for location. She stated this was an effort to fix a problem that was not a problem. She recommended that a permit process be added to the ordinance. Councilmember Kastein stated he was concerned about the "nominal fee" part of the definition. He questioned how that limit could be set for a "private club." Mayor Martinez asked what would constitute a "nominal fee." City Attorney Roy stated an effort had been made to distinguish a bona fide membership fee from a sham fee or de facto cover charge was to say that a fee would be charged in an amount to defray the ongoing cost of providing services. He stated that was still subjective and that staff could continue to work on defining a bona fide membership fee. Councilmember Roy stated he would not support the motion because it would take gains made in this area backwards. He stated this would create problems for the future and would compromise the health of citizens. Councilmember Hamrick stated he would not support the motion. He stated the Service Bar would comply with the ordinance with the language change proposed. He stated this could create problems with other businesses in the future. He expressed a concern about the subjectivity of the enforcement criteria. He stated the for -profit language was at the crux of the issue and that he would support staffs recommended option. ("Council took a brief recess at this point.) Councilmember Kastein asked if the ordinance contained the means for determining a "nominal fee." City Attorney Roy stated it was in the administrative regulations. The ordinance stated a private club shall not include an establishment that is open to the members of the public upon payment of a nominal fee. He stated the purpose of the administrative regulations was to implement and enforce the Code provision. He stated the administrative regulations included language regarding what would constitute a sufficient fee. 27 February 17, 2004 Councilmember Kastein asked if that could be incorporated into the ordinance if Council wanted to make that a firm requirement. City Attorney Roy stated it was a firm requirement in the administrative regulations and that if it was in the ordinance that it must be changed by Council in the future. Councilmember Kastein asked if there could be a practical definition for "nominal fee." City Attorney Roy stated Council could direct staff to work on refining the definition. Councilmember Roy asked if the motion would be consistent with the State Liquor Code. City Attorney Roy stated much of the language was the same and that the two main differences were that the State required that the applicant be a corporation and that such corporation must have been in existence for three years prior to the date of the application. Councilmember Kastein offered a friendly amendment to Councilmember Weitkunat's motion to include in the proposed ordinance the definition of a nominal fee as set out in the current administrative regulations. Councilmember Tharp stated she did not believe that was necessary because that was part of the administrative regulations. City Attorney Roy stated the language existed in the administrative regulations and that it could be included in the Code, subject to any future amendments being made by the Council. Mayor Martinez expressed a concern regarding how a "nominal fee" should be defined for establishments of different sizes. Councilmember Kastein asked if the nominal fee definition should be included in the ordinance at all. Mayor Martinez stated there should be a nominal fee charged to show that the establishment was a private club. He stated he had a concern with dictating how much that nominal fee should be. Councilmember Hamrick asked about the difference between what was included in the motion and the staff s recommendation i.e. whether the difference was the language "not for pecuniary gain." City Attorney Roy stated his understanding of the motion was that the definition of a "private club" would remain as it presently was. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to amend the motion on the floor to add a definition of "nominal fee" to the ordinance as set out in the administrative regulations. The vote on Councilmember Kastein's motion to amend was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Roy and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Martinez and Tharp. February 17, 2004 THE MOTION CARRIED City Attorney Roy stated it was his understanding that the motion to amend was intended to require that private clubs must charge more than a nominal fee and that the language from the administrative regulations was to be incorporated into the ordinance (i.e. that the fee charged would be in an amount intended to defray the ongoing cost of providing services to members). Councilmember Tharp stated the City's requirements were strict enough to avoid the creation of multiple private smoking clubs. She stated this would give people some choice and that the market would take of the number of clubs that would have a need for this kind of service. Councilmember Hamrick stated he would not support the motion. He stated this skirted the intent of the original smoking ordinance and that there were enforcement issues if the profit language was not included. He stated the issue was the health and safety of the workers and people in Fort Collins. He stated this could create a loophole that would allow businesses to be created that could run the risk of being shut down based on future Council action. