HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-04/07/1998-RegularApril 7,1998
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
Council -Manager Form of Government
Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m.
An regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, April 7, 1998,
at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered
by the following Councilmembers: Azari, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner.
Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy.
Councilmembers Absent: Bertschy arrived at 6:30 p.m.
Citizen Participation
Will Arduino, representing Hewlett-Packard, presented a $50,000 donation to Funding Partners for
Housing Solutions. He reported the donation was available because ofthe City's Manufacturers Use
Tax Rebate Program and thanked Council for its insight in creating the Program.
Representative of Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, Karen Girrard and Council representative
Chuck Wanner accepted the donation.
Agenda Review
City Manager John Fischbach stated Items #28, Resolution 98-62 Reaffirming City Council's
Commitment to the Natural Areas Program and to the Acquisition of Land Through That Program
in a Timely and Cost Effective Manner, #29, Items Relating to Block 31, and Item #14, First
Reading of Ordinance No. 50, 1998, Appropriating Unanticipated Pilot Revenue From the Fort
Collins Housing Authority in the General Fund, were all revised and are in Council's "Read Before
the Meeting" folder.
Kelley Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, requested that Item #21, Items Relating to Revenues
Exceeding the Growth Limit Imposed by Article X, Section 20 of the State Constitution, be
withdrawn from the Consent Agenda.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Mason, to adopt and
approve all items not removed from the Consent Agenda. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Byrne,
Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
April7, 1998
Staff Reports
City Manager John Fischbach reported Mike Smith (the previous Water Utilities Director) has been
appointed to the position of Utilities Service Area Director.
Councilmember Reports
Councilmember Wannerreported the Finance Committee met and recommended Council not extend
Development Fee Rebates or rebates relating to street oversizing fees. He stated the Committee also
discussed recommending to Council that the Sales and Use Tax Rebate Program be extended for an
additional year and a Resolution be consider regarding creation and/or implementation of new
programs or enhanced services in conjunction with the 1999 Budget.
Councilmember Smith stated the Legislative Review Committee met and discussed federal Internet
sales tax legislation.
Councilmember Kneeland spoke of the State of the Arts event recentlyheld and thanked the Cultural
Resources Board for its efforts.
Councilmember Mason stated the Growth Management Committee met and discussed proposed
changes to the Land Use Code stating the majority of recommendations are "housekeeping"
measures and will be brought to Council at a future meeting.
Councilmember Kneeland gave a brief report on the success of the Neighborhood Resources
Mediation Program.
Mayor Azari reported the annual recruitment process for the City's volunteer Boards and
Commissions was underway and encouraged citizens to apply.
(**Secretary's Note: Councilmember Bertschy arrived at 6:30 p.m.)
Ordinance No. 59, 1998,
Amending Division 4.23 of the Land Use Code
of the City by the Addition of "Retail Establishments" to the
List of Permitted Uses Subiect to Planning and Zoning Board Review Postponed to May 5
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
WTI,
Apri17, 1998
"Executive Summary
This request to expand the list of permitted uses in the I, Industrial, Zone to include "Retail
Establishments" stems from a City Plan rezoning issue area involving property located at 1640
Riverside Avenue. The City Plan rezoning of the property proposed changing the zoning from the
former I-G, General industrial, Zone to the new I, Industrial, Zone. The property owner objected
to the proposed rezoning because the new I Zone was far more restrictive in the listing ofpermitted
uses than the former IG Zone. The IG Zone essentially permitted any type of retail, commercial,
business, service, or industrial use in the zone. The property owner wanted to retain the IG Zone for
the property, but the IG Zone was deleted as a zoning district with the adoption of the new Land Use
Code. In order to retain some of the land use flexibility of the former IG Zone, the property owner
is requesting that "Retail Establishments " be added as a permitted use in the I Zone. Because this
change would affect all property in the I Zone, not just the property located at 1640 Riverside
Avenue, it constitutes a text amendment under the Land Use Code.
