Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES-01/20/2004-Regular• January 20, 2004 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS, COLORADO Council -Manager Form of Government Regular Meeting - 6:00 p.m. A regular meeting of the Council of the City of Fort Collins was held on Tuesday, January 20, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the City of Fort Collins City Hall. Roll Call was answered by the following Councilmembers: Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Councilmembers Absent: Martinez. Staff Members Present: Fischbach, Krajicek, Roy. ("Secretary's Note: Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy chaired the meeting.) Annual Report City Manager Fischbach showed a 14 minute video presenting the 2003 Annual Report for the City. • Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy thanked the staff for an excellent presentation. Citizen Participation Joe Rowan, Loan Programs Manager for Funding Partners for Housing Solutions, spoke regarding the purpose and accomplishments of Funding Partners. Don Sunland, chair of the Cultural Diversity and Anti -racism Task Force of Foothills Unitarian Church, stated racism must be actively opposed. He stated the task force was distributing "Eracism" bumper stickers and had started a film series. He urged the Council to take every opportunity to actively oppose racism. He stated the task force voted to support the proposed human rights protection ordinance. Roberto Valdez, Fort Collins resident, supported a human rights protection ordinance. He spoke regarding the contributions of documented and undocumented immigrants to this country. He also spoke regarding the need to look at health care and corporate fraud issues in this country. Nicole Salamander, social worker, spoke regarding the need fora human rights protection ordinance and responded to a Coloradoan soapbox article that addressed illegal immigrants. She stated the issue was how immigrants would be treated and how their human rights should be protected. She spoke regarding her experiences in working with illegal immigrants. 0 David Lauer,1404 Robertson, asked Council to live up to the precedents set by Resolution 2001-117 and 2003-039 which committed the City to high standards in its tolerance for minorities and the protection of civil rights for all. He stated the 2003 Resolution stated the City would oppose any federal, state or local measures that would infringe upon civil rights and liberties or single out individuals for legal scrutiny or enforcement activities based solely on country of origin, religion, ethnicity or immigration status. He asked that Council adopt a human rights protection ordinance. Paul Dame, Fort Collins resident, spoke in support of a human rights protection ordinance to protect everyone from harassment. Socorro (last name unstated), assisted by an interpreter, stated she was speaking on behalf of immigrants who were afraid to come to the meeting. She stated immigrants contributed to the Fort Collins economy and should be seen with compassion. Miriah Bowak, business owner and City employee, stated the keynote speaker for Martin Luther Kind Day challenged Fort Collins to be place for all people and an inclusive community. She asked the Council to pass a human rights protection ordinance. Jennifer Pacheco spoke in support of a human rights protection ordinance to include all in the City's vision for the future. She stated undocumented workers contributed to the economy and that all people should be treated equally. She stated undocumented workers lived in fear of being picked up by Immigration. John Kefalas, 604 Sycamore Street, asked that Council support the human rights protection ordinance. He stated all people had worth and deserved dignity. He stated adopting an ordinance would send a message to the federal government that this community does not agree with policies such as the Clear Act. KellyOhlson, 2040 Bennington Circle, spoke regarding Loveland Citypolicies and actions regarding incentives to private developers. He stated such policies and actions were irresponsible. He stated Loveland used urban renewal statutes to declare vacant agricultural land urban blight and asked that Fort Collins not follow the Loveland model. He asked that the City be careful in its consideration of a strip mall on Harmony Road and suggested that the Council give more consideration to costs instead of revenues in budget deliberations. He questioned the process being followed in the City Manager's negotiations regarding incentives with the strip mall developer and stated he did not recall that the Council had ever given that direction. He asked if those negotiations were taking place as reported in the newspaper. Citizen Participation Follow-up Mayor Pro Tem Bertschy thanked those who spoke. 439 • Councilmember Hamrick thanked those who spoke about the human rights protection ordinance. He stated Council was looking at the ordinance and had scheduled a study session on January 27 to have a discussion with the Human Relations Commission on that issue and other issues. He asked the City Manager if anyone from the City had been negotiating with Bayer Industries regarding possible tax subsidies. City Manager Fischbach replied in the affirmative and stated staff was following the policy set forth by the Council. He stated decisions were not being made because anything that was negotiated would be presented to the City Council for consideration. Councilmember Hamrick expressed a concern that no direction had been given by the Council to negotiate. He stated he had questions about the process and that there should have been a Council discussion on the negotiations before they took place. Councilmember Roy stated he agreed with Councilmember Hamrick's concern about the negotiations with Bayer on incentives. He stated the treatment of incentives was a core policy issue and that if the negotiations "went full cycle" that it would put the Council in a position of reacting and that this would be a different position than would be the case if the Council was "driving" the discussion on incentives. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the information on this issue was incomplete and that she had questions about the terminology being used regarding "negotiations" and "incentives." She stated at this point there was third party hearsay and guessing. She stated she would be comfortable talking • about the issue and cautioned that there not be an overreaction to what was happening in Loveland. She stated she would prefer talking about the matter when more data and information was available. Councilmember Kastein suggested discussing the issue under Other Business. He stated the Council planned to talk about the human rights protection ordinance at a study session and that the Council would give direction to the staff on whether to bring forward such an ordinance. Councilmember Tharp agreed that the issue of negotiations with Bayer should be discussed under Other Business. She stated she was pleased that Mr. Lauer read from the City's existing Resolutions about the City's position on harassment. She stated this called attention to the fact that the City already had provisions on the books regarding the matter. She stated there two issues that should be dealt with separately: the issue of illegal immigrants and the role of the police under the not -yet - passed Clear Act and the issue of a human rights ordinance that would reaffirm the treatment of people in general. Councilmember Roy stated the City did not have a policy to protect people from racial profiling. She stated the Council needed to come forward as a group to give people the worth and dignity they deserved through the comfort of law. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy stated the Council would be discussing the human rights protection ordinance at the next study session. He stated he and the Mayor had requested some clarifications from the City Attorney regarding the state law on racial profiling and other ways to affirm the human EMI January 20, 2004 rights provisions that were already in place. He stated Council would be provided with additional information prior to the Study Session. Agenda Review City Manager Fischbach stated item #8 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2003, Continuing a Temporary Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program for Fort Collins Manufacturers would be pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion Dr. Steven Schaefer requested that item #29 Resolution 2004-012 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for Such Property to be Known as the Adrian Annexation be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Tharp withdrew item # 11 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City ofFort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the East Ridge Rezoning from the Consent Calendar. CONSENT CALENDAR Consideration and Approval of the Council Meeting Minutes of November4, and November 18, 2003. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2003, Continuing a Temporary Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program for Fort Collins Manufacturers. In March 1996, City Council approved a temporary rebate program for use tax paid on manufacturing equipment. The goal of the program was to maintain the local economic base by providing modest tax relief to manufacturing concerns located in Fort Collins. The program has provided rebates to manufacturers for taxes paid during the calendar years 1996 through 200l . The rebate program was discontinued for calendar year 2002 due to economic conditions. Staff is proposing that the program be reinstated for 2003 and 2004, so that rebates may be made of taxes received by the City during those two years. Payments are made in arrears. This is a "rebate' of tax paid in the previous year. It is not a tax exemption. If approved for calendar years 2003 and 2004, staff will ask manufacturing companies to submit applications by late March of each year— as prescribed in the program. Rebates will be paid upon review of the applications. Historically, many of the companies have requested extensions to file at an even later date. Modifications were last made to the program in 1999 to reflect several requests made by the manufacturing community. Ordinance No. 174, 2003, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 2, 2003. 