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support the motion. She stated this would strengthen the part of the ordinance that allowed private citizens to make a choice to smoke in the privacy of a club. Councilmember Roy stated he would not support the motion. He stated this was going backwards and that health issues were of paramount concern over economic issues. He stated this could open the door to other private clubs. He stated the role of the Council was to ensure protection of the health and safety of the citizens of Fort Collins. Councilmember Kastein stated he would support the motion. He stated this amendment would strengthen the no -smoking ordinance to some degree. Mayor Martinez stated he would support the motion. He questioned whether the ordinance should be changed frequently and that the original ordinance should be given a chance to work before changes were made. City Attorney Roy stated there was no direction in the motion for staff to come back with a permit process. He asked that Second Reading be set for the meeting after the next meeting to allow staff time to discuss the pros and cons of adding a permit requirement on Second Reading. Mayor Martinez stated he would favor a minimum requirement that any establishment seeking to become a "private club" must notify the City. City Attorney Roy stated staff would take a look at alternatives. W February 17, 2004 The vote on the motion as amended was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED Mayor Martinez asked that staff schedule a review of the ordinance in one year to identify what had changed as a result of the ordinance. Resolution 2004-028 Accepting and Approving the Downtown Strategic Plan, Adopted. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Downtown Strategic Plan (DSP) was developed to address several crucial issues related to the market, urban design and transportation, with market health as the driving consideration. What makes the DSP different from previous planning efforts is its focus on short-term recommendations directed at downtown's vulnerabilities in the retail market, along with a few other topicalissues. The DSP articulates an overall strategy: to protect, manage, and leverage the economic and cultural vitality created by Downtown Fort Collins' core retail and entertainment area, while blending higher -energy areas with adjacent residential neighborhoods. Within this overall strategy, the DSP integrates recommendations into a "Framework Plan" with a map as its centerpiece. Numerous recommendations correspond to three different areas on the map —the Retail/Entertainment Core, a surrounding Infill/Transition Area, and the interface with adjacent residential neighborhoods. The recommendations are further organized under three topic headings: Market, Urban Design, and Transportation. The Framework Plan map and recommendations comprise Section II, the heart of the DSP. The DSP also provides detailed background information on the downtown market (Section III) and on infrastructure and transportation issues (Section IV). The (DSP) is meant to be used as the primary basis for an update of the 1989 Downtown Plan, which is an adopted Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 30 February 17, 2004 BACKGROUND In a collaborative effort spanning over 20 months, the City offort Collins, Downtown Development Authority (DDA), and the Downtown Business Association (DBA) have sponsored the Downtown Strategic Plan as an open public process. The three entities commissioned a consulting team to help lead the process and provide objective expertise and perspective in key disciplines. The impetus behind the project was a growing set of concerns and questions about the strength of the downtown retail market; and the related implications forparking, transportation, management, maintenance, new development, and infrastructure. These concerns had been mounting for a number of years prior to the first DSP events in spring 2002. The DSP was to build upon the vision and work of earlier plans, particularly the Downtown Plan and 1996 Civic Center Master Plan. Relevant and valid material from these two documents was to then be combined with DSP results into a single, updated Downtown Plan. Many of the two former plans' recommendations have been fulfilled, and much of their information needs updating due to changed conditions. Staff has started work on the consolidated Downtown Plan update; adoption is anticipated for Council consideration in mid-2004. Considerable work and attention was devoted to gathering information about the downtown market and transportation/infrastructurecapacity/deficiencies. Thisfoundational work helped define issues and strategies, and comprises Sections III (Market Analysis) and IV (Transportation). The document has been formatted in sections which can stand alone as reference material, because of the strategicfocus of the sections. Synthesis into a complete, single plan for downtown was not the original intent.for the DSP. That effort is pending as explained above. The DSP process has been an open public discussion with community input in various formats including a Citizen Advisory Committee, focus groups, public meetings, mailings, and discussions with City Boards and Commissions. KEY POINTS In general, the consultant team found Fort Collins' Downtown to be unusually and surprisingly successful. Its defining attributes boil down to the physically intact historic setting, which attracts a strong restaurant and entertainment component; one -of -a -kind retailers; and a young, contemporary, and creative population base in its trade area. Despite its strengths, the consultants were concerned about significant vulnerabilities, including: 31 February 17, 2004 • Lack of major PRIVATE SECTOR employment • Lack of destination attractions such as cultural facilities • Minimal PRIVATE SECTOR new development activity since 1995 • Nigh susceptibility — loss of 4-5 key businesses could quickly erode vitality • Bad publicity, disruptive behavior, maintenance challenges and otherproblems associated with several drinking establishments With its market -based planning approach, the DSP builds upon the inherent strengths o(Downtown, as opposed to seeking a grand new scheme to reinvent downtown. The overall strategy is summarized by three stated Principles corresponding to certain areas on the Framework Plan map. The three Principles are: 1) Protect and manage the retaiUentertainment core 2) Utilize the energy from the core to leverage and attract new development in the infrlUtransition area, which in turn will strengthen the core 3) Blend these higher -intensity areas with adjacent neighborhoods Numerous recommendations are then listed under each of the three Principles. STAFF TOP 10 HIGHLIGHTS Staff has found it useful to highlight ten of the most significant recommendations: • Enhance On -Street Parking Enforcement Short-term strateev.