HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-05/06/1986-Regular' May 6, 1986
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, May 6, 1986, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the City of
Fort Collins City Hall. Roll call was answered by the following
Councilmembers: April, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner.
Staff Members Present: Burkett, Huisjen, Krajicek
Agenda Review: City Manager
City Manager Burkett requested an Executive Session at the end of the
meeting to discuss legal issues regarding an existing contract.
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, asked that Item #11, Items Relating to Code
Changes on Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers, be removed from the Consent
Agenda.
Consent Calendar
This Calendar is intended to allow the City Council to spend its time and
energy on the important items on a lengthy agenda. Staff recommends
approval of the Consent Calendar. Anyone may request an item on this
calendar be "pulled" off the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Agenda items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be considered separately
under Agenda Items #26 and #34, Pulled Consent Items, except items pulled
by anyone in the audience or items that any member of the audience is
present to discuss that were pulled be staff or Council. These items will
be discussed immediately following the Consent Calendar.
kip
Consider approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of April 15.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 15.
The improvements in the District were accepted'at the January 7, 1986
meeting of the City Council. Notice of the -'assessment has been
published and mailed to the affected property owners.
-315-
May 6, 1986
L.
7.
1.1
a
The District is located on Lemay Avenue from Harmony Road South to the
entrance of the SouthRidge Greens Public Golf Course. Improvements
included the acquisition, construction, and installation of street,
water line, sanitary sewer line and storm drainage improvements in the
District. Total cost of the improvements in this phase of the
District was $2,222,356. The assessable portion is $2,155,356 and the
City's portion is $67,000. In Phase I, all City Street Oversizing was
included in the District with the developers taking credit against
future oversizing.
Project at 126-136 West Mountain Avenue.
The DDA Board in a unanimous vote approved the recommendation to City
Council of the appropriation of $36,500 from unanticipated revenues to
Mountain Avenue Plaza Partnership for sidewalk and alley improvements
in conjunction with their renovation project at 126-136 West Mountain.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted by Council on First Reading on
April 15.
Article XVII of the City's Model Traffic Code currently requires the
licensing of bicycles by the City. The existing program is not,
however, working well as a deterrent to theft and its administrative
costs are higher than the community benefits from the program. This
Ordinance was unanimously adopted on First Reading on April 15 and
provides for discontinuance of the mandatory licensing program. Staff
recommends that the program be replaced with a more effective
voluntary identification program.
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 47, 1986. Vacating Portions of the
Blanket Easement in Cimarron Plaza P.U.D.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on
The Developer (Arrowstone Corporation) has
for a shopping center at the southwest cc
As a result their building locations
encroachments into the blanket utility, ac
This vacation will allow them to proceed wi
First Reading on April 15.
refined the final site plan
rner of Drake and Shields.
have changed, creating
cess and drainage easement.
th their latest plan.
This ordinance was unanimously adopted on Second Reading on April 15.
The Developers of the Pinnacle P.U.D., are requesting the vacation of
two powerline and right-of-way easements and a telephone and telegraph
easement located in Lot 1 of East Acres Subdivision, recently approved
1
-316-
May 6, 1986
'
as the Pinnacle P.U.D. The powerline easements were originally for
supplying overhead
powerlines to the existing building on
the site,
which has been removed. Since the telephone and telegraph
easement
was not dedicated
to the City, it will not be vacated by
the City.
Staff has informed
the developer to contact Mountain Bell
regarding
the vacation of the
telephone and telegraph easement.
10.
All utilities have been contacted and have indicated no problems with
the vacation. Because the telephone and telegraph easement was not
dedicated to the City, staff recommends the vacation of the two
powerline and right-of-way easements only.
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 50, 1986, Annexing
Approximately 3.08 Acres Known as the Stute #3 Annexation.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 51, 1986, Zoning
Approximately 3.08 Acres, Known as the Stute #3 Annexation into
the B-P, Planned Business Zone, with a PUD Condition.
