Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-01/16/1990-RegularJanuary 16, 1990 ' January 16, 1990 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, January 16, 1990, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Staff Members Present: Burkett, Krajicek, Roy Citizen Participation A. Proclamation Naming January 21-27 as Kiwanis 75th Anniversary Week was accepted by Lynn Hodgeton, President, Poudre Golden Pay Club. Mary Ness, Fort Collins resident, read a prepared statement concerning his pending litigation with the City, and asked for an opportunity to meet with ' Council regarding his case. Agenda Review: City Manager City Manager Burkett noted that revised Ordinance No. 6, 1990, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Lease/Purchase Financing of Vehicles and Equipment, (Item #28) contained additional information on interest rates and the leasing agent. Consent Calendar This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends. approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately under Agenda Item #24, Pulled Consent Items. 5. -701- January 16, 1990 7. go Second Reading of Ordinance No. 154, 1989, Amending Chapter 26 of the ' Code Relating to Utility Service Outside City Limits. Section 26-651 of the City Code requires that requests for utility service outside the city limits be approved by both the Water Board and the Planning and Zoning Board. The Water Board routinely approves out -of -city service requests when facilities are available and the impact of the proposed use is minimal. The Planning and Zoning Board normally requires applicants for out -of -city service to annex their property if it is eligible. At times, it can take over two months for both the Water Board and Planning Zoning Board to approve a request for out -of -city service. Individuals who have problems with their septic systems or water wells can usually not afford to wait that long. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 19, amends the code to expedite the process of obtaining out -of -City water and sewer utility service for persons desiring to make a single connection to one or both of the City's Water and Wastewater Utilities and, with respect to property which is eligible for annexation, to require annexation as a condition of the provision of water and/or wastewater utility service. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 157, 1989, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Capital Projects Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of I Appropriations Between Capital Projects (Re: Replacement of the bridge on Redwing Road over the Larimer County No. 2 Canal). The concrete box culvert bridge on Redwing Road over the Larimer County No. 2 Canal has been identified by the state bridge inspection program as being structurally deficient and therefore, in need of replacement. An application has been submitted and approved for state grant monies totalling $113,520 or 80% of total project costs, for the bridge replacement. This ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 19, approves the appropriation and transfer of funds to fund the City's 20% match of total project costs. The concrete box culvert bridge on Stover Street over Spring Creek has been identified by the state bridge inspection program as being in need of replacement for structural reasons. The existing Stover Street bridge is considered by the Spring Creek Master Plan to be of inadequate capacity to carry stormwater flows. An application has been submitted and approved for state grant monies totalling $ 541,920 or 80% of total project costs. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 19, approves the appropriation I -702- January 16, 1990 11 91 10 11 FJ and transfer of funds to fund the City's 20% match of total project costs. A pre -employment physical is required before an offer of appointment can be made for labor/trades and bus driver positions. Approximately 35 physicals are performed per year. Contracting with a select provider provides for consistent quality and physicals appropriate for the job duties required. After using the approved selection process for professional services, Doctors Neighborhood Care Center was selected. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 19, authorizes the 3 year contract with Doctors Neighborhood Care Center. Items Relating to City's Group Health Plan. A. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 161, 1989, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the General Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts to Various Funds. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 162, 1989, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Benefits Fund. At Council direction, a staff committee prepared a report making recommendations to reduce the increase in health care costs being borne by the City and suggesting a plan for continuing to review health care issues. The recommendations were discussed by Council at the December 12 worksession. On December 19, Council adopted Resolution 89-227 Modifying the City's Group Health Plan. Ordinance No. 161, 1989, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 19, authorizes $216,024 of additional expenditures in the General Fund to pay for the increased medical insurance premiums and to transfer to other funds which are not able to absorb the premium increase without affecting service levels. Ordinance No. 162, 1989, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 19, authorizes additional expenditures in the Benefits Fund of $910,161, reflecting a total expenditure budget of approximately $3,044,000 for 1990. Second Reading of Ordinance No 163 1989 Adopting the 1990 Pay Plan Each year the City Council adopts the pay plan which sets the salaries of classified City employees in accordance with the adopted budget. This plan is designed to meet the Council's goal of rewarding employee -703- January 16, 1990 12 13 performance and remaining competitive in the labor market. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 19, adopts the 1990 Pay Plan. Items Related to the Kieft Annexation. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 166, 1989, Annexing Approximately 3.0 Acres, Known as the Kieft Annexation. B. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 167, 1989, Zoning Approximately 3.0 Acres, Known as the Kieft Annexation, into the R-P, Planned Residential Zoning District. On December 19, Council unanimously adopted Resolution 89-216 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Regarding the Kieft Annexation. On December 19, Council also unanimously adopted on First Reading Ordinance No. 166, 1989 and Ordinance No. 167, 1989, annexing and zoning approximately 3.0 acres located west of Taft Hill Road and south of Drake Road. The requested zoning is the R-P, Planned Residential District. The property is presently developed with a single-family residence. The property is currently zoned FA-1, Farming, in the County. This is a voluntary annexation, the petition was submitted to fulfill a condition of receiving out -of -city water service. APPLICANT: Kenneth C. Wolf 420 South Howes Street Suite 200 Fort Collins, CO 80521 OWNERS: Larry D. & Susan Kieft 2333 West Drake Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 Items Related to the Frontage Road Associates, Ltd., Annexation and Zoning. A. Resolution 90-1 Setting Forth Findings of Fact and Determinations Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 1, 1990, Annexing Approximately 88.6 Acres, Known as the Frontage Road Associates, Ltd., Annexation. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 2, 1990, Zoning Approximately 88.6 Acres, Known as the Frontage Road Associates, Ltd., Annexation, into the I-L, Limited Industrial, District. This is a request to annex and zone approximately 88.6 acres located west of I-25 and south of E. Vine Drive. The requested zoning is the I-L, Limited Industrial District, with a PUD condition. The property is presently undeveloped. The property is curren:t,ly zoned I -Industrial in the County. This is a voluntary annexation._ -704- January 16, 1990 14. 