BACKGROUND:
On March 18, 1997, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 51, 1997, adopting a new Land Use
Code, and Ordinance No. 52, 1997, adopting a new Zoning Map, which were designed to help
implement the land use policies of City Plan, the update to the City's Comprehensive Plan. At the
time of the adoption of the ordinances, approximately 27 rezoning issue areas had been identified
where either the property owner and/or the adjacent property owners and residents did not agree
with staffs recommendation for the zoning ofan area or piece ofproperty. Rather than delay the
adoption of the new Land Use Code, further consideration of the issue areas was postponed until
after adoption of the ordinances. The process would look again at the City Structure Plan and
potential zoning designation. This property is one such issue area. This is a request to expand the
allowable usesfor theproperty to include "Retail Establishments" in the 1,,Industrial, Zone. Since
the I-G Zone was eliminated from the Land Use Code in March 1997, the owners are essentially
requesting the zone be reestablished in the Code, by way of a text amendment. There are no
immediate development plans for the property.
APPLICANT: Tom T. Smith, Manager
Riverside/Prospect, LLC
301 East Lincoln Avenue
Fort Collins, CO 80524
OWNER: Same.
On February 18, 1997, the City Council began the final steps to complete a two-year long process
to update the City's Comprehensive Plan with the passage of Resolution 97-25, adopting the
Community Vision and Goals 2015 document, the City Structure Plan map, and the City Plan
Principles and Policies document as the three major elements of the new City Plan.
391
April 7, 1998
On March 18, 1997, the process continued as the Council adopted Resolution 97-44, amending the
City Structure Plan map, and the passage of Ordinance No. 51, 1997, and Ordnance No. 52, 1997,
codifying anew Land Use Code and anew Zoning Map, respectively. The City Structure Plan map
was initially adopted in November 1996 In the period between November 1996, and March 1997,
the new Zoning Map was developed. The development ofthe Zoning Map caused a reevaluation of
the Structure Plan map and resulted in over 40 changes, which, as indicated, were approved by the
Council in March. In addition, at the time of the adoption of Ordinances No. 51 and 52, 1997,
approximately 27 rezoning issue areas had been identified where either the property owner and/or
the adjacent property owners and residents did not agree with staffs recommendation for the zoning
of an area or apiece of property. Rather than delay the adoption of the new Land Use Code until
all issues could be resolved, a decision was made to review the zoning of the issue areas again after
adoption of the ordinances and further staff review. The process would look again at the City
Structure Plan map and potential zoning designation. This property is one such issue area.
In March 1997, the owners were offered two choices for the zoning of their property: accept staff's
recommendation for the I, Zone, or place the property into the T, Transition, Zone. The owners
selected the first option knowing the property's zoning would be reviewed within one year.
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: I, Industrial, office and industrial uses
S: I, Industrial, RAMElectronics
E: I, Industrial, industrial uses
W.• E, Employment, Teledyne Waterpik
This property was annexed into the City as part of the East Prospect First Annexation in 1973, and
was placed into the I-G, General Industrial, Zoning District. The I-G Zone was designed for heavy
industrial uses. The zone allowed "any use other than one family, two-family or multi family
dwellings. " In other words, any type ofretail, commercial, business, service, or industrial use could
have located in thel--G Zone. Residential uses could not even attempt to locate in the zone until after
1981, when the Land Development Guidance System was adopted and residential uses could be
proposed through the planned unit development (PUD) process.
Rezoning:
This is a request to expand the allowable uses for the property to include "Retail Establishments "
in the I, Industrial, Zone. Alternatively, this issue could be considered a request to rezone
approximately 2.27 acres located at 1640 Riverside Avenue, which is east ofRiverside Avenue and
north of Prospect Road from thel, Industrial, Zoning District to thel-G, General Industrial, Zoning
District. Since the I-G Zone was eliminated from the Land Use Code in March 1997, the owners
would essentially be requesting the zone be reestablished in the Code (see attached letters from the
property owner). There are no immediate development plans for the property.
392
April7, 1998
The major factor which the Council must consider when evaluating this rezoning request is:
What zoning would be consistent with City Plan, the City's Comprehensive?