The Stutes are requesting annexation and zoning of 3.08 acres, located
south of and including Harmony Road, and west of I-25. Annexation #3
' has been amended from the 50 acre "flagpole" annexation which was
approved by the P&Z Board in 1985 and ultimately denied by City
Council at the Stute's request. Larimer County's approval of a gravel
pit and batch plant operation east of the site caused the owners to
request the denial. Staff recommended that they submit the current
request (the 50' strip east of Annexation #2) so that the adjacent
property to the east will not be prevented from gaining contiguity.
The request meets City and State annexation requirements and the
requested B-P zoning is appropriate for the site.
11. Items Relating to Code Changes on Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 52, 1986, Repealing and
Reenacting Article II of Chapter 73 of the City Code pertaining to
Secondhand Dealers.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 53, 1986, Repealing and
Reenacting Article XIII of Chapter 73 of the City Code pertaining
to Pawnbrokers.
These revisions of Chapter 73 of the.City Code are in response to 1983
and 1984 amendments of the State -,statutes -.-:,,The State has taken the
position that regulation of secondhand deale`r's, and pawnbrokers is a
matter of statewide concern. In suWh matters;: Article XX, Section 6
of the Colorado Constitution requires that our" ordinances be brought
' into conformity with the State statutes. The statutes do permit local
regulation, but require that it be at least as restrictive as the
State statutes. Accordingly, numerous modifications of these
-317-
May 6, 1986
ordinances have been made to conform to the State statute and to '
incorporate additional provisions which are more restrictive in
nature.
12.
This Ordinance appropriates $164,600 in unanticipated revenue for
telephone equipment and services in the Communications Fund. This
revenue was approved and appropriated in the individual departments
with the 1986 Budget, but was not appropriated in the Communications
Fund, because the accounting procedure was changed after the 1986
Budget was adopted.
13.
Alta Vista is a .63-acre park that serves the Alta Vista neighborhood.
The park was developed with CDBG funds, but never fully completed.
Parks and Recreation would like to make improvements using Parkland
Fees that have been generated from the Alta Vista neighborhood, CDBG
funds, and money from the City Manager's contingency fund. Council ,
approval is needed to appropriate the Parkland Funds.
14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinanrp No_ 5A,_ IQAA_ Annrnnriatinn
15.
This Ordinance appropriates $97,942 in unanticipated revenue in the
Benefits Fund in order to pay insurance premiums associated with the
City's new employee benefits program, which was established in April,
1986.
The funds are contributed by employees to purchase dental insurance
and to establish healthcare and daycare reimbursement accounts.
Approximately 12% of this revenue represents joint employer -employee
contributions for employees to join a local Health Maintenance
Organization (PEAK).
The Developers of The Bridges P.U`D:, are,requesting the vacation of a
portion of utility easements located in Tract 2 of the Bridges P.U.D.
The easement was originally for supplying natural gas to the
buildings, however, the developer has opted for all -electric
buildings. There will be an easement retained along the south and
east sides of Tract 2 for other utilities. There are no changes in '
the easements on the west and north sides of Tract 2.
I&JF11
May 6, 1986
' All utilities have been contacted and have indicated no problems with
the vacation of this easement.
16. Hearing and First Readina of Ordinance Nn_ 58. 1gRf,. Vnrntinn ail
The owner of Lot 2, Fairview Shopping Center, Second Filing is
requesting the vacation of all access, drainage, and utility easements
in Lot 2. The Planning and Zoning Board approved a replat on March 24,
1986, and the original easements are no longer needed.
All utilities have been contacted and have indicated no problems with
the vacation.
17. Items Relating to Library Services.
A. Resolution Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into an
Intergovernmental Agreement with Larimer County for the Purpose of
Providing Library Services to Residents of Larimer County.
B. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 59, 1986, Appropriating
Unanticipated Revenue of $9,258 for the Library Outreach Program
and $250 for the Adult Literacy Project.
This Resolution authorizes the Mayor to enter into an agreement for
' the City to continue to provide Larimer County residents with general
library services, library outreach services to serve the handicapped,
elderly and other isolated persons and to support an adult literacy
project. In exchange for providing these services during 1986, the
County will pay to the City $106,448. The ordinance appropriates the
Outreach and Adult Literacy project funds. General Service funds were
projected and appropriated with the 1986 Budget.