• • Upgrade parking enforcement • Strengthen parking regulations (progressive fines) • Develop affordable long-term parking alternatives Lone -term strategy • Correct "upside down "parking pricing policy • Evaluate pay parking (parking meters or eq. technology) • Develop A Wayfinding Plan • Complete system of identity, directional and informational signs Organizational Changes • Formal DDAIDBA Alliance, called Downtown Alliance • Business Improvement District ($$for marketing, maintenance andsecurity) • Active economic development program ("market info and business portal') • Involvement of neighborhood residents on boards 32 February 17, 2004 Infill/Transition Areas • Support redevelopment in the near west side and River Corridor Areas • West side: best development opportunity to support the core short-term • River Corridor: if core -supportive project emerges consistent with the Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program, support it • Orient development to east -west streets between Core and Westside neighborhood • Significant Catalyst Projects • Performing Arts Center • Hotel/Convention Facilities • Housing • Of Clarify City Policy on Taller Buildings • Clearer standards for height in block -by -block context • Mass reduction techniques • Straight forward review for 6-story buildings • More detailed review and discussion for buildings taller than 6 stories Strategies to Meet Future Parking Demands • Park Once/Pedestrian First concept — parking at the periphery of core • Operate parking as an essential civic infrastructure system • Public private partnerships to enhance privately -owned parking resources for public use Better Capture of CSU Market • Stronger communication linkages and direct marketing • Pedestrian streetscape improvements south to Laurel Street • Provide very high levels of transit service to CSU during mid -day Connect Residential Neighborhoods to Core • Emphasize and orient redevelopment to east -west streets • Enhance pedestrian environment downtown New Ideas in Transportation Section • Redesign Centerline Parking • Virtual Arterial THE TOP TWO TOPICS 33 February 17, 2004 Of all the topics explored, two generated very high interest, almost becoming separate projects in their own right. The first waspublicparking; and the second was clarification of Citypolicy on tall buildings. Parking recommendations are covered in Section II, items 1.1.1,1.1.2,1.3.1, 2.1.7, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and 3.3.2. Parking also comprises a whole chapter in Section IV, Transportation Analysis. Recommendations for tall buildings are in Section II, items 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, and 3.2.2. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. Timothy Wilder, City Planner, presented background information regarding the agenda item. He stated the Downtown Strategic Plan would include concrete actions to address issues dealing with the market and health of the downtown in the future. He stated the Downtown Strategic Plan was a market -based approach that would identify strategies to better support the retail area through market, urban design and transportation options. He stated after this project was completed, the Downtown Plan (an element of the Comprehensive Plan) would be updated with the elements of the Downtown Strategic Plan. He stated there had been an extensive public involvement process with downtown sectors. He stated there was general agreement on the general direction of the ideas in the document and the vast majority of the strategies. He stated the consultants identified vulnerabilities and weaknesses of the downtown market: (1) primary employers were from the private sector and additions from the private sector were needed; (2) additional destination attractions could help support the downtown; (3) increasing the number of new development activities, with a key issue being that concern that the loss of a few key businesses could quickly erode downtown's vitality; and (4) the bar issue and disruptive behavior downtown. He stated there were three theme areas: protection and management of the retail -entertainment core, support of the downtown core through additional office and residential development, and recognition of surrounding neighborhoods as being an important part of the downtown and blending development into the adjacent neighborhoods. He stated the framework plan would provide a concept for identifying specific strategies for each of the theme areas. He outlined ideas relating to parking turnover and enforcement, a "wayfinding" plan, organizational changes for the downtown to achieve a single point of representation, proactive marketing for the downtown, better citizen involvement on development projects, investment in the Westside area, development in the river corridor area, and enhancement of connections from adjacent residential areas into the core area. He spoke regarding catalyst projects identified in the strategic plan, including a performing arts center, hotel/convention facilities, housing, office and library. He stated one controversial issue was how to deal with heights of taller buildings in the downtown area west of the retail -entertainment core. He stated one concept was operation of parking as a central civic infrastructure and unified system. He stated another important point was better capture of the CSU market and presented some of the ideas for doing that. He stated one issue was the surrounding residential neighborhoods and their relationship to the core. He spoke regarding the structure of the Downtown Strategic Plan. He stated implementation required coordinated actions by the City, the Downtown Development Authority, the Downtown Business Association and the private sector. 