15. APPLICANT: Lee G. Tipton OWNERS: Frontage Road Industrial 6100 E. Briarwood Circle Associates, Ltd. Englewood, CO 80112 Same address The City has offered this benefit to employees since January, 1988. An Employee Assistance Program provides a confidential assessment of personal problems and a referral service for employees and their family members. It is provided by the City so that the employees and their family members may, without charge, benefit from the early identification, treatment and resolution of problems. Code. Federal environmental regulations governing the industrial pretreatment of wastewater (Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 403) require the City's wastewater utility to have authority to seek criminal penalties in at least the amount of $1,000 per day for each violation by industrial users of pretreatment standards and requirements. In order to comply with this federal requirement, thereby enabling the City to conform to the requirement of its discharge permit for the discharge of wastewater effluent into the Cache La Poudre River, it is necessary to amend Section 1-15 of the Code by changing the maximum fine for Code violations from $900 to $1,000. 16. Annexation. The applicant and property owner, Colorado State University, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of approximately 9.4 acres located east of County Road 9 and south of East Drake Road (extended). The proposed Resolution makes a finding that the petition substantially complies with the Municipal Annexation Act, determines that a hearing should be established regarding the annexation, and directs that notice be given of the hearing. The hearing will be held at the time of first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. Not less than thirty days of prior notice is required by Colorado law. The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. ' According to policies and agreements between the City of Fort Collins and Larimer County contained in the Intergovernmental Agreement for -705- January 16, 1990 17. N1 the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the City will consider annexing ' property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to state law. The property gains the required 1/6 contiguity to existing city limits from a common boundary with the Nature Center Second Annexation to the north. Harmony Road Water Transmission Main. The Water Master Plan calls for a major transmission main to be constructed along the Harmony Road corridor between Shields Street and Timberline within the next five years. Service is provided now to the southern part of the City through a series of smaller water lines. As growth along the Harmony corridor continues, a major transmission line will be needed to provide service. The professional services agreement is for Rocky Mountain Consultants (RMC) to develop a complete preliminary design for the main, to include route selection, aerial photography, legal descriptions for easements, plan and profile drawings, and cost estimates. Since the Harmony corridor is developing quite rapidly, it is important that planning and easement acquisition be completed so that water service can be provided in a cost effective manner as the area develops. An RFP for the project was issued in November of 1989. Proposals were received from ten firms, and three firms were selected to be interviewed. They included RMC, RBD Engineers, and Greenehorne and O'Mara. The selection committee determined that RMC is most qualified to perform the work. In 1987, it was discovered that street overlay and storm sewer work were both being planned during the summer on Princeton Road. In addition, a water line was planned for construction along Drake Road. It was found that by combining the three projects there would be cost savings and less disruption of traffic by keeping construction in Princeton Road instead of Drake and by designing and installing water and storm water utilities together. Phase I of the project was completed in 1987 in conjunction with the planned street overlay. The remainder of the work that needs to be done in Phase II involves completion of the, water line and storm sewer. The, water line will complete the transmission loop back to Drake Road and improve water pressure in the area. The storm sewer work will reduce flooding at the intersection of College Avenue and Drake Road. A professional services agreement is proposed with Rocky Mountain Consultants to ' provide design and construction management services for the project. -706- January 16, 1990 19. Resolution 90-5 Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Design Concepts for the Final Design of Rogers Park. 0111 Council has approved an appropriation of $500,000 for the design and development of Rogers Park. Staff has selected Design Concepts to provide the services necessary to complete the design of the project. The Professional Services Agreement will be for a fee not to exceed $35,228. A. Resolution 90-6 Authorizing Application to Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District for Cancellation of Temporary Use Permits. B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 5, 1990 to Apply and Contract for Beneficial Use of Water on Behalf of the City and Prescribing the Terms for Application for an Allotment of Water to the City from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District. This resolution and ordinance are needed to apply for the transfer of 1,875 acre-foot units of Colorado -Big Thompson (CBT) Project water ' held by the City under Temporary Use Permits to a permanent Class B Contract. The Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) requires that Temporary Use Permits be converted to a permanent Class B Contract every few years. 21. Resolution 90-7 Approving the Purchase of Traffic Controllers. Section 8-123 requires approval of the negotiated purchase of supplies or services without utilizing a competitive bidding process when such process does not appear to be practical, based on particular individual usage or professional advice. Staff is requesting such a purchase from the manufacturer, Multisonics Winkomatic, for eleven (11) eight phase traffic controllers at a total amount of $34,100. These controllers are being installed in traffic intersections to interface with the master traffic computer to control traffic usage. Since the City's master traffic computer is a Multisonics VMS 220, the only controllers with the ability to interface are manufactured by Multisonics Winkomatic. 22. Resolution 90-8 Making Appointments to Various Boards and Commissions. A vacancy currently exists on the Commission on the Status of Women due to the resignation of Alma Vigo -Morales. Councilmember ' Kirkpatrick reviewed the applications on file and recommends that Barbara Grundleger be appointed to fill this vacancy. -707- January 16, 1990 A vacancy exists on the Liquor/Massage Licensing Authority due to the resignation of Larry Denmark. Mayor Winokur reviewed the applications on file and is recommending that William Mael be appointed to fill this vacancy. A vacancy also exists on the Natural Resources Advisory Board due to the resignation of Suzanne Bassinger. After reviewing the applications on file, Councilmembers Horak and Kirkpatrick are recommending that William Miller be appointed to the Board. 23. Routine Deeds and Easements. Quitclaim Deed from the Colorado State Department of Highways for the newly constructed Boardwalk Drive on the south side of State Highway No. 68, Harmony Road, deeded in connection with the development of the Harmony Market P.U.D. Monetary consideration: $1. Powerline easement from James A. Reilly, 2016 E. Harmony Road, needed to install a pad mounted transformer to accommodate a Public Service Company transfer. Monetary consideration: $57. Powerline easement from Keith E. Hess, 400 Jefferson, needed to underground existing overhead electric system and install pad mounted transformers and switch cabinet. Monetary consideration: $410. Powerline easement from George M. Bricher and Jeanne E. Bricher, 410 Jefferson, needed to underground existing overhead electric system and install pad mounted transformers and switch cabinet. Monetary consideration: $500. Storm drainage easements for Hill Pond on Spring Creek from Earl Johnson and Ida L. Johnson and Jack E. Trigg, located at South Whitcomb and Wallenberg Drive. Monetary consideration: Dedications. Revisions to the utility plans for the Hill Pond on Spring Creek Subdivision were approved through the normal planning process. As a result of these revisions, the storm drainage overflow channel has been relocated. The enclosed easements accommodate these changes. f. Powerline easement from Samuel J. Harris, Terri A. Harris, Stephen J. Miner and Kathy L. Miner, 824 East ,Lincoln, needed to underground electric primary system. Monetary consideration: $10. Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. r myMO. January 16, 1990 I Item #6. Item V. Item #8. Item #9. Item #10. A. ' B. Second Reading of Ordinance No 162 1989 Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Benefits Fund. Item #11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 163, 1989, Adopting the 1990 Pay Plan. Item #12. A. 91 Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk. Item #13. B. C. 7 -709- January 16, 1990 Item #14. Item #15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 3, 1990, Authorizing ' the Purchasing Agent to enter into a Contract for Services with Employee Counseling Services for the Provision of an Employee Assistance Program for a period of three (3) years. Item #20. B. Water Conservancy District. Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mabry, to adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 160, 1989, Appropriating $35,000 from General Fund Undesignated Reserves to Capital Projects for Major Asphalt Maintenance at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport, Adopted on Second Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY During 1989 the cities of Loveland and Fort Collins jointly funded major maintenance studies at the Fort Collins -Loveland Municipal Airport. One study was for repairs needed on the Airport hangars, the other was for a pavement maintenance plan for the Airport. On December 19 by a vote of 5-1, Council adopted Resolution 89-226 and Ordinance No. 160, 1989 on First Reading. The Resolution and Ordinance provide funding for essential maintenance items identified in the two studies." Councilmember Maxey withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest'. Councilmember Azari made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 160, 1989 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmember Horak. (Councilmember Maxey withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. -710- January 16, 1990 ' Ordinance No. 6, 1990, Authorizing the Purchasing Agent to Enter into an Agreement for the Lease/Purchase Financing of Vehicles and Equipment. Adopted on First Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "FINANCIAL IMPACT The total amount to be lease/purchased is estimated to be $809,800. Anticipated payment plus interest amounts have been appropriated in the 1990 Budget. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Proposals were solicited from 30 firms to provide lease/purchase financing for the City's current equipment requirements. Proposals will be opened at 10:00 a.m. on January 12, 1990. Specific information on the recommended bidder to be awarded the contract will be presented at the Council meeting on January 16. The proposed Ordinance authorizes the lease/purchase financing of the following equipment and vehicles needed by the City: QUANTITY DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST LIFE 7 each 2-way Radios $ 9,800.00 3 years 6 each Light Bars $ 3,600.00 3 years 16 each Prisoner Restraint Screens $ 4,800.00 3 years 6 each Unitrol Siren Equipment $ 3,600.00 3 years 25 each Radio Boxes $ 900.00 3 years 6 sets Push Bumpers $ 850.00 3 years 7 each Mobile Display Terminals $ 14,450.00 3 years 1 each Above ground Vehicle Hoist $ 7,000.00 3 years QUANTITY DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST LIFE 2 each Personal Computers $ 11,000.00 3 years 1 each Emissions Testing Equip. $ 3,000.00 3 years 1 each Copier $ 9,000.00 3 years Total, 3 year $ 68,000.06 19 each Police Patrol Vehicles $ 304,000.00 4 years 6 each Police Patrol Vans $ 96,000.00' 4 years Total, 4 year $ 400,000.00 -711- January 16, 1990 10 each Personal Computers $ 20,000.00 5 years ' 24 each Reflection software pkgs $ 4,500.00 5 years 2 each DEC Multiplexors $ 6,500.00 5 years 4 each RS-232 Interface S 4,800.00 5 years Cards for PBX 9 each Midsize Staff Cars $ 126,000.00 5 years 1 each Greens Mower w/Groomer $ 11,000.00 5 years 1 each 5 Gang Mower $ 19,000.00 5 years 1 each 3/4T. Pickup w/Dump Body $ 14,000.00 5 years 2 each Midsize Pickups S 23,000.00 5 years 1 each 72" Mower $ 14,000.00 5 years I each 1/2T. Pickup $ 13,000.00 5 years I each Compact 4 dr. Wagon $ 12,000.00 5 years I each Midsize 4x4 Wagon $ 19,000.00 5 years I each Cable TV Graphics System $ 24,000.00 5 years Total, 5 year $ 310,800.00 1 each Backhoe/Loader $ 31,000.00 7 years Total, 7 year $ 31,000.00 GRAND TOTAL $ 809,800.001, , Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to adopt Ordinance No. 6, 1990 on First Reading. Director of Purchasing and Risk Management Jim O'Neill described the ordinance changes and reviewed the bid process. Councilmember Maxey expressed concern about the three year life expectancy of the above ground vehicle hoist. Jim O'Neill stated the above ground vehicle hoist had a life expectancy in excess of three years and noted the department wanted to pay for the hoist over a three year period. He stated at the end of the three years the department would own the hoist. The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to adopt Ordinance No. 6, 1990 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. -712- January 16, 1990 ' Appeal of the Fire Board of Appeals Action Concerning the Installation of a Fire Alarm System in Some Apartment Buildings Located at 304 West Prospect Street Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On October 26, 1989, the Fort Collins Fire Board of Appeals heard and denied a Fire Code Appeal by Prospect Plaza Apartments located at 304 West Prospect Street in Fort Collins. This appeal concerned the retroactive installation of a fire alarm system in several of the apartment buildings located at this complex. This was a requirement of the 1982 edition of the Fire Code adopted by the City in 1984. The Board action was the culmination of several years of work with the owners and management of Prospect Plaza apartments. The Fire Board of Appeals is empowered by the Fire Code and City Charter to make reasonable interpretations of the Code and to consider alternative methods and materials. Staff believes the Board acted correctly in hearing this appeal and considered both these criteria. For this reason, staff recommends that the Fire Board of Appeals decision be upheld. ' BACKGROUND In 1984, the City adopted the 1982 edition of Uniform Fire Code. This edition contained additional fire alarm requirements in large apartment buildings beyond those which were required when these buildings were built. In general, new Code requirements are not retroactive to buildings which are in compliance with the codes which were in effect when the building was built. These are called existing non -conforming conditions. The Fire Code, however, does allow the Fire Chief to retroactively apply the Code when an existing non -conforming condition presents a distinct hazard to life or property. After the adoption of the 1982 Code, the Chief and PFA Fire Prevention staff examined national fire trends and determined the apartment buildings and hotels which have interior corridors as primary means of emergency escape and were three stories in height or contained more than fifteen apartments (or twenty guest rooms) constituted a distinct life -safety hazard. PFA has worked with the owners and management of all buildings which are included in this category and except for the nine buildings in the Prospect Plaza complex, all are now in compliance with the Code. Since coming into compliance,, fires have occurred in some of these buildings and the fire alarm systems contributed to fewer injuries and lower property loss. The type of fire alarm system requires smoke detectors, manual pull stations and alarm horns in building corridors. The purpose of this system ' is to detect smoke in a corridor and sound an alarm which can be heard throughout the building. This is a local alarm only and it is not required -713- January 16, 1990 to be monitored off site. This function than single station smoke These smoke detectors are to detec t This situation with Prospect Plaza Apartments has been ongoing for several years with many contacts with both owners and management. PFA was pleased that the appellant chose to take the case to the Appeal Board as this Board is empowered to make reasonable interpretations and consider alternative methods and materials. The