18. Resolution Awardina a Contrart fnr Tactinn Sarviroc fnr ranii21
Soils, concrete, and asphalt testing services are needed for capital
improvements planned at the wastewater treatment plants during 1986,
1987, and 1988. Empire Laboratories of Fort Collins was selected to
provide those services through a professional services agreement in
the amount of $53,000.
19.
In conjunction with the constructi-oh of the brewery, Anheuser-Busch
must construct a proces's`,•waste effluent line and a sanitary sewer
service line in the utility corridor" crossing Mountain Vista Drive
(County Road 50). Because Mountain'Vista Drive is a public street, a
' permit is required for the' crossings-,: This resolution grants the
necessary permit.
ff>FF10
May 6, 1986
20.
21.
22.
23
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Contract with the '
Burlington Northern Railroad for Crossing Signalization at Mason
Street and Olive Street intersection. and Linden Street just south of
Vine Drive.
Under these contracts, the Burlington Northern Railroad will construct
railroad crossing protection at Mason Street and Olive Street
intersection, and on Linden Street just south of Vine Drive. The
Mason/Olive intersection crossing will be done at the same time the
Department of Transportation crews install a traffic signal at that
intersection. The Linden Street crossing will have the installation
of the standard flashing railroad lights, as well as gates. In June,
1985, Council approved contracts between the City and State for the
use of federal funds for these crossing projects. Federal funding for
these crossing projects is at a 90/10 split. The 10% City share will
come from the Engineering Services minor capital fund. This money is
currently budgeted in 1986 in minor capital for that use.
Building Inspection and the Office of Information & Communication
Systems are recommending the sole source purchase of a Sperry MAPPER 5
computer system in order to provide a "turnkey" automated building
permit processing application. In addition to the MAPPER 5 system
hardware and software, the City of Fort Collins will receive the
Building Code Compliance System application developed in Napa County,
California. The total cost for the system is $35,681.
The purchase of this permanent easement on Spring Creek will give the
City the use of a parcel needed for trail purposes between South Taft
Hill Road and Pineridge Open Space. This parcel connects to a trail
right-of-way immediately to the east that gives the City access from
West Drake Road at Taft Hill. The Hortons have agreed to sell an
easement across approximately 1.08 acres for $8,100. The City will
fence the parcel and provide access for the Hortons.
Resolution Setting Out the Comoositfdhn of the�Senior Advisory Board.
This Resolution formally changes the name -of- the Senior Citizens'
Board to the Senior Advisory Board. In addition, the Resolution
provides that two regular members of the nine -member Senior Advisory
Board will be appointed by the Senior Center Board effective July 1,
1986.
JIj
-320-
I
r
May 6, 1986
' 24. Resolution Making Appointment to the Commission on Disability.
A vacancy currently. exists on the Commission on Disability due to the
resignation of Ted May. The Council liaison has reviewed the
applications on file.
In keeping with Council's policy, the recommendation for appointment
was announced on April 15. The appointment was tabled to May 6 to
allow additional time for public input. The prospective appointee is
as follows:
Commission on Disability - Arne Anderson
25. Routine Deeds and Easements.
The following is a routine easement which has been reviewed and
approved by legal staff and the affected departments:
A routine powerline easement from Tony C. Stoddard at 613 Maple Street
is needed to retire overhead electric service and replace it with an
underground installation. The 227.50 square foot easement is being
granted for a consideration of $1. Construction is scheduled for this
spring.
Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #5.
Item #6.
Item V.
Item #8.
Item #9.
Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by Wanda Krajicek, City
Clerk.
Item #10. A.
-321-
c
May 6, 1986 ,
3
Item #11. A.
Item #12.
Item #13.
Item #14. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 56, 1986, Aooro-
Priating Unanticipated Revenue of $97,942 in the Benefits Fund.
Item #15. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 57, 1986, Vacating a I
Portion of Utility Easements in The Bridges P.U.D.
Item #16.