As indicated above, the I-G, General Industrial, Zone, along with about eighteen other zones from
the formerZoning Ordinance, were eliminated with the adoption of CityPlan and the new Land Use
Code. New zoning districts were created in order to implement the principles and policies of City
Plan. Basically, the Plan attempts to reserve industrial and employment zones for manufacturing
and basic employment type uses. Some Retail Establishments including convenience stores,
convenience shopping centers, restaurants, retail and supply establishments, and vehicle, boat and
mobile home sales are allowed in the I Zone. These uses are compatible with the type and character
of uses expected in the I Zone. It was a conscious and deliberate decision not to allow other types
of Retail Establishments in the IZone. Retail Establishments are allowed in many commercial as
well as residential (neighborhood) zones in an attempt to direct Retail Establishments to specific
locations throughout the community. Opening the IZone to Retail Establishments would dilute one
of the basic concepts of City Plan.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING:
No neighborhood meeting has been conducted with regards to this rezoning request. However,
letters were mailed to affected property owners informing them ofthe Council 's consideration ofthis
request to add "Retail Establishments" to the I, Industrial Zone.
FINDINGS OF FACT/CONCLUSION:
The subject property was placed into the I, Industrial, Zone in March 1997, in order to help
facilitate the adoption of the City's new Land Use Code.
2. The I-G, General Industrial, Zone was eliminated from the Zoning Ordinance because it
would not be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
3. The I, Industrial, Zone is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends denial of the request to include "Retail Establishments " in the I, Industrial, Zone.
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDATION.
The Planning and Zoning Board, at its March 5, 1998, meeting, voted 6-0 to recommend denial of
the request to add "Retail Establishments" to the I, Industrial, Zone. "
393
April7, 1998
Chief Planner Ken Waido gave the staff presentation on this item.
Rick Zier, attorney representing the property owner Tom Smith, expressed concerns regarding
making "blanket' amendments to the Land Use Code. He spoke of the need for a variance
procedure to be in place and requested Council consider site specific issues, and urged Council to
table its decision until further negotiations have taken place.
Waido responded to Council questions stating the Land Use Code does not allow for use variances
between zoning districts.
Zier stated his client originally agreed to the rezoning because he believed there would be an
opportunity to later request placement in the I, Zone and expressed concerns regarding the lack of
a variance procedure. He requested Council allow certain kinds of retail uses on the property for a
3-5 year period and then if a building permit is not pulled, rezone the property to a zone staff
believes to be congruent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Fishbach clarified staffs recommendation was to eliminate the provision of a site specific variance
plan from the Code, and adoption of the Ordinance would accomplish that.
Waido emphasized that staff made a conscious decision to disallow retail establishments in the I-
hidustrial Zone and believed it would be inappropriate to use a site specific process to put a retail
establishment in the I, Zone.
After further discussion, Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember
Bertschy to postpone consideration of Ordinance No. 59, 1998 to May 5, 1998 so additional
discussions between staff and the petitioner could be held. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Bertschy,
Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
YY41NuiBill ISI SI � I D
394
April 7, 1998
Resolution 98-62
Reaffirming City Council's Commitment to the
Natural Areas Program and to the Acquisition of Land Through
That Program in a Timely and Cost Effective Manner, Postponed to May 19
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
Option 1. This version of Resolution 98-62 was prepared pursuant to Council direction at the
Study Session on April 28. As compared to Option 2, it contains "stronger"
language in Section 4 (pertaining to the projected costs of the Parks projects), and
also supports the extension of the existing Natural Areas and Parks Tax when it
expires in December, 2005.
Option 2. This is the version of Resolution 98-62 that was originally presented to Council on
Apri17, 1998. It reaffirms Council's commitment to thefunding ofthe Natural Areas
program as outlined below.
On April7, Council conducted initial discussions regarding resolution reaffirming its commitment
to the Natural Areas Program and the funding of projects in the Building Community Choices
NaturalAreasandParkspackage. Council tabledfurther discussion about the Resolution until after
it had discussed the Natural Areas Policy Plan update at the April 28 Study Session.
Provisions in the original proposed Resolution (Option 2) included the following:
1. Council reaffirms its commitment to the funding of the Natural Areas program and its
commitment to fulfilling its obligations under Ordinance No. 29, 1997.
2. Council directs staff to explore opportunities to augment its land acquisition program
through the use of buyer brokers, or other methods which ensure that the City is effectively
achieving the goals set out in the Natural Areas Policy Plan.
3. In order to hasten the acquisition of natural areas, Council will consider opportunities to
supplement revenues from the 114 cent tax with other revenue sources which are lawfully
available to it should opportunities arise which require more funding for the Natural Areas
Program than is available under the approved funding schedule.