Board's action indicates that the appellant failed to convince the Board that fire alarm systems should not be installed in these buildings. Included in this packet are all the materials provided to the Appeals Board and the October 26 Appeals Board minutes on this issue. All the material presented to the Board, as well.as all information in PFA inspection files are open public records and were available to the appellant." Mayor Winokur withdrew from discussion and vote on this item due to a perceived conflict of interest. City Attorney Roy described the procedural matters in the appeal process and noted the importance of the appeal being on record. He explained the exhibits that had been received by the Fire Board have been provided to Council and noted that Council's decision on the appeal could not be based on new evidence. He explained Council's decision should include the determination of whether the stated grounds of the appeal conform to the requirements of the Code and stated his office had reviewed the grounds and found no defects in the appeal. He added that Council would be called on to make a decision to uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the Fire Board of Appeals and stated the hearing would conclude that evening. Assistant Mayor Mabry stated that Council needed to determine if the grounds as stated in the appeal conform to the Code. Councilmember Maxey made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, that the grounds as stated in the appeal are acceptable and conform to the Code. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Maxey. Nays: None. (Mayor Winokur withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Poudre Fire Authority Fire Division Chief Warren Jones, described the decision rendered by the Fire Board of Appeals and noted the retroactive fire alarm installation requirement which applied to .the buildings at 304 West Prospect. He stated the issue centered around the 1982 addition to the Uniform Fire Code adopted by the City in 1984 and noted the Fire Board of Appeals considered the interpretation of the Code and alternative methods at the October 26, 1989 hearing. He stated he believed the Fire Board of Appeal's decision was correct and described the Uniform Fire Code fire alarm requirements in large apartment buildings •.with interior 1 I. -714- January 16, 1990 ' corridors. He explained the Fire Code application to smaller buildings and noted Fire Code provisions do not always apply retroactively. He noted the Fire Code contained a section which allowed the Fire Chief to determine if an existing situation is a distinct hazard. Rick Der, attorney representing the appellant, objected to the introduction of factual evidence which was not on the record. City Attorney Roy advised Council to weigh the objection and noted Council should disregard items presented if it is believed that the items are factual and not included in the appeal. Warren Jones noted in 1984 the Poudre Fire Authority began a fire alarm installation program with apartment owners/managers of similar type buildings and noted that except for the appellant, satisfactory compliance had been received. He added that when the situation reached an impasse, the appellant was advised to appeal to the Fire Board of Appeals. Councilmember Horak asked the whereabouts of Fire Prevention Inspector Gavin and inquired about the timing of the delivery of the information packet to the Fire Board of Appeals and asked if the appellant had received the same information. Warren Jones stated Mr. Gavin had originally been assigned the case and noted it was PFA's practice to have a chief officer handle an appeal when it goes before Council. He stated it was his understanding that the Fire ' Board of Appeals received the information packet the week before the October hearing and noted the Fire Board was provided with a staff report along with a recommendation. He stated it was an oversight that the appellant did not receive the same information and stated it was not PFA's practice to automatically provide information to the appellant. Councilmember Horak referred to the exhibit which showed the contacts that had been made and expressed concern about the long time period that elapsed between the Code changes and notification of non-conformance to the Code. Warren Jones stated that compliance issues usually do not involve a long period of time and stated the normal practice is to work with citizens on retroactive issues. He noted the case involved a change in ownership which included issuing a summons and added the summons was later rescinded. Councilmember Horak asked about the final'notice to the appellant. Warren Jones stated the two final forms (dated 7-25-89) included the original inspection report. He noted the report stated, "An approved fire alarm system shall be installed according to the Uniform Fire Code Standards" and added a final follow-up notice was issued thirty days later which stated, "An approved automatic fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained according to the Uniform Fire Code and Uniform Building Code Standards". He stated that he believed the notices were adequate in view ' of the record of correspondence and stated the notices were the beginning of the enforcement action. -715- January 16, 1990 Councilmember Maxey asked when the inspection policy was signed Warren Jones stated the inspection policy was signed 4-3-87 by Chief Mulligan and noted the inspection policy was originally authored in 1984. Councilmember Maxey inquired about the five year delay involving the non -conforming apartments. Warren Jones stated it was not unusual for a retroactive requirement to take two to three years. He described the packet of information provided to Fire Board of Appeals members. Councilmember Edwards asked about the appellant's access to the contents of the packet. Warren Jones stated that all of the information was public record and was available to the appellant prior to the delivery of the packet. He stated it was common to have department files researched and copied during an appeal process. Councilmember Horak requested clarification regarding Mr. Gavin's involvement in the hearing proceedings. Warren Jones stated that Mr. Gavin had and again noted it was PFA's practice appeal when it goes before Council. originally been assigned the case to have a chief officer handle an Councilmember Horak questioned why the City Attorney's Office was not represented to provide guidance to the board during the hearing. City Attorney Roy advised that after talking with Mr. Jones, Assistant City Attorney Duval decided that his presence was not necessary at the hearing. Councilmember Horak inquired about the basis of the decision not to be at the hearing. Assistant City Attorney John Duval stated that he had consulted with Mr. Jones regarding his presence at the hearing and Mr. Jones indicated that during past Fire Board of Appeal hearings the Assistant City Attorney was not present. Councilmember Kirkpatrick asked how often the Fire Board heard appeals. Warren Jones stated the Board heard an average of one to two appeals a year and clarified that the Building Review Board sits as the Fire Board of Appeals. He added an attorney had never been present .at the six to eight appeals that he had been involved with over the past six to seven years. Assistant Mayor Mabry inquired about the dates and the sequence of events regarding the case. -716- January 16, 1990 ' Warren Jones explained the dates and noted that the October 16, 1984 letter was the earliest contact record. Councilmember Edwards commented on the City Attorney or Assistant City Attorney not attending the Fire Board of Appeals meetings and asked if the City Attorney or Assistant City Attorney attended the Building Review Board. City Attorney Roy stated that he believed that his office staffed all boards in a judicial capacity and stated he believed that an attorney had been present at the Building Review Board. Assistant City Attorney John Duval recalled a conversation with Assistant City Attorney Paul Eckman where Mr. Eckman stated that he normally did not attend the Building Review Board meetings. Councilmember Kirkpatrick noted the Building Review Board had been two separate boards which combined into one board and asked how long the Building Review Board had been functioning as a single board. Warren Jones acknowledged that the Building Review Board and Fire