Item #17. B.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt and approve all items not removed from the Consent Calendar. Yeas:
Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating;to Code Changes on
Secondhand Dealers and'Pawnbrokers
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
-322-
May 6, 1986
' "Executive Summary
A. Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 52, 1986, Repealing and
Reenacting Article II of Chapter 73 of the City Code pertaining to
Secondhand Dealers.
Hearing and First Reading of Ordinance No. 53, 1986, Repealing and
Reenacting Article XIII of Chapter 73 of the City Code pertaining to
Pawnbrokers.
These revisions of Chapter 73 of the City Code are in response to 1983 and
1984 amendments of the State statutes. The State has taken the position
that regulation of secondhand dealers and pawnbrokers is a matter of
statewide concern. In such matters, Article XX, Section 6 of the Colorado
Constitution requires that our ordinances be brought into conformity with
the State statutes. The statutes do permit local regulation, but require
that it be at least as restrictive as the State statutes. Accordingly,
numerous modifications of these ordinances have been made to conform to the
State statute and to incorporate additional provisions which are more
restrictive in nature.
Background
Since the amendments in 1983 and 1984 of the State statutes pertaining to
' secondhand dealers and pawnbrokers, the policy of the Fort Collins Police
Department upon the advice of the City Attorney's office, has been
concentrated on enforcement of the provisions of the State statutes.
Inconsistencies between the new statutes and our own ordinances have
precluded enforcement of the ordinances during this period of time. These
inconsistencies raise the question of whether or not such regulation is a
matter of purely local concern (which would enable the City to enforce
local regulations which are inconsistent with or even contrary to the State
statutes) or whether, instead, the matter is one of at least mutual or
possibly statewide concern so that the State statute prevails.
Rather than pressing the issue of local concern, it appears advisable to
amend the City's ordinances in order to bring them into conformity with the
State statutes. Such amendment would allow greater ease of enforcement and
would avoid confusion among pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers with regard
to compliance. The State statutes still permit local legislation to be more
restrictive in nature. The goal of both of these statutes and ordinances
is the detection of stolen property.
Secondhand Dealers
The most notable difference between the proposed new ordinance regulating
secondhand dealers and the comparable State statute would be the inclusion
in our ordinance of certain kinds:of retail: merchants within the definition
of secondhand dealers. The State statute exempts these retailers. Those
' members of our Police Department who deal regularly with enforcement of
this statute feel that the inclusion of these retailers is important for
local enforcement. Accordingly, the definition of secondhand dealer
-323-
May 6, 1986
contained in Section 73-2 specifically includes "retailers, wholesalers,
'
antique dealers and others who are selling or trading secondhand property
in a permanent storefront location." In other respects, the proposed
ordinance tracks the State statute in its definitions, specifically
enumerating the kind of tangible personal property which is to be
considered secondhand property and specifically excluding charitable
organizations, garage sales and others from its application.
The primary target of both the State statute and the local ordinance is the
flea market. Accordingly, the flea market operators are specifically made
subject to the reporting provisions contained in the ordinance and are
required to inform each individual dealer within the flea market of the
requirements contained in the ordinance and the State statute.
Recordkeeping requirements have been modified to conform to the State
statute with regard to the type of identification that may be accepted and
the particular records that must be maintained. A provision for review of
license applications by the Chief of Police has been added to be consistent
with the ordinance pertaining to pawnbrokers, while a procedure for review
by City Council is provided to deal with allegation of abuse of discretion.
(The question on review by Council would be whether the grounds for
recommendation of denial are rationally related to the applicant's ability
to perform responsibly and lawfully as a secondhand dealer. An example of
grounds for which a license could properly be denied would be a criminal
conviction for theft or related offenses).
Finally, a section has been added to clarify the sanctions for violation of
the the
'
provisions of ordinance.
Pawnbrokers
The proposed changes in the ordinance dealing with pawnbrokers are also
numerous. In general, the terminology and definitions utilized in the
State statute are incorporated within our local ordinance. Additional
requirements pertaining to reporting have been added for the sake of
consistency. Particular changes include the requirement that records be
made available for inspection for a period of three years rather than the
previous requirement of two years. Also, the age of a person with whom a
pawnbroker may deal has been lowered to eighteen years from twenty-one
years. The maximum interest rate has been changed from a percentage of the
amount of money actually advanced to a "fixed price" of one -tenth or
one -fifth of the original purchase?.price depending upon whether the
original amount was greater',or less than $50.