4. Council expresses its intention to limit the scope oftheparkrelatedprojects which are apart
of Ordinance No. 29, 1997, so as to maximize excess revenues for natural areas. The
estimated costs of the Parks Projects to be constructed with revenues generated by the
Natural Areas and Parks Tax are as follows:
RISI
Community Park
Improvements
Community
Horticulture Center
Fossil Creek
Community Park
Regional Trails
Maximum Natural Areas &
Parks Tax Expenditure
(including inflation)
$ 576,332
$2,250,542
$9,829,167
$1, 678, 418
April 7, 1998
Year to be Completed
2004
1999
2002
P1111%
At the April 28 Study Session, Council discussed the Resolution and suggested the following
modifications to the Resolution, which are contained in Option 1.
Section 4 oftheResolution has been revised to strengthen Council's expression ofcommitment
to limiting the City's expenditures of Ordinance No. 29, 1997 revenues for parks projects.
The funding schedule in the Resolution now refers to a "Maximum Expenditure" of funds
from the Natural Areas and Parks Tax revenue which may be expended for the parksprojects.
Council noted that it did not wish to limit the total amount that could be spent on these
projects should some unforeseen circumstance arise, but rather to limit the funds from this
revenue source. Other sources of revenue could be used to supplement these projects, if
needed.
Section 5 was added to express Council's support for renewing the Natural Areas and Parks
Tax when it expires to further fund the Natural Areas program. "
City Manager John Fischbach gave a brief presentation on this item and spoke of the reason for its
consideration at this time.
Council Policy Manager Ann Tumquist responded to Council questions and gave a brief explanation
of how the packages were constructed.
Councilmember Mason expressed concerns regarding inflation issues and notification to voters
regarding significant increases in previously adopted projects.
Natural Resources Director Tom Shoemaker clarified Council would be able to consider the projects
in greater detail at the April 28 Study Session. He stated staff is operating successfully within the
9M.
April 7, 1998
5-year Natural Area Action Plan, and stated the Plan has expanded 3 times since its adoption in
1992.
Councilmember Byrne requested the issue be postponed until after the April 28 Study Session has
been held, allowing additional time for Council's review and an opportunity to meet with the various
Boards or Commissions involved.
Councilmember Mason made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to postpone
consideration of Resolution 98-62 to May 19, 1998.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, expressed concerns regarding the use of overages.
Phil Murphy, Chair of the Natural Resources Advisory Board, spoke of inflation factors, and
emphasized the Board is comfortable with the 4.3% inflation factor. He stated the Board also
recommended that a cap be placed on expenditures and be included in the Resolution.
The vote on Councilmember Mason's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Block 31, Adopted.
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Executive Summary
A. Resolution 98-63 Authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement ("IGA') Between the City of
Fort Collins and Lorimer County Relating to the Ownership, Development, Maintenance,
Operation and Use of Block 31.
Since 1981, the City and the County have cooperated on the acquisition of land, master planning
and construction of improvements on Block 31. This cooperation culminated in 1996 with the
incorporation of Block 31 into the Downtown Civic Center Master Plan. In order for the City and
County to go forward with the implementation of the Civic Center Master Plan, it is necessary to
replace the existing November 20, 1984 Block 31 Intergovernmental Agreement with a new IGA
which outlines the following: (1) City/County Division of Block 31 Ownership; (2) Development of
Block 31; (3) Joint Property Maintenance and Utilities; (4) Use, Occupation and Maintenance of
the Existing Improvements; and (5) Joint Development of Temporary Parking.
The material terms of the agreement are discussed below:
397
April 7, 1998
Section 1 Division of Ownership of Block 31
The City and County agree to convey to each other by quit claim deed certain
parcels as shown on Exhibit "A" to the IGA. The division of the Block is
based upon the City and County receiving approximately the same square
footage.
Section 2 Development of Block 31 (Exhibit "B" to the IGA)
The County agrees to:
1) construct the Courthouse facility after an advisory review process
under the City's land use development and zoning laws and
requirements;
2) pay all fees associated with construction of the courthouse facility and
related improvements;
3) construct, atits own expense, a 4, 100squarefoot municipal courtroom
plus a 1,000 square foot common waiting room adjacent to the
municipal courtroom;
4) construct, at its own expense not to exceed $980, 000, a park and
sculpture garden, subject to City approval of design plans and
specifications; and,
S) enter into a separate intergovernmental agreement to develop a joint
parking structure on Block2l, with the County's share estimated to be
$4,400,000. The total scale of the parking structure has not been
determined at this time.