Board of Appeals had been serving in a combined capacity for approximately two years. Rick Zier, attorney, representing the appellant, outlined the factual data ' contained within the record concerning the apartment complex and presented Council with written materials. He described the history of the apartment buildings and referred to the violation notice which was received in July, 1989 which included Section 10.306 and subsections A, B, C, and D. He stated the notice of violation was the basis of the severe penalties and added the notice was the only record which served to advise of the penalties that would be imposed. He added the correspondence prior to the violation notice had no bearing in the case and noted since his client reacquired the buildings in June, 1988, any prior correspondence was invalid. He stated he believed that subsections B through D of the Code did pertain to the case and noted that Mr. Gavin had included subsection E in the violation notice. He added that when the notice was received in July, there was no mention of subsection E and stated that subsection E could not be applied to this case. He stated the violation dealt with non -conforming uses and a obscure fire inspection policy which was theoretically inacted in 1984. He added there was no record of the enactment taking place in 1984 and stated the only record shows a 1987 enactment. He stated he would show that the Fire Board of Appeals abused its discretion and its decision was based on a supposition that the Fire Chief had declared the buildings a distinct hazard and added that there was no evidence in the record to that affect. He stated the Fire Code's specification of stories, height and numbers of apartments and inspection policy 84-4 regarding non -conforming uses regarding the retrofit policy was arbitrary and irrational and quoted the Fire Board as stating that it did not have the authority to interpret provisions of the Code. He stated the ' Fire Board failed to conduct a fair hearing in that 1) the board considered matters important which were irrelevant and unauthorized by the Code and -717- January 16, 1990 Charter, 2) the Fire Board considered evidence which was substantially , false with regard to allegedly similar apartment complexes (which there was no notice of prior to the hearing), 3) the minutes of the Fire Board incorrectly described the appeal as a request for a variance and the action of the board as a denial of a variance when no variance was requested and stated the Board issued no findings, and 4) the appellant received no notice of the true basis of the alleged violation prior to the hearing or prior to his presentation during the hearing. He stated there was no opportunity to investigate or prepare and noted the Board received the packet of information from the Fire Inspector prior to the hearing. He stated the same packet of information was not made available to the appellant and added the appellant became aware of the packet during the hearing after he had made his main presentation. He stated there was no opportunity to investigate and counter the mis-statements of fact and the unsupported opinions of the Fire Inspector concerning fire inspection policy 84-4. Assistant Mayor Mabry asked Mr. Zier to describe the written materials he presented and asked if Mr. Zier believed the materials were part of or in addition to the record. Mr. Zier described the document entitled "Polling Fire Board of Appeals Members" as a summary of the verbatim transcript of the hearing and noted the comments of Mr. Gavin and Mr. Lee who were not members of the Board of Appeals. He mentioned the document entitled, "Unfairness of Fire Board of Appeals Proceeding" as a summary of the hearing and noted the document I called, "Similar Complexes" was a compilation of information that was contained in the building and fire records. City Attorney Roy stated Mr. Jones should be allowed to object to the information that had been presented and stated the Code did not specifically address the issue of presenting written information. He stated he believed that if Mr. Jones had the opportunity to respond to argument, there would be no grounds for objection and it did not constitute new evidence. He stated he believed that the alleged unfairness of the Fire Board of Appeals proceeding was written argument because the grounds were restated to specify the particular items. He noted Mr. Jones should be given the opportunity to review the information and respond if he desires and added it would take considerable time to compare the items that are referred to in the transcript with regard to the "Polling Fire Board of Appeals Members" document. He stated that document was not objectionable assuming that it was a summary. He stated it was not the practice (regarding "Similar Complexes" of appeals to Council) to permit administrative notice under the Code and stated he believed that statements of fact were contained in the record on appeal. He stated the first task of the involved parties was to produce relevant facts. Rick Zier stated the comments of the City Attorney should be accepted and recorded. He added that his main point referred to being "jumped with information" at the Fire Board of Appeals hearing and not having the opportunity to bring relevant information to the appeal. He stated he'was ' in an impossible position if additional information was not acceptable.. 'He -718- January 16, 1990 stated that under Colorado law, Council has the ability to take ' quasi-judicial notice of the records of the City and stated he believed that information was contained in the "Similar Complex" information. Warren Jones stated there was no problem with the technical merit of the information provided and commented that the phrases "correct view" and "correct interpretation" were the opinion of the appellant and not the opinion of the Fire Board of Appeals. Assistant Mayor Mabry stated Council should consider the first page of the "Fairness of Fire Board of Appeals Proceeding" not as new evidence, but, rather the grounds for the appeal and noted the "Polling Fire Board of Appeals Members" document should be taken at face value. He stated Mr. Zier's explanation of the interpretation of the hearing did not constitute new information and asked Council to recognize "correct interpretation" throughout the document as Mr. Zier's comment and not a part of the record. He stated Council should determine how much weight should be given to the "Similar Complexes" documents. Rick Zier stated it was not his intention for Council to take parenthetical matters as anything but argument and referred to the "Polling Fire Board of Appeals Members" document. He expressed concern about the role of the members of the Fire Board and their responsibility to determine what evidence was important. In summary, he stated that in addition to the staff (Johnson, Cotterman, Bontz, Cornell,. Baker, and Allison) many who ' were involved with the case misinterpreted the Fire Code and did not know the authority of the Board. He noted the remarks demonstrated a lack of understanding of their role and of the Uniform Fire Code. He stated that several staff members remarked they were in agreement with "all that had been said" and noted in other words they were in agreement with previous misinterpretation of the Code. He suggested that had findings of fact been issued, the situation may have been clarified. He suggested Council read Section 2-48, subsection 3C which discussed the issuance of findings before the hearing. He stated he would not discuss the "Similar Complexs" document due to a "catch-22" situation and explained he was not afforded the opportunity during the hearing to address the documented information and was not able to completely address the issues that evening. He spoke regarding fundamental fairness and encouraged Council to remand the decision to the Fire Board of Appeals for a re -hearing. He commented on the retro-active application of Code provisions and referred to the grandfather clause for pre-existing buildings in the Fire Code. He stated the pre-existing conditions were an exception unless the Fire Chief declared them a distinct hazard. He noted the burden was on the Fire Chief to determine distinct hazards and pointed out the Fire Chief believed all situations were covered by the Code unless he specifically exempted the situation. He stated this was in direct conflict with the actual wording of