Licensing is still required",and a provision has been added on license
renewal as an incentive to pawnbrokers to request timely renewal of their
licenses. The licensing office will be the Finance Department rather than
the City Clerk. Again, although the discretion of the Chief of Police in
making recommendations regarding potential licensees is still quite broad,
a provision has been added for an appeal process which would permit Council
review of the Chief's recommendation so that the specific grounds for a
,
SPkE
May 6, 1986
Inegative recommendation could be examined as to their sufficiency and
rational relationship to the pawnbroker business.
Numerous provisions have been deleted from the ordinance which previously
addressed the correlative rights of pawnbrokers and customers to unclaimed
property. Staff feels that the City need not and should not address the
determination of such private rights within the context of its regulation
of pawnbrokers. Instead, the present provision merely requires that
property be held for a specific period of time after payment is due from
the customer and that notice be provided to the customer before such
property is disposed of by the pawnbroker.
Summary
In general, it is the feeling of the Police Department and the City
Attorney's Office that the revisions conform to the requirements of the
State statute and still allow the Department to address local concerns.
These proposed ordinance changes have been submitted to attorneys and
representatives of secondhand dealers and pawnbrokers who requested to be
informed. Hopefully, through this revision, considerable confusion will be
eliminated for both the citizenry and enforcement officials."
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, expressed concerns about the level of
investigation for secondhand versus pawnbroker licenses.
' Assistant City Attorney Steve Roy stated that it was the opinion of the
Police Department that secondhand dealers have the same opportunity as
pawnbrokers to come into the possession of stolen items and therefore feel
the scrutiny is warranted.
Detective Bob Foster stated the objective of the law is to return stolen
property to the rightful owners.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adopt Ordinance No. 52, 1986 on First Reading.
City Attorney Huisjen asked Councilmember Rutstein's motion to include some
minor language changes.
Councilmembers Rutstein and Estrada agreed to include those changes in
their motion.
Councilmember Knezovich asked how the $55 fee was decided upon and whether
it is reasonable for secondhand dealers.
Assistant City Attorney Steve Roy replied that the fee was carried over
from the existing section on pawnbrokers.
Councilmember Rutstein asked if the Police Department has looked into the
' number of people that would now'be covered and if it would be a burden to
do the background investigations.
WW11
May 6, 1986
Detective Foster replied that the actual number is not known and that the '
type of check being done would not require a lot of time.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 52, 1986
as amended on First Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers April,
Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember April, to
adopt Ordinance No. 53, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
April, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Ordinance Appropriating Unanticipated
Revenues From The Federal Aid Urban
Systems (FADS) Fund, And The City's
Funds Required to Match The FAUS Funds
And Pay The Expenses Which Will Not
Be Shared, To Form The Mason Street
Reconstruction Pro.iect. Adopted on Second Reading
Following is staff's memorandum on this item: '
"This ordinance was adopted on April 15 by a 6-1 vote. The Mason Street
Reconstruction Project will be to reconstruct the pavement and sections of
the curb and gutter on Mason Street from Laurel Street to Mountain Avenue.
The estimated cost of $440,000 will be split $103,664 City, $336,336
Federal Aid Urban System (FAUS) Funds. The City's share will be funded by
a portion of the 1986 Street Rehabilitation Program."
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Rutstein, to
adopt Ordinance No. 49, 1986 on Second Reading.
Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive, expressed opposition to the
ordinance.
The vote on Councilmember Stoner's motion to adopt Ordinance No. 49, 1986
on Second Reading was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada,
Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember Horak.
THE MOTION CARRIED:
-326-
May 6, 1986
' Ordinance Amending Certain Provisions
of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
Regarding Littering and the Distribution
of Handbills. Adopted on First Reading_
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"Executive Summary
This Ordinance repeals Article X of Chapter 73 of the Code of the City of
Fort Collins which is entitled "Distribution of Handbills". The Ordinance
also amends Section 84-3B of the Code of the City of Fort Collins
concerning littering by adding a provision so that "littering" does not
include "the distribution of handbills in such a manner that the handbills
are securely placed or deposited upon real property so as to prevent the
same from being blown or scattered by the wind."