34 February 17, 2004 Clark Mapes, City Planner, stated implementation had been started on some of the parking plans and organizational changes with the DDA and DBA. He stated steps to be taken included revising the Land Use Code standards to codify the policies set out in the Downtown Strategic Plan to make it clear how new big buildings could fit in and be compatible with the surroundings and also to make the approval process more straightforward. He stated there were no significant issues coming out of the Downtown Plan update. He stated it was important because it was a subarea plan and would be part of the official policies of City Plan. Councilmember Weitkunat asked how the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan would fit in with this. Mapes stated the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan would be assimilated into the new downtown plan and that much of that plan had been accomplished. Councilmember Tharp asked about the point made in the Urban Design Summary that Jefferson Street formed a barrier between the downtown and the Poudre River. She stated the Plan did not suggest any way to overcome that problem and did not address what emphasis would be placed on dealing with that area. Wilder stated the Plan did not have specific recommendations for the downtown river corridor area. He stated there were ideas about developing better connections into that area, including better crossing treatments on Jefferson Street. He stated there were some general ideas about a market approach for the river corridor area. He stated any large scale retail would take away from the vibrancy of the downtown core and that it was expected instead that there would be more office, residential and supportive uses. He stated the various infrastructure projects were identified to help vitalize that area. Councilmember Tharp expressed a concern that the Plan did not address in detail the development of the Downtown River Corridor. Mapes stated there were discussions about whether crosswalk and park improvements should be done proactively or reactively by the City and the DDA. He stated three projects would address the intersection and the crosswalks. He stated Jefferson was a truck route and that safety issues were discussed at length. He stated the plan at this time was for the City and the DDA to react and respond if there was an initiative of some kind. Councilmember Tharp expressed a concern that there would not be an initiative in that area unless the City took a lead in doing something. She stated she saw this as a weakness in the strategic plan because a third of the core area would be left alone. She stated there should be a more aggressive approach on the part of the City and that this should be given attention at some point. She asked about a list of recommendations included in the Plan and stated she would like to know the specific actions that would be required of the City. She stated it would be helpful to know specific timeframes as well. Mapes stated feedback was received that the river corridor should be the top priority. He stated the DDA had an active interest in that area and was giving it some attention. Wilder stated the City had been implementing a number of projects in the river corridor, including the brown fields project, an infrastructure project, and the Poudre River enhancement project. Mapes stated the specific action plans would be explained in detail. 35 February 17, 2004 Councilmember Hamrick asked if the consultants had indicated that redevelopment should occur where infrastructure already existed. Mapes stated the consultant indicated that this was more realistic in the near term and that this was where the idea of orienting buildings to the east -west streets arose. Councilmember Hamrick stated he agreed with that direction. He asked what would take precedence when determining what could be done in the Poudre River Corridor i.e. the Corridor Plan or the Downtown Plan. Mapes stated the two plans should be in concert. Wilder stated at a fundamental level the Land Use Code and the City regulations would dictate certain requirements such as natural feature buffers, floodplains, etc. He stated the hope was that the Corridor Plan and Downtown Plan would be in concert. He stated one document was an element of the Comprehensive Plan and would give specific policies and actions and the Downtown River Corridor Implementation Program was a list of projects that would fit within the policies. Councilmember Hamrick asked what policy or plan would have protections for the Poudre River. Wilder stated would be the Downtown Plan, City Plan and the implementing regulations. Mapes stated the Downtown Plan did not add much to the protections set out in City Plan and the Land Use Code. Councilmember Hamrick asked about item 1.1.5 relating to introducing a business recruitment and retention strategy with the DDA and DBA at an annual cost of $100,000 to $150,000 of taxpayer funds. He noted that the City was hiring an economic adviser and asked how this business recruitment and retention strategy was pictured to be in addition to what was already going to be done with the Economic Vitality and Sustainability Group. He asked if these were separate efforts or whether they would be coordinated. Mapes stated this policy focused on the downtown and that the downtown was competing for its life against