Section 3 Joint Property Maintenance and Utilities
1) The existing Joint City/County Block 31 Restrictive Reserve Account
shall continue to exist in its present form and continue to be
maintained and administered by the City's Finance Department. The
funds shall be used for costs and liabilities associated with the
operation, maintenance or repair of.•
a) the existing improvements, as long as the existing
improvements are occupied or used by the County without
payment of rent to the City; and
b) the joint property (Civic Center Park, Sculpture Garden and
parking area as shown on Exhibit `B" to the IGA) on Block
31.
2) In the event the funds in the joint account are insufficient at any time,
the City and County will contribute equally for necessary expenses.
3) The City shall be responsible for carrying out the day-to-day
management, operation and maintenance of the joint property in
accordance with Citypolicies and procedures.
we It;
April 7, 1998
Section 4 Use and Occupation of Existing Improvements
1) The City and the County will continue to share equally in the use ofthe
existing improvements with no payment of rent until such time as the
Certificate of Occupancy for the Courthouse has been issued. After
the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the Courthouse, the
County agrees to pay market rent, to lease space in the existing
improvements on Block 31.
2) The County agrees to lease to the City the municipal court space for
a period offive years at no cost to the City. After the initial five year
term, the City shall pay market rent for the municipal court.
Section 5 Joint Development of Temporary Parking
The City agrees to develop and construct temporary alternative parking in the
downtown Fort Collins area of up to 420 parking spaces, to replace parking
displaced by construction. The County agrees to pay % of the total cost of
development and constructing the temporary parking.
B. SecondReadingofOrdinanceNo. 49,1998, Authorizing the Conveyance ofa Portion ofBlock
31 in Fort Collins to Larimer County.
In order for the County to obtain financingfor its proposed Justice Center facility, the County must
have control of the land on which the Justice Center is located. This property is currently owned
jointly by the City and the County. Based upon the County's financing requirement, staff is
recommending the conveyance of the City's undivided 50% interest in lots 13-29 and the vacated
alley adjacent to Lots 18 through 23 all in Block 31, Fort Collins, Colorado by quit claim deed to
Larimer County. This Ordinance, which was unanimously adopted on First Reading on March 17,
1998, is contingent on the final execution of the intergovernmental agreement outlined under Item
A above, and has been revised slightly to clarify this contingency. "
City Manager John Fischbach gave the staff presentation on this item and recognized staff and
Latimer County for its efforts in working together on the Intergovernmental Agreement.
Councilmember Kneeland made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt
Resolution 98-63. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and
Wanner. Nays: None.
Ygum I:akyj 7 GMESL_M;J D
Councilmember Wanner made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Bertschy, to adopt Ordinance
No. 49, 1998 on Second Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland,
Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
399
April 7, 1998
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Items Relating to Revenues Exceeding the Growth Limit Imposed
by Article X. Section 20 of the State Constitution Adopted
The following is staffs memorandum on this item.
"Financial Impact
The 1996 revenues that exceeded the growth limit ($952,295) were held in reserves at the end of
1996. Resolution 98-60 provides formal direction concerning the particular projects, uses and
allocations of those revenues that exceeded the growth limit.
Ordinance No. 57, 1998, appropriates $60, 000 which had been held in the Transportation Fund
reserves for expenditure on the proposed Traffic Signal Timing project. The remainder ($892,295)
has been appropriated for expenditure in 1998 or will be held in fund reserves to be appropriated
for their designated use at a later date.
Executive Summary
A. Resolution 98-60ApprovingProposed Uses of 1996 Revenue in Excess of The Constitutional
Revenue Growth Limit And Retained by The City With Voter Approval.
B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 57, 1998, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the
Transportation Services Fund to be Used for the Traffic Signal Timing Project.
In November 1997, Fort Collins' voters approved a ballot measure, effective for fiscal year 1996
and subsequent years, that allows the City to retain revenues that exceed the growth limit imposed
by Article X, Section 20, and to use those revenues for the following designated purposes:
• Public health and safety including, but not limited to, environmental monitoring and
mitigation
• Transportation
• Growth management
• Maintenance and repair ofpublic facilities
Within the limitations imposed by the ballot measure, the City has the discretion to determine how
to spend the Retained Revenues. The amount of Retained Revenues received by the City and
attributable tofiscalyear 1996 was $952,295. Thefollowing items giveformalized direction on how
400
April 7, 1998
those revenues that exceeded the growth will be spent and appropriates a portion of that revenue
for a designated project.