Background
Article X of Chapter.73 of the Code of the City of Fort Collins contains
requirements for the distribution of certain kinds of handbills. Section
73-58 of the Code states that it shall be unlawful for any person or
persons to distribute indiscriminately to the public any cards, circulars,
handbills, samples of merchandise or similar advertising matter on any
' public street or sidewalk or any public place in the City, or by leaving
the same at stores, houses, and residences in the City without first having
secured a permit from the Director of Finance. Another section of the
Code, however, describes handbills as litter. Section 84-3B provides that
no person in the City of Fort Collins shall engage in littering. No person
shall throw or permit to be deposited or scattered upon any sidewalk,
alley, street or other public place in the City or on any private property
in the City any loose paper, rags, waste or other material of any kind, nor
shall any person distribute or scatter handbills, dodgers, or other papers,
nor shall any person occupying any lot or ground in the City allow or
permit any loose paper, rags, waste or other material which may be liable
to be blown or scattered by the wind or otherwise to remain upon such lot
or grounds.
Solutions include:
(1) Prohibiting the distribution of handbills, or
(2) Allowing the handbills to be distributed, with or without a
permitting system.
Recently, the City staff has received a number of complaints concerning the
manner of distribution of handbills. In',some cases, handbills are being
tucked under windshield wipers on vehicles'!parked in private parking lots,
handbills are left at the doors or in the doorways of residences or, in one
' case, containers with coupons inside have been tossed upon private lawns.
In some cases, handbills and advertising matter are hung upon doorknobs or
-327-
May 6, 1986
placed in such a manner so that the material is secured and is not '
scattered or blown in the wind.
While there have been some complaints, it is recognized that many
businesses, other entities and organizations use the distribution of
handbills as a method to provide information or advertising about a product
or service. Commercial speech may be regulated in terms of time, manner
and place for distribution and it is therefore permissible to limit or
prohibit the distribution of handbills which are commercial in nature.
Some of the objection to the distribution of handbills concerns the manner
of distribution, wherein, the handbills are not firmly affixed to the
property and become loose and scattered in the wind. This is frequently
true when the handbills are placed upon vehicles in public or private
places or when handbills are left upon the property without securing them
so that they do not blow or scatter in the wind. When handbills are placed
upon motor vehicles, they are often left under the windshield wiper and the
owner, upon return to the vehicle, often removes the handbill and drops it
upon the ground or drives the vehicle and the handbill blows free from
under the windshield wiper. As a practical matter, when handbills are
allowed to be placed on motor vehicles they frequently come loose even when
they are initially firmly affixed to the vehicle. For that reason, it is
best not to allow the placing of the handbills upon motor vehicles, even
though they may be fastened in some way or placed under the windshield
wiper. '
If the distribution of handbills is regulated in such a manner so that it
does not constitute litter when placed or deposited upon real property so
as to prevent the same from being blown or scattered by the wind, there may
be little additional need to regulate or to require people to obtain
permits for the distribution of such materials. In the past year,.the City
has received very little money from the regulation and permitting of this
activity. Overall, there is not much benefit obtained by the City from
this permitting process.
The proposed Ordinance repeals all of Article X of Chapter 73 relating to
the distribution of handbills and amends Section 84-3B to exclude from the
definition of litter the distribution of handbills in such a manner that it
is securely placed or deposited upon real property so as to prevent the
materials from being scattered by the wind. The effect of the Ordinance
would be to allow handbills to be distributed as described in the littering
ordinance. It would not be lawful for persons to place handbills or
advertising circulars upon motor vehicles.
The City Attorney's Office recommends that this Ordinance be adopted as
proposed because of our conclusion that Article X of Chapter 73 is
inconsistent with Section 84-38': of the Code of the City concerning
"littering". Also, the Ordinance will specifically provide that under
84-3B, "littering" does not include the distribution of handbills in such a '
manner that they are securely placed or deposited upon real property so as
to prevent the same from being blown or scattered by the wind."