emerging commercial areas elsewhere. He stated there had been discussion about whether the mix was right in the downtown. He stated this item was based on the idea that the downtown might have to take a more managed approach. He stated the idea was that the DDA/DBA alliance would get more involved in managing the mix of land uses downtown. He stated a market analysis had been done and that this was a general idea that the DDA/DBA form an alliance. Councilmember Hamrick expressed a concern with duplicating efforts. Mapes stated the DDA discussed at a retreat hiring a new person to implement this business recruitment and retention strategy. He stated it would make sense to involve the City's economic adviser in the downtown issues. Councilmember Hamrick asked about item 1.1.3 and asked for clarification that residents were part of the group to be attracted downtown through destination attractions. Mapes replied in the affirmative. 36 February 17, 2004 Councilmember Kastein asked if it would be possible to attach dates to at least some of the action items. He stated he liked the plan and wanted to see it implemented. Councilmember Roy stated he had questions about parking, public/private partnerships downtown and the Poudre River Corridor. He stated there were concerns that parking in the parking garage was not equitable for the business people. He asked if there were ways to address those concerns. Randy Hensley, Parking Services Manager, stated the City had implemented a new rooftop permit program that would cost half the amount of a full service permit. He stated a carpool permit had also been implemented. Councilmember Roy stated there was agreement that ways should be found to turn the parking over in order to make the downtown inviting and more economically positive for business owners. He stated he had heard one idea that a two-hour parking structure for downtown did not make sense. He asked if staff had studied the idea of creating three-hour parking. Hensley stated the issue was that parking downtown was a balancing act. He stated there were different needs for different groups and needs for short term and long term parking. He stated staff believed that the two-hour time limit was appropriate for on -street parking because that should be a priority for customers and visitors. He stated extending the time limit to three hours would exacerbate the existing problem of long term parkers who wanted to park on -street. He stated long term parkers were being encouraged to park off-street or in one of the outlying areas to preserve on -street parking in the retail core for customers and visitors. Councilmember Roy asked what kinds of natural protections the Poudre River would enjoy in the downtown. Wilder stated there were natural feature buffer standards in the Land Use Code for the area in the vicinity of Linden and Lincoln. He stated the City had acquired much of the land along the river in that stretch i.e. the Udall Natural Area, the Gustav Swanson Nature Area, natural areas north of the Power Plant, and the Heritage Park near the old Power Plant. Mapes stated the development standards addressed setting buildings with views of the river landscape. Councilmember Roy asked about item 1.1.4 (creating a unified voice and elevate the influence of downtown property and business owners through a formal strengthened DDA/DBA alliance). He expressed a concern that the DDA was publically funded and asked about the appropriateness and legality of having the DBA as a private organization receive public funds. He questioned whether this strategy belonged in the downtown market economic development plan because the DBA could at some point lobby the Council for a number of issues. Mapes stated the recommendation for the alliance related to the overlapping interests of the two groups. He stated the spirit of this recommendation was that the two groups work together on identity, vision, and coordination for the betterment of downtown. He stated the specifics had not been discussed at this point except that the plan indicated that the DDA and DBA would retain their respective functions and funding sources. 37 February 17, 2004 Mayor Martinez requested comment from the City Attorney on this issue. City Attorney Roy stated many public/private partnerships were legally permissible provided there was a bona fide public purpose for the expenditure of public funds. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Resolution 2004-028. Councilmember Kastein thanked all of the entities involved for their hard work. He stated he appreciated the concrete action steps. He stated the parking issue was important but that the transportation element had been eclipsed by the parking discussions. He stated the action steps for transportation included parking, traffic circulation, bicycle and pedestrian connections, etc. He stated he had asked for dates on some of the action steps because he wanted to see those things implemented. He stated he did not want to lose sight of the Downtown River Corridor Implementation Plan which was ancillary to this plan. Councilmember Weitkunat stated this was a good strategic plan that would protect, manage, and leverage the economic and cultural vitality of the downtown. She stated the details regarding problems with parking, transportation and building heights could be worked out. She stated she looked forward to implementation of at least some of the plan while she was still on Council. Councilmember Tharp stated she would like to see certain action steps move ahead quickly i.e. the signage, the gateways, and destination attractions. She stated she was pleased to see the information relating to transit and improved traffic in the downtown. She stated a jitney bus could bring a great deal of business downtown. Councilmember Roy thanked those who participated in development of the plan. He stated this was a community