the Code and referred to Inspection Policy 84-4. . City Attorney Roy stated that since the Inspection Policy was: in the record, it did not constitute new evidence. -719- January 16, 1990 Rick Zier referred to an error in the inspection policy and noted the ' correction should read 10.306 A and stated the Inspection Policy did not declare complexes without direct outdoor exits and interior hallways as distinct hazards. He stated it referenced the relative hazards of multi -unit buildings with direct outdoor exits versus complexes without direct outdoor exits and stated there was no correlation between building height and detection of fire. He stated height, number of units, and occupants must be considered together and summarized the important points as being number of occupants, where they are in the building, building design, size, and construction relative to fire safety. He stated the Code and the Inspection Policy refer to one or two of the points and added they did not address the complete situation. He referred to the mitigating factors in the record about the apartment complex and stated the Code and Inspection Policy were vague and irrational. He stated there were no standards or opportunity for fair mitigation and stated there was nothing in the record that indicated the apartment complex was determined by the Fire Chief to be a distinct hazard. Councilmember Horak inquired about Mr. D er's opportunity for rebuttal during the hearing. Rick Zier stated he did not recall if he asked questions or if he felt additional time was needed to review the material. Councilmember Horak noted the documents presented to Council by Mr. Zier ' did not mention his law firm, were not signed, and were not dated. Rick Zier stated he would not put an exhibit on his firm's letterhead. Councilmember Horak requested clarification from Mr. Zier regarding the City Attorney instructing or advising Council. Rick Zier stated that he believed the City Attorney instructed Council to issue findings and added he believed that Council was instructed by the Code to issue findings. Councilmember Horak asked Mr. Zier if he had received a fair hearing before Council. Rick Zier noted a general objection to the fairness of the hearing. Councilmember Edwards inquired about Mr'. D er's statement regarding remanding the decision of the Fire Board of Appeals. Rick Zier stated that regarding procedural matters, .the decision must be remanded in order for him to have the opportunity to completely address all of the issues, and to investigate, and present his position to the Board. He stated he did not have adequate time to go into the substantive matters and stated he believed the appellant was not covered by the provision contained within the notice due to the grandfather clause. �He stated the ' policy was unenforceable because the apartment complex was not.declared a -720- January 16, 1990 ' distinct hazard by the Fire Chief. He stated he was aware of the hearing . date but expressed concern regarding not being privy to the initial materials that were passed out at the hearing by the Fire Inspector. He stated if Council did not agree with him on the substantive matters, the matter should be reconsidered by the Fire Board to determine the merits of the appeal. Councilmember Horak commented on the Code's reference to a distinct hazard and stated his interpretation of the Code was the application to a preexisting building would be permitted to continue only if, in the opinion of the Chief, the violation did not constitute a distinct hazard. He stated he believed the Fire Code required compliance. Rick Zier noted that the Code could be clarified with the elimination of the negatives, noted the wording was archaic and stated he read the Code to say that something is permitted unless the Fire Chief declares it a distinct hazard. Councilmember Horak asked if Mr. Der believed that in order for something to be a distinct hazard the Fire Chief has to declare it a distinct hazard. Rick Der stated he believed that in order for something to be a distinct hazard the Fire Chief had to declare it a distinct hazard and added that notice, fairness, and due process require the Chief to make a declaration. He stated that if the Fire Chief said nothing it would be a legal ' non -conforming use under the Code. Councilmember Kirkpatrick asked if, in the event the decision was remanded to a lower board, the appeal would start over from the beginning. City Attorney Roy stated that it was possible to start from the beginning and added that Council could choose to remand the decision to ensure that the appellant has a fair hearing before the board. He stated the decision to remand the decision could be based on particular facts and added that if the decision was sent back, a new hearing would begin with new notices, etc. Councilmember Azari requested a definition of a three-story building and asked for an explanation of the one hour fire resistant occupancy separation. Warren Jones stated that stories are determined by the Building Code and involve the area of the building and how far it is built into the ground. He stated the apartment buildings in question were common to Fort Collins and clarified that the garden level (by definition) was a basement. He stated that under Building Code definition the structure was a two story building with a basement and clarified that the Fire Board's case was based on the number of apartments contained within the building and not on the number of stories. He explained the one hour fire rating was the length of time a wall will withstand fire. -721- January 16, 1990 Councilmember Horak asked if the Fire Board of Appeals believed the final I notice violation was correctly cited. Warren Jones stated he believed the violation notice that was given to the apartments at 304 West Prospect was correctly cited. City Attorney Roy stated that for the purpose of the hearing the notice was adequate because the decision before the board was to decide whether this part of the Code applied to the building and whether the Fire Chief made a proper determination. He stated that if the appellant was informed about the buildings being considered and the Code provision in question, the technical deficiency in the notice was irrelevant. Assistant Mayor Mabry noted the three issues before Council to consider were 1) did the appellant receive a fair hearing, 2) did the Board abuse its discretionary powers, and 3) did the Board properly interpret and apply the provisions of the Fire Code. Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Edwards, to remand the appeal to the Fire Board of Appeals. City Attorney Roy stated the only authority to remand to a lower board is when Council finds evidence was offered by the appellant and was wrongfully rejected. He stated in view of the appellant's procedural objections, it was permissible to entertain a motion to remand. ' Councilmember Horak stated his motion to remand was based on fairness and stated the record clearly showed that a fair hearing was not achieved. He stated he was unclear when the Fire Board reviewed the packet of materials and added that the appellant stated he did not have a chance to review the packet. He stated that "public information" was not a good enough defense and added the material should be provided on a regular basis to involved parties. He expressed the need for legal counsel to be present at the hearings to provide advice regarding due process. Councilmember Kirkpatrick spoke in favor of the motion and stated the action on the part of the Fire Board Appeals was not accurate. She stated she believed the Board was expecting to discuss a variance and that was not what took place. She added in the interest of fairness, the expected outcome should be as clear as possible to the members of the Board. She stated the Fire Board of Appeals is the proper board to hear the substance of the appeal and the board should have the benefit of legal advice in procedural matters. She expressed confidence in the Board's expertise with respect to the substance of the matter but noted its procedural knowledge was not obvious. Councilmember Edwards spoke in favor of remanding the decision to the Fire Board of Appeals'and noted it was the best alternative. He stated the Fire Board of Appeals could do a better job of interpreting and 'understanding its powers to insure a fair hearing. He stated Council was.not trying to ' avoid the responsibility