-328-
May 6, 1986
' City Attorney Huisjen explained that this Ordinance will eliminate the
permit system for distributing handbills and require that handbills be
secured to prevent them from being blown or scattered by the wind.
Councilmembers Stoner and April asked for some clarification on
applicability and enforcement.
Councilmember Knezovich made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Ordinance No. 60, 1986 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers
April, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays:
None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Resolution Creating a Charter
Review Committee, Adopted
Following is staff's memorandum on this item:
"The Resolution creates an 11-member citizen Charter Review Committee to
review the City Charter and to make recommendations to the Council on
proposed changes. The requirements for appointment to the Committee are
status as a registered voter and residency within the City limits. In
addition to the 11 members, Council will also designate 3 Councilmembers to
act as advisers to the Committee and to serve as non -voting Committee
members. The Resolution appointing the 11 members will be introduced at
the June 3 meeting. The deadline for applications is May 15."
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Stoner, to
adopt Resolution 86-81.
Councilmembers Rutstein, Stoner, and Estrada volunteered to serve as
advisors to the Charter Review Committee.
Councilmember Knezovich stated that members of the Charter Review Committee
must be registered voters and that current members of boards and
commissions are eligible to serve on this committee.
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to adopt Resolution 86-81
inserting the names of Councilmembers Rutstein, Stoner, and Estrada. Yeas:
Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
City Manager's Report
I
City Manager Burkett commented on his first month on the job.
-329-
May 6, 1986
1
Councilmembers' Reports
Councilmember Horak reported on a meeting to be held on May 20 to deal with
the acquisition of water by entities around the Denver area. He also
suggested that the Council subcommittee on legislative matters meet to
discuss how to proceed on current legislative matters.
Councilmember Stoner acknowledged Utilities Manager Bill Carnahan for his
testimony before the House of Representatives on REA buyout provisions and
stated that the bill passed, overriding the veto by Governor Lamm.
Councilmember Knezovich stated that the Senate passed S.B. 58 dealing with
hazardous materials and sent it on to the House. He stated that the
Colorado Municipal League and the City of Fort Collins would urge defeat of
S.B. 58 in its present form.
Councilmember Knezovich and Mayor Ohlson read a statement of apology and
regret from Councilmember Knezovich regarding his use of minority group
labels at a recent Housing Authority retreat.
Councilmember Estrada commented on the work of the Economic Development
Task Force.
Mayor Ohlson praised the work done on the Foothills trail project. He also
commended the people responsible for the adult literacy program at the
'
Library.
L1
Citizen Participation
st was accepted by Karl Levine who spoke about the p
under Naziism.
B. Proclamation Naming May 11-17 as Preservation Week was accepted by Dick
Beardmore, Chair of the Landmark; Preservation Commission, and Alyce
Milton, Chair of the Cultural Resources Board'-,
C. Proclamation Naming May 18-24 as Colorado''Law,Enforcement Torch Run/
Special Olympics Week was accepted by Police Chief Bruce Glasscock.
D. Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation to Individuals involved in
Driving Force Program.
Police Chief Bruce Glasscock spoke about the Driving Force Program and
the individuals involved in making it a success.
Mayor Ohlson presented certificates of appreciation to 10 students ,
involved in the program and their faculty sponsor, Salll;y George.
J
-330-
May 6, 1986
'
Mayor Ohlson presented Deputy City Manager Rich Shannon with a plaque
Council's for his
expressing
appreciation service as Interim City Manager.
The following persons spoke regarding Councilmember Knezovich's comments at
a Housing Authority retreat:
1.
Thomas Waldow, 325 Pearl Street.
2.
Mike Mosman, 914 Cottonwood.
3.
Tom Romero, 331 Scott Avenue.
4.
Sidney Heitman, 1900 Sheeley Drive.
5.
Grace Deshazer-Spearnak, 220 North Lyons.
6.
Sam Blanco, representing the Human Relations Commission.
7.
Joe Rodgers, CSU student.
8.
Cliff Romero, Director of the Fort Collins Housing Corporation.