effort. He spoke about the problems relating to full parking, buildings such as the refurbished Northern Hotel and Empire Hotel, the resources and impetus in the downtown to harness dreams to turn them into real projects, natural assets, and problems such as the railroad tracks and transit in and out of downtown. He stated there were tremendous changes going on in the downtown that showed the strength of this portion of town. He stated this Plan would build on those strengths. Councilmember Hamrick stated he liked the pedestrian and transportation components of the Plan. He stated there were several issues that he would like to see taken into consideration as this Plan moved forward: (1) a need to focus on the infrastructure that was already in place, (2) financing private entities with public money, and (3) how the business retention strategy would hook up with the overall City strategy. Mayor Martinez stated this was a good plan. in February 17, 2004 The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Resolution 2004-017 Making an Appointment to the Downtown Development Authority, Adopted. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A vacancy exists on the Downtown Development Authority due to the expiration of term of Greg Belcher. Councilmember Bertschy and Mayor Martinez interviewed the applicants and did not reach agreement on a recommendation to fall the vacancy. The Council interview team wishes to submit Karen Wagner and Jack Wolfe for Council's consideration. Applications are attached for the two applicants being considered. " City Manager Fischbach stated there was a motion on the floor made by Councilmember Weitkunat on February 3, 2004. ("Secretary's Note: The motion carried over from February 3, 2004 was as follows: Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kastein, to adopt Resolution 2004-017 inserting the name Jack Wolfe.) Councilmember Weitkunat stated the Council should make a public statement regarding the issue that related to the postponement of the Resolution. Mayor Martinez stated the motion was to appoint Jack Wolfe to the DDA. He stated a question arose regarding whether the conversation between the DDA Executive Director and Councilmember Tharp was inappropriate. He asked if Council would entertain a motion that would release the legal opinion relating to the appropriateness of that conversation. Councilmember Tharp asked if there was anything in the memo that was confidential. City Attorney Roy stated the memo was delivered under confidential cover because of the attorney -client privilege and the fact that it covered all advisory opinions. He stated he did not believe that there would be any harm to the City's interest if the Council wished to waive that privilege and make the contents of the opinion public. 39 February 17, 2004 Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to release the City Attorney's opinion on the allegation pertaining to the conversation between the DDA Executive Director and Councilmember Tharp. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED City Attorney Roy stated the objection to Mr. Steiner's recommendation to Councilmember Tharp was framed in terms of the appropriateness of the conversation. He stated the legal analysis was made in terms of the ethical rules of conduct that were applicable and whether or not any of those rules were violated. He stated in his opinion, none of those ethical rules of conduct were violated. He stated Mr. Steiner's recommendations to the Council were not motivated by any hope of personal gain but simply to advance the interests of the DDA. He stated a letter was advanced by the DDA's counsel indicating that the DDA was supportive of Mr. Steiner's efforts in that regard. He stated he did not see any violation of any rule of conduct and that there were cases that indicated under these kinds of circumstances employees of government entities speaking on matters ofpublic concern were entitled to do so under the First Amendment as an exercise of free speech. The vote on the motion to appoint Jack Wolfe to the DDA was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Kastein, Martinez, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED Resolution 2004-026 Appointing the Members of a Citizen Budget Advisory Committee, Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On January 6, 2004 City Council adopted Resolution 2004-005 establishing a citizen Budget Advisory Committee. The purposes of the Committee are to: a. work with City staff to review the proposed exceptions to the 2005 budget, including projected 2005 revenues and any adjustments (increases or reductions) to proposed 2005 expenditures. no] February 17, 2004 b. advise Council with respect to its decisions regarding the 2005 budget exceptions, within the framework of existing City policies and programs. The Committee is to consist ofseven members, with each member of Council selecting one member of the Committee from a pool a names suggested by Council members and the City Manager. Council suggested that potential Budget Advisory Committee members should have knowledge and experience in developing and administering organizational budgets preferably large and multi- faceted organizations. The term of these appointments shall be for one year. At the end of one year, Council will re- evaluate the BudgetAdvisory Committee and determine whether or not the Committee will continue and, if so, identify and modifications as to the Committee's purpose, structure, membership and term. A revised Resolution naming committee members will be provided upon confirmation that suggested members are interested and willing to serve. " Councilmember Kastein stated he believed that there was too much overlap in appointments to boards and commissions. He stated such appointments were offered to the same people too often. He noted that Kelly Ohlson and Glen Colton