of providing a fair hearing by `remanding the -722- January 16, 1990 ' decision and commented on the confusion within the Fire Board of Appeals. He noted the importance of the appellant not having the chance to review the packet and noted the significance of legal representation not being present for the Fire Board of Appeals. Councilmember Azari spoke in support of the motion and encouraged Council vote to remand the decision to the Fire Board of Appeals. She stated she believed that the appellant did not receive a fair hearing and commented on the correct procedural process of the hearing. She encouraged that care be exercised and procedure followed to ensure that all parties receive a fair hearing and that the substantive issues would be dealt with. Assistant Mayor Mabry supported the motion and stated that the process and procedures should be thorough, complete, and totally fair. The vote on Councilmember Horak's motion to remand the appeal to the Fire Board of Appeals was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, and Maxey. Nays: None. (Mayor Winokur withdrawn) THE MOTION CARRIED. Assistant Mayor Mabry directed the City Attorney to prepare for Council consideration on February 6, a resolution containing findings of fact consistent with Council's decision. He stated the matter would be ' continued for Council's final decision upon consideration of the resolution. Ordinance No. 7, 1990, Amending Section 7-127 of the Code Relating to Campaign Contribution Limits, Adopted as Amended on First Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section 7-127 of the City Code imposes a limitation upon the amount which may be contributed to the campaigns of candidates for office at city elections. The existing wording is somewhat ambiguous as to: (1) whether the limitation applies to both contributions and contributions in kind; and (2) whether the limitation applies only to direct contributions or also to independent expenditures that are made without the prior knowledge of the candidate. The proposed changes to the Code would remove those ambiguities. BACKGROUND Questions have arisen in previous years about the meaning of Section 7-127 ' of the Code. The existing wording of the Section is as follows: -723- January 16, 1990 No person or entity may contribute an amount in excess I of fifty dollars ($50.) in support of or in opposition to any candidate on the ballot at any city election. Two questions of interpretation have arisen in the past with regard to this provision. The first is whether the limitation applies to both contributions of money and contributions of other items of value such as real or personal property. The initial change to the wording of this section would remove this ambiguity by expressly extending the definition to both contributions and contributions in kind as those terms are defined by state statute at Section 1-45-103, C.R.S. Those definitions are as follows: "Contribution" means a gift, loan, pledge, or advance of money or a guarantee of a loan made to or for any candidate or political committee for the purpose of influencing the passage or defeat of any issue or the nomination, retention, election, or defeat of any candidate. "Contribution" includes a transfer of any money between one political committee and another; a gift of money to or for any incumbent in public office from any other person, the purpose of which is to compensate him for his public service or to help defray his expenses incident thereto but which are not covered by official compensation; the payment of any money by any person, other than a political committee working on a candidate's behalf, for political services rendered to the candidate or political committee; any payment made to third ' parties at the request of or with the prior knowledge of a candidate, political committee, or agent of either; and any payment made after an election to meet any deficit or debt incurred during the course of the campaign. "Contribution" does not include services provided without compensation by individuals volunteering their time on behalf of a candidate or political committee. Any transfer of money between political committees is an expenditure by the political committee which dispenses the money and is a contribution to the political committee which receives the money. "Contribution in kind" means a gift or loan of any item of real or personal property, other than money, made to or for any candidate or political committee for the purpose of influencing the passage or defeat of any issue or the nomination, retention, election, or defeat of any candidate. "Contribution in kind" includes a gift or loan of any item of real or personal property, other than money, to or for any incumbent in public office from any other person, the purpose of which is to compensate him for his public service or to help him defray his expenses incident thereto but which are not covered by official compensation. Personal services are a contribution in kind by the person paying compensation therefor; volunteer services are not included. "Contribution in kind" does not include an endorsement of candidacy or issue by any person. In determining the value to be ' placed on contributions in kind, a reasonable 'estimate of fair -724- January 16, 1990 ' market value shall be used. The second question of interpretation which has arisen is whether the limitation applies to payments, gifts or loans made to third parties without the candidate's knowledge or consent. The revised language would clarify that this is not the case and that the limitation applies only to those contributions which are made directly to the candidate, to a political committee, or to third parties with the prior knowledge or consent of the candidate. This change is required by relevant decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court has acknowledged that monetary limitations upon contributions to a candidate may serve a legitimate governmental purpose, i.e., guarding against corrupt practices and preserving the integrity of the electoral process. In the Court's view, however, the potential for abuse of the process is limited to the situation in which contributions are made directly to the candidate or the candidate's political committee or to third parties with the prior knowledge or consent of the candidate. Accordingly, the Court has held that extending the limitation to "independent" expenditures constitutes an unlawful infringement upon First Amendment rights." City Attorney Roy summarized the purposes of the revision and described the limitation to be imposed upon contributions to the campaign of any candidate at a city election. He referred to the clarification which applied to both kinds of contributions and commented on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on limitations not extending (for First Amendment reasons) to independent expenditures. He noted the use of the terms "contribution" and "contribution in kind" and the relating questions surrounding the limitation applying to loans as a form of contributions to a campaign. Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adopt Ordinance No. 7, 1990 on First Reading. Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Azari, to amend Ordinance No. 7, 1990 on First Reading by adding at the end of Section 7-127 the following language, "It shall not apply to loans made or monies advanced with the intent that such loans or advances be fully repaid by the candidate." Councilmember Edwards noted the importance of the loan consideration and stated he believed that the original language would exclude loans. He stated loans were an acceptable means of financing a campaign, providing the issue of loan repayment is resolved and noted that any unpaid amount in excess of $50 would violate the ordinance. He stated a campaign is a short term business and added that the opportunity to ge.t a campaign rolling should not be eliminated. City Attorney Roy stated the proposed amendment did not speak to the obligation of repayment and clarified that when loans are designated as ' such, and made with the actual intent that they be repaid, then the loan should be repaid. -725- January 16, 1990 Mayor Winokur stated that the law (the Code and the State statute) placed the burden of repayment on the donor of the money rather than the recipient. City Attorney Roy clarified that the provision refers to the contributor and prohibits a person or