441 • January 20, 2004 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Street Oversizing Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts to Be Used to Construct Improvements on Ziegler Road from Timberwood Drive, South to Kechter Road. With the construction of the Fossil Ridge High School, arterial street improvements are planned for Zeigler Road adjacent to the school property. Parks and Recreation owns the Southeast Community Park site adjacent to Zeigler Road immediately south of the high school site. Hewlett Packard owns an undeveloped site adjacent to Zeigler Road immediately north of the high school. Staff has worked with these property owners in an effort to complete this portion of Zeigler Road between Harmony and Kechter. The property owners have combined to improve Zeigler Road to a minor arterial from Timberwood Drive south to Kechter Road. Combining the roadway construction into one project will save costs for all property owners due to economies of scale and complete an important segment of roadway which will provide primary access to the new Fossil Ridge High School opening in the fall of 2004. Ordinance No. 001, 2004, was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Bertschy was absent) on First Reading on January 6,2004. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002.2004. Amending Chanter 17 of the Citv Code by the • Addition of a New Section 17-45 to Make it Unlawful for Any Person to Damage or Destroy Public Improvements in Public Rights -of -Way Unless Authorized or Permitted to Do So in Accordance with Law. Ordinance No. 002, 2004, which was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Bertschy was absent) on First Reading on January 6, 2004, amends Chapter 17 of the City Code adding language to state that no person shall do any act in the public right-of-way that will deface or cause damage to public street improvements unless they are permitted to do so in accordance with law. Along with this change the City Engineer's authority would be expanded to prevent damage to public street improvements that are caused by non -permitted contractors, suppliers and other parties causing damage to streets and related facilities by their activities. This authority would be exercised through the Engineering Construction Inspectors, who are currently sworn officials, similar to Building Inspectors. Engineering Construction Inspectors, as well as Police Officers, would then be able to enforce City Code provisions that make it unlawful to damage public improvements in the public rights -of -way. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2004, Amending the Zoning May of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the East Ridge Rezoning. Ordinance No. 003, 2004, which was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Bertschy was absent) on • First Reading on January 6, 2004, rezones 159 acres of land located east of Timberline Road 442 January 20, 2004 and south of East Vine Drive from T-Transition to the LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood district. 12. Second Readinp, of Ordinance No. 004, 2004, Approving and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a First Amendment to the Trust Indenture Relating to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 1997 (the Bull Run Townhomes Project): and Authorizingthe a Preparation and Execution of Related Documents. As one of its tools to facilitate the development of affordable housing, the City of Fort Collins occasionally issues private activity bonds on behalf of qualified projects. Theinterest on the bonds is not subject to income taxation. Therefore the rates are lower than taxable market rates. This allows a portion of the units in a qualified project to pay lower rents. To become qualified, the project must rent the housing units to individuals or families that meet low- or moderate -income guidelines. The City issued bonds for the Bull Run Townhomes Project in 1997. The changes to the Trust Indenture were requested by AIG Retirement Services, Inc. AIG provides financial security for the 1997 bonds. The changes include a different means by which to calculate the interest on the bonds and a change in the repayment schedule to lower the annual payments. Ordinance No. 004, 2004, was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Bertschy was absent) on First Reading on January 6, 2004• 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2004, Approving and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a First Amendment to the Trust Indenture Relating to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 1998 (the Country Ranch II Limited Partnership Proiect). and Authorizingthe he Preparation and Execution of Related Documents. As one of its tools to facilitate the development of affordable housing, the City of Fort Collins occasionally issues private activity bonds on behalf of qualified projects. Theinterest on the bonds is not subject to income taxation. Therefore the rates are lower than taxable market rates. This allows a portion of the units in a qualified project to pay lower rents. To become qualified, the project must rent the housing units to individuals or families that meet low- or moderate -income guidelines. The City issued bonds for the Country Ranch II Limited Partnership Project in 1998. The changes to the Trust Indenture were requested by AIG Retirement Services, Inc. AIG provides financial security for the 1998 private activity bonds. The changes include a different means by which to calculate the interest on the bonds and a change in the repayment schedule to lower the annual payments. Ordinance No, 005, 2004, was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Bertschy was absent) on First Reading on January 6, 2004• 443 • January 20, 2004 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2004, Authorizing the Grant of a Non-exclusive Easement to Owest Corporation Across City -owned Property in Avery Park. This easement is located within Avery Park near the intersection of South Taft Hill Road and Clearview Avenue. The easement area will be used for a telecommunication cabinet to provide DSL service to the community. Ordinance No. 006, 2004, was adopted 6.0 (Councilmember Bertschy was absent) on First Reading on January 6, 2004. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2004, Authorizing the Exchange of a City Property for a Parcel of Land Adjacent to Kingfisher Natural Area and Appropriating the Value of the Partial Donation of the Property to Be Acquired. Ordinance No. 007, 2004, which was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Bertschy was absent) on First Reading on January 6, 2004, authorizes a land exchange with William C. and Maureen D. Stockover. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue into a Proiect Account for the Design of Improvements to South Taft Hill Road, Between Horsetooth Road and Harmony Road (CR-38E). • The City of Fort Collins Engineering Department has received a total of $300,000 from Latimer County's Regional Road Capital Expansion Fee Program. Under this program, the County collects a fee from building permits issued within unincorporated Latimer County and the City of Fort Collins. This impact fee program was initiated by Latimer County in 1999, and adopted by the City of Fort Collins in February of 2000. Taft Hill Road (County Road 19) between Fort Collins and Loveland is identified as one of five regional roads in the Latimer County Transportation Plan dated 1998. Latimer County has selected this segment of South Taft Hill Road (Horsetooth to Harmony) from among the five eligible regional roads for use of these funds. This project will design this section of South Taft Hill Road for the ultimate four -lane urban arterial street section. At the request of the County, a design for a potential interim three -lane arterial street section will also be produced. 17. Items Relating to the North College Improvements. A. Resolution 2004-007 Authorizing the Mayor to Enter into a Contract Funding Increase Approval Letter with the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Construction of the North College Avenue Corridor Improvements, Phase I. B. First Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Building Community Choices Capital Projects Fund- North College Avenue • Corridor Improvements, Phase I. 444 January 20, 2004 The North College Avenue Corridor Improvement project covers an area on Riverside/Jefferson from Mulberry to College and on North College Avenue from Jefferson to north of Cherry Street. The project is managed by City of Fort Collins Transportation Services and is funded by a combination of sources including the City's 1997 Building Community Choices funds, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) resurfacing funds, Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funds, and Federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. The goals of the project include the addition of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, installation of drainage, access and landscaping improvements, and reconstruction of the roadway surface with concrete paving on North College Avenue between Jefferson and Cherry Street. Also incorporated in the project are roadway resurfacing improvements on Jefferson/Riverside between College Avenue and Mulberry Street, including the Riverside/Mulberry intersection. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Police Services Victim Services Team. The Fort Collins Police Services Victim Services Team has been awarded an 18-month grant in the amount of $36,800 for the period of January 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, by the Eighth Judicial District Victims and Law Enforcement (V.A.L.E.) Board to help fund services provided by this team. These funds will be used for a part-time paid victim advocate who provides crisis intervention services during weekday hours and is housed in the Victim Services Office. These funds will also pay for some of the operational expenses needed to provide 24-hour a day, 7-day a week services to victims of crime in our community. Previous V.A.L.E. grant awards received were $19,500 in 1998, and $19,000 for each year from 1999 through 2003. This particular grant was changed to an 18-month cycle, and will then run from July 1 through June 30 in future years. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Police Services Drunk Driving Enforcement Program. On November 18, 2003, City Council approved Resolution 2003-125 authorizing the Mayor to enter into a Law Enforcement Assistance Fund (L.E.A.F.) Contract, #L-24-04, with the Colorado Department of Transportation to provide funds for the Fort Collins Police Services Drunk Driving Enforcement Program. This Ordinance appropriates the grant funds. 