BACKGROUND:
Since approval of Article X, Section 20 in 1992, City revenues did exceed the constitutional growth
limit in 1994 and 1995. In 1995, the City refunded 1994 revenues in the amount of $12,871 by
crediting utility customers' accounts. In 1996, City voters approved a one-time retention of 1995
revenues in the amount of $764, 000 which was used for a specific list of transportation services.
In November, 1997, City voters approved a ballot measure effective for revenues collected in 1996
and subsequent years, which allows the City to retain revenues that exceed the constitutional growth
limit (`Retained Revenues'), and to use the Retained Revenues for the following designated
purposes:
• Public health and safety including, but not limited to, environmental monitoring and
mitigation
• Transportation
• Growth management
• Maintenance and repair ofpublic facilities
Within the above limitations imposed by the ballot measure, the City has the discretion to determine
how to spend the Retained Revenues.
For the 1996 fiscal year, City revenues did exceed the growth limit set out in Article X, Section 20
by $952,295. The Budget Office has identified nine funds in which revenues exceeded the
constitutional growth limit, as follows:
FUND RETAINED REVENUE
AMOUNT
1.
Neighborhood Parkland
$164,298
2.
Transit Services
1,887
3.
Street Oversizing
207,229
4.
Transportation
158,830
5.
Cultural Services and Facilities
91,558
6.
Recreation
114,924
7.
Cemetery
20,778
8.
Perpetual Care
10,942
9.
Capital Expansion
181.849
Total (all Funds)
$952,295
401
April7, 1998
The source of revenue for the nine identif ed funds is predominantly user fees. Revenue from these
user fees must be spent for the purposes for which they are collected. For example, fees collected
by the Transportation Fund must be used for transportation purposes and fees collected by the
Recreation Fund must be used for recreational purposes. Consequently, any monies spent from the
1996 amount that exceeded the growth limit must satisfy two general criteria.
Fees collected must be used for the purposes for which they are collected.
2. Retained Revenues can only be used for the specific purposes approved by City
voters in November, 1997.
Using these criteria staff developed a list ofprojects and uses for that portion of the 1996 revenues
that exceeded the growth limit. The list ofprojects and uses was presented for discussion to the
Council Finance Committee on two separate occasions. This list is attached to the Resolution
presented for Council consideration and adoption. At its meeting on February 19, 1998, the
Finance Committee endorsed the list ofprojects and uses (current and future).
Deputy City Manager Diane Jones gave the staff presentation on this item and reported the major
factor for exceeding the growth limit has been the amount of fees collected.
City Attorney Steve Roy clarified the ballot language provides for the expenditure of funds in
subsequent years.
Budget Director Doug Smith gave abriefbreakdown of the funds with fees associated with them and
responded to Council questions clarifying the General Fund did not have a surplus.
Councilmember Bertschy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Kneeland, to adopt
Resolution 98-60.
Kelly Ohlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, spoke in opposition to the motion and the interpretation that
fees collected must be spent in the area in which they were received. He stated that he did not
believe that the proposed Revenue Retention Projects listed fall underthe category of the "designated
purposes." He clarified that 53% of the funds were to be used for Cultural, Library and Recreational
Services, which was listed as a low priority.
Doug Smith reemphasized the fees collected were equal to the total overage.
402
Apri17, 1998
After further discussion staff and Council agreed to proceed with the Revenue Retention Projects.
The vote on Councilmember Bertschy's motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Azari,
Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason, Smith and Wanner. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Councilmember Mason made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Wanner, to adopt Ordinance
No. 57, 1998 on First Reading. Yeas: Councilmembers Azari, Bertschy, Byrne, Kneeland, Mason,
Smith and Warmer. Nays: None.
THE MOTION CARRIED.
Other Business
Mayor Azari requested Council's suggestions and feedback regarding how to rekindle Council's
participation in the Northern Colorado Regional meetings.
Adjournment
The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
ATTEST:
�I 11
mirmigs �=t
Hilt]