Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-01/23/1996-AdjournedI January 23,1996 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Adjourned Meeting - 6:30 p.m. An adjourned meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, January 23, 1996, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Apt, Azari, Janett, McCluskey, Smith, and Wanner. Councilmember Absent: Kneeland. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Roy, Krajicek. Resolution 96-8 Accepting the Advisory Opinion and Recommendation No. 96-1 of the Ethics Review Board Defeated: and Resolution 96-9 Accepting the Advisory Opinion and Recommendation No. 96-2 of the Ethics Review Board, No Action Taken. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "Executive Summary Section 2-569(e) of the City Code provides that all opinions and recommendations of the Council Ethics Review Board be submitted to the full Council for review and approval. The Ethics Review Board met on January 16, 1996, to render opinions on the following questions: (1) whether Councilmember Bob McCluskey has a conflict of interest in participating in the upcoming Council discussion on the proposed use tax relief program because he is an owner and officer of Poudre Valley Creamery; and (2) whether Councilmember Chris Kneeland has a conflict of interest in participating in the same discussions because she has done consulting work for some of the companies that would be affected by the proposed use tax relief program. The Board has rendered advisory opinions that neither Councilmember has a conflict of interest in this matter. Copies of the Board's opinions of the Ethics Review Board are attached to the Resolution as Exhibits A and B. Pursuant to the provisions of the Code, the opinions of the Board have been forwarded to the Council far its review and consideration. Council should consider whether it agrees with the Board's opinions and, if so, passage of the Resolution would formally adopt those opinions. 32 January 23, 1996 Alternatively, the Council could decide to modify the opinions in some respect or forward the matter back to the Ethics Review Board with certain direction. " Councilmember McCluskey withdrew from consideration and vote on this item because of a possible conflict of interest. City Attorney Roy explained the process used by the Ethics Review Board to render an advisory opinion on whether Councilmembers may have a conflict of interest in participating in certain kinds of Council decisions. He stated Councilmembers McCluskey and Kneeland submitted inquiries to the Ethics Review Board having to do with a proposed use tax relief program to be discussed at tonight's study session. The Code requires the opinions rendered on January 16 to be considered by the full Council. Councilmember Smith made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Apt, to adopt Resolution 96-8. Councilmember Apt asked if Councilmember McCluskey had provided information on the kind of future capital equipment expenditures that might be affected by the rebate program. Councilmember Smith replied that Councilmember McCluskey had indicated there would be no change in the nature of his capital investments. He provided a five-year history of capital . investments. Councilmember Janett stated she believed Councilmember McCluskey's past capital investment purchases would fall into the first tier of the proposed use tax which is I %, while the current use tax rate is 3%. Councilmember Apt stated the change would affect the finances of -Councilmember McCluskey's business. It becomes a matter of degree. City Attorney Roy replied that the Charter establishes two kinds of interests that a person can have in a decision ... a financial interest and a personal interest. The financial interest standard is clear. Even if a decision might have a financial effect on a business in which someone has an ownership interest, that should not be considered a financial interest on the part of the owner or interest holder unless it translates into some foreseeable measurable return or financial benefit to the interest holder, the owner. Based upon the information from Councilmember McCluskey, that would not have been the case. His method of compensation is not based upon a set formula that would translate into any measurable return to him. The personal interest standard is less precise. The Charter stated that if a person has any kind of an interest other than a financial interest, based upon a close association, and if a reasonable prudent person would believe that that association would interfere with the independence of judgement of a Councilmember in performing official duties, a conflict can be created. The question then becomes whether this 33 ', January 23, 1996 kind of Council decision would have enough of an impact on Councilmember McCluskey's business that a reasonably prudent person would believe that it would interfere with his independence of judgement in participating in a decision on this type of policy matter. Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, stated he believed a conflict of interest exists in the case of Councilmember McCluskey. He suggested Councilmember McCloskey should remove himself from discussion and vote on the manufacturing use tax rebate program. Councilmember Janett stated she was the dissenting vote on the Ethics Review Board opinion. She stated her dissent was based on the fact that Councilmember McCluskey is an owner of one of the 38 companies that will be affected by the proposed manufacturing use tax rebate program. His company has paid the tax in the past and is likely to pay it in the future. The vote on Councilmember Smith's motion to adopt Resolution 96-8 was as follows: 'Yeas: - Councilmembers Azari and Smith. Nays: Councilmembers Apt, Janett, and Wanner. THE MOTION FAILED City Attorney Roy stated Council's role is not to rule whether there is a conflict. It is to decide whether to adopt the advisory opinion of the Ethics Review Board. Since Council has declined ' to do that, the matter is concluded for Council. City Attorney Roy stated Councilmember Kneeland filed a conflict of interest disclosure statement late today with regard to the issue she presented to the Ethics Review Board. The fact that she filed the disclosure statement moots the issue and Council does not need to take any action with regard to Resolution 96-9. Other Business Councilmember Apt spoke of memos received from the Air Quality Board. The two items the Board brought to Council's attention are proposed "due upon sale" ordinances for wood stoves and fireplaces for and radon testing. He asked for a two -page memo on when those measures might be considered. Councilmember Apt spoke of Denver Post articles relating to enterprise zone abuse. He suggested Council may want to look at Fort Collins' enterprise zones and determine if changes need to be made. City Manager Fischbach stated staff is preparing a report on enterprise zones in Fort Collins and will provide it to Councilmembers. [I! January 23, 1996 Councilmember Janett stated she had asked the County Commissioners for data on the ' performance of enterprise zones in Fort Collins and asked staff to follow-up. Adjournment The meeting concluded at 6:50 p.m. ayor ATTEST: City Clerk 35 C