had both served on boards and commissions for long periods of time and that their spouses were just appointed to the Economic Advisory Committee. He stated there should be differences of opinion on boards, commissions and committees. He stated he wanted to make this observation but that he would support the choices made by each of the Councilmembers in making appointments to the Budget Advisory Committee. Clint Skutchan, 712 Great Plains Court, stated he had a concern that appointees to boards, commissions and committees could influence process at different levels and that it was possible for one person to have too much intervention if that individual served on an advisory committee, on a board or commission and then participated at a public participation event. He asked that the Council look at back-to-back service on different boards and consider a delay in appointing someone to serve on another group once they have already served. He stated additional people should be drawn into the process. He stated it was a fairness issue to have one individual serving on multiple groups when others were excluded. Councilmember Hamrick stated he had concerns about the process for making appointments. He questioned why Kelly Ohlson and Glen Colton were singled out in the discussion when there were other examples. He stated he would favor looking at the process and that he would like to see discussion on conflict of interest in conjunction with how appointments were made. He stated it was objectionable to appoint people who had a financial conflict of interest. 41 February 17, 2004 Councilmember Tharp stated those who were typically appointed to multiple groups had taken an active role in the community. She stated they tended to be knowledgeable and involved and participated in meetings. She stated people who kept themselves informed and participated had more to contribute. She stated other people were not excluded from being involved. Councilmember Weitkunat stated repetitive appointments had been a concern to her. She stated she had a concern about appointing someone who had just completed an eight -year term on one board to an eight -year term on another board time after time simply because someone was an activist and the individual was well known. She stated there were many people who wanted to be involved in the community who were not appointed because they were not activists. She stated political connections sometimes circumvented the other rules. Councilmember Roy stated he had not known many of the people he had supported for appointment to boards and commissions. He spoke regarding his reasons for supporting the appointment of Kelly Ohlson to this important committee. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if an individual could serve on more than one board at the same time. City Manager Fischbach stated this committee was a task force rather than a board or commission. City Attorney Roy stated one individual could not serve on more than one board or commission at the same time and that this regulation did not apply to service on ad hoc committees. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Resolution 2004-026. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Hamrick, Kastein, Martinez, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Other Business Councilmember Tharp asked if Council's intent was to give direction to the Human Relations Commission task force in the March 2 Resolution. She favored giving direction to the task force to bring back proposed wording for a human rights ordinance. Mayor Martinez stated the Human Relations Commission had asked the Council to take a public stand on these issues and provide direction to the Commission and task force. He stated the March 2 Resolution was intended as a statement by the Council on respect for human rights. Councilmember Tharp asked what the task force was being asked to bring back to the Council if the Resolution stated the Council's position on the issues. 42 February 17, 2004 Mayor Martinez stated the task force was being asked to establish a dialogue with others in the community to identify particular issues and suggest remedies for consideration. He stated the task force was being asked to review the complaint process and that the HRC was being asked to work with the community to provide feedback relating to harassment, profiling, and the complaint process. He stated additional approaches were being sought for marketing and distribution of boards and commissions applications. He stated the HRC had asked for specific direction and for the Council to take a public stand. Councilmember Roy stated he was concerned about the March 2 Resolution. He stated the work done by the City Attorney indicated that the Council would be meeting the spirit of the request from the HRC for a letter of intent. He suggested that the Resolution indicate that the work of the task force and the HRC not be limited to the specific suggestions. Councilmember Hamrick asked Councilmember Tharp if this would satisfy her concerns. Councilmember Tharp stated this did not address her concerns. She stated she would support giving direction and stating the Council's position on racial profiling, harassment, and immigration status. She stated she would support language to give direction to look at other aspects of the issues as well. Councilmember Kastein stated he believed that the intent was that an ordinance would not come back to the Council stating that the City wanted to eliminate the option for the Police to ask for immigration status within certain parameters. He stated he did not want to "throw the doors wide open" for an ordinance that would not make the statement that the Police could inquire about immigration status only in connection with other normal, legally permissible investigations or activities. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk �- 43