445 • January 20, 2004 20. First Reading of an Ordinance No. 012, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services for the State Homeland Security Program. Fort Collins Police Services has been awarded a grant (one of the seven cooperating agencies in Larimer County) from the State Homeland Security Program. Fort Collins Police Services has been awarded $259,550 to purchase: • Bomb detection, disarming, and protective equipment • Hazmat suits and breathing equipment • Communications equipment, and an • Equipment storage trailer In coordination with other area law enforcement, fire, and health agencies, Fort Collins Police Services equipment will provide a higher level of safety for officers that respond to bomb calls or to incidents where biological or chemical may be present. 21. First Readine Ordinance No. 013. 2004. Amending Section 8-106 of the Citv Code Concemin the he Payment of Covered Expenses. • The City Attorney and Risk Management staffs have been reviewing the existing self- insurance program. Expenses which relate to loss prevention activities of the City are not specifically listed in the Code. The proposed Code amendment clarifies that the payment of expenses relating to loss prevention activities are allowed. • 22. First Readine of Ordinance No. 014, 2004, Designating the Garnick House, 516 South Meldrum Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chanter 14 of the City Code. The American Foursquare design gained popularity at the turn of the twentieth century. The Foursquare style was relatively short lived, lasting from 1900 to about 1920. The style became popular for several reasons. First, the case of design and lack of ornamentation represented a reaction to Victorian elements of design popular before the early 1900s. Second, the Foursquare was indicative of the growth of working and middle class sectors in the United States. The American middle class was beginning to emerge in the early twentieth century, and the Foursquare design appealed to new home buyers as a way to get the most value for their space. Cheap to build, the American Foursquare became one of the most common housing styles found in Colorado after 1900, and is a classic example of the pre World War One housing boom that the United States experienced in the early twentieth century. iE January 20, 2004 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2004, Authorizing the Grant of a Correction Sewerline Easement to Boxelder Sanitation District in Exchange for the Vacation of Part of an Existing Easement. In 1973 Riverbend Farms, Inc. granted a perpetual sewer line easement to Boxelder Sanitation District along East Prospect Road. Boxelder subsequently installed the sewer line outside the easement area in some locations. The City of Fort Collins has since purchased the parcels the sewer line crosses for the Riverbend Ponds (1988 and 1998) and Running Deer (2000) Natural Areas. The District is requesting that the City grant a correction easement to reflect the area where the sewer line was actually installed and has agreed to vacate that part of the original easement no longer needed by the District in view of the actual location of the sewer line. This correction benefits the City in that the new easement will accurately describe the location of the sewer line and language specific to the natural areas and agreeable to both parties can be included in the new easement agreement. 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2004, Authorizing the City to Grant a Permanent Easement to Paradigm Properties, LLC on the Resource Recovery Farm. Paradigm Properties LLC, owner of a 12.75 acre tract of land at the southeast comer of the intersection of I-25 and Prospect Road, also known as 1800 SE Frontage Road, has requested a permanent, nonexclusive storm drainage easement across the Resource Recovery Farm located at the Southwest comer of the intersection. The easement is needed for a proposed development of a commercial mixed use project on Paradigm's property. The conceptual plan shows five detention ponds amid pad sites which will release surface water runoff to the southwest portion of the tract. A culvert running under I-25 and proceeding into an open ditch area adjacent and running parallel to 1-25 allows the flow to enter a 24-inch pipe that runs southwesterly across the Resource Recovery Farm forming a holding pond at approximately the center of the easement distance. There is a release valve at the southwestern comer of the pond that diverts the flow at an historic flow rate of 1.36 CFS. The flow continues to a 36-inch culvert that deposits the water into a wetland area at the western edge of the parcel and subsequently into the Boxelder Creek. 25. Resolution 2004-008 Authorizing the City Manager to Grant a Revocable Permit to Hewlett Packard for Fiber Optic Line. OnFiber has requested a revocable permit for installation and maintenance of fiber optic conduit in the Harmony Road and Ziegler Road rights -of -way. These facilities will serve the Agilent/Hewlett-Packard complex adjacent to that intersection. City staff has reviewed the plans and specifications for these improvements, and has concluded that the improvements will not result in adverse impacts to the rights -of -way. OnFiber will also be required to 447 • January 20, 2004 obtain approval of the Colorado Department of Transportation for the location under Harmony Road as a condition of the revocable permit. 26. Resolution 2004-009 Authorizing the City Manager to Grant a Revocable Permit to Poudre School District for Fiber Optic Line. Poudre School District has requested a revocable permit for a fiber optic duct bank and a revocable permit for an irrigation water pipe, both in the Kechter Road right-of-way. These facilities will serve the new Fossil Ridge High School and Zach Elementary School. City staff has reviewed the plans and specifications for these improvements, and has concluded that the improvements will not result in adverse impacts to the right-of-way. The District will be responsible for maintenance of the irrigation pipe. 27. Resolution 2004-010 Authorizing the Lease of City -Owned Property at 945 East Prospect Road for Up to Two Years. The City purchased this house and lot as part of the Prospect/Lemay Choices `95 Intersection Improvement Project. This house will be affected by the right -turn lane that is to be added • turning south on Lemay Avenue from Prospect Road. Construction of this right -turn lane has been delayed due to negotiations with the Texaco station on the corner. The construction of this right -turn lane can be accomplished at a more affordable price if it can be constructed at the same time as the corner redevelops. Rite -Aid and Walgreen's have both submitted plans for this area; however, redevelopment costs have been too high to make their developments viable. As a result, it is staff s recommendation to continue renting this house, having the Tenant responsible for utilities and site clean-up, until a redevelopment plan is approved for this area or until the vehicle count mandates the construction of the turn lane due to an unacceptable service level. 28. Resolution 2004-011 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for Such Property to be Known as the Harmony Farm Second Annexation. The Harmony Farm Second Annexation consists of approximately 5.0 acres of privately owned property. The Annexation is an enclave located south of Harmony Road and east of Cambridge Avenue. The recommended zoning is the LMN zone district. 29. Resolution 2004-012 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for Such Property to be Known as the Adrian Annexation. The applicant, M. Torgerson Architects, on behalf of the property owners, John and Julie Adrian, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of 2.18 acres located at the • southeast comer of West Vine Drive and Impala Drive. The property is north of Laporte 448 January 20, 2004 Avenue, west of North Taft Hill Road, and east of North Overland Trail. It is currently being used as an existing single-family residence (with house and horse barn). The requested zoning for this annexation is LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The surrounding properties are zoned LMN - Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood in the City to the north, FA — Farming in Larimer County to the east, FA — Farming in Larimer County to the west, and FA — Farming in Larimer County to the south. 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 State law. 30. Routine Easements. A. Deed of dedication for easement from Front Range Limited Partnership, for a slope easement on College Avenue, located on the northwest comer of Trilby Road and College Avenue. Monetary consideration: $10. Staff: Sheri Wamhoff. B. Deed of dedication for easement from Front Range Limited Partnership, for a drainage easement, located on the northwest corner of Trilby Road and College Avenue. Monetary consideration: $10. Staff: Sheri Wamhoff. C. Deed of dedication for easement from Front Range Limited Partnership, for a slope easement on Trilby Road, located on the northwest corner of Trilby Road and College Avenue. Monetary consideration: $10. Staff: Sheri Wamhoff. D. Pedestrian Sidewalk Easement from Boston Colorado, Inc., dba Aspen Leaf Apartments, located at 3501 Stover Street. Monetary consideration: $0. Staff: Alice Faye Richardson. E. Deed of Dedication for Right -of -Way, from the Board of Governors of the Colorado State University System, for public street purposes, located at Centre Avenue and Prospect Street. Monetary consideration: $10. Staff: Carrie Daggett. ***END CONSENT*** Ordinances on Second Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 8. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 174, 2003, Continuing a Temporary Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Program for Fort Collins Manufacturers. • January 20, 2004 9. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 001, 2004, Appropriating Prior Year Reserves in the Street Oversizing Fund and Authorizing the Transfer of Appropriated Amounts to Be Used to Construct Improvements on Ziegler Road from Timberwood Drive, South to Kechter Road. 10. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 002, 2004, Amending Chapter 17 of the City Code by the Addition of a New Section 17-45 to Make it Unlawful for Any Person to Damage or Destroy Public Improvements in Public Rights -of -Way Unless Authorized or Permitted to Do So in Accordance with Law. 11. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 003, 2004, Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the East Ridge Rezoning. 12. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 004.2004.Anorovingand Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a First Amendment to the Trust Indenture Relating to the City of Fort Collins, Colorado, Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 1997 (the Bull Run Townhomes Project); and Authorizing the Preparation and Execution of Related Documents. • 13. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 005, 2004, Approving and Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of a First Amendment to the Trust Indenture Relating to the City of Fort Collins. Colorado, Multifamily Housing Revenue Bonds, Series 1998 (the Country Ranch II Limited Partnership Project); and Authorizingthe he Preparation and Execution of Related Documents. r1 L_J 14. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 006, 2004, Authorizing the Grant of a Non-exclusive Easement to Owest Corporation Across City -owned Property in Avery Park. 15. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 007, 2004, Authorizing the Exchange of a City Property for a Parcel of Land Adiacent to Kingfisher Natural Area and Appropriating the Value ofthe Partial Donation of the Property to Be Acquired. 34. Second Reading of Ordinance No. 178. 2003. Imposing a Moratorium upon the Acceptance of Applications for the Approval of Development Plans and/or the Issuance of Building Permits for Dwellings Constructed on the Rear Portion of Lots Located Within the N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density, N-C-M, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density, and the N-C-B, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone Districts. 450 January 20, 2004 Ordinances on First Reading were read by title by City Clerk Krajicek. 16. First Reading of Ordinance No. 008, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue into a Project Account for the Design of Improvements to South Taft Hill Road, Between Horsetooth Road and Harmony Road (CR-38E). 17. First Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Building Community Choices Capital Projects Fund- North College Avenue Corridor Improvements, Phase I. 18. First Reading of Ordinance No. 010, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Police Services Victim Services Team. 19. First Reading of Ordinance No. 011, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Grant Revenue in the General Fund for the Police Services Drunk Driving Enforcement Program. 20. First Reading of an Ordinance No. 012, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services for the State Homeland Security Program. 21. First Reading Ordinance No. 013, 2004, Amending Section 8-106 of the City Code Concerningthe he Payment of Covered Expenses. 22. First Reading of Ordinance No. 014, 2004, Designating the Gamick House, 516 South Meldrum Street, Fort Collins, Colorado, as a Fort Collins Landmark Pursuant to Chapter 14 of the City Code. 23. First Reading of Ordinance No. 015, 2004, Authorizing the Grant of a Correction Sewerline Easement to Boxelder Sanitation District in Exchange for the Vacation of Part of an Existing Easement. 24. First Reading of Ordinance No. 016, 2004, Authorizing the City to Grant a Permanent Easement to Paradigm Properties, LLC on the Resource Recovery Farm. Councilmember Weitkunat made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt and approve all items not withdrawn from the Consent Calendar. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED 451 January 20, 2004 Consent Calendar Follow-up Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding item #17 First Reading of Ordinance No. 009, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the Building Community Choices Capital Projects Fund - North College Avenue Corridor Improvements, Phase I. He asked for a project schedule for both items. City Manager Fischbach stated a North College project schedule was sent out by e-mail weekly and that it would be updated and sent out again. Councilmember Kastein spoke regarding item #20 First Reading of an Ordinance No. 012, 2004, Appropriating Unanticipated Revenue in the General Fund for Police Services for the State Homeland Security Program and asked if the City wrote a grant proposal for the grant from the State or if the City was part of a larger group. City Manager Fischbach stated the City was part of a larger consortium with Poudre Fire Authority, City of Loveland, City of Greeley, Larimer County, and Weld County. He stated the City's share was $259,000 and that there was no local match. Staff Reports City Manager Fischbach reported on the Home Run Program for people who worked part time while receiving tutoring to take the GED test. He stated Anita Gomez worked part time at Natural • Resources since February and had received her GED. He noted that Susie Gordon had tutored Ms. Gomez on her own time. He congratulated Ms. Gomez on her accomplishment. He also reported on improved service for cardboard recycling at the Rivendell recycling center. He stated 133 tons of recyclable materials were collected in December and that the City netted $900 as its share of the rebate. Councilmember Reports Councilmember Tharp reported on the I-25 Policy Committee discussions regarding the environmental impact statement study for the northern 1-25 area and the public process to be followed with regard to the possible expansion and improvement of the highway. She stated the City would have the opportunity to appoint a representative to the Regional Coordination Committee (RCC) for the environmental impact statement study. She stated she would like to be appointed to serve and suggested that the City find out the appointment procedure. She stated no federal money could be designated for improvements on this section of the highway until the environmental impact statement was completed. City Manager Fischbach stated staff was working on determining how appointments would be made to the RCC and that word had been received from CDOT that they would like a Council representative on that group. He stated a Resolution making an appointment would be brought forward for Council's consideration. 452 January 20, 2004 Councilmember Hamrick asked what committee Mark Jackson was recently appointed to. City Manager Fischbach stated Mr. Jackson was appointed to the Technical Advisory Committee for the same study. Councilmember Kastein reported on the North Front Range Transportation and Air Quality Planning Council discussions regarding the project prioritization process, a transportation demand management plan, and the election of officers. Councilmember Weitkunat reported on the work to develop a list of names and categories for the Economic Vitality and Sustainability Advisory Group. She stated Council would be receiving the list and would be asked to provide feedback. Councilmember Kastein reported that he and Councilmember Hamrick were serving as a committee to look at the City's employee salaries and benefits and that a Request for Proposals was being drafted to hire a consultant. He stated Council would be receiving the draft RFP for feedback. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy reviewed the order of discussion agenda items. Ordinance No. 178, 2003 Imposing a Moratorium upon the Acceptance of Applications for the Approval of Development Plans and/or the Issuance of Building Permits for Dwellings Constructed on the Rear Portion of Lots Located Within the N-C-L, Neighborhood Conservation Low Density, N-C-M, Neighborhood Conservation Medium Density, and the N-C-B, Neighborhood Conservation Buffer Zone Districts, Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staff's memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Ordinance, which was adopted 4-2 (Nays: Kastein and Martinez; CouncilmemberBertschy was absent) on First Reading on December 16, 2003, imposes a moratorium on the acceptance of applications for the approval of development plans and/or issuance of building permits for "alley houses" or other dwellings on the rear portion of lots located within the Eastside and Westside neighborhoods. The Ordinance has been modified on Second Reading to also include accessory structures that exceed 576 feet in floor area or twentyfeet in height. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. He stated a change had been made to add alley structures in accordance with the direction received from the Council. 453 • January 20, 2004 Eric Scowron, Loveland resident and property owner of 625 South Meldrum, stated two large two- story alley apartments were built on neighboring lots during the eight years he lived at the address. He stated one of the new structures was five feet from his property line and that the alley apartments had caused problems with shading during the day, lighting at night and people crossing his property at all times ofthe day. He stated his back lot was now more of a liability than an Old Town treasure. He stated he was now considering adding a few single apartment units complementary to the existing structure in the back lot and that he was told by the Zoning Office that a variance from the Zoning Code would not be considered whatsoever. He stated because of the surrounding in -fill projects that his property should not be subject to new standards and regulations intended to protect other historically significant properties. He stated placing new standards on his Meldrum lot, that neighboring lots were not subject to, could be described as a taking of property rights. He stated new standards must allow for an appeal process. He asked that, if the moratorium was approved, properties such as his be exempted because of existing hardships. He urged the Council to create provisions in the alley house standards to provide a process for variances for properties with hardships. Theresa Ramos -Garcia, Governmental Affairs Director for the Fort Collins Board of Realtors, stated the Board of Realtors opposed a moratorium because there were only 3-4 projects approved in 2002- 2003. She stated the cost to the taxpayers of the staff work and outreach events was high. She stated • the Board of Realtors agreed that the appearance and design of alley house structures should stay within the design structure of the neighborhood. She stated a moratorium was not reasonable during the time the current standards were updated. She stated the Board of Realtors appreciated that public outreach would be held. r� LJ Councilmember Kastein asked for a staff response to the issue of an appeals procedure raised by the first speaker. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorney, stated there was a Zoning Board of Appeals and that decisions of that Board could be appealed to the City Council. He stated the Board was charged with considering applications for variances relating to setbacks, heights, side yards, etc. He stated the Board rather than staff could grant variances. Councilmember Kastein asked if a change of use would be a zoning issue that would be first addressed by the Planning and Zoning Board. Eckman replied in the affirmative and stated zoning decisions were ultimately made by the City Council. Councilmember Kastein asked if that would change as a result of the moratorium. Eckman replied in the negative. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy stated it appeared that the issue addressed by Mr. Scowron was different from the issue being considered with this ordinance. Eckman stated he could discuss the issues with Mr. Scowron. 454 January 20, 2004 Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy stated the matter addressed by Mr. Scowron could be appropriate for the Zoning Board of Appeals. Councilmember Tharp expressed a concern that the issue presented by Mr. Scowron stopped so quickly at the staff level. Eckman stated the issue could be pursued further. Councilmember Weitkunat asked if a letter received by the Council from Louisa Rodriguez went to staff. She asked how the alternate perspective fit into the moratorium. She stated she would like to see on the record the alternate perspective that came regarding the alley houses and the need for diversity in the neighborhood. She stated the letter took a historical perspective and that the perspective was that these changes should not occur. She asked how this fit into the discussion and asked how the alternate point of view could be introduced. Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning, stated it appeared that there was some concern that a wide variety of viewpoints relative to alley houses might not be represented in the public process. He stated an inclusive process had been structured and that the public was invited to attend. He outlined the public input process to work on design options and a wide range of issues such as the market for alley houses, impacts to neighborhoods, transportation and service related issues such as utilities and paving of alleys, historic preservation, and architecture and design. He stated efforts would be made to have representation in all of these different areas and from the general public. Councilmember Weitkunat presented Ms. Rodriguez' letter to Mr. Gloss and stated shebelieved that the views stated in the letter were important for this discussion. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy asked if Council had received the public outreach schedule outlined by Mr. Gloss. City Manager Fischbach replied in the affirmative. Councilmember Tharp asked for clarification regarding the language in the Ordinance stating that the moratorium would be in effect until June 30, 2004 or until the above referenced design standards and regulations were adopted by Council. She asked if the moratorium would be lifted if the work was completed earlier. City Manager Fischbach replied in the affirmative and stated staff felt that it would be possible to complete the work earlier than June 30. Councilmember Roy made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Tharp, to adopt Ordinance No. 178, 2003 on Second Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would not support the motion because she did not feel that a moratorium was appropriate. She stated Ms. Rodriguez made some valid points in her letter about the diversity of Old Town and her neighborhood and that Ms. Rodriguez indicated that she was happy to see people updating and improving their properties. She stated it was important to look at alley houses from the perspective expressed by Mr. Rodriguez. 455 • January 20, 2004 Councilmember Roy thanked the citizens who worked hard to bring this issue forward to the Council. He stated the moratorium was important because of the recent encroachment of buildings that did not fit within the historical character and architectural qualities of the neighborhoods. He stated there were also safety issues when alleys were turned into streets. Councilmember Tharp stated the issue was not about design diversity but that the issue arose when tri-plexes and four-plexes began to be built on single-family lots with accompanying parking, density and street problems. She expressed confidence that staff would look at all sides of the issue and stated the intent was not to have a "cookie cutter" downtown. Councilmember Kastein stated he would support a moratorium if there were a more aggressive schedule. He stated it was important to keep aggressive schedules to ensure that the City did not unduly get in the way of opportunities to do jobs and business. He stated he would not support the moratorium because the end date was not two months earlier. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy thanked staff for its hard work on this issue. He stated he was glad to hear that input would be received from a wide variety of constituencies. He stated he would support the Ordinance. • The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Roy and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Kastein and Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED Ordinance No. 174, 2003 Continuing a Temporary Manufacturing Equipment Use Tax Rebate Proeram for Fort Collins Manufacturers, Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In March 1996, City Council approved a temporary rebate program for use tax paid on manufacturing equipment. The goal of the program was to maintain the local economic base by providing modest tax relief to manufacturing concerns located in Fort Collins. The program has provided rebates to manufacturersfor taxes paid during the calendar years 1996 through 2001. The rebate program was discontinued for calendar year 2002 due to economic conditions. Staff is proposing that the program be reinstated for 2003 and 2004, so that rebates may be made of taxes received by the City during those two years. 0 456 January 20, 2004 Payments are made in arrears. This is a 'rebate" of tax paid in the previous year. It is not a tax exemption. Ifapproved for calendar years 2003 and 2004, staff will ask manufacturing companies to submit applications by late March of each year — as prescribed in the program. Rebates will be paid upon review of the applications. Historically, many of the companies have requested extensions to file at an even later date. Modifications were last made to the program in 1999 to reflect several requests made by the manufacturing community. Ordinance No. 174, 2003, was unanimously adopted on First Reading on December 2, 2003. " City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item and stated the Ordinance was unanimously approved by the City Council on First Reading. Councilmember Roy asked about the discontinuance of the rebate program for 2002. Alan Krcmarik, Finance Director, stated the program had a requirement that it be brought back to Council for its continuation. He stated staff did not bring that back to the Council on a timely basis. City Manager Fischbach stated while he was in the hospital the management staff chose not to bring the matter to the Council. Councilmember Roy stated the agenda material indicated that the decision was made due to economic conditions. City Manager Fischbach stated that was the reason staff chose not to bring the matter to the Council. Councilmember Roy asked how economic conditions for 2003 were characterized compared to 2002. Krcmarik stated sales tax figures for 2003 had been released and that collections were down compared to 2002. Councilmember Roy stated he was concerned that there had been a need to cut services and jobs. He expressed a concern with the "convoluted message" of not doing the program in 2002 because of economic conditions and retroactively doing the program for 2003 when $3.3 million was cut from the budget. He stated the agenda material indicated that it was expected that the City would pay out $500,000 retroactively for 2003 and $500,000 in 2004. He stated the budget cuts had an impact on citizens and that he was "skeptical' with the rebate at a time of budget cuts. He stated he would like to propose that the rebate be reinstated when the City had a "positive budget." He stated the 2003 budget was worse than the 2002 budget and that he would like the Council to discuss the matter from that perspective. City Manager Fischbach stated he would have brought the rebate program forward to the Council if he had been here. He stated in bad economic times the rebate was needed more than in good economic times. He stated it was important for the City to openly embrace the existing businesses. He stated the money rebated was not much compared with what the businesses contributed to the economy. Krcmarik stated the use tax paid was approximately $4.5 million each year. City Manager Fischbach stated the amount rebated was up to $500,000 and that the rebates had been between $300,000 and $450,000 each year. 457 • January 20, 2004 Councilmember Hamrick asked if there had been any analysis of the effect of this program. Krcmarik stated this was a difficult program to evaluate. He stated staff did a mini -audit each year of the requested reimbursements. He stated staff had not attempted to tie the rebate to job retention. Councilmember Hamrick asked ifthere was an correlation between the tax rebate and the company's plan to purchase equipment. Krcmarik stated most money involved in the rebate program came from the same large corporations each year and that those corporations had consistent equipment expenditures. Councilmember Hamrick asked if the tax rebate might have no effect at all. City Manager Fischbach stated the program was not designed to have that effect. He stated the program was designed by the 1996 City Council to recognize that businesses must retool more often than they had to in the past and to recognize that the 3% use tax was perhaps too high. He stated this was seen as a reduction in the use tax for those businesses reinvesting in the tools more frequently. Councilmember Hamrick asked if this program treated local and smaller companies the same as larger multinational companies. Krcmarik stated there was a tiered formula for rebates and that the biggest rebate was on the first $5 million in sales for all companies. • Councilmember Hamrick asked if employee compensation and benefits was a factor in this program. Krcmarik stated there was no criteria for wages. • Councilmember Hamrick stated it did not appear that the program was an incentive for companies to reinvest in equipment but was a reward for those that did reinvest. He asked what the benefit would be for a retroactive tax rebate. Krcmarik stated the intent was to show the companies that the City was concerned about the cost of reinvestment. Councilmember Hamrick stated this would be "balancing the $500,000 on the backs of the Boys and