9.
Sara Carbajal, 505 North Impala Drive.
10.
Barbara Allison, 1212 Lynnwood Drive.
11.
Paul Salas, Fort Collins attorney.
12.
Chuck Solano, 2200 Berkshire Drive.
13.
Bernadette Martinez, 115 South Loomis.
14.
Ray Martinez, City employee.
15.
Dana Hiatt, address unknown.
16.
Dave Aragon, 2506 Eastwood Drive.
17.
Seymour Kaplan, 1009 Sailors Reef.
18.
Ken Bonetti, 722 West Mountain, Chairman of the Housing Authority.
19,
Paul Bates, 609 Duke Lane.
20.
Shelby Robinson, 2944 Dean Drive.
'
21.
Jerry Smith, 228 West Prospect.
22.
Dan Lyons, 2608 Killdeer.
Mayor Ohlson stated his reasons for reading Councilmember Knezovich's
apology
for him.
Councilmember Rutstein made a motion of censure as follows:
IT IS MOVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS as
follows:
Councilmember John B. Knezovich is censured by the Council of the
City of Fort Collins for his public statements wherein persons
were characterized by vulgar, offensive and derogatory terms in
regard to their race or ethnic origin. The use of such terms and
statements by Mr. Knezovich are offensive to the citizens and the
Council of the City of Fort Collins and'therefore Mr. Knezovich
is censured for his insulting conduct.
Councilmember Estrada seconded the motion.
Councilmember Estrada stated that he accepted Mr. Knezovich's apology but
felt a formal censure was necessary.
MI<I!
May 6, 1986
Councilmember
Rutstein outlined her feelings about Mr. Knezovich's actions
and her reasons for the censure.
Councilmember Knezovich thanked Mayor Ohlson for reading his statement of
apology, acknowledged the need for the evening's forum on this issue, and
again apologized.
Councilmember Horak stated he preferred to have the Ethics Committee look
at this issue prior to taking any action.
Councilmember April agreed with Councilmember Horak and asked the community
to show some forgiveness for Mr. Knezovich.
Mayor Ohlson stated he would vote for the censure and that he would like
further Council discussion on the timing of that action.
Councilmember Estrada stated he thought it would be desirable to take
action now and put this matter behind the Council.
Councilmember Rutstein stated she did not feel this was an issue for the
Ethics Committee.
Terry Foppe, 622 Whedbee, asked for a definition of censure.
City Attorney Huisjen stated that censure is equal to a formal reprimand by
a body politic.
'
The vote on Councilmember Rutstein's motion to censure Councilmember
Knezovich was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Estrada, Horak, Knezovich,
Ohlson, Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: Councilmember April.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Dave Frick, 1300 West Mountain, addressed the recent trolley incident and
staff report on the incident. He stated the terms of the contract were not
being enforced and suggested that penalties be imposed that will have an
impact.
Dr. James Stitzel, 521 East Laurel, Trolley Society member and worker,
refuted several of Mr. Frick's comments and noted the Society was concerned
with safety issues.
Terry Stone, 115 Roosevelt, spoke on the decision to leave the cannon in
City Park and addressed the safety factor -and the issue of having children
play on a war symbol. He suggested the cannon be moved to an area not
designed as a playground.
-332-
May 6, 1986
Other Business
Councilmember Estrada referred to a letter from David Herrera, Executive
Director of the Housing Authority, which requested a different liaison be
appointed to the Housing Authority.
Councilmember Stoner stated it might be appropriate for Councilmember
Knezovich to resign as liaison to the Authority.
Councilmember Knezovich requested the opportunity to spend some time with
Mr. Herrera and the Authority to discuss what might be best at this time.
Councilmember Stoner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to
adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing legal
contracts. Yeas: Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson,
Rutstein, and Stoner. Nays: None.
Adjournment
At the conclusion of the Executive Session, Councilmember Rutstein made a
motion, seconded by Councilmember Estrada, to adjourn the meeting. Yeas:
Councilmembers April, Estrada, Horak, Knezovich, Ohlson, Rutstein, and
Stoner. Nays: None.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Mayor
-333-