entity from making contributions and stated it never has been directed at the candidate. He added it speaks to the person making the donation. Councilmember Maxey noted his understanding was that "person A" could make a loan of $1000 to "person B" and when the campaign was over "person A" would tell "person B" that repayment of the loan was not necessary and questioned if that constituted a campaign contribution. City Attorney Roy stated it presented the possibility that loans would not be made in good faith and added that if it could be shown that an unpaid loan was never intended to be repaid, it would constitute a violation. He stated it hinged upon the intent of the person making the loan. Councilmember Kirkpatrick asked who would question the proper application of the Code and asked how a violation of the Code would be pursued. City Attorney Roy stated that any citizen who believed that probable cause existed could file a complaint with the City Attorney's Office and added that his office would have a responsibility to screen that complaint for sufficiency of probable cause. He stated the discretion of the prosecutor would determine if probable cause existed with regard to the intent, a complaint would be filed with the municipal court, and the matter would be prosecuted. Councilmember Maxey agreed that loans are a necessary part of beginning a candidate's campaign and expressed concern regarding the ease of circumventing the original ordinances which limit contributions. City Attorney Roy addressed the provisions of the Campaign Reform Act and added that if a loan was not repaid within thirty days after the date of the election, it must be disclosed as a loan. He stated as long as the loan remained outstanding, it would be reported annually and added it was a reporting requirement that attaches no consequence with regard to the limitation. Mayor Winokur requested City Attorney Roy discuss the issue of intent. City Attorney Roy stated the issue of intent was limited under the existing wording of the Code and stated the existing wording goes by the dollar amount. He stated the intent aspect becomes more important and problematic with respect to the intent of the money, as a contribution or a loan. He stated intent would have to be proved by either direct .or circumstantial evidence in terms of statements that were made. 1 -726- January 16, 1990 Mayor Winokur asked about a loan being forgiven, not being repaid, or defaulted on. City Attorney Roy stated that the person receiving the loan could argue that the person who made the loan forgave it and added that might be an indication of that person's original intent. He added that if the loan was not repaid, it might have less probative value whether the person making the loan wanted it to be repaid and stated it would have to be weighed under all the facts and circumstances. Councilmember Maxey asked about the loan being taken out by a political committee rather than the candidate. City Attorney Roy stated if the majority of Council wanted to exclude loans so long as the person making the loan intended that they be repaid, the simplest way to resolve this issue would be to put a period after the word "repaid". Councilmember Mabry stated the communication was clear and that he expected anyone who ran for political office in Fort Collins would abide by the intent. He noted that even though the amendment was not fool proof, it communicated the intent. Councilmember Azari stated that ending the sentence after the word "repaid" would make the intent very clear. Councilmember Edwards noted his reasons for the wording of the amendment and stated the responsibility was still on the candidate. He stated he believed the candidate bore the responsibility for proper conduct of the political committee or organization that would receive the money from the loan and preferred to have the candidate responsible for repayment of the loan. Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated she would not support the amendment and stated her initial intent to support the change was to attempt to limit the involvement of any one individual or political action group in financing a campaign. She referred to large loans by an individual or campaign organization through the use of the loan provision and stated it gets away from the intent of the Code. She commented on the cash flow burden that might be placed on some campaign committees and stated that running for office in Fort Collins was not the same as running for office at the state level. The vote on Councilmember Edwards' motion to amend Ordinance No. 7, 1989 or First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Mabry, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Horak, Kirkpatrick, and Maxey. THE MOTION CARRIED. -727- January 16, 1990 Councilmember Kirkpatrick expressed appreciation to City Attorney Roy for ' clarification of the limitation application regarding contributions in kind. Mayor Winokur expressed appreciation for the contribution clarification and described his reasons for supporting the amendment. He noted the difference a loan makes for a candidate who is not well-to-do and commented on campaign disclosure forms which provide control and allow for public knowledge. The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 7, 1989 as amended on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 165, 1989, Fixing the Salary of the City Attorney. Adopted on Second Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council has met in Executive Session to conduct the performance , appraisal of City Attorney Steve Roy. This Ordinance, which was adopted 5-2 on First Reading on December 19, establishes the 1990 salary for the City Attorney at $63,000 per annum." Councilmember Edwards made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kirkpatrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 165, 1989 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Kirkpatrick, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: Councilmembers Horak and Mabry. THE MOTION CARRIED. Ordinance No. 8, 1990, Fixing the Salary of the City Manager, Adopted on First Reading Following is staff's memorandum on this item: -728- January 16, 1990 "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City Council has met in Executive Session to conduct the performance appraisal of City Manager Steve Burkett. This Ordinance will establish the 1990 salary for the City Manager. Council needs to determine the dollar amount to be inserted in the Ordinance." Councilmember Kirkpatrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Horak, to adopt Ordinance No. 8, 1990 on First Reading inserting the figure of $77,800 as an annual salary. Councilmember Kirkpatrick stated the basis for the salary figure was a satisfactory performance evaluation, a three percent cost of living increase, and a two percent merit increase. The vote on Councilmember Kirkpatrick's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 8, 1990 on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED. Other Business Councilmember Kirkpatrick expressed the need for rules of procedure for ' Council committee meetings with respect to minutes and publication of notice of committee meetings and asked staff to develop options for Council consideration. Councilmember Horak requested rules for procedure regarding the executive session process. Councilmember Maxey requested staff address the issue of committee negotiations. Councilmember Kirkpatrick asked staff to address the question of categorizing leadership team meetings and committee meetings together. City Manager Burkett stated he would report to Council on the timetable and progress at the Mayor's lunch. City Attorney Roy stated that within thirty days a package would be assembled for Council with recommendations in terms of analysis and stated that Code changes could be made by February 20. Councilmember Horak stated he preferred changes be made by resolution and requested Council receive a report by the end of January. He added that Council would have the option to consider the changes at the. February 6 meeting. -729- January 16, 1990 Adjournment ' Councilmember Horak made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Maxey, to adjourn the meeting. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Edwards, Horak, Kirkpatrick, Mabry, Maxey, and Winokur. Nays: None. The meeting adjourned at 9:10 p.m. ` a or iLki L It Wksk N -730-