Girls Club." Councilmember Weitkunat asked for clarification regarding the manufacturer's use tax. She stated it was her understanding that it was above and beyond a sales tax and was implemented by the City as an "extra income generator" only on manufacturing. Krcmarik stated the use tax was in lieu of sales tax. He stated if a piece of equipment was purchased from a local manufacturing company that the buyer would pay a sales tax, and that if the equipment was bought from out of town the out-of- town vendor would not have to collect the sales tax from the buyer. He stated when the buyer put the purchase on their books they would indicate that the equipment was being put into use in Fort Collins and that because a sales tax was not paid at the time of purchase a use tax would be paid instead to the City and the State. He stated this protected the in -town vendors from out-of-town competition. Em. January 20, 2004 Councilmember Weitkunat stated the imposition of the use tax was met with unfavorable response from the business community. She asked what happened to the money and noted that the use tax was an unpredictable source of revenue because it was unknown when equipment would be purchased. Krcmarik stated the use tax revenue was volatile and could fluctuate by $4 to $5 million. He stated the City usually capped the use tax expectation and that extra revenue above the cap would be extra money for the budget and that a shortfall would have to be covered by reserves. Councilmember Weitkunat asked about the use tax carryover reserve and the balance of $2.4 million. She asked what the reserve was and where it came from. Krcmarik stated the intent of the carryover reserve was to manage the volatility of the use tax. He stated on good years money would be put into the reserve to offset the bad years. He stated the reserve was accumulated over many years from all of the sources of the use tax. Councilmember Weitkunat asked ifthe rebate would mean "robbing from the Boys and Girls Club." City Manager Fischbach replied in the negative and stated the budget recommendations at the time the budget was concluded did not include the $2.4 million from the use tax carryover. Councilmember Weitkunat asked how many companies that paid the use tax actually received rebates. Krcmarik stated approximately 30 firms in Fort Collins were eligible for the rebate and that between 10 and 15 applied for a rebate each year. Councilmember Weitkunat stated it was an opportunity that was not always taken by business. Krcmarik stated was correct. City Manager Fischbach noted that Hewlett-Packard had never applied for a use tax rebate and that the company would be eligible and had paid a substantial amount of use tax. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy asked how many rebate applications were expected for 2003. Krcmarik stated there were 13 applications in 1999, 14 in 2000, and 11 in 2001. He stated the amount of rebates ranged from $300,000 to $450,000. He stated the figure $500,000 was used as a high side estimate. Councilmember Tharp stated the program was a recognition of investment by companies. She asked if portions of the $2.4 million reserve could have been used in a bad economic year instead of taking money out of the General Fund. City Manager Fischbach stated the reserve was part of the General Fund and the reserve could have been used for General Fund purposes. Councilmember Tharp stated this would have given the City money to have dealt with the $300,000 shortfall in service areas. She stated there were significant reserves in a number of categories and that the use tax carryover reserve would have been one source of money for the General Fund to be used to cover the economic shortfall. City Manager Fischbach stated was correct and that it was a Council decision not to pay for the shortfall from reserves. 459 • January 20, 2004 Councilmember Tharp stated she had a concern that the Council voted not to use reserves for the programs that were cut. She stated this reflected the Council's assessment of the value of the programs that were cut. She stated she was supportive of the use tax rebate program because it recognized companies' investments. She suggested that Council look more carefully at the reserves in bad economic years to avoid cutting services in areas that served the citizens. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Ordinance No. 174, 2003 on Second Reading. Councilmember Kastein stated Council had the option to spend reserve money on many different things and that the Council decided not to fund more police officers from reserve money as well as cultural services, recreational opportunities, etc. He stated he believed that the rebate was appropriate in a "down economic year" because industry was struggling. He asked why a rebate would not be given when companies needed it the most. He stated the intent was to stimulate business. He stated he did not agree that the rebate was being given "on the backs of the Boys and Girls Club" and that statements to that effect were a gross oversimplification. He stated the rebate was an incentive to companies to stay and continue to provide jobs. He stated this kind of an incentive cost less than the kinds of incentives offered by Loveland. • Councilmember Hamrick stated the City did not know where the money rebated to companies was going. He stated the money could go anywhere in the company. He stated companies that apply for the rebate have moved jobs off -shore. He stated the City could not say that the money rebated was going to be applied in the local economy. He stated there was no correlation between giving the "subsidy" and equipment purchasing. He stated he had seen nothing that indicated that equipment would be purchased if the rebate was provided. He stated there had been no cost/benefit analysis for this program and that this was $500,000 of taxpayer money. He stated a more productive use of the $500,000 would be to give it back to the citizens so that they could spend it in the local economy. He questioned the effectiveness of the program and whether it helped smaller companies remain in the community or put money back into the local economy. Councilmember Roy stated the Council made some tough choices in the budget. He stated it was important to be prudent with the reserves. He stated he could not support the Ordinance because a community needed to be "functioning in the black in order to give extraordinary money back in the form of incentives." He stated the rebate was discontinued for 2002 due to economic conditions and that there was a need to be wary about the economic conditions in evaluating the continuation of this program. He stated 2003 was a worse year than 2002. He stated he did not oppose the concept of a rebate but that the continuation of the rebate should depend on economic conditions. He stated he would not support the Ordinance on Second Reading. Councilmember Weitkunat stated the discussion seemed to focus on the use tax rather than the • rebate. She stated there was a need to discuss the use tax in general if there was going to be a 460 January 20, 2004 discussion of"subsidies." She stated companies were being charged a tax for retooling and that this was "subsidizing our coffers and creating an additional benefit to the community." She questioned the fairness of an "isolated tax" placed on companies for retooling. She stated she supported the rebate and not the use tax in general. Councilmember Tharp stated she supported the rebate program and that she agreed that the rebate was more appropriate in tough times than in good times. She stated she believed that it was inconsistent that the policy indicated that the rebate could be cut back during tough times. She stated she had a hard time with the City Manager not accepting full responsibility for a staff error in not bringing the rebate to Council in 2003 while he was in the hospital. She stated the responsibility was ultimately the City Manager's and that it was an error not to have the rebate in effect during that year. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy stated he would support the Ordinance. He stated it was tied directly to primaryjobs related to the use of the equipment purchased. He stated this was an opportunity to support the retention of primary jobs. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Kastein, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: Councilmembers Hamrick and Roy. THE MOTION CARRIED ("Secretary's Note: The Council took a brief recess at this point.) Ordinance No. 003, 2004 Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Fort Collins by Changing the Zoning Classification for that Certain Property Known as the East Ridge Rezoning, Adopted on Second Reading. The following is staffs memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Ordinance No. 003, 2004, which was adopted 6-0 (Councilmember Bertschy was absent) on First Reading on January 6, 2004, rezones 159 acres of land located east of Timberline Road and south ofEast Vine Drive from T-Transition to the LMN— Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood district. City Manager Fischbach introduced the agenda item. 461 • January 20, 2004 Councilmember Tharp asked why the zoning would go from T-Transition to LMN-Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood when the City was short on land for employment and industrial use. She stated this was in an area that could be considered for employment or some other use. Cameron Gloss, Director of Current Planning, stated the criteria for zoning was compliance with the Structure Plan, which was being updated. He stated based on the discussions on the Structure Plan update that staff did not see any need to change the designation on a specific parcel. He stated the parcel was designated LMN on the Structure Plan and that the annexation application had been evaluated based on that designation. Councilmember Tharp stated zoning typically was for housing even though the City was short on land for employment and industrial use. She asked how that issue could be addressed. Gloss stated was a broader issue for the City Plan update process. He stated the staff had not determined that there was any need to change the zoning designation of the parcel. City Manager Fischbach stated there might be some confusion between this annexation and the Trailhead Annexation. He stated there were discussions about whether the zoning for the Trailhead annexation should be employment or residential. Councilmember Tharp asked what the zoning would be for that annexation. City Manager Fischbach •stated the zoning had not been determined and that there were discussions that it could be zoned for employment. He stated the applicant wanted residential zoning for that property. He stated the annexation that was the subject of this agenda item should clearly be residential. Councilmember Tharp made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hamrick, to adopt Ordinance No. 003, 2004 on Second Reading. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Resolution 2004-012 Finding Substantial Compliance and Initiating Annexation Proceedings for Such Property to be Known as the Adrian Annexation, Adopted. The following is staff s memorandum on this item. "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant, M. Torgerson Architects, on behalf of the property owners, John and Julie Adrian, has submitted a written petition requesting annexation of2.18 acres located at the southeast corner of West Vine Drive and Impala Drive. The property is north of Laporte Avenue, west of North Taft Hill Road, and east of North Overland Trail. It is currently being used as an existing single-family • 462 January 20, 2004 residence (with house and horse barn). The requested zoning for this annexation is LMN — Low Density Mixed -Use Neighborhood. The surroundingproperties are zonedLMN- Low Density Mixed Use Neighborhood in the City to the north, FA — Farming in Larimer County to the east, FA — Farming in Larimer County to the west, and FA — Farming in Larimer County to the south. Theproposed Resolution makes a finding that thepetition 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 offirst reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. Not less than thirty days ofprior notice is required by State law. The property is located within the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area. According to policies and agreements between the City ofFort Collins and Larimer County contained in thelntergovernmental Azreement for the Fort Collins Urban Growth Area, the City will agree to consider annexation of property in the UGA when the property is eligible for annexation according to State law. This property gains the required 116 contiguity to existing City limits from a common boundary with the Irish Second Annexation (December, 2000) to the north. Planning and Zoning Board Recommendation: The Planning and Zoning Board will conduct a public hearing on the annexation and zoning request at its regular monthly meeting on February 19, 2004, and will make its recommendation at that time. The Board's recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council in time for first reading of the annexation and zoning ordinances. " Mayor Pro Tem Bertschy stated this item was withdrawn from the Consent Calendar by a citizen. Dr. Steven L. Schaefer presented a letter to the Council and spoke on behalf of himself and 10 other people in opposition to the annexation. He asked that the annexation and zoning be disallowed until the issues contained in the letter were resolved. He stated the Executive Summary of the agenda item summary contained some misleading statements. He stated the properties neighboring the annexation all had single-family detached homes. He stated the Executive Summary made it sound as though there were farm properties adjacent to the proposed annexation. He stated the proposed rezoning was insensitive and out of character with the existing neighborhood that was made up of single-family detached homes. He asked that the annexation proceedings be stopped until the situation was properly addressed and studied in consideration of the neighbors. He stated zoning the property LMN would be incongruous with the surrounding neighborhood. He asked that consideration be given to the 39 private residences of North Impala Drive regarding the following issues: North Impala Drive was a dead end street; anything other than single-family dwellings located on the proposed annexation would not be in continuity with existing architecture on North Impala Drive; the proposed LMN zoning would permit multifamily units and would be insensitive, disrespectful and in dissonance with the character, harmony and integrity of the neighborhood; the 463 • January 20, 2004 proposed zoning was unethical in its proposed context; North Impala Drive was a 30-foot wide street and the area was already congested; anything other than single-family detached residences built on the property would increase traffic flow jeopardizing public safety for neighborhood children; and higher crime rates were associated with population densities higher than those of the current neighborhood. He stated the proposed Adrian Annexation should not be allowed in its proposed context. He stated the residents would be negatively affected by the proposed zoning change, that there would be traffic safety issues, that quality of life would be decreased, and that property would be devalued. He requested that no annexation or rezoning occur and that further discussion of the annexation be stopped until the issues outlined could be resolved and until any development of the property would be done within the context of the present neighborhood. He stated anything other than single-family detached homes would not be in harmony with the existing neighborhood. John Angellotti, 605 North Impala Drive, stated a neighborhood meeting would be beneficial. He stated the addition of 11 new residential dwellings in the area was cause for concern by the neighbors. He spoke regarding the notification requirements. Shelly Neff, 529 North Impala Drive, stated the annexation applicant had not contacted anyone in the neighborhood and that there had been no neighborhood meeting. She stated the applicant was planning on putting in 11 affordable single-family units on 1.6 acres adjacent to a horse property and • across the street from the existing single-family homes. She stated the existing neighborhood was very close and that there were no other apartment complexes in the area. She stated it had been recommended to the applicant to contact the neighborhood and that had not been done. She stated no contacts had been with regard to easements. She stated the street was maintained by the homeowners and that more traffic from the multifamily units would have a serious impact. She stated the 39 households in the existing neighborhood opposed the annexation. Councilmember Weitkunat stated this was a Resolution initiating the annexation and that this was not consideration of the annexation. She requested clarification regarding the process that would be followed. Steve Olt, City Planner, stated this was the initiating Resolution finding that the property was eligible for annexation because of its contiguity to the Irish 2"' Annexation. He stated this action would establish the eligibility of the property for annexation and zoning. Councilmember Weitkunat asked where the questions of the neighborhood would fit into the process. Olt stated the initiating Resolution set forth dates for public hearings. He stated the annexation and zoning request would go before the Planning and Zoning Board for deliberation on February 19. He stated City staff would make a recommendation to the Board at that time and that the Board would make a recommendation to the City Council. He stated First Reading of the annexation and zoning Ordinances would be heard by the City Council on March 2 and that Second Reading would be scheduled on March 16. He stated the requested zoning was LMN. 0 January 20, 2004 Councilmember Weitkunat stated the initiating Resolution was required by State law because the property was eligible for annexation. She stated this would simply begin the process. Councilmember Hamrick asked when citizen input regarding the zoning would be heard. Olt stated the zoning would be deliberated at the time the annexation was considered. City Manager Fischbach stated the best time for citizen input on the zoning would be at the February 19 Planning and Zoning Board hearing and that input could also be presented at the City Council hearing on March 2. He stated the process had been explained to the neighborhood group and that the group had decided to present input at this time. Councilmember Tharp noted that the annexation and zoning processes were tied together. She stated there was no question that the property was eligible for annexation because it was surrounded by the City. She stated the City could and should annex property when it became eligible. She stated the zoning designation was the next step and that the zoning issue was tied together with the annexation. She stated this created confusion for people. She stated she would prefer to see an annexation take place and for the zoning to be considered after the annexation. She stated she did not understand why the annexation and zoning must go together. Gloss stated all affected property owners were sent a notice of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. City Attorney Roy stated State statute allowed a 90-day period of time after Second Reading of the annexation ordinance within which the property must be placed in a zoning district. He stated the annexation and zoning ordinances could be separated from the legal standpoint. He stated property owners who sought voluntary annexation often were interested in the zoning as well and that the property owner could include a right to withdraw the application in the application for annexation. He stated the decision regarding whether to withdraw the application or to proceed with the annexation might hinge upon the zoning designation that the Council would ultimately assign to the property. He stated the staff could take a look at the policy of bringing the annexation and zoning ordinances simultaneously. Councilmember Tharp stated there was a recent issue regarding one annexation in which there was no concern about the annexation itself but in which there was concern about the zoning. She expressed an interest in looking at consideration of the annexation and zoning ordinances separately. City Manager Fischbach stated the issue may become that the petitioners would not cooperate on annexation if the zoning designation was not known. He stated petitioners for annexation often want to know what zoning the property would receive. Councilmember Roy asked if the properties owned by those speaking at this meeting were also eligible for annexation. Greg Byrne, CPES Director, stated the properties would be eligible for annexation if they were adjacent to the existing City limits. He stated some of the properties would be eligible for annexation and some would not. He stated it was likely that property that was already developed as single-family homes would annex voluntarily. He stated the most likely scenario for annexation would be if the properties became an enclave completely surrounded by the City. He E • January 20, 2004 stated an involuntary annexation of an enclave could be considered three years after the property was surrounded. Councilmember Kastein made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Weitkunat, to adopt Resolution 2004-012. Councilmember Tharp stated she would support the motion because this was simply the initiating Resolution and because there would be opportunities for the neighborhood to discuss the zoning at public hearings. She stated she hoped that the neighborhood would participate in the public hearings and that their comments would be taken into consideration. Councilmember Roy encouraged the neighborhood representatives to speak at the public hearings. He stated he believed that the neighbors had brought up some legitimate issues. He stated he would like to explore the issue of separating the consideration of the annexation and zoning ordinances. Councilmember Kastein stated this action would initiate the annexation and that the requirements had been met for annexation. He stated the neighbors would have a chance to voice their opinions at the Planning and Zoning Board hearing. • Mayor Pro Tem Bertschy stated he would support the Resolution. He stated the property was eligible for annexation and that it had been the City policy and a legal requirement to consideration annexing property upon eligibility. • The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein, Roy, Tharp and Weitkunat. Nays: None. THE MOTION CARRIED Other Business City Manager Fischbach spoke regarding the CDOT letter requesting appointment of a City representative to the I-25 Technical Advisory Committee and stated Mark Jackson was appointed on December 26. He stated CDOT had also requested designation of an elected official to serve on the Regional Coordination Committee (RCC), which would work on the future transportation alternatives and improvements for the I-25 Corridor between Denver and Fort Collins. He stated first meeting of the RCC was scheduled for late January and that the Council might want to make an appointment to the RCC by motion at this meeting. Councilmember Tharp stated she would like to see the Council make an appointment to the Regional Coordination Committee and that she would be happy to serve. She noted that the MPO role had E.. January 20, 2004 been Councilmember Kastein's and that she had served as the alternate. She stated she had served on the 1-25 Policy Committee. Councilmember Hamrick made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Roy, to appoint Councilmember Tharp as the City's elected representative to the Regional Coordination Committee (RCC). Councilmember Kastein stated he would like to serve on the RCC. He stated he had been a proponent of getting the environmental impact statement done so that rail could be fairly evaluated. He stated it would also make sense to appoint Councilmember Tharp to the RCC. City Manager Fischbach stated the CDOT letter did specify that there could be only one representative and that the Council might want to consider appointing one Councilmember to serve and another as the alternate. Councilmember Kastein stated he would prefer to see one representative. Councilmember Tharp stated she did not feel strongly about the issue provided a City representative could be available for the meetings. Councilmember Kastein asked if the work of the I-25 Policy Committee was done and if it was ready to move on to other work. Councilmember Tharp stated the I-25 Policy Committee met quarterly. Councilmember Kastein asked if the RCC had a specific schedule. City Manager Fischbach stated the meetings would be quarterly or as determined by the Committee and consultant team. Councilmember Weitkunat stated she would support either Councilmember Tharp or Councilmember Kastein to serve. She stated Councilmember Kastein did have continuity with the issues. She stated she did not see a problem with having two representatives on the Committee. The vote on the motion was as follows: Yeas: Councilmembers Bertschy, Hamrick, Kastein and Tharp. Nays: Councilmembers Roy and Weitkunat. THE MOTION CARRIED Councilmember Roy stated there would be a Town meeting for District 6 on January 24. Councilmember Hamrick spoke regarding the memorandum received from the City Attorney regarding three options for the rules of order for Council meetings. He stated the City Attorney 467 • January 20, 2004 thought that adopting procedural rules was advisable provided there was flexibility in the way in which the rules would be interpreted and applied and provided the parliamentarian was not expected to interject himself or herself into the proceedings unless there was a problem or question. He stated he would agree with that recommendation. He asked about the difference between a "tailor-made set of rules for conducting the meetings" and adopting modified Robert's Rules of Orders. City Attorney Roy stated a tailor-made set of rules could mean starting from scratch and deciding on a whole new set of rules. He stated that would be "reinventing the wheel" and that he would not recommend that approach. He stated adopting modified Robert's Rules of Orders would entail adopting them with four or five exceptions to comply with certain Charter requirements. He stated that would not be a time consuming task. Councilmember Hamrick stated his recommendation would be to draft a modified set of Robert's Rules of Order for formal Council adoption. Councilmember Weitkunat stated Robert's Rules of Order were lengthy and too detailed. She expressed a concern with adopting a modified version. She stated Robert's Rules of Order should be used as a reference rather than as a base. • Councilmember Tharp suggested that this should be a topic for the retreat, that problem areas should be identified and that Robert's Rules of Order should be referenced to look for ways in which to address the problems. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy stated he would also suggest talking about the matter at the retreat. City Attorney Roy stated he had thoughts to share about adopting a portion of Robert's Rules of Order and that the retreat could be an appropriate place to discuss the matter. Mayor Pro Tern Bertschy stated it appeared that the consensus was to discuss the matter at the retreat. Councilmember Kastein recommended that the Council focus on the process and relationship related issues at the retreat rather than policy issues. Councilmember Hamrick spoke regarding the length of meetings and the e-mail discussions regarding options to have more flexibility at the end of meetings to extend the time and continue the discussion. He stated he would prefer more flexibility rather than an absolute cut-off time. Councilmember Tharp stated was an item to be discussed at the retreat. Councilmember Hamrick spoke regarding the process for negotiation by the City Manager with Bayer regarding possible tax subsidies. He stated the Council was "blindsided" on the issue and that • reading about an issue of this magnitude in the newspaper without hearing about it first had 468 January 20, 2004 ramifications. He stated there had been discussions about the need to discuss such issues with Council before any policy was made or before negotiations took place with regard to issues on which the Council had not established a policy or held a discussion. City Manager Fischbach stated, as mentioned in the a -mails to the Council, this should not have come as a surprise because on December 18, 2003 he sent a memorandum to the City Council notifying the Council that the City was engaging EPS. He stated on December 22 the newspaper story appeared and that there was adequate notice to the City Council. He stated staff was attempting to get sufficient information on what it would take to have a meaningful discussion with the City Council at a study session in February. He stated the study session had already been scheduled, that staff had identified the information to be obtained from EPS Consultants, and that staff was trying to meeting with David Silverstein about what they wanted. He stated that was important so that Council would have something it could seriously consider. He stated this was all realistic from the standpoint of the chief executive officer and what he or she should be doing to gather information for the City Council. Councilmember Hamrick stated he disagreed and that it was a different matter to contract with a consultant to examine the benefits instead of simply gathering information. City Manager Fischbach stated he was not negotiating with Bayer and that he was simply trying to find out from them what they wanted. He stated he was scheduled to receive proformas from Bayer to help determine the costs and that the intent was to gather data for the City Council to help with making decisions. He stated he could not be held accountable for what a newspaper story said. Councilmember Weitkunat stated "negotiation" triggered a strong response and that to some it implied giving something away. She stated she would expect the City Manager to gather information for the City Council. She stated the term "negotiation" may be inappropriate and did not describe what was actually happening. Councilmember Tharp stated she understood the need for a consultant to gather information. She asked if the City Manager had indicated at one point that he was "negotiating" with Bayer. City Manager Fischbach stated "negotiating" was a poor choice of words and that he was "talking" with Silverstein and Bayer to find out what they want and why they need it. Councilmember Tharp stated the word "negotiating" reinforced what was in the newspaper article. She stated Council should give direction regarding the next step. City Manager Fischbach stated he was attempting to keep the Council informed so they would not be "blindsided." Councilmember Hamrick asked about the cost for hiring EPS. City Manager Fischbach stated the cost was $16,000. Councilmember Kastein stated he did not have an issue with the City Manager and staff being "out front' to figure out what it would take to have companies invest in Fort Collins. He stated it should not be done in a manner to make the Councilmembers feel like they were "painted in a corner" and January 20, 2004 that it should not set unrealistic expectations or be out of character with past Council direction. He stated he wanted staff to propose things and that the Council should have an opportunity to agree or disagree with what was proposed. He stated in these tough economic times that it made sense to examine things that had not been done in awhile. Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Mayor ATTEST: 111 1_.`' EWO,